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!

cancel ×

75 comments

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

Why do the rest even bother? (1, Insightful)

CrackPipePls (1205568) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763680)

Why do the rest even bother? Eventually it all boils down the the few big boys anyway,

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (5, Funny)

lb746 (721699) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763742)

It's not that they are bidding one 1 thing. This bidding/auction includes multiple licenses and different chunks of spectrum's. The 700mhz one we keep discussing is just the biggest and most coveted item at the auction. There's still going to be that small company going home with the autographed T-Shirt signed by the FCC staff.

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (1)

stonefry (968479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21767200)

Also, just being on the list makes stock holders happy. They like to see that their company is making an effort.

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763868)

Ego trips, publicity stunts, and a desire to get one's name in the history books with the big boys. Big Roy's Internet Service and Gerbil Grooming may not have an honest chance at actually winning an auction, but it'll get him into the Google rankings alongside the likes of AT&T for a bit.

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (2, Funny)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765214)

Gerbil Grooming owner (...I've got a great idea...)

Next day:
Gerbil Grooming owner: Hello, FCC. What are the requirements for bidding in the wireless auction?
FCC: Fill out this paperwork...and the minimum bid is $4.6B...
Gerbil Grooming owner: Great, send over that paperwork!

Two weeks later:
FCC: We are going to start the bidding at $4.6B.
Gerbil Grooming owner: (raises hand and snickers).
FCC: Ok, do I hear 4.8B?
Google: (raises hand and snickers).
FCC: Do I hear $5B?
Gerbil Grooming owner: (raises hand and laughs out loud)
FCC: Do I hear $5.5B?
(silence)
FCC: Going once, twice, sold to Gerbil Grooming for $5B!
Gerbil Grooming owner: (laughing slowly fades as reality sets in...then you hear him whisper under his breath) oh shit

Next day:
Gerbil Grooming owner: Yes, I'd like to take out a loan
Banker: Sure, how much?
Gerbil Grooming owner: Lets see (pulls out calculator) about $4.98B
Banker: (begins laughing)

30 minutes later:
Banker: (continuing laughing, wipes tear from eye)
Banker: No, seriously. How much

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21766162)

I bet grooming those gerbils produces a lot of static electricity. If he gathered it then surely that would amass him a small fortune. And then just imagine adding in the power the gerbils generate on their little wheels.. you could make 5 billy in no time! Damnit I'm in the wrong business, these hamsters have nothing on those damn gerbils :/

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21766694)

So this Gerbil Groomer has $20 Million in liquid assets?

Perhaps I need a new day job.

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21765218)

To inflate my ego, I had my company make a bid this morning so we could get some publicity [ripway.com]

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21766386)

myminicity.com link...just so you're aware (offtopic)
--your friendly neighborhood anti-troll

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763874)

There's some small guys on that list that seem to bid on everything the FCC puts up for auction. For example, there's a retired mail carrier named Vincent D. McBride (who operates under the name McBride Spectrum Partners, LLC) who has bid at just about every FCC auction since sometime around 1996-1997. Others might be doing it for name recognition (just having your name on the bidding list gets you exposure) and others still might be doing it to gather evidence to prove that the FCC does, in fact, favor the big boys and might even be giving them a competitive advantage in the auctions (besides their own cash reserves).

Re:Why do the rest even bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21764048)

others still might be doing it to gather evidence to prove that the FCC does, in fact, favor the big boys and might even be giving them a competitive advantage in the auctions (besides their own cash reserves).
Last I looked, the way an auction usually works is the person with the biggest pocket book that wants something gets it. I don't see how this can be perceived as a competitive advantage. Trust me, we don't want Joe Schmo running a frequency he bought for pennies or simply sitting on it. (Not to say that a big company wouldn't sit on it, but most companies I believe have plans for the spectrum available.)

like to wait and see.... (3, Insightful)

mraudigy (1193551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763694)

The auction of the 700 Mhz band is quite interesting.... it will be interesting to see who wins the bid and what it will do for the country's infrastructure. At&t is one of the many that still has an incomplete application.... typical.

Nice list (4, Interesting)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763722)

A who's who of multibillion dollar companies. What happened to the government and the parts there of working in the peoples interest? Unless you have a few billion to spend don't even think about it. The peoples airwaves are sold to the highest bidder, literally, and all I can think of the FCC doing is censoring and working in corporate interests (like consolidation of radio companies and maybe the same with TV/Newspapers).

Re:Nice list (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763858)

Multibillion dollar companies owned by... you and I, or anyone with a share.

The problem is not the multibillion dollar companies, the problem is the FCC. The FCC creates the regulations, and laws, and restrictions, and mandates, that force you and I and a million others from tossing in our own $1500 each and competing. We'd need to hire lawyers who probably worked for the FCC and wrote the rules. We'd need to get approvals from a slow and red-tape-ladened administration. We'd need to prove who we are and what our intentions are.

That's the problem. You think it's these huge megacorps that cause these issues? Well, they sure lobby for them. But if the Federal Executive branch actually followed the Rule of Law (i.e., the Constitution), the FCC would be probably a teeny tiny organization that just made sure no one was perverting the airwaves with massive noise outputs from dirty electronics.

WiFi is relative proof that you can go relatively unregulated in spectrum bandwidth and have things work just fine. Yes, yes, some people in the middle of Manhattan complain about WiFi performance, but my experience at my old office in downtown Chicago showed that things worked just fine -- all the time.

We don't need the FCC, we need more individuals getting together, pitching in a few grand, hiring managers, and competing with the old powerful regimes. Unfortunately, it isn't available. We can't do it. We can't compete. The market doesn't work efficiently when there are barriers to entering the market, and the ONLY barrier is government regulation. Raising $1billion is easy; the machete you need to cut through red tape is nearly non-existent.

Re:Nice list (2, Interesting)

Erwos (553607) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763898)

So, let me get this straight: your office WiFi AP works OK, so it follows that all spectrum should remain unlicensed?

Yeah, that's not quite the most compelling argument I've heard about this issue. Certainly not the most informed, either.

Re:Nice list (4, Interesting)

jcgf (688310) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764098)

Totally, as a licensed ham, I shudder when I hear some of the things slashdotters say about the RF spectrum. The common theme is that it should be totally free and unregulated, yet they don't understand that spectrum ain't software so it's not like everyone can get a copy.

Re:Nice list (2, Insightful)

kfort (1132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764332)

As a licensed ham for half my life, I couldn't disagree with you more. The RF spectrum is the property of the people, and the FCC exists to regulate it in the interest of the public good. In the past it was a problem because modes of operation like AM, SSB (single side band), FM are prone to interference either malicious or unintentional.

We have the technology now to fight this problem. The only thing we lack is the innovation. The technology of the future would be based on homebrew inventions that amateur radio operators have pioneered over the years. This includes directional beam high gain antennas, digital packet modes of transmission, spread spectrum technology, public key encryption, and DSP (digital signal processing microchips).

Let us not forget that every radio wave is fundamentally just light. Different frequencies are simply different colors. It is philosophically absurd to regulate colors (although this is probably done too through intellectual property restrictions such as trademark and copyrights on shades of paint).

We have the technology. Almost all of it was created by hams. It is time to free the airwaves and give them back to the rightful owners, the people. This will usher in a new era of connectivity and communication that we can only begin to imagine.

Re:Nice list (2, Insightful)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764758)

Actually, while light can be used to define the entire electro-magnetic sub-section, colors are just a sub-section of the electromegnetic spectrum referred to as 'colors' (normally 400-700 nm, but one could argue slightly outside the visible). Radio waves are not colors they are in fact a sub-section of the electromagnetic spectrum referred to as as 'radio waves'.

Re:Nice list (1)

kfort (1132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764864)

The only thing special about 400-700 nm is that we have receptors (antennas you could crudely say) in our eyes that are tuned to this band and are processed by our brain. This is completely analogous to an antenna tuned to a different wavelength, and then processed by hardware and software. That is my point, we can process the RF now to the point where we can filter the interference from the useful information, in the same way our brain works to focus (in a mental sense, not optical) on particular aspects of what we see, even though we are bombarded by more light than we could ever possibly consciously comprehend.

Re:Nice list (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 6 years ago | (#21768376)

If I were to walk into a crowded theatre and hold up an enormous flashlight, an extremely bright LED, or worse, trigger as powerful a flash of white light as is currently possible with modern engineering, I would not only be kicked from the theatre, but I'd risk damaging those antennas of everyone in the room, not to mention interfering with the ability of everyone from seeing the picture on the screen.

It turns out your brain isn't as good a filter as you'd like, if you can't filter that out.

Re:Nice list (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765200)

If everybody was flashing bright lights all the time, and some people were flashing lights bright enough to *cause burns*, the yes, you would see regulation of colors. It's a simple traffic problem: you can't have everyone in the intersection at once [google.com] , so you've got to regulate it somehow. The FCC does this by licensing transmitters, which you should be WELL aware of if, as you say, you're a ham.

You'd also be aware that *any* transmission at the very least increases the noise floor. The bandwidth is inherently limited, even if you take the best precautions available. Not every use of radio is for communications purposes, where you could just bump the transmit power. Radio-astronomy also has a legitimate claim to access to the spectrum, which must be balanced with our desire for communications modes.

So, in the case of 700 mhz, which many groups would like access to transmit on, how do you decide who to give the license (or licenses) to? You can't give them to everybody. How would you propose deciding which services would be of the most benefit to society to license in that band?

Re:Nice list (1)

kfort (1132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21766336)

Cause burns? OK so it should be illegal to blast microwave death beams at people. I'm talking about using communication to bring people together, not develop weapons. We have the military for that. DSP and spread spectrum and high gain beam antennas are technologies that work to decrease the noise floor and decrease the amount of effective radiated power needed. We are not employing these to the best advantage because of archaic laws and regulations. The noise floor mostly comes from solar and cosmic radiation, how are you going to regulate that?

Every frequency has different propagation properties. Do you really think that someone is going to be blasting huge amounts of infrared energy at remote mountains in Hawaii? The only thing it would affect is projects like SETI that monitor broad ranges of longer wavelengths, but I think SETI is a fruitless effort and should not be used as an excuse to restrict the rights of humans that we know exist in the interest of hypothetical aliens. You do know that 700 mhz is basically line of sight, right? We need to be creating meshes of networks at a grassroots level instead of relying solely on business and government to provide for our needs.

Re:Nice list (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765672)

Please inform me of this magic technology that will get rid of interference. Beams, packet, & encryption have nothing to do with this. Spread spectrum and DSP can help reduce the problem, but with the first you just run out of spectrum faster and the 2nd is not a miracle, unless your one of those hams that are fooled by MFJ's adds.

"Free"ing the airwaves would just cause chaos like any kind of anarchy.

Re:Nice list (1)

kfort (1132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21766566)

It is a fundamental law that bandwidth is directly proportional to the amount of information sent. This is called the Nyquist-Shannon theory. CW (morse code) uses the least amount of bandwidth possible, it is simply a continuous sine wave modulated on and off. Voice communication uses much more bandwidth, because more information is present in the signal. AM gives a richer sound. SSB is uses less but is not as robust, and broadcast FM uses the most because you have a signal that is not prone to static and is in stereo. Sending video requires even more.

The higher the frequency, the more bandwidth is available. MF (medium frequency) is 300 kHz to 3 MHz. That's 700 kHz of bandwidth. HF (high) is 3 MHz to 30Mhz. VHF (very high) is 30 Mhz to 300 Mhz. UHF (ultra high) is 300 MHz to 3 GHz. As you can see this amount of bandwidth increases exponentially. The EM spectrum is not limited, except by the capabilities of our equipment which is constantly increasing.

There are two primary types of spread spectrum. Direct sequence is lowering the power of the signal at any particular frequency but also increasing the amount of bandwidth that the signal is spread over. Frequency hopping uses algorithms such as pseudo-random-number generators to quickly change the frequency the signal is transmitted on. If there to too much interference on one frequency, you just try the next number in the sequence. Both are much less susceptible to jamming which is why they are used by the military to prevent powerful foreign governments that are actively using all their resources to disrupt communication. Do you really think that individuals with malicious intent are going to be more effective than powerful militaries?

Re:Nice list (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 6 years ago | (#21767038)

First off, I'm a ham, I know what CW, AM, SSB hf, vhf, and uhf are. And while bandwidth may increase as you go higher in frequency, you also loose the ability to go long distance without help, so you can't just say here's 10MHz of now give up the 20m ham band. Totally useless to me even though I get more bandwidth.

I also understand that the military uses spread spectrum, but there aren't any real powerful foreign governments left to test the system against. I'm sure alqeada and Iraq couldn't give it the test like a real enemy (say the old USSR) could have.

Re:Nice list (1)

kfort (1132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21767298)

I will not assume that everyone /. reader is a ham or knows what they are talking about.

Considering the capabilities of HF to cross borders I could see some international issues there, but what if we just deregulated everything about 30Mhz? WiFi works. We have ways to make self healing mesh networks that can work with large numbers of nodes. It's the type of technology on which the Internet is based.

Why must I be forced to use 2.4 GHz for my wireless networks? It barely goes through walls, and is pretty close to the same frequency I use to cook a hotpocket. I acknowledge that it is at much lower power levels, but the affects of non-thermal radiation exposure on cellular damage and mutation is very controversial and not well understood. What I mean by this is effective radiated power levels that are less than is needed to actually heat a cell, but within the range to possibly interact with our bodies on a molecular level.

I'd rather not have that near my crotch, so I do not use WiFi in my home.

Re:Nice list (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 6 years ago | (#21771626)

Deregulating above 30 megacycles is more reasonable. If you want a killer wifi network, why not work on developing one to work over the 30cm or 23cm ham bands? You could easily take 15 MHz in most geographic areas (not too many hams on those bands) plus they are only as dangerous as your cell phone. It would be a lot of work, but you would be famous amongst hams.

Re:Nice list (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764922)

It should be free but controlled. The FCC should do the controlling as a impartial observer.

Re:Nice list (1)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21768490)

The common theme is that it should be totally free and unregulated

The common theme is rather that we want more spectrum to be available to the general public without the restrictions of the amateur radio bands.

What Wifi has shown is that allowing parts of the spectrum to be used freely allows a lot of applications that would simply never happen on the licensed bands. Many of us would like to play with a smallish part of the 700MHz band.

spectrum ain't software so it's not like everyone can get a copy.

With spread-spectrum technologies, a lot of people can get a lot of fun out of a small amount of spectrum.

Re:Nice list (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764116)

Yeah, that's not quite the most compelling argument I've heard about this issue. Certainly not the most informed, either.

For many years, the idea of a truly software-based, frequency-hopping radio was the idea of dreams and science fiction. We have them today. They work well, but are still limited in frequencies they can utilize. Power-sources have been the biggest limiting factor for opening up spectrum for unregulated use, but that too is quickly being overcome by technological discoveries (see the nano-wire battery article from yesterday).

Regulated spectrum may have been important when radio transmissions were inefficient, dirty, and even dangerous. We've overcome those issues, and now have the technology to utilize wireless transmissions that could be best navigated and selected based on distance to the other transceiving device, available power for transceiving, speed and latency requirements, and other traffic detected. Because power is not limitless, the idea that one massive power source would likely overpower everything in the area is only based on the idea that someone would or even could transmit garbage over every frequency at high power levels. Yes, I know there are technological marvels that COULD do this, and that's why I will allow for the idea that the FCC may exist only to penalize users of such dirty-transmission devices. Personally, I feel that the market would correct for these power-wasting freaks, but I'll at least accept a small role for the FCC to prevent dirty-transmissions.

With frequency-hopping, and software-based radios, we'd reach a new era of wireless. We're WASTING gigahertz of spectrum on old media -- TV, radio, even cell phone and cordless phone frequencies that could be better used to combine everything into a WiFi-like system. The days of forced media schedules are slowly ending, with more and more people grabbing TV shows a la carte, via bittorrent or PVR-systems. Instead of flooding the airwaves with the gigahertz of garbage no one is watching, de-regulate that bandwidth and allow more wireless providers to send people what they want, when they want it.

Those who demand faster bandwidth and lower latency may spend the money for the extra power they'll need to acquire the spectrum they need in their area, for their purposes. Yet power is the BIGGEST cost of wireless transmissions, and I can guarantee that anyone who wants to hog a wide swath of spectrum will find themselves with an unbelievable electric bill after one month. Yet even with someone locally occupying a certain amount of frequencies, there is still a huge amount of bandwidth available all over the entire radio spectrum. A move to digital, on demand IP-based transceiving makes more sense. We're moved beyond the need for fixed-frequencies, except for the old media who needs to control, and regulate, competition out of existence.

They know their time has come. The need to keep cell phones on the same basic frequency, TV on the same basic frequency, and radio on the same basic frequency has been replaced, and proven so, by the newer technologies out there (Satellite, XM, WiFi, even 700Mhz cordless phones). Those days are over, but we're too engaged with the old system to realize it.

The best thing the FCC could do is to just deregulate the 700Mhz-900Mhz frequencies entirely, and let the market provide services. Let's see what would happen. I bet amazing things would come into the market quickly. Then start deregulating more frequencies, until the FCC shrinks to a minor enforcer of clean transceiving.

Re:Nice list (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763988)

Raising $1billion is easy;
For you maybe, but for me?

Re:Nice list (1)

lstellar (1047264) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764650)

Rule of law: a state of order in which events conform to the law
- Princeton WordNet

The Constitution is a living document, and was designed as such. Any law invoked here was instated within the confines and regulations of the constitution- therefore lawful. Your "Rule of Law" argument is misplaced.

And while in many sectors there are artificial governmental barriers to entering, this is almost certainly not one of them. It seems you are atop a soapbox preaching about big government and interference with the free market, but you chose a completely inappropiate time to do so. This is as free as you get.

Just like you said- "raising a billion dollars is easy." That IS simplay all it takes to get in. And that barrier was driven up by the corporations bidding, not the FCC selling.

Re:Nice list (2, Insightful)

faedle (114018) | more than 6 years ago | (#21767156)

WiFi is relative proof that you can go relatively unregulated in spectrum bandwidth and have things work just fine. Yes, yes, some people in the middle of Manhattan complain about WiFi performance, but my experience at my old office in downtown Chicago showed that things worked just fine -- all the time.

Actually, WiFi is a case-in-point of why the existing regulatory scheme is broken, and how completely "unregulated bandwidth" would be a disaster for our communications infrastructure.

Case study: Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square, a public square commonly referred to as "Portland's living room," smack dab in the middle of Portland's busy, and dense, downtown. There are no fewer than six "free" hotspots all trying to provide service, and countless WEP/WPA-encrypted ones from neighboring offices, plus the "city WiFi" from MetroFi. Add to this mess a large quantity of Bluetooth noise from a Verizon Wireless store that has all the Bluetooth crap turned on every freaking phone, a 2.4GHz wireless microphone system used by the City for performances in the square, and you've got a nice average noise floor somewhere around -55dBm.

None of the WiFi works more than 25 feet from the access points. The wireless microphone system often breaks. If you're trying to use your Bluetooth headset on your phone, you have to be within a foot for it to work.

So, what happens? One of the offices goes and buys an amplifier and a 15 dB antenna from Fry's to see if they can get their WiFi to work in their office. This increases the noise floor and now makes it so that anybody on Channel 1 who's near that office gets elbowed out of the way by the sloppy amplifier.

"Unregulated airwaves" are theoretically a great idea, but fail in actual practice because the people making the decisions are not technologically literate.

If, on the other hand, all the devices in the 2.4GHz band were using a cooperative radio system, where everybody talked to everybody else and determined frequencies and power levels based upon some kind of algorithm, there's no reason why it couldn't work. Add to that some liberal frequency expansion, and you could be on to something.

However, just "deregulating" the whole thing without putting technological limitations on the system is a disaster waiting to happen. Deregulated radio works great in theory, until T-Mobile decides to deliberately interfere with the free hotspot because it's "competition" for their paid service.. or Starbucks decides to deliberately interfere with Seattle's Best Coffee's hotspot for the same reason.

Re:Nice list (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 6 years ago | (#21767392)

WiFi is relative proof that you can go relatively unregulated in spectrum bandwidth and have things work just fine. Yes, yes, some people in the middle of Manhattan complain about WiFi performance, but my experience at my old office in downtown Chicago showed that things worked just fine -- all the time.
I've just got to take issue with this statement, true enough lots of wifi equipment works well with other wifi equipment in the 2.4 ghz band. unfortunately its one band being used for a number of purposes. Try adding a TV sender into the mix. Wifi becomes highly unreliable and the tv transmission is hit badly by the random wifi packets add a cordless phone into the mix and none of it works reliably.

There is no need for more red tape but a few more low power frequencies with type approval for each band allocated. yes please.

Nice list in the eyes of some (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21765442)

Obviously, the list of companies competing to pay the greatest amount for the right to broadcast over certain wavelengths in the US should not include multibillion dollar companies. There might be one or two of them, or at the max three because they are big so they take up so much space, but there should also be Honest John's Ethical Organic Turkey Farms, and The Afghano-Ethnic Youth Commitee Club, and Flower Decorations Ltd.

And this license should go to the highest bidder though of course, not literally, it should go to the highest bidder in a metaphorical sense, i.e. the party whose dreams and hopes contribute to the greatest concentration of desire, so it would be an auction for either real or moral dollars.

And the fact that the government is getting billions of dollars at the trade of giving an exclusive right to a company of transmitting on a certain sliver of the wireless spectrum is obviously not in the interest of the people. It would be much better if those dollars were virtual or moral. If you ran out of real dollars you could always spend your moral ones on forcing other people (not the people being forced, obviously, but the other people) to do what you tell them to, or simply assuming ownership of every property and real dollar in the country.

I don't think I should ejaculate what I'm thinking of.

Xpressweb Internet Services? (5, Funny)

Demiansmark (927787) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763724)

I really am curious as to how much a company like Xpress Web [xpressweb.com] could possibly dedicate to this, from the looks of the web site I'm assuming the proprietor operates from the dumpster behind the quik e mart.

Re:Xpressweb Internet Services? (1)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763760)

well, by being on that list they'll get their fair share of their 15 minutes of fame, and that is called marketing. "who are they?" .. well, now people find out. but of course, they have no business of being on that list whoever is behind it, as so many people will say, this is a battle for the big boys.

Re:Xpressweb Internet Services? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21763846)

Xpressweb is exactly the type of carrier this auction is aimed at. They address an audience that the large players have ignored. I wish there were an Xpressweb type of carrier in my parents home in Western NY. Wired broadband will never be built out in that area, and wireless broadband (Wimax/UMB/LTE) in the 700Mhz space would be perfect for this. Slovakia has a country wide OFDMA network in place, why is the USA such a backwater?

Re:Xpressweb Internet Services? (1)

boriquajake (966415) | more than 6 years ago | (#21772524)

You don't get it. This company is banking on there being more value in their market area than the big boys believe. They are hoping to be able to pick up spectrum in their out of the way corner of the country and build a profitable business. Then once they have snapped up all the customers that are available they will either continually make money or sell the company to one of the big boys at a tidy profit.

The only reason... (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763744)

...the not-so-big names signed up was to swing around their corp-peens I guess :P

Re:The only reason... (2, Insightful)

Mishra100 (841814) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764000)

I could only come up with 2 reasons why the smaller companies would even try to compete. Cheap advertisement. They only have to fill our paperwork and spend a little bit of money and time. Then they are put on a list and talked about in articles and regular posts (like us) which gives them really cheap advertisement. It could also be that they want to give their investors the feeling that they are trying to do more with their company by competing to buy the air waves.

Re:The only reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21764626)

What about small companies acting on behalf of bigger ones?

Re:The only reason... (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 6 years ago | (#21768118)

...the not-so-big names signed up was to swing around their corp-peens I guess :P

There are actually almost 1100 distinct licenses up for auction, and the vast majority of them are for regional licenses that will go for maybe a couple million dollars. That's what all the smaller companies are signing up for.

What no (-1, Offtopic)

fishthegeek (943099) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763878)

CowboyNeal option? This poll sucks.

Paul Allen? (1)

LinDVD (986467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763938)

So I wonder if Paul Allen is bidding as a proxy to Microsoft...it's not like Bill Gates and Paul Allen are mortal enemies.

Re:Paul Allen? (1)

simong (32944) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764012)

Paul Allen is behind a number of businesses of his own but I doubt that it would surprise anyone if he won the auction and Microsoft became involved in whatever he intended to do with the spectrum. However, there is the potential for it not just to be MS, as an exclusive deal with them probably wouldn't be acceptable to the FCC.

Re:Paul Allen? (2, Interesting)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764036)

So I wonder if Paul Allen is bidding as a proxy to Microsoft...it's not like Bill Gates and Paul Allen are mortal enemies.
Unlikely as a proxy, Paul Allen has his own agenda and telecoms schemes. I would not call his motives purely altruistic however he does favor the offbeat ideas and makes a pretty good go of them when he does.

Re:Paul Allen? (1)

Fear the Clam (230933) | more than 6 years ago | (#21768510)

Paul Allen has his own agenda

Yeah, all Jimi Hendrix, on every frequency, all the time.

The Coming Cellphone Revolution? (5, Interesting)

phobos13013 (813040) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763956)

Ok, Im not a spectrum expert here (IANASE?), so I dont know all the possible and impossible uses of the band are. But MY personal belief is that if Google wins this thing, it will mean a whole new future of cell and multimedia technology. With Android on the horizon, the possibility for video technology to be broadcast on this spectrum, and a "do no evil" corporation behind its implementation we as consumers could see a major change in how we use and most importantly PAY for cell phones.

I could VERY easily see Google offering about five models of cellphones, all with user-modifiable environments with broadband TV access, internet, and of course cell (or wifi or some such combo). A recent interview with the CEO of HTC [engadget.com] suggests there are some big plans with Android/Google/HTC. This would all be possible with a low unlimited usage fee (say $50 unlimited cell access, $75 unlimited TV/internet, etc.) Maybe you will see some sort of music site popup over this or integrate it with Google's music info site. This will of course be highly marketed and everyone will flock to it. Maybe not everyone will get to use it and it will become a tester in some markets sort of like gmail beta when it was first introduced. This sort of thing is usually looked at skeptically (think when 3G first rolled out after many delays, all the complaints and grumbles) but by Google will be looked at as the hippest thing since white bread!

This of course over time will force the other cell providers to change their scrupulous business practices or be satisfied with greatly reduced user-base. Which of course is more incentive for these other companies to get their hands on it over Google.

It seems to be infrastructure and other base technology is already in place for it, so immediate rollout could happen, of course in that interim introductory period additional infrastructure can be added to beef up the spectrums inevitably high usage!

This is all of course simple musing, but looking at Google's past and their current state coupled with their desire for this spectrum leads me to believe there is a plan for it and its big. I look forward to this possibility... hope it comes true. Now if anyone can punch holes in any of this please do so now.

Re:The Coming Cellphone Revolution? (4, Insightful)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764140)

Yes, a cellphone revolution... in advertising....

Google will track wherever you go via GPS. Google can then sell advertising to companies that you walk by. The more people that walk by a business, the more they can charge for advertising. Then, when you walk within 500 feet of that business, they'll send you some text message telling you of said business's latest deals. You clear the message, and in another 300' you get another text message from another business with their lunch specials.

Then, of course, google will have you use your "google logon" with your cellphone, too. So when you go do Internet searches on your PC, it will cater the results to where you go and where you've been. "Hey, I noticed you're looking for anal plugs... there was a good shop with a buy one get one on your route to work".

Of course, google will also use that GPS data to notify businesses in your local area what you're searching for and what you buy from their competitors.

Then Google founders will use all that extra cash to buy an EVEN BIGGER private jet to go play around the world and burn more fuel while hypocritically telling us that we need to reduce our fuel consumption to save the environment.

Re:The Coming Cellphone Revolution? (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765128)

Flamebait? Come on, only the last sentence was flamebait. The rest was insightful with just a bit of troll!

Probably pretty insightful, actually. Google could very easily do all of that, especially in the areas where they've ALREADY mapped out everything at the street level. If they bundle that with free airtime and throw in the phone at a heavy discount as well, people would put up with it too.

Re:The Coming Cellphone Revolution? (1)

DeepZenPill (585656) | more than 6 years ago | (#21780008)

We're never going to get rid of advertising, but it can become better. I'm generally conditioned to ignore any and all advertising, but there have been occasions where unobtrusive, targeted advertising has caught my eye because it was actually useful to me.

If someone is making money on providing me with information that might actually benefit me, what's the harm? As long as I have control over my privacy, I would much prefer that to blinking banner ads and billboards.

If cheap or free ad-supported cell phone service becomes available, you know what you're getting into when you sign up for that service. You always have the option of paying more not to see ads on your phone.

Re:The Coming Cellphone Revolution? (1)

mathimus1863 (1120437) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765342)

"With Android on the horizon, the possibility for video technology to be broadcast on this spectrum, and a "do no evil" corporation behind its implementation we as consumers could see a major change in how we use and most importantly PAY for cell phones."

I love Google, but I think the "do no evil" thing went out the door when they went public and got shareholders whom expect returns. So far they're not evil, and I love them for it. But as they amass assets like this spectrum, they might start changing.

Re:The Coming Cellphone Revolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21769742)

I love Google, but I think the "do no evil" thing went out the door when they went public and got shareholders whom expect returns. So far they're not evil, and I love them for it. But as they amass assets like this spectrum, they might start changing.

I don't understand why people believe this and keep saying it. If I was a Google shareholder (I probably am, indirectly), I would be very mad if they destroy the good faith they have for a short term gain. I also expect any company I directly invest in to behave ethically as well as legally. As an owner, that's my right to request. Only a sociopathic shareholder would insist a company they own put profit above all other considerations.

Re:The Coming Cellphone Revolution? (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 6 years ago | (#21766078)

If I were Google, I wouldn't enter the cellphone market directly. Instead, I'd use the spectrum to create a large-scale Wifi network as part of an effort to route around the big telecoms who keep threatening Google with non-neutrality. (The other part would be all that dark fiber they bought up.)

If they do *that*, it's pretty easy to layer VOIP on top of it to create cellphone/blackberry-like services, but that'd only be part of it. Imagine wireless connectivity anywhere for the price you now pay your ISP for a wired hookup.

UHF TV. What about VHF? (3, Interesting)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763970)

Very broadly, this spectrum is divided into two bands -- the lower and upper 700 MHz. The lower band is 48 MHz wide, and the upper band is 60 MHz wide. Of the upper 60 MHz, 24 MHz is being reserved for public safety, according the to FCC. The 747- to 792-MHz portion of the spectrum, which includes a highly coveted swath known as the "C Block," is now used for commercial UHF television. But federal law now mandates that broadcasters convert to digital TV signals by 2009, so they're handing this particular chunk of spectrum back to the FCC (in return for new UHF spectrum).

So, I guess VHF [wikipedia.org] TV frequencies will be auctioned off soon too? Or is that going to be completely used by radio services (Marine, some aviation and some consumer goods.)?

Re:UHF TV. What about VHF? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765020)

I'm not sure why you would think that. The idea is merely that the total number of channels allocated to TV is being reduced. The reduction is purely in terms of the high numbered UHF channels.

TV stations are not being moved to entirely new spectrum. The digital TV channel range are the same spectrum as the analog NTSC range, minus those high numbered UHF channels. For example, in my area, the local CBS affiliate broadcasts NTSC (analog) on channel 12, and ATSC (digital) on the adjacent channel 13 (they both appear as "12" on the channel selector because ATSC channels have a "soft" channel number associated with them, largely to ensure people don't have to memorize new numbers for their favorite TV stations.) When analog "goes away", channel 12 will become available for re-use.

Towerstream (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21763980)

Go go Towerstream! A company like Towerstream is where this sort of thing belongs. At least the crew at Towerstream can fill out their application properly. It seems the "bigger" you are, the less capable you are of properly filling out paperwork.

I'm rich! (5, Funny)

Kinthelt (96845) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764018)

Who would have thought my old Athlon 700 would prove to be so valuable?

Background information (2, Informative)

wizards_eye (1145125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764284)

Some information on this band can be found here:
http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/700mhz-explained/ [gigaom.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/700_Mhz_wireless_spectrum_auction [wikipedia.org]
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070815-700mhz-auction-whats-really-up-for-grabs-and-why-it-wont-be-monopolized.html [arstechnica.com]

For instance the GSM 750 band (has been in the GSM standards for at least 7 years) is a part of the spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands [wikipedia.org]

No revenue range for Google? (3, Funny)

Hanners1979 (959741) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764336)

I notice there's no revenue range or bidding credit listed for Google in the PDF document - Did they not have room for all those zeroes?

1999 UK all over again? (2, Interesting)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764572)

Is it only me or does anyone else remember back in 1999 when the 3G (which I wouldn't say has mass market acceptance even now) licenses went up for bidding in the UK? As I remember it came to 20 billion pounds (the irony is I am in the UK using a US PC, so no pound sign for me on the keyboard) in the end, which is a HELL of a lot of money for a piece of paper saying you may broadcast on these frequencies. I don't think it would work out well for anyone if this turned out to follow the same path.

Re:1999 UK all over again? (1)

jsjacob (94841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765084)

I don't know if you mean Windows or Linux or Mac OS or whatever. But if you're on a Mac, the £ sign is Option-3.

Re:1999 UK all over again? (1)

curunir (98273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21772328)

In Windows, hold down the ALT key and type 0163 (then release the ALT key). For me, it only seems to work if I use the number keys at the right of my keyboard and not with the number keys above the qwerty row. The full character mapping can be found here [wikipedia.org] .

...says the Mac user who, for work, had to learn the convoluted Windows method of doing something that OS X makes incredibly simple...

Re:1999 UK all over again? (1)

jagdish (981925) | more than 6 years ago | (#21772472)

Hold the right alt key and type 156 using the number pad. If you use a laptop, press alt, then the function button, then 156. Do not use the number keys above the alphabets. See http://www.asciitable.com/ [asciitable.com] for more characters.

The Incomplete Application List (2, Interesting)

Isaac-Lew (623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764844)

Why do AT&T & Verizon Wireless have incomplete applications? Is it due to some type of legal issue (or issues), or did they screw up their paperwork?

Paul Allen was a Ricochet/Metricom investor (2, Informative)

kriston (7886) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764948)

In case we might have all forgotten, Paul Allen was one of the founding investors in Ricochet/Metricom.

For those to lazy to rtfa here is the list (1)

sobolwolf (1084585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765106)

0002805596 Adams Telcom, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0014061097 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 0 - 15,000,000 0000021188 AlasConnect, Inc. 0016161788 Aristotle Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0016927360 AWS Spectrum, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017118837 Bayou Internet, Inc. 0002477636 BEK Communications Cooperative 0 - 15,000,000 0003764727 Bend Cable Communications, LLC 0003766201 Blanca Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017147406 Blue Sky Cell, LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0010698868 Bluegrass Wireless LLC 0017194473 Bresnan Communications, Inc. 0017181199 Broadband Wireless Unlimited, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0008394215 Budget Phone 0015024631 Cavalier Wireless, LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0001649508 Central Texas Telephone Investments, LP 0002532497 Chariton Valley Communication Corporation, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0003707775 Chester Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017191172 Clearcom, Inc. 0017146051 COLI INc 0 - 15,000,000 0001711837 Command Connect, LLC 0017171950 Cricket Licensee 2007, LLC 0001700616 Cross Telephone Company, LLC CTC Telcom, Inc. 0017166422 Data-Max Wireless LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0017118084 Delmarva Broadband LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0001858760 Ellijay Telephone Company 0001754738 Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0004338489 Farmers Telephone Company, Inc. 0014955017 Fidelity Communications Company 0002480085 Forum Communications Company 0004600268 FTC Management Group, Inc. 0002388262 Glenwood Telephone Membership, Corporation 0 - 15,000,000 0002333839 Golden Belt Telephone Association, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017171182 Google Airwaves Inc. 0017184268 Grain Spectrum LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0017176173 Great American Broadband, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0016191827 GreenFly LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0002331601 H & B Communications, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0001886944 Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 0009639923 Inland Cellular Telephone Company 0001523125 IT&E Overseas, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017169087 KeyOn Spectrum Holdings, LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0017164583 Kinex Networking Solutions, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0002212314 Kingdom Telephone Company 0 - 15,000,000 0003548443 Kurian, Thomas K 0 - 15,000,000 0004334702 Lackawaxen Long Distance Company, Inc. 0017166240 Landover PCS Holdings, LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0002576791 MAC Wireless, LLC 0015031065 Manti Telephone Company 0 - 15,000,000 0004344776 Medicine Park Telephone Company, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0014993794 Midwest AWS Limited Partnership 0 - 15,000,000 0017195561 Miller, David 0 - 15,000,000 0011146479 Mt. Vernnon.Net Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0014999585 MTN3B Consortium 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0002886984 Mulberry Cooperative Telephone Company, Inc 0 - 15,000,000 0008209629 N.E. Colorado Wireless Technologies, Inc. 0012841458 Neptuno Media 0 - 15,000,000 0004337044 Northeast Missouri Rural Telephone Company 0 - 15,000,000 0002388882 Northeast Nebraska Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0014990436 Northern Iowa Communications Partners, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0001704246 Panhandle Telecommunication Systems, Inc. 0002644953 Paul Bunyan Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 0017036799 PBP Bidco LLC 0005746508 PCS Partners, L.P. 0 - 15,000,000 0001887140 Piedmont Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0003740040 Polar Communications Mutual Aid Corporation 0007024607 Public Service Wireless Services, Inc. 0003742384 Red River Rural Telephone Association, Inc. 0001886464 Sandhill Communications, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0001551241 Siskiyou Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017182528 Small Ventures USA, L.P. 0 - 15,000,000 0017183237 Spectrum Acquisitions, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0001960962 Star Telephone Membership Corporation 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0002901817 Swayzee Telephone Co. Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0003744406 TCT West, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017057787 Terra World Communications, LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0005097381 The Chillicothe Telephone Company 0005069323 The Tri-County Telephone Association, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0002337509 The World Company 0015467749 Towerstream Corporation 0 - 15,000,000 0010907244 Tri-Valley Communications, LLC 0017182742 Triad 700, LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0016655912 USA Choice Internet Services Company LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0001685718 Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0014045504 Van Buren Wireless, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0017176207 Vavasi NexGen Inc. 0005209374 Vermont Telephone Company, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0007028723 Vulcan Spectrum LLC 0003936994 Washington County Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc 0 - 15,000,000 0002722049 West Wisconsin Telcom Cooperative, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017195678 Wi2 0 - 15,000,000 0002624856 Wireless Communications Venture 0017164179 Worldcall Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0003801362 WUE, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0016099210 Xpressweb Internet Services, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000

ooops the list formattted (2, Informative)

sobolwolf (1084585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765150)

0002805596 Adams Telcom, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0014061097 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 0 - 15,000,000
0000021188 AlasConnect, Inc.
0016161788 Aristotle Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0016927360 AWS Spectrum, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0017118837 Bayou Internet, Inc.
0002477636 BEK Communications Cooperative 0 - 15,000,000
0003764727 Bend Cable Communications, LLC
0003766201 Blanca Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0017147406 Blue Sky Cell, LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0010698868 Bluegrass Wireless LLC
0017194473 Bresnan Communications, Inc.
0017181199 Broadband Wireless Unlimited, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0008394215 Budget Phone
0015024631 Cavalier Wireless, LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0001649508 Central Texas Telephone Investments, LP
0002532497 Chariton Valley Communication Corporation, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0003707775 Chester Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0017191172 Clearcom, Inc.
0017146051 COLI INc 0 - 15,000,000
0001711837 Command Connect, LLC
0017171950 Cricket Licensee 2007, LLC
0001700616 Cross Telephone Company, LLC
CTC Telcom, Inc.
0017166422 Data-Max Wireless LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0017118084 Delmarva Broadband LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0001858760 Ellijay Telephone Company
0001754738 Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0004338489 Farmers Telephone Company, Inc.
0014955017 Fidelity Communications Company
0002480085 Forum Communications Company
0004600268 FTC Management Group, Inc.
0002388262 Glenwood Telephone Membership, Corporation 0 - 15,000,000
0002333839 Golden Belt Telephone Association, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0017171182 Google Airwaves Inc.
0017184268 Grain Spectrum LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0017176173 Great American Broadband, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0016191827 GreenFly LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0002331601 H & B Communications, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0001886944 Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
0009639923 Inland Cellular Telephone Company
0001523125 IT&E Overseas, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0017169087 KeyOn Spectrum Holdings, LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0017164583 Kinex Networking Solutions, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0002212314 Kingdom Telephone Company 0 - 15,000,000
0003548443 Kurian, Thomas K 0 - 15,000,000
0004334702 Lackawaxen Long Distance Company, Inc.
0017166240 Landover PCS Holdings, LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0002576791 MAC Wireless, LLC
0015031065 Manti Telephone Company 0 - 15,000,000
0004344776 Medicine Park Telephone Company, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0014993794 Midwest AWS Limited Partnership 0 - 15,000,000
0017195561 Miller, David 0 - 15,000,000
0011146479 Mt. Vernnon.Net Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0014999585 MTN3B Consortium 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0002886984 Mulberry Cooperative Telephone Company, Inc 0 - 15,000,000
0008209629 N.E. Colorado Wireless Technologies, Inc.
0012841458 Neptuno Media 0 - 15,000,000
0004337044 Northeast Missouri Rural Telephone Company 0 - 15,000,000
0002388882 Northeast Nebraska Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0014990436 Northern Iowa Communications Partners, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0001704246 Panhandle Telecommunication Systems, Inc.
0002644953 Paul Bunyan Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
0017036799 PBP Bidco LLC
0005746508 PCS Partners, L.P. 0 - 15,000,000
0001887140 Piedmont Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0003740040 Polar Communications Mutual Aid Corporation
0007024607 Public Service Wireless Services, Inc.
0003742384 Red River Rural Telephone Association, Inc.
0001886464 Sandhill Communications, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0001551241 Siskiyou Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0017182528 Small Ventures USA, L.P. 0 - 15,000,000
0017183237 Spectrum Acquisitions, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0001960962 Star Telephone Membership Corporation 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0002901817 Swayzee Telephone Co. Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0003744406 TCT West, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0017057787 Terra World Communications, LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0005097381 The Chillicothe Telephone Company
0005069323 The Tri-County Telephone Association, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0002337509 The World Company
0015467749 Towerstream Corporation 0 - 15,000,000
0010907244 Tri-Valley Communications, LLC
0017182742 Triad 700, LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0016655912 USA Choice Internet Services Company LLC 0 - 15,000,000
0001685718 Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0014045504 Van Buren Wireless, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0017176207 Vavasi NexGen Inc.
0005209374 Vermont Telephone Company, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0007028723 Vulcan Spectrum LLC
0003936994 Washington County Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc 0 - 15,000,000
0002722049 West Wisconsin Telcom Cooperative, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
0017195678 Wi2 0 - 15,000,000
0002624856 Wireless Communications Venture
0017164179 Worldcall Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0003801362 WUE, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
0016099210 Xpressweb Internet Services, Inc. 0 - 15,000,000

I'll chip in. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21765224)

Considering how much I hate Verizon, Cingular and the like... I almost feel inclined to send $100 to Google. Given how excited my friends are about the possibility of Android shaking up the market - I bet if Google set up a "help us bid more" fund they would get more than trivial amount of money. Maybe that could tell the FCC something about how the American people want their assets doled out.

Improved range! (1)

martyb (196687) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765386)

Along with AT&T and Verizon, Google and Paul Allen's Vulcan Spectrum are in on the bidding.

I knew the 700MHz spectrum has much improved range compared to WiFi, but Vulcan? [wikipedia.org] WOW!!! ;)

The Incomplete List (1)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21766140)

The interesting thing to me is the "incomplete" list. There are some major corporations on that list. What happened there is what I want to know. Did they decide not to peruse the bid or maybe they just could not find a pencil sharpener in time to finish the application? If they were serious about a bid it seems odd to me that these major corporations would somehow not complete the application in a timely fashion or not correctly.

Re:The Incomplete List (1)

robmx (566491) | more than 6 years ago | (#21792028)

Anyone on the incomplete list was on time. They just didn't furnish some information or the FCC is questioning some information they provided. The big boys have more trouble doing this right the first time because their information can be more complicated. A new company with no record has it easy.

Small bidders, Incompletes, and Licensing (1)

Squishieee (1205930) | more than 6 years ago | (#21766526)

Many small companies and even individual bidders are on the list because there are hundreds of small area licenses up for grabs, many of which will probably sell cheap. A single 700MHz 6MHz channel may be plenty for a small WISP to provide much more reliable - not to mention mobile - broadband service than they can provide today with their 5GHz unlicensed Canopy or Alvarion gear. These small operators are crowding each other in the major unlicensed bands in urban areas, and they'd love nothing more than a piece of spectrum to call their own. One of the reasons you see so many Incomplete entries is that many of these bidders don't plan on making a bid in this round because of the minimum bids and reserve prices. They're hoping that a bunch of these licenses will not meet minimums and won't be awarded, and there will be a new auction (Auction 76) later in the year, which will be their chance to pick up some spectrum very cheap... or so some of them hope. The trick is that they can't bid in the later auction without having gotten on the list for this one. I'm sure others are on the list for other reasons. Speaking of crowding, this also touches on why we need licensed bands. Protocols like 802.11 (Wi-Fi) are great for unlicensed bands because they have congestion-avoidance mechanisms, while 802.16 (WiMax) only really works when you can synchronize the transmissions from all the towers - impossible in an unlicensed band. Wi-Fi is great but it will never be able to provide the same level of Quality of Service (particularly controlled latency and jitter) that WiMax can give you.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>