FCC Chairman Wants Public Auction To Repurpose Satellite Bands For 5G (engadget.com) 65
Chairman Ajit Pai is pressing for a public auction of wireless frequencies in the C-band spectrum (the 4GHz to 8GHz range often used by satellite companies) for the sake of 5G service. Engadget reports: This would help the FCC clear up "significant" frequency space in a quick fashion, generate money for the government and "ensure continued delivery" of existing services, Pai argued. He hoped to auction off a 280MHz slice while leaving the upper 200MHz available. An FCC official told the Wall Street Journal that the regulator hoped to bring the C-band auction up for a vote in 2020 and start the auction by the end of that year.
Satellite companies, however, might not be so happy. Industry giants like Intelsat and SES haven't been averse to selling their spectrum, but they've wanted a private auction to share the money they make and have claimed the FCC isn't allowed to take in-use spectrum without paying them. A public auction flies in the face of that. The C-Band Alliance, a group representing the satellite firms, has hinted at "protracted litigation" if the FCC pushes forward. Carriers are also of mixed opinions. AT&T, which owns DirecTV, has called C-band an "opportunity" but also wanted compensation and a "reasonable transition plan" to avoid disruptions. Verizon (Engadget's parent company and Pai's former employer) likewise wanted "appropriate incentives and protections" to ensure a quick process.
Satellite companies, however, might not be so happy. Industry giants like Intelsat and SES haven't been averse to selling their spectrum, but they've wanted a private auction to share the money they make and have claimed the FCC isn't allowed to take in-use spectrum without paying them. A public auction flies in the face of that. The C-Band Alliance, a group representing the satellite firms, has hinted at "protracted litigation" if the FCC pushes forward. Carriers are also of mixed opinions. AT&T, which owns DirecTV, has called C-band an "opportunity" but also wanted compensation and a "reasonable transition plan" to avoid disruptions. Verizon (Engadget's parent company and Pai's former employer) likewise wanted "appropriate incentives and protections" to ensure a quick process.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Who really needs 5G? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm old and hence my eyesight is poor, but is there really anyone out there that can tell the difference between 8k and 4k on a phone screen?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who really needs 5G? (Score:2)
Re:Who really needs 5G? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who really needs 5G?
Not horrible question. I'm of the opinion that with LTE we've managed fast enough for anything a smartphone user is going to do. What I think would serve more people better would be to stabilize on this adequate level of service to drive down its cost, and price. We all know the carriers will never accept lower income due to lower price, and since they can't justify maintaining price once LTE service is ubiquitous, we know why 5G is "so important", and to who.
Further, I don't believe that limited spectrum should be used for infrastructural purposes like residential/commercial networking... when avoidable. We should be pushing for fiber rollout more places, not pushing cellular service. Once again, fiber infrastructure is a "permanent" service which can go down in price once build-out is complete. "Well, this area is served by 5G for broadband" shouldn't be an acceptable answer to "why isn't wired high-speed available in this area?" Aside from maybe random cabin-in-the-woods situations, wired high-speed Internet should be made available everywhere electricity is, and soon.
Re: Who really needs 5G? (Score:2)
Re: Who really needs 5G? (Score:4, Funny)
What happens when you have two 4K screens overlaying info on your vision (AR) or increasing network capacity because more and more people are streaming Spotify vs storing songs in their pocket?
Then you hit your data cap faster than you can say "But 5G!"
Re: (Score:1)
The US used to be and want to be at the forefront of technology. Maybe it's time to hand the baton over to someone else.
Re: Who really needs 5G? (Score:1)
Maybe it's time to break up the monopolies that are stifling innovation in America.
Re: (Score:2)
But those first three seconds almost look like real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a point at which it doesn't really matter anymore, though. Not least because whether you can hit your data cap in 2 or 4 seconds is not really relevant for pretty much anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, how long have you been on this planet?
Re:Who really needs 5G? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to agree with you. LTE is "Fast Enough" and not just for handsets its really fast enough for the typical home Internet user. You can stream netflix while your kids play the latest twitch game just fine. Oh damn you might have to wait a some hours for shovelware on consoles these days that is released completely broken so they have to replace the entire 10GB of data on the blueray as DLC.. It sucks Christmas morning but who's fault is that really? I'd call that sort of over-reliance for mass-bulk-distribution an abuse rather than use of the network anyway.
Really what consumers need is:
1) Bigger caps! Unlimited probably can never mean you are able to run a radio balls to the walls weeks on end on shared spectrum but FFS 22gigs and than throttle to 600Kbps is Nobody's definition of unlimited outside of Verizon execs. That makes no sense for their home-broadband fixed LTE solution but that is what they really offer in practical terms. While bigger plans like 30,40,60 gigs are available they are not then unlimited so you will PAY dearly if you exceed you cap.
2) Consistent service. In a lot of places LTE goes to absolute shit performance in the evenings when everyone is on it. Make the damn cells smaller so you can maintain service quality under heavy use.
5G is useless you can already burn your cap on LTE in handful of hours. They count it against your high-speed cap even when they can't deliver higher speed as it is. Its BS. Higher burst speeds are not really going to help anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of the opinion that with LTE we've managed fast enough for anything a smartphone user is going to do.
I have a better question for you, what is 5G? Most of the discussion here are based around speed and mm-wave spectrum. That's just the tip of a very big iceberg that is a change in standard, one which accomplishes a lot more with a lot less.
You say your smartphone is fast enough? Why can't I open a website at a football game? Airwave congestion is something 5G addresses, not only on the higher bands but also the existing ones. Why can't the smartphone which always have coverage be reliably used for emergenc
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't I open a website at a football game?
This and your other questions come down to essentially one or both of the following: The cell is to large there are so many stations that there is a large amount of contention. The backhaul for the cell is insufficient.
LTE can be configured for small cells just fine. Its true that 5G might be able to cope with a somewhat greater number of stations using high data rates in a given sized cell; you packed area and very similar situations are about the ONLY use case were density in a single micro cell is likely
Re: (Score:2)
5G is faster, but also has lower latency. That's really interesting for medical applications (e.g., surgeries via robots, which already exists, but controlled remotely), IoT (any sort of real-time data gathering / operation control), or other enterprise uses. The average consumer probably does
Re: (Score:2)
We should be pushing for fiber rollout more places, not pushing cellular service.
I agree, but the likes of AT&T are already trying to rid themselves of the costs of maintaining land-based lines (even though I think those should stay put). I don't seeing us winning that one.
Re: (Score:2)
"Who really needs 5G?"
Consumers aren't the real target of 5G, it's IoT devices. They already outnumber all the humans on the planet, and by the end of next year there will be about 20 billion of them. That's a lot of bandwidth.
Fuck no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Arrest this guy. This has gone far enough.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't. This is C-band, those are K and Ka-band. Read and weep.
Re:Fuck no. (Score:5, Insightful)
if pai wants something, he should not get it.
I don't even need to know WHAT he's asking for. whatever he wants, don't give it to him.
he's an evil motherfucker. full stop.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This.
At this point, he could literally offer a cure for AIDS that solves world hunger in its wake and all I'd wonder would be how this is going to screw everyone over.
Public Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be really cool if things like "The Public Good" were taken into account?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be really cool if things like "The Public Good" were taken into account?
Gotta be careful with that. The public good could also mean stripping wealthy of their money, or criminals of their organs. Freedom is precious.
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be really cool if things like "The Public Good" were taken into account?
Gotta be careful with that. The public good could also mean stripping wealthy of their money, or criminals of their organs. Freedom is precious.
You should also point out that "the wealthy" could easily be defined as anyone above the poverty level, and the definition of "criminal" could probably be broadened pretty easily as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you're being downvoted. I actually read an article in USA Today a year or 2 ago that argued tax cuts only help the rich because if you don't pay taxes you don't benefit from tax cuts. Essentially, anyone paying taxes is rich by their standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, tax cuts not ONLY benefit the rich, but they are by definition those that benefit the most from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be really cool if things like "The Public Good" were taken into account?
Careful what you wish for.
If the FCC is allowed to be Indian givers, then future auctions will likely be much less lucrative. Why bid high for something that can be taken on a whim?
Legal property rights and enforceable contracts are the bedrock of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal property rights and enforceable contracts are the bedrock of capitalism.
Civil Asset Forfeiture, "Red flag" laws, Eminent Domain used to forcibly transfer property to another private entity to gain more tax revenue:
Are we jokes to you?
(not meant as a jibe at you)
The Rule of Law is pretty much on life support at this point, although more and more regular people towards otherwise opposing political stands are starting to realize they're being lied to by both (D)s and (R)s and finding common ground, for example "Epstein didn't kill himself" is pretty bipartisan and near universal a
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...
How do you monetize that?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be really cool if things like "The Public Good" were taken into account?
The greater good...
who needs 5G if China already moves to 6G (Score:2)
Trumpski should move straight to 7G (induction antennas in the pavement) to make 16K movies on my smartphone possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Would be a good idea. He's embarrassing at the G7 meetings, maybe reversing that to 7G would make him a diplomatic wizard.
Ambivalence (Score:2)
On one hand, it seems sleazy to auction it off, and then auction it off again. On the other hand, if there is actually public interest, that should trump private interest. On the gripping hand, fuck Ajit Pai. If he wants to do something, it's probably bullshit.
Re:Ambivalence (Score:4, Informative)
seems sleazy to auction it off, and then auction it off again
Not really... When first auctioned off it was spectrum designated for a specific purpose. Having won the auction does Not allow the winner to use the resource for a different purpose or any other random purpose they want -- for example having won the license for Public broadcast does not authorize the capability to use the frequency for private 5G, etc. Any portion of spectrum not being in active use for the specific purpose can be taken back by the FCC at any time they wish.
Re: Ambivalence (Score:1)
If Ajit Pai supports it, it's probably crooked as fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if there is actually public interest, that should trump private interest.
The amazing part is that at least SES is the satellite operator that provides, among other things, backhaul connectivity between remote cellular towers.
You know how it sucks when a place can't get phone, dsl, cable, fiber, or any option other than cellular internet because of how far out the place is?
The cellular towers providing such internet to those remote places are equally as remote and lacking fiber, coax, or other means to connect the thing to the rest of the network.
Those towers use SES
Taking away S
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Odd how every advance in the history of civilization, such as public sanitation, electrification, eradication of smallpox, widespread literacy, etc., came about by considering "the good of the whole to be supreme". Libertardianism is a wish to return to "the Good Old Days" that never actually existed in all of recorded history. Humanity only accomplishes forward motion as a whole, the Brownian Motion of individuals thrashing around alone leads to stagnation.
Re: (Score:2)
5G Heat issues and rain issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: 5G Heat issues and rain issues (Score:1)
"Why do we need this again?"
To cause more cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you're referring to people working the the factories to make the equipment. No? You're part of the "any radiation whatsoever causes cancer" club? You folks have been looking for a link between radio waves and cancer since the 1960s with no success. Don't you think it's time to give up?
Re: 5G Heat issues and rain issues (Score:1)
The Corporate Official Media told me that dangerous technology is completely safe! It's a FACT!!!
Re: (Score:2)
The DEW line used to be the most powerful radar transmitters in the world, and the inner ring of stations were below the 45th parallel. My dad knew a farmer who sold a few acres to the military for one of the stations in Michigan. He and his wife lived just across the field to the north of the radar until it was decomm'd in the '80s. He farmed well into his 70s.
I met people who lived just outside the fence surrounding a major antenna farm in the Seattle area. The antenna farm had been established in WWI
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You need 5G because we can't go around letting people use wifi for free.
Re: (Score:2)
To sell new cellphones. Duh.
WiFi (Score:5, Interesting)
>"pressing for a public auction of wireless frequencies in the C-band spectrum (the 4GHz to 8GHz range often used by satellite companies) for the sake of 5G service"
Can't we PLEASE get some additional bands for WiFi? That is something the public really need and could use- bandwidth that belongs to all of us, that we can all use. I thought we were supposed to get some by now, especially in the precious 1-2Ghz range.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah it's the other way around man https://www.dslreports.com/sho... [dslreports.com]
The poor companies don't have enough private spectrum so they are starting to use what little was allocated for public use.
Why would the public be given any more?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"The FCC is moving to open up a chuck of the 6GHz band for WiFi. Of course licensed users in those bands are pushing back but I think it's more of a when than an will issue at this point."
That band is way too high. It has no range or penetration power. I would much rather have 2Ghz. I thought we were going to get some of the TV band, which would have been great.
auction (Score:1)
Silly chairman (Score:3)
I don't see how this would help (Score:2)
The C-band spectrum of 4GHz to 8GHz can't be used for non line of sight applications. Who would want to use these frequencies for 5G deployments?
Re: (Score:2)
These higher frequencies could be perhaps useful for selling stationary connectivity; basically home Internet for anyone who's willing to stick an antenna on the side of their house. Even then though, bad weather could easily disrupt service and force modems into a lower frequency range.
I suppose, in that sense, the sale might be self correcting. That is, the FCC sells the frequencies, the cell companies buy them if only to keep them out of competitors' hands, and no one ever uses them because they're just
Reality vs. this fiction (Score:1)