So, I sorta stumbled on this website for the Coalition for Wireless Competition, a group of people dedicated to:
Quotehelp make the most advanced mobile telecommunications services, known as 3G for third generation, available to Canadian consumers, organizations and businesses.
These guys are making a push to allow more competition in the Canadian wireless mobility market. What do you guys think? If there was more competition would prices go down? Would the Government even allow more providers to enter the market, especially if they are foreign? Is it a futile battle? Is there something we can or should be doing to get wireless prices down and more coverage up?
http://www.wirelessfuture.ca/
There should either be complete and total competition allowing all companies who want entrance to the market to come in, or there should be a monopoly/duopoly that is given a strict set of governances. The way it stands right now, with a duopoly with no governance, the companies are playing the back nine at Augusta on us.
I would prefer a monopoly with strict governances, because history shows that (in Alberta at least) public utilities are cheaper than privatized ones, if only because we can elect people into government that tell the utilities to charge less.
Interesting perspective, I often wonder if the challenges relate more to the non-competitive nature of telecom in Canada or the population density challenge that providers might face. The available market for wireless is more spread out than somewhere like say Hong Kong.
I didn't really read the site but don't they have to buy the airspace and isn't that airspace up for auction? Why would Rogers/Telus/Bell let them buy into it? Would Rogers allow them to use their towers? If not then are they going to place all their own towers and infrastructure? If you're not Sprint or "the new" at&t I'm not sure you can do anything in the telecom market.
The old TV airwaves might be up for auction (not sure if Canada has decided to kill off analog as the states did..), which would lower the bar for entry into the wireless market SIGNIFICANTLY. The lower frequencies travel further and through obstacles that the higher ones (800MHz+) can't. Which means far fewer towers.
Aye but nowhere near the bandwidth required for a wireless network such as an "advanced" 3G network. Lower the mhz the much larger the waves. AM radio vs FM radio, you can hear the difference.
Well, not a chance. GSM in Canada operates on GSM-850 (824mhz - 894mhz) and GSM-1900 (1850mhz - 1990mhz). Some pretty high frequencies, lots of bandwidth on GSM-1900. Tom's idea of using analog TV frequencies would be so crazy slow as the highest they operate under is 614mhz with most of the stations falling betweeen 30 and 300 mhz.
Source: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/spectallocation.pdf/$FILE/spectallocation.pdf
I just cant see this happening in any sort of way. Big Business owns us. Im surprised how easy North American telecoms have it.
You'd think so, but apparently they've worked around that issue somehow. Why else would people (Verizon, AT&T, etc) be bidding upwards of 1 billion per frequency block for the old analog TV space? Even Google is in on the action.
Pixie dust i guess. you cant change the laws of physics. Indeed you can cover ore land with less towers and setting up a nationwide system would be cheaper then on higher frequency spectrums but you sacrifice bandwidth for this ability. My guess the reason a lot o f companies are bidding billions for it is so that they can start providing cellular services for rural areas.
Quote from: Shayne on October 30, 2007, 11:40:04 PM
Aye but nowhere near the bandwidth required for a wireless network such as an "advanced" 3G network. Lower the mhz the much larger the waves. AM radio vs FM radio, you can hear the difference.
The difference is due to the means of encoding the data on the carrier, not because of the frequency range. Amplitude modulation is much more susceptible to rogue EM radiation because the data is encoded as a change in the strength of the signal, and EM can easily add to the strength of the signal. Frequency modulation is less susceptible to rogue EM radiation because the data is encoded as a change in the frequency of the signal.
The very nature of FM, that it changes between higher and lower frequencies, means that it requires a decent bandwidth (in this case defined as the difference between the upper and lower frequency in the range) to encode a lot of data. When you tune your radio to 100.3MHz, it's receiving frequencies above and below that specific frequency; it's just that it's only going a couple of kHz either way.
Quote from: Tom on October 30, 2007, 09:14:18 PM
The old TV airwaves might be up for auction (not sure if Canada has decided to kill off analog as the states did..), which would lower the bar for entry into the wireless market SIGNIFICANTLY. The lower frequencies travel further and through obstacles that the higher ones (800MHz+) can't. Which means far fewer towers.
Quote from: Shayne on October 30, 2007, 11:50:06 PM
Well, not a chance. GSM in Canada operates on GSM-850 (824mhz - 894mhz) and GSM-1900 (1850mhz - 1990mhz). Some pretty high frequencies, lots of bandwidth on GSM-1900. Tom's idea of using analog TV frequencies would be so crazy slow as the highest they operate under is 614mhz with most of the stations falling betweeen 30 and 300 mhz.
You're both referring to the three basic principles of wireless networking:
Quote from: http://www.vias.org/wirelessnetw/wndw_04_07_01.html
* The longer the wavelength, the further it goes
* The longer the wavelength, the better it travels through and around things
* The shorter the wavelength, the more data it can transport
However, as much as those are three basic principles, there is a *lot* more to consider:
Quote from: http://www.vias.org/wirelessnetw/wndw_04_10.html
you should understand that radio waves don't travel in a straight, predictable path. To make reliable communication networks, you will need to be able to calculate how much power is needed to cross a given distance, and predict how the waves will travel along the way
To understand what I'm saying here, read all ten pages starting at
the beginning, as they discuss
absorption,
reflection,
diffraction,
interference, and the
Fresnel zone as explained by the
Huygens principle (go go Dutch 17th century scientists!).
In short, telecommunications engineers and inventors are extremely creative and it's very possible that someone has figured out how to push more data through a smaller pipe just like what happened to fiber optics when the
wavelength-division multiplexing technology matured and was widely adopted.
Comparing fiber optics to radio waves is a bit of a stretch. Though I suppose you are saying that within the 800mhz spectrum up for auction that they could send data in all sorts of different wavelengths at the the same time to one device. Potentially possible but I'll admit that I only did grade 11 physics so my knowledge of such technology is rather limited but at the same time I just look at home networking and home phones as a prime example of how frequencies change and so does bandwidth and range.
I didn't intend that as a comparison between fiber optics and RF transmission, I was intending to showcase how telecommunications engineers used some creativity to do more with less. I can see how you took it that way, though.
Quote from: Shayne on October 31, 2007, 11:02:53 AM
I suppose you are saying that within the 800mhz spectrum up for auction that they could send data in all sorts of different wavelengths at the the same time to one device
I'm saying I don't know just what kind of creative solutions the thinkers and tinkers might come up with to allow us to use the lower spectrum, but if the companies are bidding billions of dollars for the right to use it then they're banking on being able to finagle a technological gizmo that will let us use it just fine.
Yup, and I see that as a key reason why I don't think a coalition of a bunch of smaller companies can really compete with the likes of at&t, Verizon, Sprint, Rogers, etc. When you are auctioning off spectrum and they routinely fetch billion of dollars for the rights to use them, what hope does a coalition really have? I'm not sure how big Allstream or Mipps or Videotron is but big enough to compete with the big dogs I'm not so sure even if they put all their chips together.
Interesting idea and to me it more illustrates the futility that companies face trying to get into this type of market more so then a future alternative.
the FCC starts the auction at a billion, so there really is a HUGE barrier to entry. But the new Open Access requirements the FCC added should be a boon to many smaller companies. The people that buy the spectrum have no choice but to allow any kind of device on it.
Why would anyone buy it then?
No choice? They still want the spectrum, it could mean much better coverage for much less cost.
Because the FCC rules state that you have to provide access, not provide *free* access. Really, if you own the spectrum and other companies use it for their customers, then you are getting revenue without having to do *any* marketing. That's quite a cost-savings.
Same reason why Telus has no problem with Interbaun and others using Telus's hardware for Interbaun customers here in Edmonton.
Except now it means they can't lock you into a specific device either. They can try, but locking phones to your network is out on the new wavelength (if they do it, and it is ok, people can just choose another provider...)
So lets say at&t buys the spectrum for the estimated $10B or something that I read. Why wouldn't they just set fees to use the spectrum at $10B? Seems like a really non-issue the FCC imposed.
They could, but that's going to get lawmakers upset I'm sure.
How so? Seems entirely legitimate to me. Its open, you can run whatever you want, just pay the man.
Monopoly laws maybe? I bet the FCC has limits on what you can do in that regard.
The FCC will likely set rules regarding "reasonable charges for access". If and when they do that, they will use what AT&T charges its own customers as a baseline. Again, my opinion is based on how the Province of Alberta has legislated what Telus can charge other companies such as Interbaun for access to its hardware.
It could be played even more obscurely what if at&t buys the spectrum just to sit on it with no purpose? Buy it so the competition doesn't.
If recall that type of access that Thorin speaks of with Telus recently changed in the USA. If AOL wants to run their internet off of at&t's pipes at&t can charge whatever they want now. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1192525413109
Well that sucks. Go Net Neutrality!
NOt much to do with net neutrality, just makes mom & pop ISPs essentially doomed.
Except that with net neutrality, mom&pop can just lease bandwidth from the carrier and have their own ISP.
And with the new open access rules, any device can be used, making net neutrality actually be usefull on the new wireless networks.
Thats not net neutrality. Net neutrality as far as I am aware is preventing ISPs from giving priority to websites/networks who give them money. So if CNN pays Shaw more money then their website will show faster then Fox's. Its a bad thing. The above just that I pointed out was deregulation of telephone networks which makes companies who sell ISP packages now have to lease the lines from the owners of the lines. Would be the same with an open wireless network, you can run whatever device that gets FCC approval on that spectrum but only if you pay access fees.
The problem that is looming based on the judgement you pointed out is that AT&T is being considered an information provider rather than a transmission provider. As an information provider, they no longer have to allow access to their network. My Go Net Neutrality comment was off the mark, you're right. However, if major telcos and cable companies become labeled as information providers, Net Neutrality will be a pipedream because they *also* control most of the transmission infrastructure. Thus that judgement may well have dire consequences for Net Neutrality in the future.