FCC Frees Up More Money For TV Station Repack

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,239
2,517
Salem, OR
Pai shouldn't lose sight of those stations that are filing for extensions. They tend to accumulate over time.
 

Trip

RabbitEars Webmaster
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Jun 21, 2008
1,222
625
Alexandria, VA, US
Don't encourage them! LOL

We can't afford to have them get even more greedy, and sell off even more spectrum.
I'm not sure who would buy. At 600 MHz, the wavelength is longer than the phone, so the antenna winds up being electrically short, harming performance. To go lower in frequency would only worsen that problem. Verizon and Sprint sat out the 600 MHz auction, T-Mobile has indicated they would not buy anything else below channel 37, and AT&T participated but then won the FirstNet contract and decided it didn't need the 600 MHz spectrum after all--sold what little it won to a speculator type group.

All the interest right now is in higher frequencies, like 3.5 GHz, 5 GHz, and then even higher in the tens of GHz, due to the capacity issues being most acute in urban areas where cell sites would be dense enough to overcome the severe limitations of those frequencies.

- Trip
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,239
2,517
Salem, OR
At 600 MHz, the wavelength is longer than the phone, so the antenna winds up being electrically short, harming performance.
I'm all about the Physics of antennas, but does your wavelength concern apply to the fractal antennas phones are using today?

The other "realization" that many are coming to is that perhaps these lower frequencies will be used for fixed wireless where portability isn't a concern.
 

Trip

RabbitEars Webmaster
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Jun 21, 2008
1,222
625
Alexandria, VA, US
I heard from someone who works with people who do phone antenna designs that right now, they gain 15% coverage on the lower frequency, then lose 15% on antenna efficiency problems. My T-Mobile contact said they're not interested in anything lower, having satisfied themselves with 600 MHz.

You're not wrong that it could be used for fixed services, but I don't think the money is there for fixed services. White space devices already exist and are already in use in those bands, and are currently almost exclusively fixed, and there aren't really that many of them because it's hard to manufacture equipment that's largely rural-only in use. I'm not really sure how it would come to pass, considering that in the cities, fixed service isn't necessary because the higher frequencies will work just fine with greater bandwidths, smaller antennas, and at a lower price point, and I'm not sure you can get equipment manufactured for a rural-only user base.

- Trip
 

TNGuy84

SatelliteGuys Family
May 27, 2018
58
32
Tennessee
I don't like the idea of a high-powered millimeter wave transmitter being on every lamp post and beaming into every house in a neighborhood. I'm more favorable towards T-Mobile's 600 MHz band than anything in the higher GHz range. At least that range has been in use for 60 years or more without any significant health effects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FTA4PA and N5XZS

danristheman

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 25, 2011
3,126
1,104
85w
Its distance, putting it right next to your house is very bad. What is your thoughts on this trip?
 

primestar31

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Mar 15, 2005
8,598
4,929
Beta Omicron Delta III
Well, as a bonus, maybe we can cook hotdogs on a stick held up in the air in our own back yard? LOL

Come on guys, there's no way this could have enough power to cook any of us. It might not be good if you were laying right on top of the antenna, but short of that it should be fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trip

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top