Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

3G Spectrum - Off Limits After Attacks 208

Posted by timothy from the semi-public-airwaves dept.
Casey writes: "MSNBC is reporting that due to the recent attacks, potential 3G spectrum currently held by the military has been placed off-limits for the foreseeable future -- with no replacement on the table. The FCC says that it might remove the current "spectrum cap" restrictions, allowing bigger cellular companies to gobble up smaller ones just for their spectrum. Expect to see a lot of consolidation if this goes through."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3G Spectrum - Off Limits After Attacks More

3G Spectrum - Off Limits After Attacks

Comments Filter:
  • Gobble them up, I could use the break on my cell bill.
    • This is unlikely to drive consumer pricing down. If anything, as competetion is elmininated, the national giants will raise prices in less competetive markets.

      $60/month land line bill, meet $90/month cell phone bill, formerly known as $40/month cell phone bill. :)
      • I can already imagine that the government will be
        re-inserting the previous, larger error back into
        GPS satellites after what happened last tuesday...

        It's really too bad so many great consumer products
        go by the wayside because we live in a world where
        crazies just might exploit convenient technology
        to blow something new up.
        • Not much point in doing that with the amount of differential GPS systems around from when it was originally SA (dumb move that, imho: if SA had never existed, there wouldn't have been much point in anyone coming up with DGPS).

          Probably gonna screw up the 802.11 war-camelling in the Gulf area tho :)

      • This is unlikely to drive consumer pricing down. If anything, as competetion is elmininated, the national giants will raise prices in less competetive markets.

        And prices may have to go up to allow those remaining companies to be self-sustaining. If it were so damned easy to make money in this business, everyone would be doing it. These companies aren't charities.

        "$60/month land line bill, meet $90/month cell phone bill, formerly known as $40/month cell phone bill. :)"

        Well, we'll just have to see. It isn't necessarily a valid comparison. Most municipalities place some kind of limit on who can provide land line service in their area. It works kind of like cable monopolies. The local municipality makes competition all but impossible in exchange for a piece of the action. Look at how many govenrment taxes there are on you phone bill next time you get it. You think they want lower prices and competition? They want to help promote monopolies.

        • Locally (suburban Detroit) we have choice in both cable service and land line telephone. Only two choices a piece, but choices nonetheless.

          For the land line it costs ~$45/month just to have the phone. That may be largely local taxes and fees, but I doubt it.

      • Re:G3 (Score:1)

        by drsoran ( 979 )
        $60/month land line bill? Where do you live Canada? My phone bill is $20/month and I live in SBC-Ameritech monopoly land.
  • Home of the ever growing giant monopolistic corporations. Yay.

    -NeoTomba
    • Yeah, monopolies are everywhere. We have one automaker, one fast-food company, one semiconductor manufacturer, one PC maker, one insect control company, one furniture maker, one clothes maker, one gasoline refining company, one paper maker....the list goes on and on.

  • Reflected by the general government it seems -
    Monopolies good.
    • Of course they like monopolies...

      Imagine you are a regulator (if such a thing truely exists). It is your job to look out over an industry and make sure everyone is following the rules.

      Your job is easiest when the industry consists of:
      a) a few big companies
      b) one huge company
      c) lots of small companies and a few big ones
      d) thousands of tiny companies and no big ones

      Correct answer: b. Your job is easiest when you only have one company to watch.

      So naturally, the government, who is the number one employer of regulators, would like to downsize as much as possible just like any big business (cough) so that they can (cough) maximize prof^H^H^H^H efficiency (cough). In order to do that, they need to lighten the load on all those regulators, and so, the government favors monopolies.

      And that brief analysis doesn't even begin to take politics into account.
    • I would really like to know how expressing dislike of the current administrations belief that this is a country of the corps, by the corps, for the corps is a 'troll'. It is a well established fact, even if you do not like it.
      And it is Elf not Troll anyway.
      ~CrackElf

  • I have not only been disturbed by the lack of congresional integrity when it comes to civil-liberties, but now the basking of big buisness in all the cash and exemptions they need to further maul the little guy into oblivion.

    1) One cheap fares airline has already gone under, the big aitlines are looking to get 15-20 billion dollars in cash, loans, and tax filing delays.

    2) The removal of spectrum limits would mean that the mnopoly that phone companies once had on land lines will now be easly avalilbe in the wireless market ( much more lucrative ).

    3) The sudden depresion of most markets will drive many of the little guys out of buisness.

    Please post more example too, I'de like to collect more.
    • ... but now the basking of big buisness in all the cash and exemptions they need to further maul the little guy into oblivion.

      Need? Hardly the word I'd use - more like want. And they'll likely get it. The real question we should be asking would center on why *Corporate* people don't have to play by the same rules as *REAL* people. If I were to make the same demands I expect the roar of laughter to see me out of the building. So why is business allowed to act immorally, and even expected to..?


      1) One cheap fares airline has already gone under, the big aitlines are looking to get 15-20 billion dollars in cash, loans, and tax filing delays.

      Not sure if you are referring to ALL or just the US ones, but we have the same BS happening here in Canada. Air Canada seems to expect that the taxpayers should bail them out of their own lack of planning. Not to be too sarcastic, but remind me again- who decides on security measure in/around airports and on airplanes..?! Their lack of intelligence in decision making and they expect us to bail them out.. thems some big balls indeed..

      • Re:Big buisness wins again -at consumers' expense (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nlh ( 80031 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @06:11PM (#2328005) Homepage
        The real question we should be asking would center on why *Corporate* people don't have to play by the same rules as *REAL* people. If I were to make the same demands I expect the roar of laughter to see me out of the building. So why is business allowed to act immorally, and even expected to..?

        I'm not certain exactly what you're referring to, but if it's the airlines' demands, let me explain:

        The airline business is a VERY low margin and low cashflow business. That means that, though they make billions in revenues, the airlines don't clear that much actual profit (relative to their revenues) and always have very little cash on hand.

        When an event such as the attacks on the WTC takes place and the government puts restrictions on air travel (i.e. the FAA forces all flights to be grounded) and overall safety is at risk (i.e. evidence that more attacks could be planned makes it a good decision to keep flights grounded), the airlines do everything they can to keep going. If these events cause them to run out of the tiny amount of cash they currently have, they're going to ask the government for help, and the government is probably going to give it to them.

        Why? Becuase if they go under, you are going to suffer. You are going to have to take the train, bus, car, mule, whatever. That will cause a massive destabilization of our business infrastructure, and will hurt our economy even further. It's the government's job to protect (and guide) the economy to recovery, so don't complain when they do that job.

        Large corporations, such as the airlines, that are centerpieces to the economy will get preferential treatment by the government because lack of such treatment has major consequences on the country's well-being.

        On the other hand, one person's need for preferential treatment isn't going to mean a damn thing to the overall economy, so you won't get any help.

        nlh
        • And something which should be pointed out is that the ONLY mass transit which has competition in the US is the airlines. There is (for all intents and purposes) only one bus line (Greyhound) and only one passenger rail system (Amtrack). Amtrack is quasi-private, and gets huge subsidies from the government (which are supposed to end pretty soon, IIRC).

          There's not much money in moving people around, but we need to move people around to make other parts of the economy function.

          It's in areas like this where Libertarian economic theory falls down; sometimes subsidies are necessary. It might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but psychologically, it doesn't seem that way to the average guy. And nine-tenths of econ is really mass psychologogy.

          -jon

          • It's in areas like this where Libertarian economic theory falls down; sometimes subsidies are necessary. It might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but psychologically, it doesn't seem that way to the average guy. And nine-tenths of econ is really mass psychologogy.

            Hrm. You claim it falls down here, but fail to state how. There is no point made describing the supposed weakness in this area, just a claim. Thus I find it difficult if not impossible to respond. Please expand on this thought if you would.

            • Please expand on this thought if you would.

              Certainly. Libertarians (as I understand the political philosophy) believe that government should only fund very specific things: security (internal and external) and justice (making sure that property disputes are settled and that criminal offenses are punished). Any services the government does provide must not be monopolies; anyone should be allowed to perform them and the government should be funded based on the fees it collects for its services.

              Subsidies, bail-outs, what have you, are completely opposed in all the Libertarian theory that I've heard. It's seen as taking money by force from people (via the government's ability to punish) to fund failing businesses. Those businesses which are going to fail, should fail. Thinking like this led Congress to end the Amtrack subsidies, and is the reason why there is vocal opposition to farm subsidies and other "corporate welfare."

              Thing is, there are some businesses where people will just not pay up front the necessary costs for the service. Some of them (dot-coms come to mind) are spurious, and should fail. But airlines and other mass transit systems are vastly necessary. They are the grease in the gears of an economy, moving people and stuffs around. Because it's necessary, the government, in moments of need by the industry and sanity by the government, steps in to provide necessary funding.

              Of course, it's horribly inefficient for the government to redistribute funds, but people aren't willing to pay the costs up-front. It's psychological, really. Libertarian philosophy tends to think that people are completely rational (as well as economic genuises). Clearly, this is not so. So sometimes we need to do things the inefficient way, just because it can't be done any other way. It's not theft, just reality.

              Did I misstate anything about Libertarianism?

              -jon

              • Thing is, there are some businesses where people will just not pay up front the necessary costs for the service. Some of them (dot-coms come to mind) are spurious, and should fail. But airlines and other mass transit systems are vastly necessary. They are the grease in the gears of an economy, moving people and stuffs around. Because it's necessary, the government, in moments of need by the industry and sanity by the government, steps in to provide necessary funding.

                While you have expanded your comments you have not really said why the economy would fail if some of these companies went under. Nor have you offered proof that they would fail w/out government subsidies.

                Do I think they would? Probably. But as long as there is a need, someone is going to try and provide it. Because if people need it there is money to be made there. It's the foundation of how a free market economy works.

                Part of the problem the airlines have is the increased cost of complying with FAA regulations. W/out that you increase profitability. Which I'm sure makes a lot of people cringe in fear. People think w/out the FAA planes would use substandard parts and crash all the time. Baloney. Airlines make money off their customers. If they kill them all where would they be? It's not in their best interest. And if they kill their existing customer base they are going to have a hard time drawing new customers. So, the ones who have poor safety records/etc will go out of business and get swallowed up by better companies.

                With this, I think prices would go down. Quality of travel might too. You might have more cramped spaces. You might have no meal on a long flight or no in-flight movie if you are cheap. But that's each travellers choice.

                If it was still too high, sure, the airlines would be in trouble. If the cost of air travel is more than it's worth they should be. In which case people would use other methods until someone came up with a cheaper method.

                A free market economy is strong and works very well. Where it falls apart is when Govts start meddling with it.

                Libertarian philosophy tends to think that people are completely rational (as well as economic genuises). Clearly, this is not so. So sometimes we need to do things the inefficient way, just because it can't be done any other way. It's not theft, just reality.

                People who believe in a free market understand what motivates people. It's obvious from observing the world. And that's why a free market works so well. It doesn't require anything special from the people who participate in it. You just have to be human.

                Did I misstate anything about Libertarianism?

                In general what we are really talking about here is free market economics. It's not just libertarians who agree with that, so it might be a good idea to call it what it is. Libertarians are a diverse lot, and some might agree or disagree with your stated position of the party platform so I'll stay away from commenting on that here.

        • The airline business is a VERY low margin and low cashflow business. That means that, though they make billions in revenues, the airlines don't clear that much actual profit

          The computer manufacturers have very low margins , the grocery stores have very low margin.

          WTF: a business is profitable or not.

          The problem is not the most businesses are not profitable: the problem is that people are greedy - the only thing that satisfies them is the .com era day-to-day valuations.

          Profitable is not enough. Businesses have to be VERY profitable.

          Why?

          • The computer manufacturers have very low margins , the grocery stores have very low margin.

            WTF: a business is profitable or not.

            Your statements are foolish and ignorant. If the U.S. were struck with an EMP that disabled the nations computer infrastructure and then the government tied the hands of the manufacturers for a certain amount of time, you can damn well be sure there would be a bail-out package to get our systems back up and running. Likewise with a biological attack on our food supply.

            The problem is not the most businesses are not profitable: the problem is that people are greedy - the only thing that satisfies them is the .com era day-to-day valuations.

            This statement is baseless. For better or for worse, greed drives capitalism, and without either you'd be sucking trash from a disposal outlet for dinner. If you'd rather live in a country that lacks a stable government, economy, or has wealth to speak of, I heartily encourage you to move to Afghanistan oh, say, right about a week from now.
          • Oh, also...airlines aren't the only ones getting help:

            http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7240474.html? tag=nbs [cnet.com]

        • Why? Becuase if they go under, you are going to suffer. You are going to have to take the train, bus, car, mule, whatever. That will cause a massive destabilization of our business infrastructure, and will hurt our economy even further. It's the government's job to protect (and guide) the economy to recovery, so don't complain when they do that job.

          Hrm. My copies of the founding documents must be incomplete. The pages where it details that part of the governments job are missing.

          I don't suppose you could paste up your copies?

      • Actually in the US, the FAA is responsible for creating security policies. The airlines only pay for it.

        The reality is that the US economy would shrink dramatically if the airlines were to disappear, as every sector of the economy is somewhat dependant on air travel. (I fly around half the country working for a funeral home company, if that gives you any perspective.) A smaller economy means a smaller tax base, so airline aid will likely actually have a negative associated cost. Although the principle of capitalism is that private industry takes care of its own problems, there come times when pragmatic decisions have to be made.
      • cash and exemptions they need to further maul the little guy into oblivion.

        Let's see how long small airlines could survive without the big corporations who drive down prices for the whole industry through enabling suppliers to take advantage of economies of scale, shall we? Suddenly that $50 part might cost $500 if there were too few buyers...

        Not to be too sarcastic, but remind me again- who decides on security measure in/around airports and on airplanes..?! Their lack of intelligence in decision making and they expect us to bail them out.. thems some big balls indeed..

        Uhhh, that would be government regulators? Appointed by, you guessed it, the taxpayer and their elected representatives.
    • I have not only been disturbed by the lack of congresional integrity when it comes to civil-liberties, but now the basking of big buisness in all the cash and exemptions they need to further maul the little guy into oblivion.

      Except when those civil liberties involve exercising property rights, like being able to charge what you want for what you make or being able to protect your intellectual works from theft. THOSE civil liberties are just too inconvenient.

      The sort of reasoning around here has very little to do with priciples and much more to do with short-sighted self-interest. Most here want everything as long as someone else is asked to provide it.

    • (to quote an old ferengi proverb)

      There are fringe groups out there getting paranoid about this even as we speak.

      Conspiracy theories implicate every moneyed interest imaginable. Sadly , some of these may even be true.

      Time to stock up the old Y2K bunker. Get them while they're cheap

    • The removal of spectrum limits would mean that the mnopoly that phone companies once had on land lines will now be easly avalilbe in the wireless market ( much more lucrative ).
      How is there any comparison whatsoever? Did the land line companies start out small and then buy up all their competition? Or were they granted exclusive contracts by the government, which excluded all new entrants to the market? And, for that matter, don't they still have monopolies? I know that where I live (Philadelphia) we don't get to choose our land line company.

      The government regulations on cell phone providers aren't keeping your bill low. They're keeping some of the providers less efficient than they could be and protecting the inefficient ones.

  • I remember seeing an article on Wired [wired.com] talking about an USAF spectrum available to 3g services. It isn't the original contended Army/Navy bandwidth. Anyone know if this applies to the UTMS bandwidth as well?
    slinted
  • Finally, maybe I'll be able to get one cell phone and one plan that will let me travel more than 1/2 hour in any direction without incurring roaming charges. I'm sick of always living on the edge of a "home area" because the next county over is some other cell company's territory. Sprint PCS already just about does it for me, but their customer support is crap. If they could get better coverage, I'd ignore the customer support problems. :)
    • My Cingular plan lets me travel from Virginia to Maine with no roaming charges and call in that area with no long-distance charges.

      Maybe you need to shop around some more for a plan that already exists?

      • sure, for a price.

        when getting a cell phone in the US your choice is generally: local coverage, state coverage, multi-state coverage, or national coverage. the prices go up accordingly. I have multi-state coverage, which covers where I normally travel (and the rare times I go farther I pay roaming) If you travel often, then ATT or the like makes sense, but you pay for it. If you live in one city, work in anouther just a few miles away and never travel farther it is possibal that you will have to go to a multi-state plan (second most expensive), if those cities happen to be across state lines, despite never going more than 5 miles from home.

        • The price is precisely what I was complaining about. Features, support, price, coverage - pick one, maybe 2. I've shopped around some, but not for a short while. I guess it's time to see if things have changed yet. Someday...

  • Strawman (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eggboard ( 315140 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:18PM (#2327580) Homepage
    The whole 3G spectrum debate has been a weird strawman for the lack of comprehensive spectrum policy in the U.S., as opposed to the agreements by which most of the rest of the world now operates.

    Because of poor allocation of scarce resources back when analog devices needed huge bandwidth to transmit, the actual usage across the military bands isn't uniform, comprehensive, or necessary. But it would cost upwards of ten billion dollars according to several reports issued by the military itself, the FCC, and the spectrum offices at the NTIA, among many other agencies.

    Another issue: the military has to use an entirely different set of frequencies when deploying missions abroad. Outside the U.S., in the next couple years, there will be millions of people using the various 2.x GHz bands that the military uses here. (Most of the domestic uses are for fixed radios and dishes, but still...)

    The answer for 3G is probably to make current bands more efficient. On the flip side, though, the military has ever more telemetry, requiring even more bandwidth.

    Back and forth, back and forth...it may be too late to fix this comprehensively.
  • It seems to me that if everyone on the plane had 3G phones with video. The attacks of Sep. 11th could have been thwarted earlier.

    You better believe that the attacks stopped because of the plane going down in a field. We didn't know at the time, but the terrorists sure did. They new that it went down because the word was out. The word may have gotten out faster if we had a better communications network.
    • Next time, the terrorists will make sure to take all phones and other communications devices from the passengers.


      It is too bad that the role of cell phones was given so much attention. It would have been better for that to have been kept quite. Eventually, terrorists would have figured it out on the own, of course, so in the long run it makes no difference, but in the short run, it could mean a few hundred lives saved.

  • Great (Score:2)

    by szcx ( 81006 )
    As if having cell networks three years behind the rest of the world wasn't bad enough...
  • Well, you may shout about your right to have guns, or how you don't want security cameras on your streets, but at least we've got GSM phones that actually *work*! They're pretty cheap, and they work all over Europe too.
    • You may wanna clarify that you're in Canada.

      I like my Fido GSM service :)
      • Which I would, if I was in Canada.

        In fact, I'm in Scotland.

        The biggie is that over much of the North-West of Scotland, GSM-1800 coverage really sucks. When I go up to my mother's house, I need to go and phone from the garden, or I can't get a network.
        • Sorry 'bout that. Saw the "alta" in your e-mail address, and thought it meant "Alberta". (it's common short form)
    • Well, you may shout about your right to have guns, or how you don't want security cameras on your streets, but at least we've got GSM phones that actually *work*!

      And I've got a PCS phone that actually *works*. YMMV, but I've had great success with Sprint PCS. It works in all the areas of the USA that I visit, such as LA, Las Vegas, Central Florida, Syracuse (upstate) NY, and many other places judging from their coverage maps.

      BTW, I'll take my right to bear arms over working GSM any day of the week. It's like that old saying, "I might be fat, but you're ugly, and I can lose weight."

      Get it?
      • OK, I've probably been trolled, but I suppose it's just a matter of what's useful to you.

        I need a mobile phone, so I go out and buy one. I don't, as a general rule, need a gun.

        If I did need a gun, I'd just go and get a licence, then go and buy one. It seems that USians think that people in the UK are not allowed to have guns at all. We can have guns, it's just the police like to have some kind of idea who has one and what they have. Getting a licence is not difficult.

  • Another non story by a consulting group... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by qubezz ( 520511 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:43PM (#2327726)

    This story doesn't have any credible source cited other than an analyst at the Yankee group. Companies like Yankee, PC Data and Jupiter group pay their analysts based on how often they can get quoted. Basically, publishing companies call them up when they need a quote for a story they've conjured up.

    'Yankee Group'

    'Hi, this is Bob from ZDNet. We are writing a story on eBooks, can you make up a quote for us?'

    'How about "The eBook platform will be on the rise as consumers continue to look for convenience in reading materials. Dmitri will burn in hell."

    'Thanks!'

    • One of the more amusing things about the recent [I'm loath to call it this] dot com bull and subsequent bear market is just how wrong the analysts were. On the upswing, all the analysts and pundits threw their words and weight behind the dumbest ideas (remember "push"?). They touted the most foolish buisiness plans. They devoted all of their attention to the shinyest doodad out there, and utterly ignored the real changes that were happening in plain sight. On the downswing, despite obvious (and historically, emperically and numerically proven) indications a year ahead of time that the economy was going to slow, there was not a peep from the analyst community that things weren't going as well as they seemed. Sure, there was hype and doomsaying, but there always is. No one wanted to stick their neck out and say that the party might be slowing down, and that it might be getting time to find your date and go home. Just think - if the analyst community had been more clearheaded and more honest, we might have had a dot com slowdown, instead of a meltdown, when it did come. There are consiquences when you deny reality, and that's not a matter of opinion.
      • I'd like to see a web page listing some of those predictions. Is there one? Can you make one?

        These "analysts" really deserve to be immortalized.
        • "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."
          - Irving Fisher, Yale economics professor, October 17, 1929
          "[1930 will be] a splendid employment year."
          - U.S. Dept. of Labor, New Year's Forecast, December 1929

          there are more - here's [colorado.edu] a nice page of them. I ought to compile a list of modern day ones, but I'm sure someone's allready done it. Just Google [google.com] for it.

  • One more reason to move to Europe, I suppose...
    • This anti-american bullshit I see here over and over sickening. If you have so many god-damn reasons to move then do it. At least you'll be able to credibly compare the USA against other contries. Most of you have no idea what its like living in the rest of the world. All you can do is bitch, bitch, bitch.

      Really, I mean, WTF? What is the origin of all this bashing? Is it really suprising that the military of a country that just got kicked in the nuts is going to roll over and make things more difficult for itself?

      Besides, I've read here over and over again about companies have too much control over this or that. Well, ok. Now they will have less control over the spectrum. Happy now?

    • Stand beside her, and... nah. Let's just all move to Europe.

      (in case you can't tell, that was SARCASM)

  • Many of the spectrum correction bits that Clinton allowed released to the public may go back to encrypted mode, too, since they can be used for accurate attacks.

    Wouldn't want to be a pilot near Afghanistan right now - might have to switch to visual especially if the radar jamming is activated.

    After all, we just sent down a whole mess of our ESWBs from here, and they're not there for the sunshine ...

  • &ltsarcasm&gt"

    Let's auction permanent ownership of spectrum. Nothing will ever happen to make it better to be able to re-assign frequencies."

    &lt/sarcasm&gt

  • i know that alot of us have been looking forward to 3g advances and such forth. but uh the man did say we would have to put up with some changes until this mess is over with. personally i think what happened on 9-11 has changed american and the world in ways we can't even imagine. we are in for a long haul of trouble ahead and i am beginning to have doubts as to wether or not our generation will ever see peace again.

  • American Freedom (Score:2, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 )
    We are the American government, we say "Freedom and Justice to all!!!"

    30 mins later:

    We are the American government, we have shut down all borders and banned planes from flying. We have turned off the cell-phone networks and established checkpoints across the country. We have installed Carnivor boxes in all the big ISPs to monitor your email. We want to ensure all encryption software has back doors. Oh good, now we can do all this, and do it quicker because people will believe that it will help prevent terrorism, not only that but we can rush the SSSCA law through the system, and stop assigning bandwidth for mobile phones, We believe in justice, but under the circumstances lets just go and kill Bin Laden, and, just for good faith, we'll promise not to blow the Taliban and half of Afghanistan away if they give him up first.

    Even though it was very much our fault for not realising that sooner or later someone would put hijacking, and suicide bombing together to produce a weapon, and we should have improved security on planes, lets just forget that for a second and GOD BLESS AMERICA, sorry, got carried away there an.. GOD SAVE AMERICA, sorry, no more i promise. Oh, and 'cause we don't want to take the retaliation all for our selves, lets make sure they use the All-for-one-one-for-all section of the UN treaty and drag all the other countries into it.
    • "Freedom for me but not for thee"

      There are all sorts of limits on economic freedom for "the common good". Abuse of property rights had led to all sorts of problems. We can't have people charging what they want for what they sell (that would be gouging!). We can't let them freely cooperate among themselves and decide what price to charge (conspiracy!). And what about free speach? We can't have cigarette makers speaking about their products (it might harm the kids!) We don't protect THAT kind of speach, afterall now do we.

      So whats wrong with the government going ever further "for the common good"? Besides, listen to all the anti-americanism here on Slashdot. Maybe they should be watching. Hey, don't get upset. Its all for the common good.

      "Freedom for me but not for thee"
      • True anti-monopoly laws are for the common good, so are laws against advertising cigarettes to kids (all though this is more debatable). 'Common good' means something that is good, but only for the common (i.e the big majority of people). If 90% of people vote for something, then that something is for the common good.

        The DMCA however, is not for the common good, its for the good of the few big corporations so they can create false economies buy conspiring to artificially restrict products so they can sell for high prices (i.e. going against the common good law and gouging.) The SSSCA is just an extension of this that infringes even more on peoples rights for the uncommon-good.

        Closing the borders would probably not have helped.

        Closing airspace would, but only if there were more attacks planned.

        If the government had done something for the common good, like directly stopping people from hi-jacking planes, before the attacks, then maybe they wouldn't have happened. (for example, security guards on planes, locking doors, security codes to fly the plane, not putting 1000s of people in one big tall building.

        Encryption backdoors would not help prevent terrorism, that is a fact. They would cause a lot of problems though. I think even congress wouldn't be dumb enough to actually do it.
      • There are all sorts of limits on economic freedom for "the common good".

        You bet. Absolute economic freedom leads to stuff like people dumping toxic wastes into the air and water, having 25% of the workforce having suffered serious on the job injuries, unsafe food and medicine, and so on.

        So whats wrong with the government going ever further "for the common good"?

        If you can convince enough people that the common good really requires it, nothing is wrong with it.

        What is a political system all about in the final analysis? Providing for the common good.

    • and to top it all off, we just gave the Taliban $43M for Opium Eradication in May.

      Jaysyn
  • All the major US and European wireless carriers are cash-poor and ladened with debt after the previous rounds of spectrum license auctions.

    Stock swaps would also be unfavorable to Gobblers and Gobblees. Gobblers would face a dillution of share value, and (like most telecom corps.) have depressed share prices that won't leverage much. The Gobblee probably views its spectrum license as its most liquid asset, and won't settle for depressed shares.

  • Forbes magazine had an article [forbes.com] last month, showing just how consolidation would help the industry, and the consumers in the US.

    Basically, there are too many companies, chasing too many incompatible technologies.
    • Basically, there are too many companies, chasing too many incompatible technologies

      Gee... sounds like something Microsoft would say in defense of their "Innovation"(tm)
      • The problem with too many companies, and too many technologies, is that roaming and "nationwide plans" are fraught with problems.

        I'm not advocating a single company controlling it all. Or even a single unified technology necessarily. But Consolidating down, so there are a few large nationwide carriers would go a long ways towards making the system work alot better.

        Realistically, there are 3 major long distance providers, and look at the price cutting that has gone on in that market since the 80's.
    • Basically, there are too many companies, chasing too many incompatible technologies.

      I think the number of companies is just fine. But there are still too many incompatibilities between their "technologies."

  • The article says that the military "may" and that industry analysts "expect". Well I find this hard to believe being that 3G tests are being conducted currently (meaning that licenses for the spectrum are already out there). I doubt that the US govt is going to cap an entire industry (in this case wireless). Also, think about CALEA and the potential that 3G allows... I'm really pretty much doubting this article alltogether.

  • why do we have the FCC? all they seem to do lately is facilitate consolidation of media. I thought the point of the fcc was to keep media and communications chanels as open and spread out as possible.

    just look at the mess that has happend once media companies asset cap was removed. we have sony, ATW, etc. now they have the muscle to not only give use only one POV,they are getting the power to limit fair use.

    • Hahahahaha no. IIRC, the FCC charter specifically forbids it to act to encourage competition, etc. It has a number of regulatory powers, but encouraging openness is not one of them.

      Of course, I'm thinking that I saw this on /. somewhere, so perhaps the truth of this is not quite certain.

      • So why did they have regulations that put caps on the number of markets media companies could be in? I know those have been removed in the last 15 years but why were they their? or was tha a FTC restriction?

  • just a fact (Score:2, Informative)

    by mc2Kleen ( 190152 )
    There is an interesting article in the October issue of Red Herring about the bureaucratic nightmare that wireless companies face in trying to develop "next-generation wireless networks." I just thought you all would like to know.

    Most industrialized nations with our type of technological infrastructures are years ahead of us in wireless technology. My opinion is that the stranglehold on potential 3g spectrums is part of the reason why the technological bust happened. Back in the late 90's (seems like a million years ago) when everyone was happy and rich (except me), wireless devices were supposed to be the next "big thing." Now they're all but a curiousity for most Americans where in Japan and Sweden they're a necessity. I think the tech sector would come around if the current administration opened more of these specrums up (but they'd have to get through the DOD first) for development. Something tells me, however, after September 11th, they'll be hell bent on preventing these technologies from spreading too quickly lest they be employed by terrorism.com.
    • Well, given that Japan has just rolled out their first phase 3G network, and I don't believe that Sweden has even begun, I think that you're off base.

      It's not the lack of high-bandwidth connectivity that's slowing down US adoption of wireless technology. DoCoMo seems to do pretty well on 2G tech.

      I think that there are many factors that contribute to slower-than-we'd-like adoption of wireless services, and that the cries of "we're waiting for 3G" are largely bogus. Waiting for what? Streaming video? Somehow I don't think that's the killer wireless app, anymore than videophones killed my telephone.

      • Re:not a fact (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Well even well established 2G functions that have existed in other countries for over 10 years such as SMS hasn't caught on in the US even though today any half decent 2G phone supports such things. The problem are the operators in the US, esspecially when it comes interoperability, getting SMS's to phones on other networks is impossible.

        Also if you look to other countries, they have the STD code system for mobiles well structured so a unique dialing prefix are assigned to phones independent of location, this makes roaming very easy. Say you want to call a friend on a trip in Europe from the UK for example you just dial the number as usual (07xxx) and it will route through to Germany or France or wherever they are.

  • Pope asks us to serve justice and peace. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The pope spoke [vatican.va] on Sunday 16 September: May the Blessed Virgin bring comfort and hope to those who suffer on account of the tragic attack of the terrorists, that last week seriously harmed the beloved American people. To all the children of this great Nation I direct my heartbroken and heartfelt consideration. May Mary welcome the dead, console the survivors, support those families who are particularly tried, help all to resist the temptation to hatred and violence, and to dedicate themselves to the service of justice and peace. May the Virgin Mary nourish in the hearts of all young persons, above all, high human and spiritual ideals and the necessary perseverance to achieve them. May She remind them of the primacy of eternal values, especially in these difficult moments, so that in their daily engagements and activities they may ever continue to be turned toward God and to his kingdom of solidarity and peace.
  • is that AT&T Wireless removing choice of Long Distance/International Carrier.

    Why does this matter ?

    Well I used to get 10c/Minute to the UK using Sprint as my wireless long distance carrier. Now its $1.50 courtesy of AT&T.

    I'm only staying with them because my cell phone number is so important to me (everyone has it rather than my home number).

    Winton
  • Get you airport station and your DSL together and "say no to telcos"

    Suck Spectrum Evil Doers!
  • Tell me something folks:

    Is every slimeball in the world going to crawl out from under their rocks this month and use the WTC attacks as an excuse to fuck someone in the ass? Because I for one am getting really tired of it, really fast. It's disrespectful in the extreme to those who died.

    It's a toss-up as to who I hate more: the fanatical monsters who killed thousands, or the opportunistic bastards trying to profit off horror and sorrow.

    -Kasreyn
  • The strange thing about this is that I had to give a presentation about 3G just last week, the day of the attacks. This information would have made my point more effectively.
  • (SARCASTIC)
    This is a non-issue, just take some spectrum from all those ham radio geeks. All they do is screw up my TV reception, anyway. Not like they do any emergency services or storm tracking or anything...
    (/SARCASTIC)

  • While the spectrum is still military, it has a chance of being fairly reallocated. In the current corporate-friendly environment, the frequencies would just go to abusive, customer-hating monopolies. And then it would be very hard to ever pry those frequencies back from them.

    The internet has made us more sophisticated about the potential division between content and transmission. I believe that the radio spectrum should only be licensed to common carriers who offer to carry raw data in a non-discriminatory manner, without bundling any other services.

    What we need is high-speed wireless internet. Given that, services like voice telephony can be provided in a highly competitive environment. So can many other innovative services we haven't thought of yet.

    Ever notice how hated most telecom providers are? Notice how they keep customers at arms length via "call centers" and IVR? They are near-monopolies, using government granted resources like spectrum to achieve a closed market in which they can harm the purchaser. Let's put an end to this junk by giving the spectrum to common-carrier ISP's. If we did this across the whole spectrum, it would cause a massive shift in power away from huge corporations and towards small businesses and citizens.
  • damn!! I was looking forward to fast internet on my cell phone. Looks like now I'm stuck with the same old, slow connections as before.

Slashdot Top Deals

Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three -- and paradise is when you have none. -- Doug Larson

Close