The Dirty Business of Assembling WiMAX Spectrum

go_jesse writes in to make us aware of a MarketWatch article reporting on the battles that WiMAX partners Sprint and Clearwire are fighting — sometimes with one another — to put together enough spectrum to fill in their planned WiMAX coverage map. The problem is that decades ago the FCC passed out licenses in what would become the WiMAX band to schools and non-profits nationwide. Once Sprint began knocking on their doors asking to license their spectrum — once they began seeing dollar signs in a forgotten resource — dozens, then hundreds of these organizations applied to the FCC to renew long-dormant licenses. The FCC has granted the first of these requests and Sprint has asked it to reconsider. Confusingly, Sprint's partner Clearwire has sided with the schools and non-profits. The article sheds light in one messy corner of the battle to provide a "third pipe" into US consumers' homes.

Stop discriminating against corporations!

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of Slashdot discriminating against perfectly fine corporations like Sprint, AT&T, and Microsoft. Corporations are people too! They;re just trying to get the best price so they can pass the value on to the consumer.

Vote George W. Bush in 2008 to keep global warming liberals out of office!

Write in the man!

--
Global warming is a bunch of hot air.

Re:Stop discriminating against corporations!

[mOdQuArK! (87332)]

Hey Bub, if the voting machines say Bush gets the vote, then no goddamn piece of paper should get in the way of reelecting the man. Do you support America or are you some kind of terrorist?

of pipes and tubes

[User 956 (568564)]

WiMAX partners Sprint and Clearwire are fighting to put together enough spectrum to fill in their planned WiMAX coverage map.

Given that they can't even fill in their cell service coverage map, I can't imagine this is going well at all.

Phased Arrays

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

When are phased array [wikipedia.org] digital radio networks going to be cheap, fast and reliable enough that "spectrum" is no longer a bottleneck? Different signals can be coded by their 3D location, which is exclusive of other signals by completely familiar physical reality, so there's no need for registration of frequencies other than that required by the signaling protocol itself.

No more treating bandwidth as a limited resource. Other implications are the FCC losing most of its legitimate role, except maybe just to test and regulate health effects of the radiation - and maybe the locations of ugly transceivers. Since the expense of owning and operating a transceiver would drop, the industry wouldn't be in the hands of just the big telcos, which all have mutual interests that are at odds with those of most consumers.

that's backwards

[m2943 (1140797)]

If we open up the spectrum and phased arrays are needed to improve reception, then companies will fill the need quickly and efficiently. If we don't open up the spectrum first, there may simply be no economic incentive to develop cheap versions of these kinds of technologies for consumer use.

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

What? We don't need to "open up the spectrum" if we use phased arrays. That's the point: phased arrays don't need reserved bands for exclusive signaling.

The limit on developing phased arrays is that the funders of R&D are already invested for $billions (and lots of political deals) into the reserved frequency model. Which means smaller innovators can't afford to enter their billionaires' club and compete with them. So they're not funding phased array techs that open up everything to everyone who wants i

Re:

[sg3000 (87992)]

> When are phased array digital radio networks going to be cheap, fast and reliable enough that "spectrum" is no longer a bottleneck?

Phased arrays in the terms of beam-forming are part of the WiMAX Forum profiles, but service providers have been slow (until recently) in requiring it in the base stations (the feature is mandatory for the end devices).

The industry is talking about adopting Spatial Multiplexing (allowing for the same channel to be targeted to specific users in 3D space), which will improve

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Phased arrays can do better than just distinguish different noisy transmitters. They can distinguish different signalers on the same frequency, without the bottleneck. That eliminates the need to segregate signalers by frequency, because they're segregated by position.

Imagine you've got a building full of RFID tags, each with a different code. Then imagine you've got a pair of RFID detectors, which can act like stereo eyes, and see each tag's position in 3D space, by measuring the different time it takes fo

Re:

[evilviper (135110)]

When are phased array digital radio networks going to be cheap, fast and reliable enough that "spectrum" is no longer a bottleneck?

About the same time that cars require no energy input to work...

Directivity (ie. phased array) is good, and can improve speed and spectrum utilization, but it's just one more technology that improves communications. It's not a game changer in the slightest.

The only real possibility of deregulation is in extremely high frequencies, where high directivity and line-of-sight propag

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

It's not magic. Phased arrays can distinguish between different transmitters even at frequencies used for radio networks now, with sensible R&D investment. There's nothing "magic" about the higher frequencies that makes them unique for use by phased arrays. It's just a matter of improving the arrays and the parallel signal processing required to use them for this application.

Re:

[calidoscope (312571)]

Directivity (ie. phased array) is good, and can improve speed and spectrum utilization, but it's just one more technology that improves communications. It's not a game changer in the slightest.

In an ideal world, phased arrays could be a game changer, the big advantage is steerable nulls. In the real world, multipath messes up nulls. Some of the more detailed analysis of propagation at 2.4GHz sounds a lot like ionospheric propagation in the HF bands (3 - 30MHz).

Re:

[GreyWolf3000 (468618)]

The components required for phased array antennas are very expensive and all but require military contracts to obtain. When said components open up for the civilian sector, perhaps some commercial uses can be developed.

Re:

[F34nor (321515)]

Not really, fractal antennas can act both as a phased array and a whip antenna across multiple bandwidths simultaneously.

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

They're expensive because they're new, and because people think they're too expensive. A mass market app changes everything. When enough people realize that they can jump us past the jail of single channels per frequency, that chicken/egg problem will get eaten for breakfast.

Re:

[NeuralAbyss (12335)]

The Shannon limit still applies. It's not a solution to all the problems of RF signalling..

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Of course the Shannon limit per frequency applies. But it's irrelevant when many channels can signal on the same frequency, separated by position. Unless you can see only one object in a room that's colored red, this should be easy to understand.

Re:

[Jott42 (702470)]

But you are disregarding multipath: the energy will be reflected and refracted at these frequencies, and thus the analogy with vision falls apart. In outer space you are correct (when using very large arrays), but in an indoor environment there are lots of reflections, and thus the different links will interfere with each other.

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

But the phased arrays themselves are tools to minimize multipath noise, as are other signal processing techniques. Human vision itself would suffer from a lot of confusion from specular reflection of colors onto other objects if we didn't have lots of wetware to cope with it.

Re:

[Jott42 (702470)]

As you insist I must point out that your analogy between the human vision and phased arrays is not a very good one - I would even say that it is a very bad one. If you are comparing multipath noise in the visual spectra with the one at RF-frequncies, you must ever have looked at a impulse response from an indoor channel at all. And one more thing: Phased arrays in themselves does not cope with multipaht, MIMO technology does.

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Phased arrays are one kind of MIMO [wikipedia.org] antenna.

Your response to my comparison of multipath in human vision to that in radio networks is also shows limited vision. They are both internal reflections along multiple paths of the same frequencies that intelligent arrays of receivers can distinguish into their original separate sources.

You're thinking too much inside the box. If you don't want to try making it work, don't bother, but don't try to force your limits on others who could make it work.

Re:

[Jott42 (702470)]

Actually, I am working with "making it work", and that is why I say that human vision and phased arryas has very little to do with each other. Take only the small detail that human vision receptors (analog to the individual antennas in a phased array), is not recording tha phase of the incoming photons, but only the amplitude. That in itself tells something about the huge limitations of the analogy. In fact, the only antenna that the human eye is reminiscent of is a lens antenna, which is commonly not calle

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

I'm just saying that phased arrays are one kind of MIMO. WiMAX is using a little MIMO tech. If it used more MIMO tech, specifically the phased arrays we're discussing, it wouldn't necessarily need the higher frequencies and other features to get higher bandwidth. Though getting them all would be nice.

just open it up!

[m2943 (1140797)]

WiFi has shown that the world doesn't end when there's a region of spectrum that anybody can use; modern electronics is smart enough to co-exist, and when there is interferences (Bluetooth vs. WiFi), manufacturers get together and work it out.

So, just open up a bunch of bands under similar terms to WiFi. If Sprint wants to deploy WiMax there, great. If other people want to use it for baby monitors, that's great too.

What companies are really after is for the government to hand them a monopoly and to make it difficult for their competitors to enter the market, and that we shouldn't happen.

So, FCC, take away the bands from the spectrum-hoarding institutions, but don't give them to other companies, just open them up.

Re:

[Anpheus (908711)]

The problem with that is that the guy with the biggest, most wattage-burning antenna wins.

Re:

[Nurgled (63197)]

WiFi has shown that the world doesn't end when there's a region of spectrum that anybody can use; modern electronics is smart enough to co-exist, and when there is interferences (Bluetooth vs. WiFi), manufacturers get together and work it out.

I have a wireless access point in my house. I also have a very simple device that sends video and audio over the air to a television set in another room using the same frequency band. The wi-fi interferes horribly with the a/v.

Now, in my case this is self-inflicted

Re:just open it up!

[amper (33785)]

Despite my agreement with the basic libertarian tenets of this post, I find it utterly appalling that on a site like Slashdot that this post could be modded up, "Insightful". This post displays such a fundamental lack of knowledge about radio technology, the purpose of the FCC, and the functions of government and private enterprise, that I wonder if the post isn't just a troll, in the end.

IEEE 802.11b and similar technologies aren't licensed services. They operate under Class B rules, which severely limit the usefulness of these devices to relatively short distances. Class B rules are in no way suitable for wide-reaching wireless services. Before anyone starts talking about Pringles can antennae, you should know that such modifications are, technically, not FCC-compliant.

Radio specturm is a resource which is in very limited, fixed supply. Without regulation, there would be utter chaos. Granted, the regulation could be more efficient, but there are smarter, more knowledgable people in this world than the parent poster who understand the function of licensed services.

rural schools do use this spectrum

[mzs (595629)]

There are schools in very sparsely populated areas that still use this. Primarily they use it for tele-teaching types of things where the student sits in front of a TV while the teacher on the TV is giving a lesson to the entire district or even state. It should not just be taken away from them. These places often have no other way to do something like this. They have been investing into this infrastructure for decades. If the spectrum is taken away from them, then they should be paid so that they can create other forms of distance learning. Verizon doesn't want to pay for this, but they just can't wait for when the same schools will pay them for the services that they will provide over that spectrum later.

Re:

[mpoulton (689851)]

Keep in mind that this legal wrangling does not apply to organizations that are actually using the spectrum right now. Those entities have the choice of either keeping it or selling it. The problem is that many entities had licenses they didn't use (and didn't renew). Those entities now want to reinstate their old licenses ASAP so they can hold the spectrum hostage from Sprint. Sprint wants these reinstatements blocked so they can have an equal shot at the spectrum.

Re:

[evilviper (135110)]

So many errors, so little time...

It should not just be taken away from them.

No one has even remotely suggested taking spectrum away from schools that are using it.

Verizon doesn't want to pay for this,

Try not to slander Verizon... Sprint is the company involved.

All things you'd know, had you (or the moderators) RTFA.

What did the FCC license to Sprint and Clearwire?

[WoTG (610710)]

Were these pre-existing licenses made known to Sprint et. al. when they bid on this spectrum? Wouldn't winning this bid entitle you to the spectrum -- making the FCC as the vendor responsible for actual delivery of the required space?

Or are these just little pockets of exceptions that everyone hoped would just "work out" in the end?

And the stupidity didn't begin there.

[Z00L00K (682162)]

Because the FCC was unable to grant the same frequencies for GSM in the US as in the rest of the world effectively creating more expensive mobile phones for the consumers and also limiting the international relations.

Instead of using the GSM 900/1800 the US has gone for 850/1900. This has no technical merit since 900/1800 is more effective because they are allowing for a simpler antenna design than 850/1900.

I don't know if there is a yearly fee to pay for an assigned frequency or not, but if someone pays for a frequency and don't use it that's just stupid from an economic point of view. If no yearly fee is required that is effectively creating a waste of resources situation.

Silly 7-digiter...

[Khyber (864651)]

"Politicians making laws about stuff they don't understand but see a dollar sign on."

Silly 7-digit /.er talking about something they don't understand but uses anyways to take a swipe at politicians. The FCC regulates usage of the spectrum so things don't interfere with each other and cause nasty things to happen. You wouldn't want my 47MHz cordless phone interfering with your 47MHz radio-controlled mini-car, would you? You don't want my 2.4GHz cordless phone screwing up your 2.4GHz wireless router's data tr

Re:

[DDLKermit007 (911046)]

You mean like how my wireless router, and phone even usually crap crap out when a microwave turns on?

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

I don't see how any company/organization has a right to claim to a spectrum and who gave the FCC ownership of all of them and the ability to hand them out to the highest bidders?

Well it kind of makes sense that the federal government would regulate the use of radio frequencies. Technically, the radio spectrum is considered public. Some company can license a specific portion of the spectrum, but the ownership is still public. Doing it that way makes sense and works. You can't just have people running a

Re:

[djupedal (584558)]

"This is a technology that will remain mired in the mud and never goes anywhere."

That's eh, funny - WiMAX seems to be doing pretty well in China... [zte.com.cn]

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

They ignore that all other efforts to build a massive wireless data infrastructure have failed to find sufficient customers even when they make it easy and fairly cheap.

Huh? WiMAX may be over-hyped, but when has someone ever created an effective, ubiquitous, highspeed wireless data infrastructure and then offered it cheaply? I don't know what "MetroCom" you're referring to, but I'm sure that no one has ever offered a good wireless data network anywhere I've lived. Verizon's data services are kind of pas

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

So you think wireless internet is doomed to fail because: over 10 years ago, before the internet had really became mainstream, someone tried to sell wireless internet at 56k speeds and it failed. Therefore, there is currently no demand and commercial success is not possible?

Re:

[datapharmer (1099455)]

Ever think maybe that had something to do more with the absurd terms of service and not the actual demand for the technology? I'd really like a vacation to space, but the current company wants $1 million + to do it. If the price came down to near that of an airline ticket i'd be all over it. I also don't have a data plan for similar reasons (absurdly high cost, usage restrictions, bad coverage, and horrible contract lock-in).

That said I know a few people that have tried a certain wireless internet servic

Re:

[somersault (912633)]

I'm the same. Cell companies charge far too much for their data plans. Like £1 a MB. Ridiculous! I'd love to be able to just take my laptop with me and browse/play online games wherever I want. I can currently do the browsing on my phone (which the company pays for anyway), and I could use my phone as a modem for my laptop but it would be taking the piss a bit if I was constantly MUDding using my company mobile as a modem :P

Re:

[Ajehals (947354)]

Its strange that 10 years ago I went out and bought a Psion/Viacom FAx modem that let me hook up my then ultra modern Ericsson T10 to my laptop, I spent a good year using that card with a couple of 0800 internet providers (Orange were not charging for 0800 numbers at the time if I remember) giving me practically free mobile internet access, then it all changed, for data you were charged extra (quite a significant amount) and 0800 numbers ceased to be free. There is nothing like a step backwards to put thin

Re:

[Mycroft_VIII (572950)]

Not many will pay what the cell companies charge. I looked into it and discovered that it would cost more than $50 a month for barely better than isdn speeds (under ideal conditions, mine are far from ideal) with a very low cap (something like 1 gig a month) and a min 2 year contract. Oh yeah and another $150 or so in hardware and set-up fees (though there was a $25 mail in rebate on the hardware, and of course you always get those /sarcasm/).
I suspect this sort of price set up just might e

The US is just a tad behind...

[Dobeln (853794)]

...here in Sweden we now have virtually complete 3G coverage, and 3G phones and 3G computer modems are selling like hotcakes. It will catch on in the US as well once you have good availability of broadband-speed solutions (I.e. forget EDGE) at decent flatrate prices.

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

There are several reasons why people don't use the existing cell networks for data:

• Cell carriers aren't using standardized hardware that is (generally) built into various devices. Data has to go through either a cell phone or a special add-on card that sticks out of your laptop, making it inconvenient.
• It's generally expensive
• It's generally slow
• Coverage is bad
• The whole thing seems "complicated" to your average Joe, and he doesn't want to deal with it.

However, a large percentage of computers sold t

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

Yeah, but we're going to get screwed by the telecoms either way. May as well have them paying the schools in the meantime.

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

No, I'm saying they're going to charge "the extra price" anyway. Or do you really think that, when these companies save a buck, they pass the savings on to you?

Re:

[Yetihehe (971185)]

Or do you really think that, when these companies save a buck, they pass the savings on to you? Only if they have competition. But: Two companies are NOT competition. It's oligopoly.

It could be much worse

[WindBourne (631190)]

the spectrum was already given. If the FCC takes it back without compensation, then it pretty much says that the feds can do it to our lands. Far better that these companies ahve to pay money for what they do not own, then to steal.

I first thought this was a case of RTFA...

[Pollux (102520)]

...But what you've just said proves that you didn't even bother to read three sentences into the article summary on Slashdot. You only read the headline and jumped to your own conclusion.

First, here's what you missed from the article summary:

Once Sprint began knocking on their doors asking to license their spectrum -- once they began seeing dollar signs in a forgotten resource -- dozens, then hundreds of these organizations applied to the FCC to renew long-dormant licenses.

The article itself goes on to exp

Re:

[Wesley Felter (138342)]

Apple wanted the UNII band, and they got it. 5.3 and 5.8GHz are now available for unlicensed use, but instead vendors are churning out more 2.4GHz devices.

Re:

[creimer (824291)]

So you're advocating a Democratic solution to a Republican enterprise? That doesn't seem very progressive.