[kmeisthax]

Would the TV bands actually be useful for that? Wi-Fi has actually been going up the frequency bands looking for spectrum, from 2.4GHz to 5GHz and now 6GHz. Each one adds significantly more bandwidth (but worse propagation for a given transmitter power). If we were to make a "Wi-Fi 7R"[0] with 900MHz support, which is right next to some of the upper UHF TV stations in the US, wouldn't that be terribly slow and have lots of interference from overlapping base stations? I mean, 2.4GHz is already crowded to the point of unusability in a lot of dense areas.

[0] The R stands for "range"

[lxgr]

> Each one adds significantly more bandwidth (but worse propagation for a given transmitter power).

As far as I know, that's mostly due to these bands simply having more spectrum available, in addition to actual physical propagation characteristics (lower frequencies indeed propagate a bit better across obstacles like walls or floors, and slightly better through air, but not at all through free space).

In addition to that, unlicensed bands arguably work precisely because they are (by regulation) limited mostly to short-range applications, using maximum transmission power as a proxy for range. One person's signal is another person's noise, after all.

There's other unlicensed bands available that are more suitable for long-range communication, but these usually come with duty cycle restrictions for the same reason.

[mcny]

I think this is one of those things where we should open it up (with limits, I’m not saying we should allow 10kW base stations or something obscene like that) and see what innovation we usher in?

I’m guessing it will be good enough out in the middle of nowhere or something that needs just reliable low speeds?

[samdcbu]

If someone is already in the middle of no where, 2.4 GHz congestion isn’t a problem for them.

I’m always for more unlicensed spectrum.

But I strongly disagree with your distaste for the FCC’s reverse auctions of spectrum. Wireless Spectrum is a limited public resource and an auction is a much better way to allocate it than to have those same companies instead hire lobbyists to try to convince the FCC to allocate that spectrum to them.

[mcny]

> But I strongly disagree with your distaste for the FCC’s reverse auctions of spectrum. Wireless Spectrum is a limited public resource and an auction is a much better way to allocate it than to have those same companies instead hire lobbyists to try to convince the FCC to allocate that spectrum to them.

There has to be a better way than to allocate spectrum to any one company and give them the rights to buy and sell this spectrum for ninety nine years. If the government needs money, raise taxes!

I am not saying big telco should get wireless spectrum allocation for free. I am saying nobody should get wireless spectrum allocation at all. At least not in the way we currently do things.

If we really need money so much, why not put billboards left, right, and center all over our interstate highways? Why not let companies sponsor the Washington Monument, the White House, and the US Capitol? Lets have an auction and let the highest bidder paint these buildings with whatever they see fit.

Why not give all our federal land to Monsanto for a ninety nine years lease?

/s

Sorry for yelling. I feel very strongly about this. I don't have a solution to how we can allocate spectrum better than an auction. The best I can think of is reduce the number and amount of licensed spectrum.

I want there to be something left in the wireless spectrum when in maybe a few decades hopefully future humans will have a little bit more brains than us come up with a better way to allocate spectrum.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing for repealing Highway Beautification.

[Avamander]

802.11af and 802.11at are already a "thing", so I guess they would be useful.