5 ms·

This is up at 17 GHz. It's not the attempt to take over the 900MHz ISM band.

• pockybum522 2y ago
  I about had a heart attack before I clicked on it and realized that.
• exabrial 2y ago
  Same. There's plenty of spectrum available. For purchase. Contact T-Mobile or Verizon.
  • blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Maybe there is a way to force them to release unused spectrum for free?
    • moralestapia 2y ago
      Or force regular auctions on them. (Maybe this is already the case, idk)
    • darksaints 2y ago
      There is a way, which is through buildout enforcement. Basically, if you don't meet buildout deadlines and cover x% of pops within a specific time period, you forfeit the license. It should probably be a lot more stringent and with tighter deadlines, but the mechanism already exists. It hasn't ever really been an issue with any spectrum that they've bought in the past, and it has only ever been a concern with mmWave spectrum, because the costs of coverage are much higher than were ever anticipated with their tiny effective ranges. Anything below 3GHz seems to get built out and used extremely quickly.
      • glzone1 2y ago
        Dish I think is sitting on a bunch with endless extensions
      • plussed_reader 2y ago
        I think of the 20B+ the shambling humonculus AT&T has pocketed for fiber deployment and think the process is captured.
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > if you don't meet buildout deadlines and cover x% of pops within a specific time period, you forfeit the license The issue you have to surmount is this reduces the value of the licenses in the short run. Which means less cash for the seller (the public) now versus a recurring productive asset. The useless response is to decry hyperbolic discounting. A productive response would think through how to design the auction such that the public would prefer to have the productive, recurring stream of revenue versus some shiny thing today.
        • bastawhiz 2y ago
          > The issue you have to surmount is this reduces the value of the licenses in the short run. Which means less cash for the seller (the public) now versus a recurring productive asset. Well, that assumes the public isn't really benefiting from the products and services that can actually take advantage of that spectrum. Making less in license fees is probably a good trade-off if your phone is faster or you get interesting and affordable satellite services.
      • joecool1029 2y ago
        > There is a way, which is through buildout enforcement. LOL, DISH squatted nationwode spectrum for years and it wasn't until the tmo/sprint merger that they did more than build a single tower in Colorado. I don't think I've ever seen the FCC seriously enforce the buildout requirements since any license holder can say 'but its hard we need more time/money'
    • ElderKorihor 2y ago
      Sure. Tax it like any other property.
      • brookst 2y ago
        What other properties get taxed? Real estate is the only one I can think of. Precious metals, musical instruments, patents / copyrights / trademarks, vehicles, electronics, lumber. . . none of these properties are taxed.
        • sumtechguy 2y ago
          Slight correction cars are typically taxed. Usually in 3 different ways. Fuel, property and tag. Now not all states call it a tax. Not all states have all 3.
          • brookst 2y ago
            I’ve never seen property tax on a car. What states have that? And EV’s don’t typically pay a fuel tax, which wouldn’t be a property tax anyway. Registration/tag is certainly not a property tax. There’s a difference between taxing ownership of a property and taxing activities you use the property for. The latter includes things like fishing licenses, but nobody would say there’s a property tax on fishing rods.
            • sumtechguy 2y ago
              NC has property tax on cars. It is different from state to state what is in or out or what they call it.
  • throwaway48476 2y ago
    The biggest mistake the FCC made was using spectrum to maximize revenue and not value for taxpayer.
    • namlem 2y ago
      Yep. Spectrum should be allocated based on Harberger taxation (sometimes called self-assesed tax)
• m3kw9 2y ago
  Wait until Apple puts 17ghz receivers in their iPhones
  • Molitor5901 2y ago
    Is that feasible in an iPhone? Could an iPhone with just one more radio become a sat phone?
    • RockRobotRock 2y ago
      They can already send texts over satellite so probably pretty feasible. Idk though
      • verzali 2y ago
        It's much harder at higher frequencies because you need to point your antenna more accurately. That's pretty hard to do by hand on a phone.
        • syedkarim 2y ago
          Alternatively, the aperture of the antenna on the satellite can be increased. So high-gain from space, but low gain on Earth, which is the approach of AST SpaceMobile.
          • idunnoman1222 2y ago
            How is that not one way communication?
    • pnut 2y ago
      https://www.starlink.com/gb/business/direct-to-cell https://www.starlink.com/gb/business/direct-to-cell
  • lxgr 2y ago
    They already have 30 GHz hardware (for 5G mmwave)! I don’t think either spectrum will be feasible for direct to cell satellite communication in the short term, though.