Beta
×

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!

Senate Discusses Third Pipe Using 700MHz Spectrum

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the stevens-confused-between-pipes-and-tubes dept.

The Internet 78

Freebird writes "The US Senate Commerce Committee held hearings on the upcoming 700MHz spectrum auction today, and much of the discussion centered around Frontline Wireless' proposal to create a commercial wireless broadband network that would also be used for public safety. 'Under Frontline's proposal, the FCC would auction off 10 MHz from the commercially available spectrum and offer that to the highest bidder. The winner would also be given (free) 12 MHz out of the 24 MHz currently allotted to public safety.' Some senators were skeptical, especially Ted Stevens of Alaska who had a 'long and testy interchange' with Frontline CEO James Barksdale. 'He seemed to be zeroing on criticisms that the Frontline proposal was simply a way for a new company to get a huge discount on a prime chunk of spectrum by playing the "public safety" card.'"

cancel ×

78 comments

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

Fitting... (3, Funny)

setirw (854029) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513071)

Some senators were skeptical, especially Ted Stevens of Alaska

Creating a new pipe would nullify his "clogged tubes" argument against net neutrality!

Re:Fitting... (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513261)

I'm most skeptical about the 700mhz overclocked Sinclair Spectrum, instead.

Re:Fitting... (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513655)

Yeah, everyone knows that the CoCo is a much better choice for overclocking.

Re:Fitting... (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 7 years ago | (#19514853)

Screw that! I'm overclocking my SYM-1 to 2 MHz, with liquid cooling!

HAHAHAHA, how funny (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513299)

man, that's classic. a republican said something that actually wasn't a bad analogy, but of course since JOHN STREWART and the rest of the liberals made fun of it, it must have been stupid, right?? i mean, it's not like the DEMS have ever said anything stupid? (hello, AL "INTERNET" GORE!) your constant condiscending and your pointless support of gays and blacks is why 85% of the country thinks the DEMS are just a bunch of shit, seen the latest public opinion polls???

JERK

Re:HAHAHAHA, how funny (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513645)

You're right. The Jon would never dump on Democrats [newscloud.com] .

Re:Fitting... (2, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513381)

Some senators were skeptical, especially Ted Stevens of Alaska
Creating a new pipe would nullify his "clogged tubes" argument against net neutrality!
So? Put some weed in his pipe and light it, he'll soon change his mind.

Re:Fitting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513401)

...but to do that, we'd have to remove the crack already in his pipe...

Re:Fitting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19517751)

Or, as it sounds from the "testy exchange", the pipe from his crack...

We should really all stop ragging on Ted Stevens (2, Insightful)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513461)

Why is it people can't stop making fun of Ted Stevens? Sure, he made a poorly worded analogy. Big deal - the internet had been compared to plumbing before, would you like to rag on these guys too? [penny-arcade.com]

What I find most disgusting though is even though this one event seems ingrained in geek memory, these same geeks conveniently forget when Ted Stevens came out on our side [eff.org] . Personally, I think Americans would be better off if you had more politicians like him in office.

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven (2, Insightful)

Bozdune (68800) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513539)

Yes, then we could have more billion dollar bridges to nowhere.

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513597)

OH be fair... its not a billion dollars! It's only $315 Million... To serve a total of 9,000 people.

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven (2, Informative)

unitron (5733) | more than 7 years ago | (#19514223)

That wasn't a bridge to nowhere, that was a bridge that would have greatly increased the value of land owned by Alaska's other Republican Senator and by her father, Alaska's Republican governor.

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513575)

You must be joking... Someone actually implied that Ted Stevens was anything but a corrupt, arrogant, senile jack-ass. This is the man who threatened to resign from the Senate if they took any bit of money from his stupid bridge to nowhere and used it for Katrina aid. I only wish they had took money and he had gone back to Alaska to bask in his own love. (No I don't need to give references for all the stupid things he did, google it.)

I like that George Bush encourages community service. It doesn't mean I want him to be my president. Same thing applies to Teddy Stevens.

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513771)

Which just goes to show you, the 'third pipe' is actually Congress and is planted firmly up our collective asses.

(Yup, you needed that mental image)

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513789)

agreed. Some people here have played too much sim city. They think towns and industry just happen to show up when there are no roads or transportation to it. Its actually really embaressing to read so many people rant on someone they obviously know little about. And I'm siding with ted here from my understanding of it. I'm not an expert on how this process has worked in the past (and niether do most of you), but it looks to me like giving out 12 MHz to the highest bidder will just have too many issues with it- and as Ted says, it looks like they're just trying to give the person with the deepest pockets the highest stake- and then give them a discount for it on top of that. How is that fair and competitive?

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven (2, Funny)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#19514045)

The most ironic part is that for all everyone makes fun of him, the internet is, in fact, mostly made up of a series of tubes.

"NOO! NOO! NOO!" - T. Stevens(R) (1)

bADlOGIN (133391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19514115)

Yeah. I'll risk the karma...

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#19518523)

We make fun of Sen. Stevens because he's a raging idiot that somehow got elected to public office. It's not about his party (for some of us), or his one most popular gaff (though that certainly brought him to everyone's attention).

The man's famous for rants about nonsense and rambling tirades that barely manage to stick to English grammar. I would make a horrible senator, but even I would be better than Stevens.

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19520267)

Well, we DO have lots of Senators like Ted Stevens out there. Ever heard of "earmarks"? He is happy to trade a valuable senatorial vote for pretty damn near anything as long as

a) The money goes to Alaska and
b) They put his name on it. The "Ted Stevens International Airport" in Anchorage comes to mind.

Personally, I think we need a bunch fewer Senators like Stevens, although I don't think he's much different from the others, just a bit better at it. Lord knows he has been in office long enough. /end rant. By disclosure, I live in Alaska.

Re:Fitting... (1)

lelitsch (31136) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513585)

Some senators were skeptical, especially Ted Stevens of Alaska

Creating a new pipe would nullify his "clogged tubes" argument against net neutrality!
That's bull. Senator Stevens' very valid objection was that you can't build a pipe out of thin air. I mean any pipe has to be run underground or at least be connected [alyeska-pipe.com] to it.

Re:Fitting... (1)

TheUglyAmerican (767829) | more than 7 years ago | (#19514455)

Is this the same Ted Stevens who recently voted for user fees on general aviation then immediately turned around and sought to except Alaska general aviation from those same fees? God I love American politics.

Re:Fitting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19516509)

... Ted Stevens of Alaska who had a 'long and testy interchange' with Frontline CEO James Barksdale. 'He seemed to be zeroing on criticisms that the Frontline proposal was simply a way for a new company to get a huge discount on a prime chunk of spectrum by playing the "public safety" card.'

As if the hypocritical prick didn't somehow work public safety into the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding.

Re:Fitting... (1)

Phreakiture (547094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19517399)

Some senators were skeptical, especially Ted Stevens of Alaska

He was confused because most modern radios don't use tubes....

Ted Stevens (3, Funny)

deblau (68023) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513075)

Shhh don't tell him about the invisible tubes in the sky...

Re:Ted Stevens (1)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513133)

Hey... I'm actually replying to your sig, I'm studying for that thing right now and in another month I'll be through the MPEP. I'm in freakin' lawschool and I've never seen so many regs before in my life! (Back to chugging through 700... ooh public use proceedings!)
      Oh, and more on-topic, this is sort of interesting since Crazy Ted would normally be the guy who you'd expect would support anything with the right buzzwords in it. While I'm somewhat dubious of giving all the spectrum up to just one company at a discount price, there is something to be said for having those frequency bands available. The technology exists to allow emergency services to cut-through when necessary, but the rest of the time there is no reason the bandwidth should not be available for commercial use.

For commercial use--except in emergency?! (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#19523015)

I'll tell you the reason why public safety frequencies should remain dedicated to public safety:
There will be businesses and people who will be annoyed if they are knocked off the air because of an emergency. What happens if a cell-phone co. buys those frequencies, and they are commandeered for public safety right when everyone is trying to call people because it's an emergency?
I accept that sometimes TV stations have to switch to all-weather when a tornado watch is on. Nonetheless, I get annoyed by this neccesity when I'm nowhere near the area needing the intense watch.
"Amber Alerts" are sometimes counted as emergencies. What business wants to be knocked off the air simply because a kid has gone missing?

Re:Ted Stevens (1)

deblau (68023) | more than 7 years ago | (#19526841)

Good luck on your exam. I don't know where you are in your studies, but if you can take it over the summer, DO IT. You can do what I did and treat it like another (12 hour?!) class, but taking an /additional/ two back-to-back substantive finals stinks.

Word to the wise: don't try and memorize all the minor details, just learn where everything is located in the MPEP so you can look it up quickly during the test. You'll be so high on adrenaline that you won't remember it all anyway. Oh yeah, and pretty much everything in 700 and 2100 is major.

Re:Ted Stevens (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513475)

No! Tell him about them. Tell him that they're a bridge that will go Gravina Island, out in the middle of nowhere of Alaska. Then he's sure to fund it, as well as put a secret hold on everyone else's bills! Then tell him that the plan's backers are oil executives, so he'll refuse to swear them in.

Re:Ted Stevens (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513499)

Oh, and if that doesn't work, promise to remodel his house for him, half-price. That'll be sure to get him on board. You'd probably have him out there in his Hulk Tie championing it. And if that doesn't do it, make a donation to the Ted Stevens Foundation [boston.com] (a "nonpartisan, nonpolitical foundation" whose sole purpose is to help inform the public about Ted).

Pipe or Tube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513081)

I think they meant the third Tube, not the third pipe.

Jealousy is unbecoming, Senator. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513105)

> 'He seemed to be zeroing on criticisms that the Frontline proposal was simply a way for a new company to get a huge discount on a prime chunk of spectrum by playing the "public safety" card.'"

It takes one to know one, Senator.

Just because you weren't offered a piece of the action this time is no reason to get all snippy^Wtesty about it.

Sounds like a dispute over turf. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513663)

He seemed to be zeroing on criticisms that the Frontline proposal was simply a way for a new company to get a huge discount on a prime chunk of spectrum by playing the "public safety" card.

"Playin' the public safety card is our baby", Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)was later heard to exhort.

Taco (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513121)

No one wants to read this liberal yellow journalism junk posted on the front page of this site. I'm sorry you're upset that GWB is our President, but the majority of Americans voted for him. Maybe you hate the fact that we are trying to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, that's your prerogative, not mine and not that majority of Americans that voted for GWB. Maybe you should have a talk with your moderators who continue to post liberal garbage about our Great Nation. God Bless America.

Re:Taco (-1, Offtopic)

mulvane (692631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513165)

And now you see his approval rating below 32% with over 65% in complete disapproval of him.

Re:Taco (-1, Offtopic)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513235)

The majority of Americans voted for GWB? Really? Depending on how you read the numbers, the majority of Americans who voted voted for GWB, but neither candidate came close to 51% of the eligible population voting for them.

Not that things are any better here in the UK, where candidates who got 40% of a 65% turnout claim to speak for the majority...

Re:Taco (2, Insightful)

TerovThePyro (970487) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513385)

While the facts are true that most elected leaders have not received the majority of their constituent's votes, they are still the elected leader and thus have the right to speak for their country.

Those who do not use their voice in democracy can not complain when democracy does not speak their voice.

Re:Taco (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513457)

What I really want to know is why, up till 20 or so years back were there not these auctions? I mean, who died and made the radio spectrum a commodity the FCC owns and can auction off? I do recal them regulating the spectrum back when, I do not recall them selling it...

Re:Taco (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 7 years ago | (#19514899)

It used to be more of a first-come-first-serve deal, with lots of winking and nodding and such.

It's better that it be a publicly visible auction, to be honest.

Spectrum auctions (1)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 7 years ago | (#19515717)

What I really want to know is why, up till 20 or so years back were there not these auctions?

That's pretty easy. When the great cellular build out was in place in the mid 1980's, the FCC wanted to make sure that there was service in rural areas, and not just heavily populated urban sites. Once companies figured out the extortionate roaming fees that were available (god, I remember when you had to pay $5/day just to sign on to the service, and then had to pay $1.50-$2.00 a minute for each call), they wanted the rights to service. The FCC, in addition to seeing this as a cash grab I'm sure, rationalized the decision by deciding that auctions for spectrum would ensure that firms would build out as rapidly as possible, to recoup their investment, and thus ensure service would be available.

As I recall, the lawyers made tons of money (as usual) by producing boiler plate proposals for would be bidders (you had to qualify technically to have your bid accepted into the auction). IIRC, in some cases where the owners expected heavy traffic (like, say I-75 through northern Ohio - not many people live there but tons of trucks go through, plus a lot of car traffic going to Florida), up to 600 bids would be received.

Re:Taco (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513487)

"Those who do not use their voice in democracy can not complain when democracy does not speak their voice."

Of course they can. It's a masturbatory exercise, but they have all the rights everyone else has.

public safety.... the new hotness (-1, Offtopic)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513131)

public safety or security or whatever you want to call it, it's all just a big "OBEY ME" button modern politicians use on the easily spooked masses. It's like a barking dog herding cattle, the only reason the cattle obey the dog is habit and panic.

Stevens was peeved at Frontline's reluctance... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513135)

...to install their first WAP on an uninhabited Alaskan island.

Ted, I don't get it. (4, Insightful)

PineHall (206441) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513175)

'He seemed to be zeroing on criticisms that the Frontline proposal was simply a way for a new company to get a huge discount on a prime chunk of spectrum by playing the "public safety" card.'
Frontline's auction proposal, if accepted, will set some parameters. The spectrum will still go to the highest bidder. That may not be Frontline.

And Dogs Everywhere Rejoiced (5, Funny)

BlueMikey (1112869) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513221)

Wireless flea and tick control? Sweet.

Re:And Dogs Everywhere Rejoiced (1)

KingJ (992358) | more than 7 years ago | (#19515943)

Ah, not quite! First you have to get a microchip implanted ($400) so ensure that your pets have the correct equipment to receive this 'revolutionary' treatment. Then, you'd have to pay a $50/month licence fee to continue to use the service, failure to pay this will temporarily disable your pet until the licence fee has been paid. Tampering with the chip will automatically turn your pet against you...

I think i'll stick to the regular flea treatment, thanks

Which section? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513227)

Which section of Public Safety? 9?

Health concerns (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513359)

Before flaming this post based on the subject line, read this article [ieee.org] and this one [nih.gov] , which are about studies demonstrating the mechanism for learning disability caused by exposure to 700MHz RF fields.

Re:Health concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513583)

That is very interesting, but I have to wonder about the amplitude of the fields in this study relative to the ones that will be created by this project. A large exposure to nuclear radiation will kill you within hours, but small amounts of exposure are a part of every day life. Does this work in a similar way?

Re:Health concerns (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513779)

Yes, it does work the same way; RF exposure outcome is dose-dependant. Though their main point (in the second article) was that the effect that can kill you (RF-induced heating) is different from the effect that they observe (neurons are more excitable).

I would not worry too much, however, since the experimental conditions are quite different from those inside your brain. If you read the article, you will notice that even a thin 1 mm layer of liquid shields the cells rather nicely. (and your hippocampus is shielded by over 100 mm of blood, CSF, and bone. Also, 50 V/m RF strengths are virtually never encountered in real life; usually something on the order of mV/m tops.

Of course, you never know if the effects are additive over a long period of time. If in doubt, use a tinfoil hat (remember to use thick metal foil, wrap as much of your body as you can, and actually ground it, or it's useless (use 1MOhm resistor in line or you might electrocute yourself).

Re:Health concerns (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513693)

From the second link above:

Slices of rat hippocampus were exposed to 700 MHz continuous wave radiofrequency (RF) fields (25.2-71.0 V m(-1), 5-15 min exposure) in a stripline waveguide. At low field intensities, the predominant effect on the electrically evoked field potential in CA1 was a potentiation of the amplitude of the population spike by up to 20%, but higher intensity fields could produce either increases or decreases of up to 120 and 80%, respectively, in the amplitude of the population spike. To eliminate the possibility of RF-induced artefacts due to the metal stimulating electrode, the effect of RF exposure on spontaneous epileptiform activity induced in CA3 by 4-aminopyridine (50-100 microM) was investigated. Exposure to RF fields (50.0 V m(-1)) reduced or abolished epileptiform bursting in 36% of slices tested. The maximum field intensity used in these experiments, 71.0 V m(-1), was calculated to produce a specific absorption rate (SAR) of between 0.0016 and 0.0044 W kg(-1) in the slices. Measurements with a Luxtron fibreoptic probe confirmed that there was no detectable temperature change (+/- 0.1 degrees C) during a 15 min exposure to this field intensity. Furthermore, imposed temperature changes of up to 1 degrees C failed to mimic the effects of RF exposure. These results suggest that low-intensity RF fields can modulate the excitability of hippocampal tissue in vitro in the absence of gross thermal effects. The changes in excitability may be consistent with reported behavioural effects of RF fields.

Mmmm. Slices of rat hippocampus!

In other news, watching too much TV will make you dumb.

Re:Health concerns (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19520355)

I think you can safely conclude that it is not in your best interest to slice up your hippocampus and place it in a wave guide. All other bets are off.

Re:Health concerns (1)

patrikor_007 (1094491) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513791)

to me it seems pretty easy to stimulate a bare slice of brain (which uses electricity to transmit signals) with any kind of electromagnetic field, RF or no. A) those are both in vitro studies. where are the in vivo studies? B) How much of that RF is absorbed by the skin, muscle, bone, and non-hippocampus brain tissue? i don't buy it without better tests and methods.

(-1 offtopic) off the subject, but on the subject of wacky health concerns- today i heard an interview on NPR [npr.org] where people think a 25 microgram dose of mercury, or some similar amount, is causing autism. and they just won't accept that the cause might be something else. sure, mercury is poisonous. oxygen and water are poisonous too, in the right quantities. but 25mcg of mercury? how many times that have we all absorbed by being in the same room as a broken fluorescent light bulb? or my cousin, who broke a mercury thermometer by biting it?

Re:Health concerns (1)

qray (805206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513923)

Or my whole 7th grade science class that played with mercury in a petry dish.
-
Q

Re:Health concerns (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19515057)

...and see how our speling turned out. ;-)

Re:Health concerns (1)

qray (805206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19518677)

Maybe it also explains why I'm posting this from jail. ;-)
-
Q

Re:Health concerns (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19514059)

However, you and I are fully developed beings. A 25mcg dose of mercury at certain stages of brain/physical development may increase the risk of autism to those who may be predisposed to it. Just wanted to let you know.

Re:Health concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19516831)

how many times that have we all absorbed by being in the same room as a broken fluorescent light bulb? or my cousin, who broke a mercury thermometer by biting it?


Yeah man,


Or that time I ate a whole thermometer. Some times we used to just sniff it all up. Man those were the good ol'times.
What the hell are you talking about man?

Mercury is bad mkay?

Re:Health concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19515053)

From the IEEE article it sounds like a constant barrage of this spectrum could be weaponized; a stupid ray, if you will.

Only an army of tinfoil hat clad warriors can save us now...

How about giving a bit more the the ARRL too! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19513477)

I wouldn't mind some 700Mhz bandwidth for PUBLIC use of the PUBLIC airwaves. Might as well throw LPFM in just because my voice doesn't count! -- off to the interwebs!

Make it a contract not an auction (1)

tknd (979052) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513713)

Why not make it a contract sort of deal instead of an auction. If the government was really interested in serving the public, they would force companies to come up with proposals and prototypes of what they would do with the spectrum and the best concept wins the spectrum in the form of a contract. The auction has no guarantees that the spectrum will be used in an efficient or "for the better of the public" manner. In fact, it is more likely that it will just turn into another form of high end real estate and monopolization tool than anything else.

Re:Make it a contract not an auction (1)

Arti (619829) | more than 7 years ago | (#19513857)

A contract system is probably more open to abuse, unless the contract is formulated and then put out to tender (or even auction).

Re:Make it a contract not an auction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19514113)

Been tried in other countries. Those who get the contract tend to be those whose sole skill is political manipulation. In particular, they don't necessarily have the skill to do what the contract says. Once that fact becomes evident and they are at risk of losing the contract, they may turn round and resell their spectrum to ... the highest bidder.

Selling spectrum stinks (2, Interesting)

unitron (5733) | more than 7 years ago | (#19514355)

Spectrum that was once set aside for television stations is now desired for other uses, including the important one of public safety, but the government is having to go to a great deal of trouble to get it back from the broadcasters whose only claim to it has been a temporary renewable license to use it (basically at no charge) "in the public interest".

What happens when, in the mysterious future, a new and important use is found for a particular slice of airwaves that have already been sold off? Will it be necessary to go to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that lets the government declare "eminent domain" and force the owner to sell it back? Better to lease it and still get some money out of it but retain ownership and control.

Re:Selling spectrum stinks (2, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19516971)

If the FCC wants to reallocate spectrum, they can do it. They are under no obligation to compensate the existing licensees or to provide them with new spectrum. The same is true if new regulations make your current equipment obsolete. I've been on the receiving end of this sort of thing in the past. If the FCC properly follows their own procedures for rule-making, there isn't anything that you can do about it.

Re:Selling spectrum stinks (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 7 years ago | (#19536901)

The FCC can re-allocate spectrum which the government still owns, but that which has already been auctioned off they no longer own and those who do own it now would probably tie up the FCC in court for the next hundred years or so (or buy enough congresscritters to land on the FCC like a ton of bricks, whichever is cheaper).

retards (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19514423)

Who is the highest ranking thub?

well senator? is it pipes or tubes or AIR TUBES! (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19514635)

I believe it's clear that Senator Ted Stevens should not be on any committees involving technology.

The man needs an education.

I've dealt with clients like him. They think they understand something and get offended when you try to explain it properly.

It's all a series of AIRS Ted!

Re:well senator? is it pipes or tubes or AIR TUBES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19517067)

Please someone tell me why "Pipes" is an acceptable metaphor, but "Tubes" are not.

I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19514701)

How is taking some of the spectrum that is currently devoted to public safety, "Playing the public safety card"?

Re:I don't get it (1)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 7 years ago | (#19521693)

They are saying that they get all the spectrum devoted to public safety, and they will give some of it back if they get the contract. I'm guessing some of their competitors are planning on using the whole spectrum for non-public uses. Therefore they're playing this card to try to get a leg up in the sale of the spectrum.

700MHz! (1)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 7 years ago | (#19515141)

Imagine trying to play Jet Set Willy on a 700MHz Spectrum!

Re:700MHz! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19519471)

>RUN
(screen blinks) (GAME OVER)
>READY

As an economist would say (1)

KPU (118762) | more than 7 years ago | (#19515551)

Presumably, 22 MHz is more valuable than is 10 MHz. So the price will be higher in auction. Hence it's not a free 12 MHz, so much as an auction for 10 MHz full use and 12 MHz of rare public safety use.

Please just wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19516149)

I don't want any significant long term changes made till Bush is out of office and Ron Paul is sitting in that chair with a pen. Here's a scary concept: Congress realizes NOTHING but good clean bills are going to get past this guy and they might clean up their act! It would be unprecedented in modern history.

On topic, just let the regulation of this spectrum expire and make it public with transmission power caps. Monopoly discourages innovation. Private spectrum without failure always comes up with very innovative spectrum sharing technologies, while the regulated spectrum technology stagnates.

Money... (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 7 years ago | (#19518995)

This is the real reason why the FCC and Congress are pushing for HDTV. They see the Billions of dollars that it could bring in in profit. A newspaper article I came across back in the late 90's, when HDTV was suppose to go live and SDTV was suppose to be shutoff in 2001, had an estimate of $4.2 Billion USD that the SDTV spectrum would go for at that time. It's probably a lot higher now.

So, to MPAA, RIAA, NASCAR, NFL, NBA, ABL, NHL, etc. all want HDTV so they can control what you can watch, how you watch it, what you watch it on, etc; and the US Gov't wants HDTV so they can make billions of dollars in pure profit.

I'm not saying that we couldn't use the SDTV more effectively (or even AM/FM frequencies for that matter); but this is not something that is in the consumer/customer's interest. It's all $$ motivated.

What they should do. . . (1)

ryanchappell (1003972) | more than 7 years ago | (#19519785)

Is either make it all public domain like the 802.11B & G frequencies. Or at least encourage competition, by splitting it into 3-6 parts and requiring seperate companies to operate them. This is a very important piece of emf that has not be available in 50 years and will allow real wireless internet city by city through walls, I hope we don't allow Verizons to hog it and sell it back to us for unreasonable prices!

What is your bid? (1)

Massif (875445) | more than 7 years ago | (#19520587)

I'd like to bid $1, Bob.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>