wireless spectrum is full

Hmm they better cancel TV... most people would be better off not watching it anyway...

There's tons of spectrum left. This is just another example of fear mongering to get prices jacked up.

Telco's are just sitting on a bunch of spectrum, and not using it.

Lightsquared recently claimed they had spent a total of nearly $4 Billion to date, which would include satellites, ground stations, licensing, etc. From the OP's link, Verison is paying a bit under $4 Billion just for the spectrum alone:

One of the fights going on is congresscritters wanting a big chunk of whatever pie is out there.

We're very lucky the Part 15 (license-free) bands, 908-928, 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz got established when they did, and in the manner they did.

Certainly any new developments we can expect to be expensive, with use fees extracted from end-users.

An interesting commentary on the CNN article:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/CNN-Fans-The-Spectrum-Cri...

My neighbor asked me when I was going to take down my roof antenna. Then a storm knocked over a tree and pulled out his TV cable. Within three days he was going thru football withdrawal.

It's not just the spectrum available, it's how we use it.

Anybody remember modems? In those (seeming) pre-history days, a telephone line could only handle 300 baud, then 1200, then 2400, finally moving to 56k baud! All on the same phone line.

The phone line didn't change, the technology did -- and it took another turn with DSL, jumping the capacity of the same medium by a great deal more.

Same thing happening in the wireless spectrum. In the business bands, channel spacing, once 25KHz/50 KHz or larger is moving to 5 KHz or so between channels, cramming more voice channels into the same amount of spectrum, using narrowband, digital modes, trunking, and an ever-evolving bag of technological tricks.

Wi-Fi has undergone a similar evolution -- 802.11g puts more data into the same bandwidth in comparison to the older 802.11b, by using different modulation methods.

ATSC (Digital TV) allows broadcasters to cram multiple digital channels into what had been one analog channel. Too bad the program quality hasn't gone up.

Yes, the ghost of Claude Shannon is out there telling us there's only so much we can cram into a channel, but in a lot of places, we still have a ways to go.

(And when I sweep through my local cable TV channels, how many "shopping channels" do I need? There's recoverable bandwidth for you!)

This is just like the folks who claim we're running out of oil. In case you forgot, the RF spectrum goes from about DC to about light. There is no shortage and there won't be for a long, long time.

Back in the day, the phone companies couldn't put enough wire in the air fast enough to accommodate all the folks who wanted a telephone. So they came up with ways to cram more and more phones onto the same number of phone lines using multiplexing.

Sometime after War 2, it was possible to cram 2400+ analog voice channels into one 6 Mhz microwave RF channel. Then digital microwave appeared and suddenly you could put 9400+ voice channels in that same 6 Mhz bandwidth.

We could, using 40 year old technology, put as many as 157,000 voice channels on 100 Mhz of bandwidth. Using the cellular technique of reusing the same spectrum over and over at different cell towers, just two single 100 Mhz blocks could handle millions of calls in each city. Now consider how many 100 Mhz blocks of spectrum there are between 1 GHz and 10 GHz. See what I mean?

Not only is there plenty of spectrum, another thing that should be considered is how it is used. Currently allocated spectrum could be better used to get more out of it. Consider the old days when the telephone company ran one copper pair from the central office to each home. That pair could carry one low quality audio conversation, and when it wasn't be used even that capacity was wasted. With improved technology now that same pair can bring your phone and Internet into the home, and in some areas cable TV too. It can carry multiple video and audio Skype calls. And it doesn't even have to go all the way back to the central office on copper, it can go to a neighborhood box (DSLAM) where it is combined with other homes signals and sent on on one less expensive connection. The current technology used in the wireless world is not the ultimate use of technology, there is plenty of room for improvement. Of course, the incentive to improve the technology is diminished as long as the carriers can just get more spectrum.

will change if Washington ,Obama and the politican fines out about this.

IMHO . . .

The problem is that most reports say "spectrum" when they should be saying "usable spectrum". Yes there is plenty of spectrum available, especially at 60GHz and beyond. Even now there are some new terahertz RF devices being prototyped. The problem is those frequencies are not practical for terrestrial wireless communication. One big problem is atmospheric absorption of the high frequencies. Also foliage and structures block signals too. It is one reason why 700-850MHz spectrum has been more coveted than the higher 1700-2100MHz allocations. The lower frequencies have better building penetration and wider coverage areas with fewer base stations.

So you are one of the doomsayers who believe we running out. If you will re-read my post, I was talking about 1 - 10 Ghz, not 60 and above. 5 Ghz is very usable for terrestrial communications. I used to maintain some point-to-point microwave relay stations that used 6 and 11 Ghz. Our hops were around 15 miles long and they worked very well with path losses very close to free space loss. Yes there are problems using frequencies in the Ghz range but those are mostly engineering problems and will be solved.

Look at the advances that have been made in communications in the last 50 yrs. Heck, radio just barely existed 100 yrs ago. We aren't going to sit back and stop solving problems just because a bunch of doomsayers claim it can't be done.

From my standpoint, you both are correct. The spectrum below 24 GHz is very usable depending on the application. When you start talking about frequencies in the "giggle hertz" range you are speaking mainly of very direct line-of-sight communications paths best suited for things such as microwave. Yes, the 2.4 and lately the 5.8 GHz WiFi channels do work well for short range communications but they do suffer from the absorption described along with deflection by foliage and almost anything that obstructs the clear space between the transmitter and receiver.

But there are a great many other factors affecting the efficient use of radio spectrum including the manner in which it is not only allocated, but the administration of the spectrum. But those are barrels of worms that have no place in this forum.

Aircraft uses a wide chunk of spectrum in the VHF. Are there plans to redistribute? I believe the railroads are going to convert their RF equipment.

most comments regarding spectrum availability are tainted by the specific commercial interests of the speaker.

And, you would be correct.

I think most of the talk is so they can justtify raising the cost to the consumer.

will be the saving grace for the future. It is cost driven and if there is a cost advantage in one method over another it will most likely be taken.

Last I knew, commercial aviation used 108-136 MHz for nav/com. I don't see that as a particularly 'wide chunk'.

It's all about $$$.

than the VHF-Hi spectrum given for emergency responders. They only have 24 MHz.

I am not saying there is a spectrum crunch. What I am saying is the theory that there is an almost unlimited amount of usable spectrum is false. Various reports show that the major wireless companies are squatting on substantial amounts of spectrum they are not using. They are warehousing and it looking for more with the hopes of cornering the market on a limited resource. It is interesting to note that the cable companies are selling (or planning to anyhow) the wireless licenses they acquired a few years ago to Verizon. That spectrum has sat idle for years. Verizon will add it to its inventory if approved. The interesting aspect is the cable companies are selling at a substantial profit and one has to wonder if that wasn't their plan all along. Once 2G wireless is phased out, more spectrum will be available for 4G expansion.

Personally I would like to see a rule like they have in Europe. Spectrum must be put to use by the licensee rather quickly or it is forfeited. It would go along way to stopping the warehousing of spectrum by speculators and those that want to keep new entrants from getting a foothold in the market.

For example they are slowly taking the HAM band back and the auctioning the off to the highest bidder. They been trying to get the 220 mhz back for years.

Its a money grab and a contol grab

doh

Here is an interesting article regarding this very same subject:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120302083011.ht...

or

http://tinyurl.com/7bunatk

Maybe the beginning of a great expansion in RF spectrum.

Any time you hear a warning that the world (substitute your choice of impending doom) is ending, just remember we have always found a way to solve the problem

Now how are we going to prevent the coming ice age ?

Global warming! Everybody increase your carbon footprint!