Lightsquared

[Jim, W5JO]

This it good news?

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/lightsquared-failed-wireless-venture-files-for-bankruptcy.html

[WA3VJB]

It may depend on how this turns out --

...though he would rather get the government to swap his spectrum for that controlled by the U.S. Defense Department.

[W1ATR]

It was a stupid idea anyway. The last thing anyone needs is another way to get wireless services. Especially if it comes at the expense of interference to a tried and true GPS system. The whole world runs on GPS, and to tell the manufacturers that they have to redesign the front end in their receivers because someone wants to jam a for-profit system into the same spectrum is arrogance at its finest. What about the millions GPS units already in use?

73
RantMasterJ   

[k4kyv]

They were licensed access to spectrum the FCC had set aside for satellite communication, then proposed to use that same spectrum instead for high power terrestrial circuits.  Now they are going bankrupt because the FCC wouldn't let them do it.

[K5UJ]

How about the plan to send a robot to an asteroid and mine rare metals and bring it back here to Earth as an investment opportunity?
Losses and odds:  cost of vehicle that achieves escape velocity, calculation of trajectory to get to asteroid, safe landing, finding metals, recovering them, lift off and making it back to Earth and landing without burning up.

Income:  Value of payload (size and content unknown risk factors).

Profit:  ?

Who wants to step up to the plate on this one?  

[Bill, KD0HG]

It's cheaper to buy ever more spectrum than to split cells and build new sites.

The real cost of bandwidth hogs is becoming evident; does everyone *really* need to stream a HD movie on a handheld device? If so, it's gonna cost you.

Like I've mentioned before, streaming is an incredible waste of bandwidth, the worst case imaginable where an identical data stream needs to be sent to each individual subscriber. There needs to be a way to broadcast a stream to multiple users...Sort of like radio and TeeVee, you know? Not possible with our current technology.

Bill

[k4kyv]

In the home, it's no problem.   Use fibre optics to bring the signal to the house, and then a local wi-fi router.  The problem is in the car and at locations where FO is  not an  option.  I can't see any justification in wasting bandwidth to stream movies to moving vehicles over every square mile of the continent.  Besides, that would be the epitome of "distracted driving". In areas without FO,  terrestrial streaming becomes necessary, but the spectrum has to be found.  Wonder if anyone has thought of streaming via infra-red, visible light or even U-V?  The safety beacon of a tall tower can be seen over a long distances when the weather is clear.  U-V effectively penetrates clouds, as one can see when one gets a sunburn after being outside all day in cloudy weather.  The level required to locally distribute a signal over a local area might not have to be high enough to be dangerous, but would be cheaper than stringing FO cable throughout the urban sprawl.

It should not be impossible to find enough spectrum somewhere for near-unlimited audio streaming. Satellite would be the best solution for long-haul, since terrestrial streaming is limited to the local area, much in the manner of FM radio.  It would be nice to be able to stay with the same station on a long trip, rather than having to search for a new station every 25-75 miles or so as is now the case, unless you are listening to one of the few remaining clear channel AM stations, which are mostly limited to talk-radio drivel and very little music these days.

[WA3VJB]

I've heard spectrum utilization compared to the use of highway infrastructure.  Developers are allowed to build and eventually overload local roads, forcing an expansion of those travel lanes to try to accommodate the growth.  Same for spectrum utilization.  The commercial users fill up their allocation, show a successful economic model from having done so, and come hat-in-hand asking for expanded spectrum allocations to continue that growth.

What's missing is a pre-emptive judgement of whether it is "good" use of resources.  As Bill points out, streaming HD video on cell phone circuits doesn't seem to match the intended purpose.

Yet once established, as with development, it's impossible to roll it back.

The Lightsquared vs. GPS matter is  another case of  this, really. GPS receivers were built on the presumption there would not be a noisy neighbor on spectrum nearby.  The FCC said the satellite based GPS transmitters are operating within their allocation, so would Lightsquared, and that the agency doesn't really regulate receivers.

An agency official actually told me it was not up to them to provide unused buffer spectrum, to, in this case, protect incumbent GPS users. This was a factor that allowed the FCC to grant a waiver to Lightsquared.

So, the established constituency of GPS users made itself known politically, and Lightsquared was the loser when it tried to get the rules changed to allow terrestrial transmitters within its spectrum.

[Steve - K4HX]

Define good.

The carriers are providing services their customers want. Intended use of 30 years ago is not relavent when discussing use today. If the deal the government made with the carriers when they took their money in return for spectrum did not include stipulations on what data could be sent over that spectrum, then the carriers can send any data they please within that spectrum. If video is making them money, great. If not, they'll go out of business or provide another service their customers want.

The "solution" to the requirement for more spectrum should never include the option to interfere with existing services. This is where the FCC messed up.