iPhone, iPad bandwidth strains could lead FCC to pay for airwaves
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission could pay network broadcasters to vacate their airwaves and offer more wireless spectrum as bandwidth-heavy devices like the iPhone and iPad become more prevalent.
The strategy could be a part of the in-the-works National Broadband Plan, due to be introduced to Congress in March. According to an FCC official who spoke with BusinessWeek, the plan could use revenue from airwave auctions to pay existing users to vacate.
"We know there's a spectrum crunch," the official reportedly said. "We are just trying to come up with options."
The introduction of the bandwidth-heavy, always-connected iPhone has placed a strain on the AT&T network in the U.S., where it is the exclusive carrier of Apple's handset. AT&T will also be the sole stateside 3G provider for the iPad, with a $29.99 unlimited plan available contract-free.
Last October, Julius Genachowski, chairman of the FCC, said devices like the iPhone would require new policies to be enacted because of a coming "spectrum gap." He said all signs point to there not being enough spectrum available for wireless services in the future.
The iPad is expected to only compound the issue. After Apple introduced the device and its 3G-enabled model that could access the AT&T network in the U.S., the FCC posted on its official blog that the iPad signals even more devices will be taxing the available mobile bandwidth.
"With the iPad pointing to even greater demand for mobile broadband on the horizon, we must ensure that network congestion doesn't choke off a service that consumers clearly find so appealing or frustrate mobile broadband's ability to keep us competitive in the global broadband economy," the FCC wrote.
Genachowski, who has admitted he is an iPhone user and fan, has been a strong proponent of Net neutrality, allowing users to visit sites they please without being discriminated against by broadband providers.
With Genachowski at the helm, the FCC has taken an active role in the wireless market. Under pressure from the government, AT&T agreed to allow Voice over IP calls via its 3G network. It also inquired over the non-acceptance of the Google Voice application in the App Store.
The FCC has also signaled that it wants to increase wireless carrier competition, and increase the availability of exclusive smartphones like the iPhone in rural markets where providers like AT&T do not offer service.
The strategy could be a part of the in-the-works National Broadband Plan, due to be introduced to Congress in March. According to an FCC official who spoke with BusinessWeek, the plan could use revenue from airwave auctions to pay existing users to vacate.
"We know there's a spectrum crunch," the official reportedly said. "We are just trying to come up with options."
The introduction of the bandwidth-heavy, always-connected iPhone has placed a strain on the AT&T network in the U.S., where it is the exclusive carrier of Apple's handset. AT&T will also be the sole stateside 3G provider for the iPad, with a $29.99 unlimited plan available contract-free.
Last October, Julius Genachowski, chairman of the FCC, said devices like the iPhone would require new policies to be enacted because of a coming "spectrum gap." He said all signs point to there not being enough spectrum available for wireless services in the future.
The iPad is expected to only compound the issue. After Apple introduced the device and its 3G-enabled model that could access the AT&T network in the U.S., the FCC posted on its official blog that the iPad signals even more devices will be taxing the available mobile bandwidth.
"With the iPad pointing to even greater demand for mobile broadband on the horizon, we must ensure that network congestion doesn't choke off a service that consumers clearly find so appealing or frustrate mobile broadband's ability to keep us competitive in the global broadband economy," the FCC wrote.
Genachowski, who has admitted he is an iPhone user and fan, has been a strong proponent of Net neutrality, allowing users to visit sites they please without being discriminated against by broadband providers.
With Genachowski at the helm, the FCC has taken an active role in the wireless market. Under pressure from the government, AT&T agreed to allow Voice over IP calls via its 3G network. It also inquired over the non-acceptance of the Google Voice application in the App Store.
The FCC has also signaled that it wants to increase wireless carrier competition, and increase the availability of exclusive smartphones like the iPhone in rural markets where providers like AT&T do not offer service.
Comments
AT&T will also be the sole 3G provider for the iPad, with a $29.99 unlimited plan available contract-free.
How writes this crap. AT&T is not and will not be the "sole" provider for 3g. The GSM SIM is unlocked and can be used by any Provider that provides 3g service using GSM. This comes right from the keynote that SJ gave in January.
How writes this crap.
Now that is funny!
AT&T is not and will not be the "sole" provider for 3g. The GSM SIM is unlocked and can be used by any Provider that provides 3g service using GSM. This comes right from the keynote that SJ gave in January.
AT&T is the sole provider for 3G in the US. The iPad is unlocked but the spec sheet does not contain the 1700MHz spectrum for T-Mobile USA. Therefore, you cannot use the iPad with Verizon or Sprint in any regard, but you can use it for T-Mobile USA, but only on their EDGE and GPRS networks (aka 2G).
How writes this crap. AT&T is not and will not be the "sole" provider for 3g. The GSM SIM is unlocked and can be used by any Provider that provides 3g service using GSM. This comes right from the keynote that SJ gave in January.
I thought the iPad only supported AT&Ts 3G bands and therefore AT&T only for 3G?
AT&T is the sole provider for 3G in the US. The iPad is unlocked but the spec sheet does not contain the 1700MHz spectrum for T-Mobile USA. Therefore, you cannot use the iPad with Verizon, Sprint. You can use it for T-Mobile USA, but only on their EDGE and GPRS networks (aka 2G).
And carriers that offer MicroSIM card.
And carriers that offer MicroSIM card.
Apparently you can just cut a regular SIM card down to fit, if needed.
Genachowski, who has admitted he is an iPhone user and fan, has been a strong proponent of Net neutrality, allowing users to visit sites they please without being discriminated against by broadband providers.
I ask when have you been discriminated against.
And carriers that offer MicroSIM card.
Supposedly one can cut a SIM card down to fit a MicroSIM phone, it's just extra plastic all around, the guts are the same between the two. So I read.
(warning: I have not verified or performed this, proceed at your own risk)
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission could pay network broadcasters to vacate their airwaves and offer more wireless spectrum as bandwidth-heavy devices like the iPhone and iPad become more prevalent
I much rather have our failed government find ways of doing things without spending money if possible, they got the power to create good change with laws. The way we are going now, we will be ending up like Greece shortly.
For one, it's a natural resource, and thus cannot be owned.
Secondly, we should not have a gov't org deciding what bands of spectrum can be used for what. That's just silly, and it's creating an artificial bandwidth crunch.
Instead, any band of it should be leased to any company by the American people for $X-yr, collected by an FCC-type organization and paid back via a tax rebate.
-Clive
Sorry to get political, but "owning" spectrum is part of the problem.
For one, it's a natural resource, and thus cannot be owned.
Secondly, we should not have a gov't org deciding what bands of spectrum can be used for what. That's just silly, and it's creating an artificial bandwidth crunch.
Instead, any band of it should be leased to any company by the American people for $X-yr, collected by an FCC-type organization and paid back via a tax rebate.
-Clive
However you describe it or define the problem, it is a step in the right direction to lay down a plan right now for future bandwidth requirements.
Game changers like the iPhone, iPad, the newer-fangled smartphones and 'net devices are only the advance wave of the coming bandwidth crunch in the future so things could easily get far worse before they get better... make hay while the Sun shines is what I'd say...
http://atsc.org/cms/index.php/standa...c-a72-standard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_(standards)#Codecs
http://hd.engadget.com/2008/09/22/at...ort-for-h-264/
AM/FM radio could also benefit from compression, and I'm unsure if HD Radio accomplishes this goal, since it supplements but does not replace analog radio...
http://hdradio.com/what_is_hd_digital_radio.php
Wireless spectrum is a finite resource. Soon enough, we will hit that wall. Then what? Force all broadcasters to abandon OTA transmissions?
instead of blaming all wireless and coverage. sorry, i think TV ought to keep spectrum, no reason to change anything.
AT&T needs to step up 3G expansion.
That is all.
Well OTA Digital TV today is vastly inefficient using MPEG-2, it should have started off on MPEG-4/H.264 for bandwidth savings! It has been added, but who has a tuner that supports it today? Next to nobody:
The problem with better compression is that it takes more processing power to decompress. The HW will need to support H.264 decoding with an installed base approaching 100% before the stations can make the switch.
Just look at the DTV transition to see what a drawn out kerfuffle it can be. I'm only seeing 10 countries completed since 2009. That is to get rid of standard that was how old? Most channels are still in SD yet I don't know a single person that doesn't have HDTVs or HD cable boxes and DVRs, but I know this is not the norm.
PS: My hotels usually have HDTVs but the signal is still being sent as analog SD. It's a pretty weak setup all around. Annoys the piss out of me.
PPS: THe US went DTV in 2009, but Japan and Canada are scheduled for mid to late 2011. We beat Japan in technology adoption for once. Woot! Brazil did their transition in big cities back in 2007 but won't get the entire country until an estimated 2014.
The iPad is expected to only compound the issue. After Apple introduced the device and its 3G-enabled model that could access the AT&T network in the U.S., the FCC posted on its official blog that the iPad signals even more devices will be taxing the available mobile bandwidth.
I think the 3G-less models will far outsell the 3Gs. I read good 3G chips cost about $7 wholesale. Apple is charging an extra $129 for them. An 1800% markup is high even for Apple! It's almost as if they don't want to sell them (yet), or at least until AT&T fixes their network. If anything, AT&T could pay for part of the chips since they will bring them more business.
maybe the FCC ought to look into iphone network exclusivity with ATT.
1) Why is Apple and AT&T's exclusivity deal an issue, but not any of the other exclusivity deals between carriers and vendors?
2) What does the Federal Communications Commission have to do with business contracts?
2) Even if the iPhone was not allowed to be locked to a carrier there would also have to be a law that forces Apple to make version for T-Mobile's 3G, and Verizon and Sprint's CDMA/EV-DO to make it useful. Just breaking the contract doesn't resolve your dislike of AT&T.