I am having a hard time figuring out why wireless communications carriers are raising a red flag on the availability of spectrum in the US. Warnings that the market will run out of bandwidth will only serve to increase the price of spectrum when it comes up for bid.
A similar situation happened the first time spectrum went on the market in the mid-1990s and again in 2000. In the US, the Federal Communications Commission controls the frequencies on which TV, radio, and cellular communications are carried. Much of this spectrum has been set aside for military and aircraft communications use. But when there is a change in the air -- such as cutbacks in military spending or when the US government needs money -- spectrum sales come up again. Spectrum is usually bid on among carriers, with a lot of deal-making going on behind the scenes.
There's already some haggling underway within the carrier community. T-Mobile USA is trying to block Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ)'s acquisition of spectrum from other carriers, arguing Verizon would have an unfair competitive advantage. In the meantime, all carriers are warning that the proliferation of cellphones, smart phones, tablets, and other devices will overload existing spectrum, causing voice and data communication to slow down.
A New York Times article suggests there is no crisis and it's unlikely one will ever occur:
Not even the inventor of the cellphone, Martin Cooper, is convinced that the wireless industry faces a serious challenge that cannot be overcome with technology. Mr. Cooper, a former vice president of Motorola and chairman of Dyna L.L.C., an incubator for new companies, says that claims of a so-called spectrum crisis are largely exaggerated.
“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem,” he said in an interview. Mr. Cooper also sits on the technical advisory committee of the Federal Communications Commission, and he previously founded ArrayComm, a company that develops software for mobile antenna technologies, which with he said he is no longer associated.
He explained that for carriers, buying spectrum is the easiest way for them to expand their network, but newer technologies, like improved antennas and techniques for offloading mobile traffic to Wi-Fi networks, could multiply the number of mobile devices that carriers can serve by at least tenfold.
The NYT report suggests that carriers' motivation for buying spectrum has more to do with blocking competitors from ever having it. When the FCC releases spectrum, the license for a particular bandwidth -- such as 101.5 FM -- is given to a carrier, and no other carrier can use it. Rather than adopt new technologies to better use bandwidth, experts quoted in the NYT suggest it's just easier for carriers to buy more spectrum.
I tend to agree with this argument for the simple reason that carriers can keep service prices high as long as they can demonstrate they are spending money to improve service. Many of the services carriers provide do not cost a lot of money to implement. Some services require a flick of a switch and a lot of billing and contract work. If carriers used spectrum more efficiently, prices would come down. I suspect that is the last thing that carriers want. So maybe carriers are more willing to increase spending on the front end by buying spectrum than they are interested in using spectrum more efficiently.
As for the electronics supply chain, vendors will continue to turn out smartphones and other mobile devices regardless of the service costs. The opportunity to improve efficiency may pave the way for telecommunications infrastructure companies to sell more equipment to carriers. The hardware supply chain doesn't stand to lose much regardless of which way the spectrum sale goes. But I suspect users will continue to see service prices increase as carriers expand.
Really, TV is at the point where improvments are so incremental the only people noticing them are the developers and the service providers. You can buy a TV with better definition; you can use the correct cables to attach it to the box; you can even get faster wireless connections and guess what? They look a lot better than anything you saw two years ago. If service providers want to use the badwidth for services such as security and other useful things, more power to them. But stop improving the "TV experience" I can get on a cell phone. Seriously, is it really worth it?
Good points about the amount of data that is being sent over existing spectrum. It does seem like some of these things are a waste of perfectly good spectrum. Like other readers, I'm skeptical about phone TV.
The article that I read described 4K HDTV at the same frame rate but 4 times as many pixlels, which looks like 4 times the data rate, hence, 4 times the bandwidth. Of course there could also be a different mode that would need a lot more bandwidth than that.
My point is that the whole excercise is a waste of time and resources, since the bandwidth can certainly be better used for almost anything else. Some ideas are just plain poor choices, no matter what, and the 4K HDTV format is certainly one of those poor choices.
I just read a posting about "thge next big thing" which is 4K HDTV. That would need 4 times the bandwidth to send it out . Sorry folks, but that Idea is STUPID beyond words. It does not matter how good the resolution is, we simply do not need it and it will not add any value to entertainment on TV. We do not need to be able to see the dots on the golfball and the blades of grass on the putting green. It adds no value. So just because somebody can design and build it does not make it a smart idea. Not all of the things that we can make will benefit society.
The very best way to kill the supid concept of 4K tv is to not allow the specrum for the required bandwidth.
William K., The shortage is a figment of somebody's imagination. I don't believe there's a shortage. If you've watched TV recently, you've probably found out that telephone companies are getting into the security and cable TV businesses. Cable TV companies are also getting into the telephone and home security businesses. Competition is increasing but while this is likely good for the consumer, it means these companies have realized there are many more ventures they can launch in future, hence their need for more spectrum and thence the "shortage."
The carriers don't need more spectrum, they need to limit what is sent. We simply do not need cell-phone TV! Get rid of that incredibly stupid idea, no matter how much they could make selling it. Then raise the rates for sending digital data until the amount sent does not overload things any more. Have the courage to charge enough to keep the demand down. The resulting profits will be obscenely huge and the shareholders will be rich and how will that be a problem, and best of all, it won't take any more spectrum.
Of course some will yell and scream about raising prices, but that is OK. Raising the price will solve the spectrum shortage, folks.
There are digital modulation, multiplexing and spread spectrum techniques to increase what is called the 'spectral efficiency' of communication systems. This is a popular research and development area and advances are made on this every year mainly on the theoretical part. As a referee of an international journal in communications, I have read quite a few articles on this topic in the last year alone. There are very creative ideas and proposals out there to be honest. However, until such research becomes fruitful as practical applications, a lot of time and investment is needed. I think the problem is the operators are not patient enough to wait for that long. The competition in mobile communications is fierce and there is a lot of money to be made for those who act fast.
Yes, WiFi networks are already out there and are fully functional. Yes, the mobile networks can interface to the WiFi networks via gateways thereby making much more efficient use of the available bandwidth. However, getting such gateways to run as efficiently as required is not a very simple task. Also, there are problems related to 'handovers between base stations' as the mobile users change locations whilst talking. There are other complications related to traffic loads and reliability matters that I am not going to get into. All in all, such integration and testing is a serious undertaking and can be costly.
Also, each trial of a new concept has many risks associated with it and therefore investors like to take the path that has been successfully walked before in order to save costs associated with unknown and known risks. For this reason, paying the cash to buy more bandwidth is technically the most straightforward and the least risky way of expanding an existing network using the same equipment that has been tried and tested many times before. When there is more bandwidth available, it does not take long before new subscribers are added and more money starts coming in. It's that simple.
Maybe buying extra bandwidth will cost more than developing new technologies to make better use of the available spectral bandwidth but getting this new technology to work as required can take time which will escalate the expected costs besides delaying the time to get the returns on investment.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This