A friend asked recently why I’m not writing about Ron Wyden’s Internet Nondiscrimination Act.
The bill would try to stop the Bell move toward demanding blackmail from big sites and screwing little sites out of audience access. It would be a good thing.
But that is not where the action is.
The action is in wireless, in making sure that unlicensed spectrum is healthy, growing, and can become real competition. As Harold Feld notes today, that is what the FCC is quietly trying to destroy, right now.
Specifically, the plan is to render the "best" (lowest frequency) spectrum, around 900 MHz, worthless by giving the adjacent licensed bands "flexibility" in using the spectrum they are hoarding. Harold blames institutional momentum, while Jim Snider sees conspiracies by industry.
This spectrum is "best" because the waves are longer, and thus they can reach further before attenuating. I can still get St. Louis Cardinal games in the summer because AM radio waves go a long, long way. On the other hand, I can’t see the WiFi set-up of my neighbor down the street because 2.4 GHz waves attenuate quickly.
The why of this does not matter. The what of this matters.
If all the
wireless spectrum is owned by spectrum hoarders, then American industry
and American Internet users will be unable to compete. We are already
falling behind China, this will push us down into Uganda territory.
Below it, in fact — Uganda has viable cellular competition.
“On the other hand, I can’t see the WiFi set-up of my neighbor down the street because 2.4 GHz waves attenuate quickly.”
This is why higher frequencies are better for unlicensed. Another reason is that there is just more spectrum there (i.e. there is a lot more between 5 and 6 GHz then there is between 800 and 900 MHz). According to Shannon’s Law I can sustitute bandwidth for signal strength to get the same data rate. Also, higher frequencies are inherently more directional making for more gain from the same size antennae. While I’d like to see a lot more spectrum available for unlicensed, I am not particularly concerned that it be bellow 1 GHz. With the current state of technology, anything below 3 GHz is just as good, providing you are not trying to serve a very sparsely populated area. For that case, the idea of reusing Digital TV “guard” spectrum is very appealing.
“On the other hand, I can’t see the WiFi set-up of my neighbor down the street because 2.4 GHz waves attenuate quickly.”
This is why higher frequencies are better for unlicensed. Another reason is that there is just more spectrum there (i.e. there is a lot more between 5 and 6 GHz then there is between 800 and 900 MHz). According to Shannon’s Law I can sustitute bandwidth for signal strength to get the same data rate. Also, higher frequencies are inherently more directional making for more gain from the same size antennae. While I’d like to see a lot more spectrum available for unlicensed, I am not particularly concerned that it be bellow 1 GHz. With the current state of technology, anything below 3 GHz is just as good, providing you are not trying to serve a very sparsely populated area. For that case, the idea of reusing Digital TV “guard” spectrum is very appealing.