Milestone in "Beachfront" Auction of Public Spectrum Today

THE 'BIG CHANGES' COME ONLY EVERY 12-20 YEARS OR SO, OR LONGER

FCC looks likely to vote rules for an auction of the coveted 700 MHz spectrum today.

The value of beachfront in pictures: o.k. coverage compared to other bandwidths, less cost to build out.

This is the spectrum that folks are looking to that might provide a national - nearly complete geographic coverage is proposed - Wi-Fi network and also handle the vexing issues of interoperability for first-responders, a task which most cities haven't handled yet.

Senate hearings didn't show too well the pros and cons for the most recent proposal, which has the government auctioning off the spectrum to a private "developer(s)" / "reseller(s) cum wholesaler(s)" who might then "leaseback" -for profit! - the spectrum that the government needs, both on an ongoing (low) and emergency (full) basis based on some complex legal agreement to be written into a "trust document".

THE PUBLIC INTEREST SOLD TO WOULD-BE 'GATEKEEPERS'

This says it all. "Open Access" is a way to prevent quasi-monopoly behavior on the public airwaves:

Harold Feld, who studies spectrum issues for the Media Access Project, a nonprofit public interest group, said chances of a wholesale provision passing are virtually nil.

`Politics both inside and outside (the agency) make it a thousand-to-one against a wholesale open-access provision,'' he said.

WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS

Of course, these "plans" ought not to be confused with Homeland Security disarray and attendant pork-fest.

A quick view of section 301 of the recently passed HS Funding Bill, which includes grants for districts to study, report, and 'work on' on their interoperability needs:

`(i) Prohibited Uses- Grants awarded under this section may not be used for recreational or social purposes.

`(j) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section--

`(1) $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

`(2) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;

`(3) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;

`(4) $800,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

`(5) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

`(6) such sums as necessary for each fiscal year thereafter.

Maybe there is a good reason for this (local flexibility?), but it seems like a somewhat costly lack of direction and coordination.

The Battle Begins ...

Oh, if you wanted the "Big Picture" (apart from going as big as 'white noise'), there is this:

[+/-] Show Full Post...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...