UHF TV Band has advantage of RANGE compared to CellPhone freqs.
If they can use a frequency that is HALF the CellPhone freq, they can
DOUBLE the range between Cell Towers....which means ONE-FOURTH
as many total Cell Towers to cover a flat earth area, if same ERP...
But this is somewhat simplified: it's easier to build higher Gain antennas at higher freqs,
but higher power amplifiers are also probably less expensive at lower freqs...
Note that one argument cancels the other....
And perhaps UHF propagates into buildings better than CellPhone freqs.....
Whatever....the National Broadband Plan said there is a "NEED" for 500 MHz
more spectrum....which has to come from somebody.....but the rationale for
this is highly suspect....hence the FCC was tasked to conduct an inventory of
who is using (and no longer using) the existing spectrum allocations...which
will apparently take many years to complete (really????).....
Every American is expected to "NEED" a multi-megabit/sec WIRELESS connection
so that they can watch HIGH-DEFINITION video on their 3" SmartPhone screens
and so they can conduct HIGH-DEFINITION two-way video conferences while riding
the bus/train, walking down the sidewalk, sitting at home and/or driving a car
instead of texting/talking like we do today.....Jump from 8 kbps to 8 Mbps....
It would make more sense to recalculate the WIRELESS spectrum "requirement"
presuming that most people are either at work or at home and are connected
to an IN-HOME Wi-Fi (My "N" is 300 Mbps) that is then connected to some sort
of high speed wired/fibre connection....and any new WIRELESS "requirement"
is strictly for commuters (very few of whom "need" Hi-Def) and phone users
(talking, web surfing and NOT watching HDTV or downloading GigaByte torrent files).
Personally, I wouldn't have any problem if Smart Phones only supported two-way
video conferences (e.g. Skype) as they do today....via local Wi-Fi connection to cable.
I can envision some people getting a Full-Wall Super-Hi-Rez HDTV so they can
connect for hours at a time to....grand-kidz....girl-friend....ummm...evenhotterGF....
or simply connect to a large number of Hi-Rez webcams pointed to scenic spots,
like Hawaii, the Alps, Great Barrier Reef....wait a minute, we can already do that...
Easy to do on Cable....so why does it have to clog up the scarce WIRELESS freqs??????
I have no doubt there is a "NEED" for much higher data rates....I just don't think it
all needs to be WIRELESS from a sparsely populated set of WiMax Towers to each
and every person in the country....esp. with the ready availability of UNSECURE
Wi-Fi entry points pretty much everywhere I ever needed to fire up a laptop....
If a simple, higher data rate Wi-Fi system is needed to accommodate more users,
then they should have split out that particular problem from the TV Band fiasco......
If the RURAL market was the only problem they were trying to solve (as WSD was
originally envisioned), assigning a handful of open channels would be fairly easy
(avoid adjacent channels and hopefully next adjacent) and this process could have
been approved already.....but they're trying to get it approved for ALL LOCATIONS,
which means taking over a significant portion of the TV UHF Band.
It appears that they are now looking for a contiguous part of the TV UHF Band....
probably due to the WSD interference problems identified in analysis & tests.
So who is going to pay for THAT to happen???? Stations are still paying for the
recent change to DTV.... You don't just dial up a new transmit frequency....the
antennas all have to be REPLACED....AGAIN....at great risk to life and limb....
The current plan appears to be to simply buy out the marginally profitable stations,
which would probably be mostly Religious, foreign language and ethnic programs.
[Who are complaining about a perceived threat of being shut down.....]
Perhaps "they" are thinking that these programs can simply be multiplexed onto
some other "underutilized" frequency....but in the L.A. area, these stations aren't
carrying just one program....they are carrying a fairly full mix of programs....
And apparently is only the first step before REPACKING the frequency assignments....
For some stations, this would mean a THIRD channel change.....where did it go????
But that still wouldn't solve the WSD interference problems, esp. in Urban areas....
FCC Tests proved...WSD devices will interfere with nearby Cable/Sat systems!!!!
[Cable uses ALL TV Band freqs, and now extends to 1.5 GHz for MoCA.]
THERE ARE NO WHITE SPACES ON CABLE!!!!!
PS: Sure the FCC could dictate that WSD (towers) could not be located near
Broadway.....but that doesn't provide protection for all the other TV Band wireless
mic user locations....they're at most sports venues, most live entertainment venues,
many high schools, many colleges, many Hotels with meeting rooms & many churches.
So in many Urban/Suburban areas, the best location might be in the next county....