The National Broadband Plan should direct federal policymakers to open underutilized spectrum currently reserved for both public and private use for a new generation of wireless devices that will provide robust broadband service over great distances and rough terrain without interference to existing licensed uses.
The FCC has been doing this all along. In the 1980s, the FCC yanked TV channels 70-83 away from TV broadcasters, and gave these to cellcos. That was the original 800 MHz band, initially used for analog cellular service. Then with the analog TV switchoff of this past 12 June, TV broadcasters lost Ch 52-69, for the same reason. To support mobile wireless in a new 700 MHz band.
Similarly, in June 2008 (or therabouts), the FCC stopped requriring cellcos to support analog cell service, which freed up the 800 MHz band for more eficient digital cellular service.
Similarly, there is another FCC initiative to make supposedly unused TV spectrum, in any given TV market, also available to such mobile wireless devices and services. So-called "white spaces." I happen to disagree with the way they are going about it, because it is almost guaranteed to interfere with over-the-air television. But it is possible to make such a scheme work right.
So this idea of opening new spectrum or repurposing existing spectrum is a constant, ongoing effort. It does not need to be part of this broadband initiative.
Sure, more can always be done. It just depends whose toes you will be stepping on. The FCC could, for example, restict the bands used by airports, taxis, police, city buses, and so forth, by mandating digital techniques there too.
I voted against this not because it's a bad idea, but because it is related to many more things than just broadband deployment.
I would suggest adding full Part 15 1000mW allocation to the entire 2400-2500MHz adding a few channels and ADDING 3300-3500 or as high as 3600MHz, currently shared with Part 97 Amateur Radio but unused, underused or underutilized almost nationwide by amateurs.
Allocate 25 or 50Mhz channels. Would yield some new channels, lower interference levels & offer better linking distances P-t-P than current 5.8GHz 802.11a.
What we need is some type of free unlicensed system that can relay Internet signals from house to house till it gets to a Access port.
Also the FCC should have separate rules for rural areas that would allow greater range.
Example a farmer owns 500 acres. Why should he be limited to a wifi transmitter that will only cover a few 100 ft and not all of his property. No one else is in range that would cause any problems why should he not be allowed to use more power.
Yeah...I think this 'need' for more spectrum is a red herring. The same firms complaining they require more spectrum owns a ton of it and use it poorly. We also inefficiently or improperly use frequencies above 100 GHz. We need to utilize the higher bands better before thinking its OK to tap lower frequencies. These higher frequencies are untapped; have the capacity for higher bandwidths; and don't force sacrifices upon businesses that are struggling in this economy (i.e., broadcasters). Inasmuch as taking from TV broadcasters: seek life elsewhere...stop stealing from broadcasters and use the spectrum you already have more efficiently or create 100 GHz+ transceivers that you can use.
Revise
Flag
Vote Up
Vote Down
Post New Comment
Close