What's new

Ranting about the FCC

  • SNBForums Code of Conduct

    SNBForums is a community for everyone, no matter what their level of experience.

    Please be tolerant and patient of others, especially newcomers. We are all here to share and learn!

    The rules are simple: Be patient, be nice, be helpful or be gone!

Fined for putting out too much regulated power. Ridiculous. Freedom, huh...

ASUS was fined as Netgear was able to prove that production gear didn't match test results that were submitted to FCC for approval.

I'm not saying ASUS cheated, instead, this could very well be a production line configuration file error... doesn't take much there...
 
FCC needs to pack sand and go away.. They serve the wrong people.

If it weren't for the FCC to grant the spectrum for 2.4 and 5GHz that we all use, there would be no wifi - and FCC has done us a good thing recently with the power limits in 5Ghz.

And for what it is worth - their recent efforts on Net Neutrality will open a dialog with the operators - their proposed rules perhaps are a bit over the edge, but at least they've stated their position - at some point, there will be a compromise that is good for all...

So don't bang on the FCC too hard, just saying...
 
Without the FCC, you think there might be a few interference problems among communications services (police, fire, Federal/Local, broadcasters, CB, ISM bands)?

/rant warning
My complaint with the FCC is that in the era of cellular, the FCC was inspired to Auction the spectrum used by cellular operators. Not done for broadcasters. These auctions, long ignored by the media and press, have yielded 100's of billions of dollars. Where did it go (after the FCC spent as much of it as possible internally)? No 60 minutes episodes on that topic.
We all know how the cellular operators recover the obscene costs of these auctions.

FCC auctioning God-given ether for RF transmissions.
When will the EPA auction off the air we breathe?
/end rant
 
Things started getting out of hand with the PC auctions, and the subsequent AWS actions, I've seen some pretty insane pricing there. Most of that revenue actually goes back into the general fund, with some of it allocated to other initiatives - rural broadband grants, public safety networks, etc...

Don't get me started about broadcasters... in the 700MHz band, there are issues in some markets where an incumbent TV station is directly adjacent to the 700MHz band, as such, deploying wireless in those blocks is compromised or flat out impossible, and the FCC hasn't done much to mitigate those situations. One would think that it would be simple for the FCC to just reassign the license for the TV stations, but no...
 
I fiddled a bit with a "White space" system.. early adopter trials, for wireless video surveillance in remote areas (perimeter security). White Space is very interesting.. probably the next big thing in fixed wireless (not for mobiles)

FCC: I have a mental image of luxury cars, leather chairs, fancy offices, all the ways they could think of to burn the auction money before giving the rest to the general fund. The sad, sad thing is the HUGE costs of the spectrum and WE customers pay for it.

The auctions started out small - and only happened because spectrum speculators (!) took free licenses (from the broadcasters' model) and sat on it, expecting/lobbying to be able to "sell" (sublicense or transfer w/fees). That was so abused that spectrum sat empty. So FCC tried a use it or lose it time limit. That didn't fix it. Then FCC decided they had the authority to AUCTION (sell) RF spectrum that mother nature and God gave us. Now it is so out of control!
 
My complaint with the FCC is that in the era of cellular, the FCC was inspired to Auction the spectrum used by cellular operators. Not done for broadcasters. These auctions, long ignored by the media and press, have yielded 100's of billions of dollars. Where did it go (after the FCC spent as much of it as possible internally)? No 60 minutes episodes on that topic.

Haven't had the time to read it yet, but this might provide some interesting reading:

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-325872A1.pdf
 
we've really gone off the range on this thread, lol...

FCC has one way of doing things, other countries have other ways - I appreciate what Japan does - they allocate a section of spectrum, and grant carriers the right to use, and they also determine what technology the carraier must use - and given a period of time, they can re-use it again - if they fail, they lose their investment...

And should note that monthly wireless bills there are thru the roof in the post-paid community..
 
Sorry to all, I'm the one who brought FCC into this thread while trying making a point about txpower :cool:) But I am glad the Admin has created a thread for "FCC ranting". Quite weird how the thread fan out into.
Good day Gents.
 
Without the FCC, you think there might be a few interference problems among communications services (police, fire, Federal/Local, broadcasters, CB, ISM bands)?

That's a different ball of worms - when looking at Public Safety as an example - One has State and Local agencies, districts that overlap different local cities (locally here in San Diego, fire districts are a good example, and they also overlap in the backcountry with CDF), County, Tribal Organizations (First Nations as some would call) that are not accountable to state or local, Military bases, the list goes on...

Each and every one of them has invested over time, different and incompatible radio networks that overlap each other - the big fires in '03 and '07 showed how bad the situation really was... locally people are working to improve things, and while FCC can make recommendations, they actually have little power to do much at a local level..

And this is just California - each state has their own peculiarity.. some do coordinate on a state level, and many at a local level (e.g. Texas for example, where every county is independent)...

FCC has been chartered to speed things along - see http://www.firstnet.gov/about

They're making some progress on the political front, and the technical challenges are the least of their worries, those are being addressed - but it's the local/state agencies with huge sunk costs that are holding things up - it's not that much different than the Broadcasters vs. operators and the rebanding challenges there...
 
FCC needs to pack sand and go away.. They serve the wrong people.
FCC's job is to make sure every one plays in same level field.
 
FCC's job is to make sure every one plays in same level field.
well, sort of. The ITU (International Telecommunications Union) formal treaties allocate and take away, as time passes, spectrum to the US (et al). The Federal NTIA keeps some as Federal only (military, FBI, Secret Service, etc.). The rest goes to the FCC. The NTIA authorizes Federal users in their spectrum. The FCC authorizes/licenses or (manages in the case of unlicensed) all other. Some spectrum is shared between Federal and via the FCC, to state/local, usually with Federal as primary, state/local as secondary. The non-shared spectrum under FCC's control gets licensed to public safety as 1st priority, cellular, broadcasters, special mobile radio (SMR such as utilities, taxis, etc.), Amateur Radio, and others. Some ITU bands are coordinated internationally as unlicensed, with 2.4GHz being the sole practical band for international unlicensed use.

The above is a simplification of a process that is really complex and political within the US and within ITU member countries. Some countries don't participate in the treaties. As I recall, the full ITU meets about every 10 years.

This ITU/National/FCC gets very interesting in satellite spectrum coordination, since footprints cover multiple countries in most cases.

Given the treaty decisions on what bands are used for what purposes, many radio services are self-administered. For public safety at state/local it's done so by APCO (Assoc. of Police Chiefs), and FCC is really just an observer and issues licenses if the APCO does not object. So too, Amateur radio. Etc.

The <expletive deleted> cellular spectrum auctions seemingly consume 80% of FCC's staff and resources since the income to the Federal Gov. is so lucrative.
 
Last edited:
If you actually look what the FCC allocates resources for, only a tiny portion of staff time and resources is spent on the auctions themselves.

Also, the FCC doesn't use much of the money, they are required to deposite it in the general treasury.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50128

The FCC gets most of its funding from congress. Most of their "grant" money comes from various taxes they've implemented on things like your phone bill and that goes to rural internet/telephone funds as well as some other FCC initiatives.

The auctions go to reducing the deficit.

Just wanted to correct that wholely incorrect assumption on your part Stevech.


Now, as to the merits of the auctions, I am not prepared to argue that. However, if you look at the fixed wire telecom industry, there is little "FCC overhead" associated with what costs those providers have, yet internet, cable and phone bills have been increasing at levels well above inflation for a number of years.

Also so have the profits of the most of the big telecom companies.

Conclusion, at least to me, auction costs end up impacting the big telecoms relatively little. Especially when you consider that a lot of the auction fees are paid to the federal government over many years, not all at once.

Then you also get in to public policy areas, such as, "what is better, reducing everyone's taxes, but having a fee to users of a specific service" which is in effect what this does (oh, but if they didn't have to pay the auctions, I am sure cellular providers would lower your bill and not simply reap even larger profits. Straight face failed), that or have higher taxes, but do away with "fees".

I fall on the side of, within reason, if the population who is using the service is generally able to pay the fee, without serious hardship, then it should be a fee and not increased taxes for everyone. However, if the vast majority of people within the population would be using the service, then it should probably be a tax and not a fee.

IE, getting a driver's license should be a fee to support in part or in whole producing the license and operating the body involved in regulating/overseeing "driving stuff", same with the other stuff surrounding the "driving stuff". Now things like public roads generally should be supported with taxes and not fees, because everyone uses the roads, either directly or indirectly, but only a few people actually drive (compared to the 99.9999% of the population who use the roads in some manner, whether it is driving on them, goods and services they use utilize the roads, etc.).
 
My impression of how the FCC intakes the auction $ - shouldn't be dismissed. I've worked with the FCC for years, I've walked halls, etc.

Yes, our federal, state and local gov. of late has learned how to stop delivering services that appear on my tax bills and also raise taxes.
Example: City decided to stop trash pickup service in condo complexes that have privately owned streets. In mine, the trash service by the City began in 1986. Ended in 2014. We homeowners have to now pay a private trash company quite a bit.
Other examples abound: special new tax for street maintenance and pothole repairs, tree trimming city medians. On top of property taxes we pay ($$$$) and big sales taxes.
And the best: in the drought, City's left hand says mandatory water usage reductions. City's right hand says revenue to the water district is down sharply so they raised the rates.
FCC's auction money is of the same ilk.

The flaw in the "fee" assertion is: A fee should be to offset a cost. The spectrum is God given at no cost. To administer licensing cost very little, to wit, broadcasters' fees, Amateur/SMR and Public Safety license fees are 0 or nearly so, as there is so little cost, esp. now with the computerized ULS.
 
Last edited:
RE; Thiggins :-D

Stevech, I don't really disagree on what a fee should be used for.

On trash collection, don't know how your area handles it. In my county, you have to pay ~$250 a year in trash collection "tax" (it is lumped in to property taxes). It is possible to tell the county you don't wish to participate in trash/recycling collection and have the tax removed, but then you get to drive the either short or long distance to the one county dump.

Private roads, they'll still do trash collection, but you have to haul your trash to the public collection point. Part of why I may never move as far down the road behind me as I'd like to. County only does trash collection and USPS mail delivery about 1/3rd of the way down the road. After that it is homeowner maintained road(s). So those homeowners have to haul their trash to that point and leave it for collection as well as good to the string of about 30 mailboxes to get their mail. Oh, and also maintain the rest of the road too (the one court off the road as well as the first half a dozen houses participate in a communal road maintenance fee that the HOA for those homes setup (that is the only function of the HOA, is road maintenance and collecting the annual $150 road maintenance fee), everyone even further back just pitches in to drop a bit of gravel in the spots where the asphalt has deteriorated too much, or where it turns to dirt/gravel, in to the low spots. Same with plowing, the homeowners along that entire stretch who have plows on their trucks just plow it out for every one else). I live right on the edge of "very rural". The road that goes down there is about 30 homes, then it gets even less dense with about another 30 homes. The first 15-20 are actual homes, the last 10-15 are a few homes with also 5-6 farms/horse farms of 10-80 acres in size (the last few homes are on 3-10 acres).

As for the less services, more taxes...well a lot of municipalities and states are still hurting bad from the housing crunch. Property tax revenue for most areas is still well below what it was prior to 2008 and that plus income tax tends to be how most municipalities and states make up the vast majority of their general revenue. Since that is still way down (because fewer jobs, fewer well paying jobs and lower property values), something has to give.

Do I like it, hell no. I bitch and moan a lot about it, but I also recognize something has to give. Either higher taxes, less services or both.
 
Also on the spectrum auctions, then how do you propose you manage the spectrum? Free/super low cost to anyone who wants to use it (so long as they can show that they'll use it)? Let everyone share it? I am not saying that isn't potentially a way to do it, but honestly I can see some valid arguments that if it is "free", then it can create issues where tiny "carriers" could snap up a license, because it is nearly free. I want competition, but at the same time, I don't know that it benefits anyone to have half a dozen local wireless carriers with their own licenses, a bunch of regional carriers with their own licenses and only a few national carriers with their own licenses, all with only a tiny, tiny slice because there are so many licensees in an area.

Yes, spectrum sharing and network coordination is one way to implement it, but that also probably takes a lot more FCC oversight.
 

Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest

Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!
Top