1. Reflexx's Avatar
    Wireless Bandwidth: Are We Running out of Room? | PCWorld

    The amazing part of this article to me is this paragraph.

    Broadcasters. Wireless carriers complain that TV and radio broadcasters got their spectrum for free back in the day. Broadcasters counter that they've invested billions in it since then. ITIF president Rob Atkinson and other experts believe the solution lies in spectrum incentive auctions -- in which broadcasters that wished to sell bandwidth would be compensated by telcos purchasing the spectrum. "Only 10% of Americans get their television over the air, yet broadcasters have more frequency than all four major carriers combined," Atkinson points out.
    Wow. And to think, the broadcasters got all that free while mobile carriers have to pay for the spectrum they have.
    the_tyrant likes this.
    01-25-2012 01:55 PM
  2. Winterfang's Avatar
    I have no idea what this is about. Can you dumbify it for me? and I mean really dumbify please.
    01-25-2012 04:24 PM
  3. selfcreation's Avatar
    yeah ..... WHAT???...

    so broadcasters get the network for free, but IF they pay more then can make people pay and they get compensated???

    yet allot of people dont pay BUT allot of people are using it???


    pirated service??
    01-25-2012 04:27 PM
  4. the_tyrant's Avatar
    Thanks! it was an interesting read

    Well it seems like there has to be a compromise somewhere

    @Winterfang

    You know how there are Wavelengths, for electromagnetic signals and what not?
    They are being used up, and we are facing a crisis, since more spectrums don't magically appear
    01-25-2012 09:30 PM
  5. Winterfang's Avatar
    So Cellphone carrier are trying to fight against them right?
    01-25-2012 09:35 PM
  6. the_tyrant's Avatar
    So Cellphone carrier are trying to fight against them right?
    Everyone is fighting for them
    Not just cellphone carriers, but TV, radio etc too
    01-25-2012 09:38 PM
  7. jeremyshaw's Avatar
    Everyone is fighting for them
    Not just cellphone carriers, but TV, radio etc too
    GPS, Satellite phones, aircraft landing beacons (VFR), CB radios, GLOSSNAS, the list goes on and on about pretty much anything that requires communications to a mobile object.

    It's insane to think about, but it's why AT&T tried to buy T-mobile, Verizon is letting that lightsquare company argue it out for their spectrum (that Verizon wants), why AT&T paid a pretty sum for Qualcomm's dead TV project.
    01-25-2012 11:06 PM
  8. Reflexx's Avatar
    This is one of the reasons why it was somewhat amazing to me to hear people that were against AT&T acquiring T-Mo and using "worse service" as their argument. The whole reason for wanting T-Mo was because that added spectrum would allow for better service without having to spend $40 billion on new infrastructure. It would have allowed for vastly expanded service and increased quality without a huge expenditure. But it didn't go down. So now, AT&T will have to build that infrastructure and people are upset that prices are going up. Really? Was anyone paying attention?

    Way back in the day, when there was an abundance of unused spectrum, the government just gave it out to TV and Radio for free. And now TV and radio still have it. Much of it really isn't used, but TV and Radio want to keep ownership of it because it has potential value in the future. Mobile service providers are upset because TV and Radio are pretty much holding a bunch of spectrum hostage that they didn't even pay for in the first place.

    Soon, Verizon will start hitting their limits too. And people will start to take it seriously. When it's AT&T, they just say that AT&T is the Death Star and don't look any deeper than that.

    The funny part is that Sprint has loads of spectrum. The only things they are:
    1. competent management
    2. Decent coverage
    3. Selection
    2. customers
    alpinestars1z likes this.
    01-26-2012 02:49 PM
  9. enahs555's Avatar
    It is not as simple as that.

    The over the air broadcasters are also required to submit to certain request of the government. The government can "take over" the broadcast in times of emergency; and regularly primitives regular broadcasting to communicate information to the public.

    It is therefor also treated differently because it is an official tool the government can use to communicate with the population. It has been this way for many years, and is written into law.

    While yes the government information is also available online, it is not law. And you have to GO to that information. There is no tools in place (nor should they) to "take over" whatever you are currently doing and redirect you to official communication from the government.


    They are used for different things and in different ways; they should not be treated the same.
    01-26-2012 04:30 PM
  10. Reflexx's Avatar
    A very small percentage of people get their TV broadcasts through antenna. There is way more than what TV currently needs.
    01-26-2012 04:47 PM
  11. Reflexx's Avatar
    As for solutions...

    Do you guys think expanding the amount of WiFi hotspots is a good short-term answer? Eventually, they're going to have to just build more base stations. But they can't afford to do large amounts at a time in the short term.

    I like the idea of tons of WiFi hotspots everywhere just so people don't end up having to use too much of their data. But it doesn't help if you're away from shopping centers and such.

    I would actually like to see some special no-cost roaming agreements between carriers. Maybe AT&T could team up with T-Mobile. Create an agreement to both expand their networks in different strategic areas and allow customers from both AT&T and T-Mobile to roam on the networks without accruing roaming charges.
    01-26-2012 05:08 PM
  12. Rodolfo#WP's Avatar
    I'd like to see all this nationalized and then they can bury these monopolies and oligopolies so people don't have to pay more for basic entertainment than they do for groceries.
    01-26-2012 09:45 PM
  13. HeyCori's Avatar
    I'd like to see how Atkinson and the ITIF reached that 10% number. It seems a bit fishy to me.

    Still, I'd rather see carriers compete on service instead of spectrum.
    01-26-2012 09:59 PM
  14. Reflexx's Avatar
    Check out this inforgraphic from AT&T.
    http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/p...nfographic.pdf

    $20 billion invested in 2011. Mostly WiFi hotspots. And those aren't very expensive. Only 1400 new cell sites. Sure, they hung 80,000 new antennas. But that means that they're still dependent on the amount of spectrum they have.

    At this rate, it may take several years to have enough new base stations to meet demand. Because I don't think the WiFi hotspot strategy is going to cut it long term. I think it's just a short term solution to buy time.
    01-27-2012 12:19 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD