Senate Discusses Third Pipe Using 700MHz Spectrum

Freebird writes "The US Senate Commerce Committee held hearings on the upcoming 700MHz spectrum auction today, and much of the discussion centered around Frontline Wireless' proposal to create a commercial wireless broadband network that would also be used for public safety. 'Under Frontline's proposal, the FCC would auction off 10 MHz from the commercially available spectrum and offer that to the highest bidder. The winner would also be given (free) 12 MHz out of the 24 MHz currently allotted to public safety.' Some senators were skeptical, especially Ted Stevens of Alaska who had a 'long and testy interchange' with Frontline CEO James Barksdale. 'He seemed to be zeroing on criticisms that the Frontline proposal was simply a way for a new company to get a huge discount on a prime chunk of spectrum by playing the "public safety" card.'"

Fitting...

Some senators were skeptical, especially Ted Stevens of Alaska

Creating a new pipe would nullify his "clogged tubes" argument against net neutrality!

Re:

I'm most skeptical about the 700mhz overclocked Sinclair Spectrum, instead.

Re:

Some senators were skeptical, especially Ted Stevens of Alaska

Creating a new pipe would nullify his "clogged tubes" argument against net neutrality!

So? Put some weed in his pipe and light it, he'll soon change his mind.

We should really all stop ragging on Ted Stevens

Why is it people can't stop making fun of Ted Stevens? Sure, he made a poorly worded analogy. Big deal - the internet had been compared to plumbing before, would you like to rag on these guys too? [penny-arcade.com]

What I find most disgusting though is even though this o

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven

Yes, then we could have more billion dollar bridges to nowhere.

Re:

OH be fair... its not a billion dollars! It's only $315 Million... To serve a total of 9,000 people.

Re:

That wasn't a bridge to nowhere, that was a bridge that would have greatly increased the value of land owned by Alaska's other Republican Senator and by her father, Alaska's Republican governor.

Re:

You must be joking... Someone actually implied that Ted Stevens was anything but a corrupt, arrogant, senile jack-ass. This is the man who threatened to resign from the Senate if they took any bit of money from his stupid bridge to nowhere and used it for

Re:We should really all stop ragging on Ted Steven

The most ironic part is that for all everyone makes fun of him, the internet is, in fact, mostly made up of a series of tubes.

Re:

Some senators were skeptical, especially Ted Stevens of Alaska

Creating a new pipe would nullify his "clogged tubes" argument against net neutrality!

That's bull. Senator Stevens' very valid objection was that you can't build a pipe out of thin air. I mean any pipe has to be run underground or at least be connected [alyeska-pipe.com] to it.

Ted Stevens

Shhh don't tell him about the invisible tubes in the sky...

Re:

Hey... I'm actually replying to your sig, I'm studying for that thing right now and in another month I'll be through the MPEP. I'm in freakin' lawschool and I've never seen so many regs before in my life! (Back to chugging through 700... ooh public use p

Re:

No! Tell him about them. Tell him that they're a bridge that will go Gravina Island, out in the middle of nowhere of Alaska. Then he's sure to fund it, as well as put a secret hold on everyone else's bills! Then tell him that the plan's backers are oil

Re:

Oh, and if that doesn't work, promise to remodel his house for him, half-price. That'll be sure to get him on board. You'd probably have him out there in his Hulk Tie championing it. And if that doesn't do it, make a donation to the Ted Stevens Foundati [boston.com]

Jealousy is unbecoming, Senator.

> 'He seemed to be zeroing on criticisms that the Frontline proposal was simply a way for a new company to get a huge discount on a prime chunk of spectrum by playing the "public safety" card.'"

It takes one to know one, Senator.

Just because you were

Ted, I don't get it.

'He seemed to be zeroing on criticisms that the Frontline proposal was simply a way for a new company to get a huge discount on a prime chunk of spectrum by playing the "public safety" card.'

Frontline's auction proposal, if accepted, will set some parameters. The spectrum will still go to the highest bidder. That may not be Frontline.

And Dogs Everywhere Rejoiced

Wireless flea and tick control? Sweet.

Health concerns

Before flaming this post based on the subject line, read this article [ieee.org] and this one [nih.gov], which are about studies demonstrating the mechanism for learning disability caused by exposure to 700MHz RF fields.

Re:Health concerns

Yes, it does work the same way; RF exposure outcome is dose-dependant. Though their main point (in the second article) was that the effect that can kill you (RF-induced heating) is different from the effect that they observe (neurons are more excitable).

I would not worry too much, however, since the experimental conditions are quite different from those inside your brain. If you read the article, you will notice that even a thin 1 mm layer of liquid shields the cells rather nicely. (and your hippocampus is shielded by over 100 mm of blood, CSF, and bone. Also, 50 V/m RF strengths are virtually never encountered in real life; usually something on the order of mV/m tops.

Of course, you never know if the effects are additive over a long period of time. If in doubt, use a tinfoil hat (remember to use thick metal foil, wrap as much of your body as you can, and actually ground it, or it's useless (use 1MOhm resistor in line or you might electrocute yourself).

How about giving a bit more the the ARRL too!

I wouldn't mind some 700Mhz bandwidth for PUBLIC use of the PUBLIC airwaves. Might as well throw LPFM in just because my voice doesn't count! -- off to the interwebs!

Selling spectrum stinks

Spectrum that was once set aside for television stations is now desired for other uses, including the important one of public safety, but the government is having to go to a great deal of trouble to get it back from the broadcasters whose only claim to it has been a temporary renewable license to use it (basically at no charge) "in the public interest".

What happens when, in the mysterious future, a new and important use is found for a particular slice of airwaves that have already been sold off? Will it be necessary to go to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that lets the government declare "eminent domain" and force the owner to sell it back? Better to lease it and still get some money out of it but retain ownership and control.

Re:

If the FCC wants to reallocate spectrum, they can do it. They are under no obligation to compensate the existing licensees or to provide them with new spectrum. The same is true if new regulations make your current equipment obsolete. I've been on the rece

Re:

While the facts are true that most elected leaders have not received the majority of their constituent's votes, they are still the elected leader and thus have the right to speak for their country.

Those who do not use their voice in democracy can not compl

Re:

What I really want to know is why, up till 20 or so years back were there not these auctions? I mean, who died and made the radio spectrum a commodity the FCC owns and can auction off? I do recal them regulating the spectrum back when, I do not recall th

Re:

"Those who do not use their voice in democracy can not complain when democracy does not speak their voice."

Of course they can. It's a masturbatory exercise, but they have all the rights everyone else has.