FCC's Genachowski previews broadband plan, demands half gigahertz of spectrum for the task
By Chris Ziegler 
posted February 24th 2010 3:11PM
posted February 24th 2010 3:11PM
Time's running out for the FCC to present its National Broadband Plan to Congress next month, a set of sweeping regulatory changes geared at making broadband widely and readily available to every nook and cranny of the country -- and as the day of reckoning draws near, chairman Julius Genachowski is starting to talk specifics about how the Plan's going to look. At a speech hosted by the think tank New America Foundation today, Genachowski revealed a few key initiatives geared overall to reach the goal of reclaiming a whopping 500MHz of spectrum to apply toward wireless broadband data over the coming decade. A big part of that puzzle will be something called the Mobile Future Auction where existing spectrum owners (ahem, TV broadcasters) could be given the opportunity to voluntarily -- emphasis on "voluntarily" -- sell off their airwaves in exchange for a portion of the auction proceeds; it's claimed that as much as $50 billion in value could be "unlocked" by more efficiently using some of this spectrum, where only about half is currently being used in even the most populous markets. They'll also be making some moves to encourage more innovation with unlicensed spectrum -- an area that has already brought about paradigm-shifting technologies like WiFi and Bluetooth at 2.4GHz -- and proposing the launch of a Mobility Fund as part of the Universal Service Fund's reboot to help build out infrastructure in underserved areas. It all sounds ambitious, yes -- but if some of the claims the FCC and others are making about projected wireless data utilization over the next few years are even close to true, drastic action appears to be well-justified.
I hope that they move the US spectrum to be inline with the rest of the world. Your best option for actually getting a world phone is from T-Mobile
@TheOne you've got your facts the wrong way around, AT&T uses the spectrum which is used in the majority of the rest of the world, not Tmo.
@TheOne Yep. The UMTS1700 3G band (1700 & 2100 MHz) is sparsely used outside of the US, if at all. That's because AWS is a sucky technology. AT&T uses GSM 850 & 1900 which are used more widely. More importantly, the radio that comes in most AT&T phones also supports GSM 900 & 1800, which pretty much everywhere uses.
@(Unverified)
No sir, you have your facts wrong. Both at&t and T-Mo use spectrum that pretty much none of the world uses, from talk/edge/3g. But more phones Euro based phones include the 850/1900mhz bands in their chipsets, since T-Mo uses AWS (1700/2100) their 3g wouldnt be usable while it would work on at&t. That will change as more countries start using AWS, and many have or will auction it off.
@felipedeeznuts @droom just to check again I stop at several local shops and spoke with my neighbor who is a engineer for Deustche Telekom(owner of T-Mobile USA)and asked him for clarification now regretfully the site that can better explain this out is in German(will see if I can find a translator in the morning or a translated page)but he basic thing was the same that T-Mobile US is the only one compatible with Europe Bands because they use 2100mhz for 3G and T-mobile is the only one that supports that. You can bring a T-Mobile phone here and it is a good chance it will work but the phone from Europe will not work on the US band(Has alot to do with the uplink and downlink).
I am also leaving a few sites with band information so that there can be better understanding. AT&T 3G phones are useless here in Europe. Repeat the 3G bands I am not talking about the 2G bands people seems to get those confused
http://www.gsmarena.com/network-bands.php3?sCountry=GERMANY
http://www.umtslink.at/index.php?pageid=umts_frequenzen
(In German)
http://www.golem.de/0907/68618.html (In German)
900mhz has been freed from GSM and will be used for 4G/LTE
500GHz?
That's gonna take a'lotta power for any sort of meaningful range.
@FX120
Not sure if it's a mistake that was corrected after you posted, but it now says 500 MHz, not GHz.
Seriously, the if the FCC/government wants to take the spectrum from the TV broadcasters, they should just declare eminent domain (i.e., take by force) on it and pay the broadcasters fair market value for the spectrum. The broadcasters are going to have to "voluntarily" sell it now, as the article mentions, or be forced to sell it later. Just do it and get it over with, FCC. Stop waiting. We all want our country-wide wireless blanket, so let's go. It's gonna happen sooner or later and I'd (we'd) rather soon than later.
@balwheeler
dont bring logic into this...its not like the government will take your house if they want to expand a highway for the better good of the community...oh wait
Wonderful! (/sarcasm) Let's take free over-the-air TV away. After all, there's Internet TV!...
... Execpt that then ISP's and wireless carriers will then come complaining: "Oh you are using way too much bandwidth watching TV. Cut back or we'll charge you extra."
@CeluGeek
The whole point of the analog to digital transition was to free up airwaves so that exactly what this article describes could happen. As the article says, even in very crowded areas, half of the spectrum isn't even being used.
I don't have cable (I can afford it but don't feel it is worth the $$) and rely on free OTA broadcasts, Netflix, Hulu, etc. I do NOT want free (ad supported) OTA TV to go away.
@feeble11
Agreed. Although I totally am in favor of ditching analog broadcasts in favor of HD digital transmission.
@Alex Digital is nice IF you get a signal. The way they implemented DTV is terrible. You either get the picture or you don't. With analog, the picture may have been fuzzy but you could still watch TV. They should have scaled the DTV transmission depending on signal strength, similar to scaling video streams to your appropriate bandwidth.
@feeble11 So if you have the Internet, why would you be opposed to ad-supported IPTV? OTATV wastes huge swaths of spectrum that could be improving our wireless infrastructure. All because the studios use 20 year old compression techniques.
@felipedeeznuts I am NOT opposed to it as long as it is free. Under the current system, the transmission network is free AND the content is free.
If I'm paying for internet access, the transmission network is NOT free.
@felipedeeznuts "So if you have the Internet, why would you be opposed to ad-supported IPTV?"
Like I said, because ISP's and wireless carriers will then complain that users are wasting too much bandwidth watching IPTV and threaten to cap, throttle or charge extra. Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather watch as much HDTV as I see fit without the worries of being considered a data-hog.
The OTA broadcasters were just recently forced through an overhaul. Now they gotta deal with this?
The OTA consumers were just recently forced through an overhaul. Now they gotta deal with this?
@nrb: Precisely
Hey, Joey's back!
- How you doing?
Matthew Broderick clone?
BLech! Wouldn't hit that
It sounds like they are saying I will be able to do away with my $50/month cable modem broadband and cheap router and use wireless directly... probably for $125/month for 'unlimited' broadband from a cell company that buys up the spectrum.
Of course... when I say 'unlimited', I mean it in the modern sense of 5GB of data.
(I just want to mention my intended sarcasm in case anyone missed it.)
Basically, I don't think it is a bad idea. But I want some consumer protections understood from the get-go.
"National Broadband Plan"
"New American Foundation"
The real SkyNet??
@Plazmic Flame
I think you just coined a nickname for this project.
What does the FCC plan to do with the billions of dollars it will make off of these auctions? It's not like THEY are the ones who then also have to put the towers up and run the backhaul to them. And speaking of backhaul, if these people can't even get DSL now, how the hell are the carriers going to be able to run backhaul lines to these remote towers????
Is there really a clamor for all of this? If there is why do we not hear about it? Do not most of the big wireless carriers have a lot of unused spectrum? As for the under served areas, if there was a true business case would there not be a carrier there already? It is not like there is a lack of carriers. There are even some rural carriers. I must be missing a lot.
That guy's face is so punchable.
"proposing the launch of a Mobility Fund as part of the Universal Service Fund's reboot"
Hooray, more government taxes to make our bills higher! Thanks FCC!
Instead of handing people Digital TV boxes they should just have been provided with Digital Internet to TV boxes set up to run internet based television for free. Problem solved !
@SlickVic We do not have the present infrastructure to support such a thing. Unless you are talking about government sponsored FIOS
Broadband is the new telephone, and yes, I think that universal broadband access should replace universal telephone rules, and allow providers to drop rural landlines if there is broadband available in the area that is
I don't want to beat my commenting drum too hard, but I really feel that the FCC under Genachowski is making good moves. They are a) avid supporters of net neutrality. They got on Apple's shit quick for rejecting Google Apps at the behest of AT&T b) progressive on spectrum policy by opening bands for what is needed - wireless data capacity. The fact that the big 4 rule the airwaves is unavoidable in a capitalistic society - no one else has the money to put up for the spectrum or corresponding networks. Genachowski even mentioned the Utopian future of dynamic/opportunistic spectrum allocation techniques via cognitive radio/NexGen/802.22 WRAN tech, which gives him big points in my book. c) pro-open network access. Among other things. What I'm saying is that in contrast to the big-business suck-ups that have dominated the FCC of past, I see a gleam of light.
"half gigaherz of spectrum"
wtf is that supposed to mean?