Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Moving To Launch Dynamic Spectrum Sharing

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the borrow-the-waves dept.

Government 30

dstates writes "The FCC is considering one of the biggest regulatory changes in decades: allowing a newly available chunk of wireless spectrum to be leased by different users at different times and places, rather than being auctioned off to one high bidder. The plan is to open a new WiFi with spectrum in the 3.550 to 3.650 gigahertz band now used by radar systems. Under the proposed rule to be voted on Wednesday, users could reserve pieces of that spectrum in different regions and at different time managed by a central database. Spectrum sharing is a dramatic change with a potential to make bandwidth accessible to many users. The plan has met with mixed reviews from the cellular carriers."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNU/Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42268827)

GNU/Linux is libre!

Re:GNU/Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269291)

+1 Offtopic

What's this? Common sense!? (5, Interesting)

earlzdotnet (2788729) | about 2 years ago | (#42268925)

I really hope that this ends up passing, but I don't see the big operators letting it get through with their lobbying ability. I mean, say a small rural town. AT&T won't build infrastructure for 4G and neither will any of the other big carriers. The current option is for a regional carrier to make a deal to get part of say AT&T's spectrum so they can put up their own 4G towers.. If AT&T doesn't like that, they don't allow it. I think AT&T shouldn't have a say in spectrum for an area that is completely unused. This should be managed at the FCC so that it's at least decently fair...

But, then you also have the whole "what if AT&T wants to build out into the area and displace the regional service"... The answer there is that AT&T should lease their towers and spectrum. Make it so a block of spectrum is never controlled by a single monopolistic company, or at least make it so it's not economical to.

Re:What's this? Common sense!? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#42269121)

The stuff discussed in this article does not seem to have anything to do with that. The article specifically mentions that exclusivity is not going away, and that the FCC is continuing to auction off spectrum.

This seems to be more about the federal government letting others use some of their assigned frequencies during times and in places the government does not need them, with some kind of reservation system to control who gets what when.

Re:What's this? Common sense!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42271383)

For some reason I have this image in my mind of two companies arguing over their territory and, in classic sit-com style, putting down a piece of type along the dividing line between them and arguing over whether or not the signal is crossing the line.

Re:What's this? Common sense!? (1)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#42269301)

Would it not be simpler to collectively build the infrastructure and lease it to provate operators? Long term public revenues, no monopolies allowed, etc.

Re:What's this? Common sense!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269505)

Yes, but it's not about complexity, it's about what's best for corporate America. Having companies bid on providing the infrastructure for the best price and reliability would do away with a lot of the problems we have in the US. Of course, it's more profitable to own all of your section and only upgrade when and if you feel like it.

Re:What's this? Common sense!? (1)

Crosshair84 (2598247) | about 2 years ago | (#42274117)

So you are advocating a monopoly in order to prevent a monopoly?

Remember "bridges to nowhere"? All that will do is get you "fiber optic to nowhere".

Re:What's this? Common sense!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269491)

Dear FCC: stop auctioning off the public airwaves (OUR PROPERTY) to private firms. Lease it to them and start acting in the interests of the people.

Dear wireless carriers: fuck you.

So, what are we talking about? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42268947)

Spread spectrum maybe? Or is somebody trying to over complicate things?

Re:So, what are we talking about? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42268959)

Oh, wait... Spread spectrum might be to difficult to jam and intercept.. Can't have that. Too much privacy.

Re:So, what are we talking about? (3, Interesting)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#42269003)

Not spread spectrum. Exclusive use of spectrum in a specific place at a certain time and duration. As in, 'I need cell xxx,yyy on Dec 12 from noon-1PM to test my new stuff', or 'I need cell xxx,yyy on Dec 12 from 1-2PM to handle traffic while I perform maint on another cell'.

Re:So, what are we talking about? (1)

mcrbids (148650) | about 2 years ago | (#42269863)

Came here to say this, was not disappoint. Spread spectrum technology is not yet on the horizon.

Speaking of it, why hasn't there been a spread spectrum wifi 802.11SS that uses this technology? It would be nice to have a wifi hotspot that you don't have to dicker with channels to get working in a busy area....

Re:So, what are we talking about? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#42272795)

Maybe I'm confused by your question, but 802.11 is indeed a DSSS technology. The problem is that spread spectrum does not mean "unlimited bandwidth" - the more traffic, the more interference, the "weaker" (the harder to distinguish from background noise) the signal becomes. That's why 802.11 has a set of channels it can run on, and why, for example, Sprint and Verizon (or the operators of 3G UMTS networks like T-Mobile and AT&T) aren't going to come to a spectrum sharing agreement any time soon.

(The other way to read your question I guess would be why isn't there some way to say "I'm going to reserve spectrum for this time in this area built into 802.11 like the FCC is proposing with this new spectrum, in which case... because it would be a royal PITA to maintain such a database, and wouldn't be enforceable.)

Like AM radio! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42268977)

It seems like this is actually pretty similiar to the way AM radio stations are handled. Some are daytime only, and at night higher powered clear channel stations [] use their spectrum to broadcast over a wider area.

Re:NOT Like AM radio! (1)

storkus (179708) | about 2 years ago | (#42269117)

Sorry, but things haven't been that way for years here in the US; it may be that way still in (parts of?) Canada and Mexico. Here, the old Class-D stations are required to lower power enough to prevent interference (in some cases to ridiculous values like *TENS* of watts!), but not go off the air completely. Likewise, FM and TV stations are not allowed to go off the air without a good reason.

I don't remember exactly when this was done, but I'm pretty sure it was in the 90's.

Re:NOT Like AM radio! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269203)

I don't know where you got that info from, but it certainly does not agree with this [] . The FCC rules (2011) state that class-D stations can not radiate in the two hours after sunrise or two hours before sunset. It also states that the minimum hours of operation for AM and FM stations is "two thirds of the authorized hours of operation between 6AM and 6PM, and two-thirds of the authorized hours between 6PM and midnight, every day of the week except Sunday".

Re:NOT Like AM radio! (1)

storkus (179708) | about 2 years ago | (#42269369)

I stand corrected!

Re:NOT Like AM radio! (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#42270645)

... can not radiate in the two hours after sunrise or two hours before sunset.

Who came up with THAT ridiciulous stuff? Or is there a reason?

Re:NOT Like AM radio! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42271463)

Split in ionosphere causes propagation differences when the sun rises. Signals go farther after the sun sets as some of the layers split and the signals in the AM band bounce off the now separate layers - assuming the sun has set - and reach further. The 2 hour window probably accounts for different sunset / sunrise times to keep outside of the seasonal window.

Re:NOT Like AM radio! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269211)

It is, at least as of a couple years ago. My college station went off the air every night at 9pm because some station a few states away raised their transmit power.

Re:NOT Like AM radio! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269271)

AM waves might travel differently during the day compared to night.

this is a bad idea,
yeah i would love to have 4g data only from 6pm to 10pm, and then have no service of any kind from 2am to 4am.

What the hell would you do with these frequencies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269127)

Not sure what the business plan would be given how high these frequencies are.

Re:What the hell would you do with these frequenci (1)

vuke69 (450194) | about 2 years ago | (#42269881)

Something along the lines of over promise and under deliver...

Microsoft: Smell My Fecal Fingers! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269265)

"People are aware that Windows has bad security but they are underestimating the problem because they are thinking about third parties. What about security against Microsoft? Every non-free program is a âjust trust me programâ(TM). âTrust me, weâ(TM)re a big corporation. Big corporations would never mistreat anybody, would we?â(TM) Of course they would! They do all the time, thatâ(TM)s what they are known for. So basically you mustnâ(TM)t trust a non free programme."

"There are three kinds: those that spy on the user, those that restrict the user, and back doors. Windows has all three. Microsoft can install software changes without asking permission. Flash Player has malicious features, as do most mobile phones."

"Digital handcuffs are the most common malicious features. They restrict what you can do with the data in your own computer. Apple certainly has the digital handcuffs that are the tightest in history. The i-things, well, people found two spy features and Apple says it removed them and there might be more""


Richard Stallman: âApple has tightest digital handcuffs in history

Perpetual licenses (2)

Mike_K (138858) | about 2 years ago | (#42269453)

I have wondered why spectrum licenses have been perpetual. It makes a lot more sense to have the lease lapse after 10 or 20 years, and re-auction it. This would provide for the more effective allocation, while allowing big carriers to have return on their infrastructure investment.

Finer grained licensing (what this proposal seems to suggest) is also good, but you can only invest so much in infrastructure without knowing how/when exactly the spectrum will be available. So this will be useful for something like WiFi, but not so well for large installations of cell base stations.


Re:Perpetual licenses (1)

vuke69 (450194) | about 2 years ago | (#42269911)

It should be an upfront cost (auction), that buys you in for 5 years. 6th year is 20% of the original sum, 7th @ 40%, etc... increasing by 20% a year until they either surrender the allocation and walk away, or allow it to go back up for auction where they can bid on a new term.

Re:Perpetual licenses (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 years ago | (#42274451)

I'm thinking you are onto something here. Only, I'd do it this way...

You bid for rights to a specific number of years, let's say 10, to allow companies to get a reasonable ROI at some known cost. Lease fees are payable for a year at a time, 90 days in advance. At the end of your lease, the spectrum goes back to bid. If the lease holder does not pay the fees 90 days in advance of the new year, the spectrum goes back to bid. If the spectrum is not in use at the 90 day mark, it goes back to bid. You choose not to pay in the middle of your lease or you don't use the spectrum, then you loose the lease and cannot bid on the same spectrum in the next round of bidding. Spectrum may be subleased, but the lease holder must pay the FCC administrative costs plus 10% of the sublease value.

All auctions should be open bidding. Minimum bid advances based on the bid value. Minimum 10 days of bidding, with a minimum of one full working day after the winning bid is made before the auction is closed. 10% deposit is required to bid, winning bids must be paid in cash within 30 days or the deposit is forfeited and the spectrum is resold. Only US citizens or US companies may bid.

My Instinct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42272197)

My instinct is that, if the cellular carriers are against it, then I should support it.

Use it or loose it (1)

bored (40072) | about 2 years ago | (#42273973)

What this system desperately needs is a use it, or loose it provision, where anyone leasing the space must actually start using it within a fairly short period of time.

Right now some of these companies lease the space and sit on it for years before rolling out products to avoid having the new product cannibalize their profits on the existing systems. This results in advantages only for companies that are willing to engage in anti competitive practices.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?