FCC: What to do with unused spectrum?
First, federal regulators rejected a start-up's bid to gain exclusive access to unused radio spectrum in order to offer a partially free wireless broadband network.
Now, as promised, the Federal Communications Commission is seeking formal public comment on whether it would make sense to permit the sort of scheme proposed by Silicon Valley-based M2Z Networks or others that previously expressed interest in operating a slice of the 2.1 GHz band.
The FCC also wants to know what sort of technological approaches should be allowed on that spectrum and whether it should auction the spectrum, offer it on an unlicensed basis, or undertake some other sort of arrangement. As is typical, the comment period will be open for 30 days after the official notice is published in the Federal Register, with 60 additional days for people to file replies to the already-filed comments.
The two Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, issued statements saying they were pleased the FCC was launching the comment period but wished action had occurred sooner. "The one outcome that would plainly not serve the public interest is for this spectrum to remain unavailable for advanced wireless services," Copps said.
The proceeding could prove a new battleground over the concept of "open access," which has dominated much of the FCC's recent rulemaking related to an upcoming auction of the 700 MHz analog TV spectrum.
Proponents of "open access rules," including Google and a number of consumer advocacy groups, argue it's in the public's best interest for federal regulators to require at least some winning spectrum operators to allow consumers to use the devices and applications of their choosing and to offer competitors access to their networks at reasonable wholesale rates. Verizon Wireless and other mobile carriers beg to differ.
Why does the FCC need to sell it off to a large Corporation like AT&T so they can just wield it like a battle ax against any would be competitors?
So just like we can choose what cell phone provider why can't we
choose our own Wi-Fi provider? I want the power to choose and to
switch. I don't blame companies for trying to get control but they
see dollar signs and not how it can help the public.
quote Wikipedia
Wi-Fi, also informally known as Wireless Fidelity, is a wireless technology brand owned by the Wi-Fi Alliance intended to improve the interoperability of wireless local area network products based on the IEEE 802.11 standards.
GPSalerts.com
CollisionAlert.com
TrafficAssessments.com
GPSwarnings.com
Nationwide 2way distribution of critical alerts and sensor data across a dynamic grid, accessible by any device, anywhere.
T and VZ appear to be utterly terrified of competition. That's why they've locked their networks, secured their phones, squelched real wi-fi access, hamstrung VoIP providers, etc., etc.
If the FCC really wanted to watch out for America's interests, they would completely unfetter new spectrum and force reasonable wholesaling requirements on the winners; thereby unleashing a massive wave of value creation not unlike that of the web.
This is a concept called "ROI for America". In other words, the winning bid for spectrum is a small fraction of the total return for the U.S. If the new rules spawn mobile Amazons, eBays, Googles, and Facebooks, think of the value-creation!
Of course, that's the hope. We'll see if the FCC really wants to do something in America's interests... or just something for the telcos.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html
- Unlicensed but restricted
-
by tagno25
September 21, 2007 9:13 AM PDT
- they should have the spectrum be unlicensed but have restrictions on it so that it can only be used for wireless IP networking and not be "Owned" by any corporation
-
Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)