[time-nuts] FCC Chair Talks Spectrum, Gets GPS Letter

[Charles P. Steinmetz]

Pete wrote:

>I suppose you can't really blame LS for trying it on - the real fault
>lies with the FCC for not shooting the idea down completely when it
>was first suggested.

The regulatory notion is "ancillary terrestrial component" 
("ATC").  Its original purpose (conceived in the early '90s) was to 
allow satellite operators to fill in dead zones.  Satellite radio 
(SDARS) operators began deploying ATC in the late '90s and early 
'00s.  The SDARS licensees seriously abused the privilege (causing 
extensive interference to users of the adjacent WCS spectrum), and it 
has been downhill ever since.  I thought it was a bad idea in 1992, 
and subsequent experience has only strengthened my view.

As I have said before, the current FCC has the (I believe) unfounded 
notions (1) that an exploding need for additional mobile broadband 
spectrum will continue unabated for at least a decade (based on the 
figures for the first couple of years of data, which are inevitably 
way higher than ultimate demand for any new service), and (2) that 
providing more broadband spectrum is critical to the US pulling out 
of the recession.  Accepting these (I believe) mistaken premises, the 
FCC is in an absolute panic to increase the supply of mobile 
broadband spectrum by 500 MHz nationwide.  And good decisions are 
rarely made by bureaucrats in a panic.  The decision to encourage 
terrestrial use of the MSS spectrum is just one of many examples.

As a reality check on my skepticism regarding the FCC's conclusions, 
or at least the practicability of fulfilling them:  If you accept the 
FCC's demand projections for mobile broadband spectrum, it is clear 
that even 500 MHz of additional spectrum would not come anywhere near 
fulfilling the rising demand over the next 5 years.  That would take 
more like 3-10 GHz, depending on other assumptions.  But there is 
simply not that much spectrum physically suitable for mobile 
broadband use, even if you allocate it all to wireless carriers -- 
frequencies below about 500 MHz require antennas too large for 
practical handsets, and frequencies much above 2 GHz do not carry far 
enough in open country, or penetrate sufficiently into buildings, 
natural canyons, or urban canyons, to work acceptably.

All that said, LS's engineers should have (and may have) foreseen the 
devastating effect the use of ATC on their particular L-band spectrum 
would have on GPS as we know it, and LS management should have known 
that their plan would ultimately fail.  But the prospect of making a 
windfall of many billions of dollars apparently blinded them (or, in 
their minds, justified the risk).  But in the end, LS took the risk 
and LS should bear its losses and quit trying to stick US taxpayers 
with it.  They paid fair prices for MSS spectrum that can still be 
used for its intended purpose, or sold.  No loss, no foul.

Best regards,

Charles