Is this an example? Shalini Ramachandran described Dish Network’s travails in expanding into the cell phone network.
The Federal Communications Commission is leaning toward putting limits on how [Dish Network Corp Chairman Charlie] Ergen can use the billions of dollars of spectrum he controls, FCC officials said.
The commission…is seriously considering requiring him to limit his use of a slice of the spectrum to protect against interference on a neighboring spectrum band, the officials said—a move that Mr. Ergen said in an interview Thursday “would be a game changer for us.”
Current FCC rules require operators using satellite spectrum to offer handsets with a satellite chip, making the devices more expensive. Dish has been awaiting the FCC’s decision on whether to allow the satellite operator to use its spectrum for a solely ground-based cellular network.
…FCC is close to approving Dish’s request, but with a buffer zone in which Mr Ergen could only operate at low power, which could mean worse wireless service. …that limit would reduce the capability of Dish’s “uplink” spectrum—which handles the pathway from the cellphone to the tower—by 25%. An additional 25% on top of that would be impaired due to interference…endangering Dish’s ability to compete in the wireless business….
This raises some questions in my poor, plebeian mind. An FCC mandate concerning how a private entity might use his private property would seem to be an interference with the property rights of that private entity. Is the restriction actually necessary to protect the neighboring property owner’s rights?
Should government be involved before the two private entities have had a chance to try to work things out on their own?
How does a satellite chip that uses a part of the spectrum create less interference from that spectrum than the absence of such a chip and continued use of that same spectrum?