FCC To Loosen Wireless Ownership Rules 64
jgaynor writes: "The FCC on Thursday voted to remove the existing restriction on how many frequencies a single wireless provider can own in any one location. While this is a blow for consumers who want more cell bandwidth and services like data or video - they could end up getting hosed as this might knock some smaller players out of the market and decrease competition, raise prices, etc. Excite has coverage; CBS Marketwatch does too."
fccp (Score:1, Funny)
This is Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
This is all good and well, but i already have a GSM phone for Europe, but it is not GPRS compatible. I don't want to have to buy another GSM phone just to use GPRS, then change providers etc.
I have a CDMA phone with GPRS capability, hopefully some provider will get their act together and get me some serious bandwidth. I mean, how am I supposed to get slashdot on my PDA, over 9600 baud!!
Instead of... (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway.. the same could have easily been done with the needed frequencies. "We'll give you more, but first show us that you need them and what you need them for and how you will use them in a fair way to not hurt the little guy" - HSJ
Sorta like radio... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorta like radio... (Score:1)
I hate to nitpick, but I don't think that it is possible for radio stations to censor songs. Radio stations are private entities that can play whatever they choose to. Is it censorship if a friend brings a CD to your house that you don't like, and you refuse to play it? I wouldn't define it as such, you own your equipment and should be allow to choose what you play. Censorship applies when the owner of the distribution method wants to distribute information but the government won't let them, not when you choose not to distribute it. I don't like the fact that clearchannel owns so much of the radio market, or most of the crap that they play, but I do fully support their right to choose what they do or do not play.
Re:Sorta like radio... (Score:1)
Censorship (Score:1)
A blow to people who want video and data? (Score:1)
Re:A blow to people who want video and data? (Score:1)
How will more bandwidth lower the chances of high bandwidth applications?
Re:A blow to people who want video and data? (Score:5, Insightful)
Once one entity controls a large percentage of a certain service/market, it starts cancelling "unprofitable" offerings and raising prices on the rest. Prime examples are the CLEC and independent ISP markets: now that the Baby Bells have driven the independents out of the market, DSL is disappearing and prices are going up.
sPh
Re:A blow to people who want video and data? (Score:1)
Now i have a T1 from UU.net ate between $1000.00 and $1500.00 BUX a month.
seems to me the internet isnt getting cheaper and easier
* BUX = $1.00 (USD)
Re:A blow to people who want video and data? (Score:1)
Re:Wait... (Score:1)
Uh... (Score:1)
So Verizon and Cingular will inevitably conquer the wireless world now. I'm not happy.
-Chardish
You wanna run wit the big dawgz? (Score:2, Insightful)
It takes a huge investment in infrastructure to construct this kind of network. Those survivors who are still around these days are the only companies with the viability to continue to expand. I don't fault them for being big, that is silly to criticize them for that. Size matters in this game. Note 1
The bigger point, which has been missed here, is that 'research shows' that people really don't care much about all these whizzy services that we keep hearing that we want. Mobile video and other streaming stuff is not the killer app. People want to get text messages and have the person they called answer the damned phone. Oh, they also want the call to stay up instead of getting dropped during rush hour. Beyond that, it has not been shown that there is a significant demand for much more than what we have now. That, and technology's financial crash has cooled the jets of the 3G mavens. I know for a fact that Verizon is installing 3G equipment, but don't know the details.
Note 1 - I think it is even sillier that there are people on /. who think that if everybody goes out and buys 802.11 junk that the world will be one big happy access point. Such an endeavor requires the kind of commitment that only a large entity can command. I'm not going to put up an access point so that you can use 'my minutes'. Sorry.
Note 2 - Well, I thought that I formatted this message properly, at least it looks OK elsewhere. Naturally, selecting 'HTML Formatted' in the /. preview mode doesn't really show you what the final post will look like. Russian roulette, anyone?
---Re:You wanna run wit the big dawgz? (Score:1)
Okay, (Score:5, Insightful)
normally I strenuously object to allowing government interference in business-related arenas, but this is no good at all for Joe Consumer.
A decent analogy might be an imaginary world where air is bought and sold on the market. There's a limited supply of the stuff to begin with, and without regulation large players can just buy up all the "air blocks".
Now, I know that technically the analogy is critically flawed because we all need air to survive, and we don't "need" cell phones. However, one could easily argue that (at least for most countries) telecommunications technologies (and by natual wireless technology) plays a critical role in economies both local and national in scope.
There's a limit to the spectrum available for wireless device use. Yes, competing companies can "use" frequencies owned by competing networks, but they have to pay more (and charge the consumer more) for this capability ("roaming" off your home network incurs charges).
This is probably more a bad thing than good. You can't really make the argument that consumers can still fight with their wallets, because doing so would require moving to a geographic region where the dominant players have lesser influence. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not prepared to move because I dislike my mobile provider. It seems to me this gives the big guys a huge chance to shaft their customers. It's the ultimate "my way or the highway" scenario.
Plus, this may have more far-reaching implications than we realize. Wireless devices (meaning those other than just phones) are beginning to be common these days. How great is the chance that development on these devices could be somewhat stifled if they don't "play along" with the bigger companies that own certain frequency ranges? Sounds like a pretty far-reaching consequence to me.
One word: (Score:1)
If that doesn't prove that putting a finite communications resource in the exclusive hands of a single telecommunications firm is a bad thing, I don't know what does.
Re:Okay, (Score:1)
Re:Okay? Better analogy. (Score:1)
It's hard to figure out what you are saying. If you want government out of the way, then you should lowwer boundaries for entry and set up reasonable rules of resource sharing. The internet should be expanded by wireless nets.
Here's an analogy that's more fitting: Public roads. Imagine if only "comercial transporters" were allowed access to the public roads. It could be argued that the public right of way is a limited resource and that irresponsible and unprofesional use of them leads to frequent collisions and great loss of life every year. To remedy the problem, the federal government issues strict licenses to a few companies in each city for about 500,000/year per transpertatin capacity. As it would be impossible to directly fund the effort with riding and shipping fees, advertisement is used to fund all but luxury rides, but eventually the luxury rides give in. Barf.
Think bandwith is limited? Check out the 72 empty channels on an old TV tuner.
Oh well, such is the world we live in.
just plain wrong (Score:1, Interesting)
This will allow higher bandwidth and better services, but reducing competition will most likely increase prices
Re:just plain wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true. Whenever a scarce resource becomes available there is a sort of land grab. Because of the nature and cost of this particular resource, the players grabbing the "land" are the people who are already the key players in the market.
Now, when a new company comes along with their pimp 10Mb protocol they don't have the ability to go through the usual FCC channels to buy bandwidth. One of three things will happen:
1. The squatting companies demands an insane amount of money for the band creating at best an additional cost to be passed on to consumers, or at worse a barrier to entry.
2. The squatting companies will tell the startup to get bent.
3. The squatting companies will allow the startup to use the band, but requires that they use a "standard" protocol such as CDMA (yay for 9600bps!!).
That's why it's not good.
Mistake in Slashdot article summary (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mistake in Slashdot article summary (Score:2)
Sorry, but the original comment is correct (although it might be a little confusing). A blow "for" consumers is one in their favor. A blow "to" consumers is one struck against them.
A google search on the prase "struck a blow" gives gives us common uses:
"...saw himself as someone who struck a blow for freedom..." [bbc.co.uk]
vs
"...struck a blow to employers' flexibility." [shepwedd.co.uk]
Apologies, but a casual search didn't find any more interesting context to link.
Opening new bandwidth? (Score:2)
Sigh, perhaps these are the death throes of PCS?
Re:Opening new bandwidth? (Score:4, Insightful)
The other advantage of the extra bandwidth is that it allows fewer cells to do the job. Remember the reason for the "cellular" name -- you divide the coveage area into cells, which get smaller and smaller as usage goes up, so that frequencies get reused more often. With more spectrum, a given cell can carry more calls at once. This is cheaper than setting up more antennas, needing more towers and base station equipment. So the giants -- Cingular and VZW -- will be able to carry more per cell.
There's no real consumer benefit -- 3G is too costly for consumer use, except for voice. If you're paying 20c/minute for 13 kbps voice today, you're not going to like the price of 384 kbps data -- the price per bit will probably be fairly close to what you're paying now (because they paid that much for spectrum, not to mention the cost of the gear), making the math dismal.
Re:Opening new bandwidth? (Score:2)
Even the Euro operators, who (over)paid into the public coffers for 3G licenses won't have any choice but to sell the new services cheap. Dont the economics of financing the gear, and spectrum (and licenses) keep prices within the range of the common man at least until the investment can be written down?
I cant debate whether american operators should also have been forced to pay up front for licenses, but it's clear they have not yet overpaid.
Otoh, maybe it is just POTS that matters, after all. I hope not. There will certainly be alot of unhappy 3G conference organizers. :{)
Thanks, btw, for the insight.
As if the airwaves aren't choked enuf. (Score:1)
There is like one close FM rock station where I live, and it is less than 5 miles away.
I can not tell you how many times I've had "C&W" interrupt my rock music.
If I could get a station ID one of these days, I could sue the station for emotional trauma.
Damn, It is bad enough living in the South/Bible belt and being depressed about it at times, but to get ugly reminders by having it encroach on the one decent rock station.
AAAAaaaiiiiieeeeee.
Re:As if the airwaves aren't choked enuf. (Score:2)
Cellular is different -- the receiver is part of the type-approved handset, and quality standards are rather strict. The FCC isn't changing interference standards for cellular/CMRS/PCS at all. It's simply allowing network operators to buy each other up.
Um, what did you expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Michael Powell was appointed Chairman of the FCC.
Now, given that Mr. Powell is (a) very, very connected to the heaviest hitters in the Republican Party and in big business (b) has stated explicitly that he sees nothing wrong with 1 or 2 mega-corporations controlling all communications in the United States --- why would you expect any different outcome?
sPh
This might be very bad. (Score:1)
Re:This might be very bad. (Score:1)
Blame it on that prick, Michael Powell (Score:1, Insightful)
What are Mike's qualifications to run the FCC? Yep, he's Colin Powell's son.
Mike's singular philosophy is gov't intervention is bad. He is intent on breaking down any barriers to big media. He will be rewarded immensely in his post FCC career.
Gov't is a fucking joke. It's run by unqualified people (see entire Bush cabinet) who work for their own interests.
Fuck Bush, Cheney and Powell. Why couldn't those muslims have flown a plane into the White House? Why?
Georgist Land Tax (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft bought up all the bandwidth. (Score:1, Insightful)
This move encourages providers to buy MORE bandwidth than they actually need, instead of forcing providers to conserve and make efficient use of a limited resource.
Of course, the law can be changed. But once a powerful, multi-billion dollar monopoly emerges, then the lobbying effort will really kick in.
Of course, the excuse is that this will encourage the growth of advanced, innovated telecommunications services. Bullshit. This is a land grab, and the ones who can afford the high priced bandwidth are looking forward to years of gross profits at the expense of the American people.
Re:Microsoft bought up all the bandwidth. (Score:1)
How do you think providers will conserve?
Maybe by driving prices back up to where they were in '95? Or maybe by dropping web and data services? Can you think of a better way to hurt consumers?
Oh Great. This is all we need. (Score:2)
Close, but it's (Score:2)
Are these WTC repurcussions? (Score:1)
There are alot more cellular phones being used in NYC now, and they need the capacity. I am pretty sure this is due to a huge upsurge in new phone/service contracts being purchased after Sept. 11.
Improve Service (Score:1)
Isn't it true that increasing the number of available channels for calls will help fix this problem?
Too many fish in the pond, it's Darwin time (Score:3, Interesting)
On a related note, I have no sympathy for the companies that overpaid for spectrum licenses nor the greedy Feds who thought they had a chance in hell of collecting all those $billions. Golly, who pays for those license fees? Can you say massive tax on users?
Re:Too many fish in the pond, it's Darwin time (Score:2)
I haven't seen in a technical source, as opposed to a supporter of monopolies, that this is a good idea.
Re:Too many fish in the pond, it's Darwin time (Score:2)
One of the benefits you can expect is to, finally, have decent GSM coverage in the U.S. so you can roam pretty much worldwide. Also GPRS, 3G, and 1xRTT/3xRTT wireless data uses cellular bandwidth, which will make congested cells even more congested unless the providers can buy more bandwidth. And before you say "But what about Ricochet?" remember they went bust because they could not afford to build out a data-only network. Wireless mobile data on cellular networks is the only way to have widespread coverage from day-one.
Also, Verizon Wireless != Verizon land-line. They are a joint venture with Vodafone. NTT owns a big chunk of AT&T Wireless, and Voicestream was acquired by Deutsche Telekom.
AT&T et al (Score:2, Interesting)
The downside is that some smaller providers, who are genuinely interested in providing services, may get squeezed out of the market, since they have to partner with other providers to allow for nationwide roaming and other features that most consumers feel should come standard with any wireless plan.
Economic Darwinism is a powerful thing. Its fine and Dandy to watch all the posts about Powell and the FCC, but this is capitalism folks... If you don't want to see the big fish eat all the little fish, stay with your local provider. Unfortunately, most people are going to look at how much cheaper the big boys can do it and go with them, forcing the little guy out of the Market.
Follow the links and read them: (Score:2, Interesting)
from the MarketWatch link:
Previously, carriers were limited to 45 megahertz of spectrum in big markets, or one-fourth of the available airwaves.
from the FCC link:
"the FCC's shift from an inflexible spectrum cap rule to reliance on case-by-case review of CMRS spectrum aggregation."
What's going on is that the FCC has decided that the "Anyone owning more than 1/4 of the spectrum is an illegal monopolist" rule is horse shit. Apparently, there are better measures of market competition than that.
This is bad. (Score:1)