# Radio spectrum: a critical natural resource



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Part 1 - Background



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> UAV's, aircraft and communications have put a strain on available bw breaking this bottleneck is essential or it will limit the use of all these assets we are using to becoe "netcentric".
> 
> Army Times:
> Breaking the bandwidth barrier
> ...



End of Part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Part 2 - Discussion

I am resurrecting a very old post and adding a _civilian_ perspective from this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Post_, to illustrate a _natural resource_ problem ~ radio spectrum:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/07/27/ruling-the-waves-behind-the-telecos-insatiable-hunger-for-wireless-spectrum/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__lsa=e4a4-c756


> Ruling the waves: Behind the telecos’ insatiable hunger for wireless spectrum
> 
> Christine Dobby
> 
> ...




The spectrum is a finite natural resource which is, as the article mentions, managed on a global basis. It is, in a way, rather like oil: when oil was $10/barrel there was no way to recover _heavy oil_ in Alberta; at $50/barrel the _oil sands_ are viable; at $100/barrel all manner of new technologies are available. It is similar with spectrum: as _demand_ drives up the price good engineering will increase the _supply_ by making each _Hertz_ carry more and more information by using more and more sophisticated coding and modulation techniques.

It is a fact that, globally, the military remains the biggest single user of spectrum. In simple bandwidth terms most military spectrum is used for radar and most of that spectrum is not of much interest to civilians ... yet. But as (or if) consumer demand continues to grow then civilians - and revenue hungry governments - will start to cast covetous eyes on the military's spectrum. The military is, routinely - and with some, but not much justification - accused of _hoarding_ spectrum. This, generally, reflects a poorly informed civilian sector (industry and government) but the explanations are often complex and, sometimes, cloaked in secrecy.

But the military is not defenceless: its voice within national governments remains strong and militaries - even ones who are not allies or even friends - cooperate internationally to _defend_ bands against civil/commercial encroachment. 

For the time being when we say military we mean, for tactical operations, mobile and _mobile_ equals radio which requires spectrum. We can, as we have demonstrated over the past half century, make any spectrum band do more and more but always at a cost.

Do you want more new ships or better defences for the ones you have? Both have serious spectrum implications and spectrum costs money - DND pays Canada real money for the spectrum it uses and those dollars cannot, then, be used to buy food, fuel or ammunition. Most experts, including many in the military, argue that the military _should_ pay for its spectrum to encourage optimum use.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2013)

Since I have only a limited background in the area, I am dazzeled by the various advances I see (and sometimes I post them on the Recent Wafare Technologies page). 

Techniques like polarization, advanced algorithms for packet routing, multiplexing, high speed frequency hopping etc. are all being developed and touted as means of speeding up networks, increasing throughput and making more efficient use of the spectrum. My question, then, is this not enough? And if so, what can we do to help the situation?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since I have only a limited background in the area, I am dazzeled by the various advances I see (and sometimes I post them on the Recent Wafare Technologies page).
> 
> Techniques like polarization, advanced algorithms for packet routing, multiplexing, high speed frequency hopping etc. are all being developed and touted as means of speeding up networks, increasing throughput and making more efficient use of the spectrum. My question, then, is this not enough? And if so, what can we do to help the situation?









Is the message you are about to send really necessary? What about the report you are about to demand from subordinates? If it is necessary, do you really need it now? Etc, etc, etc ...

I have a nagging suspicion that we you (serving folks) talk too much. I watched the exponential growth in communications capacity in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s without, ever, seeing a concomitant increase in operational effectiveness ... there were some increases, especially in the 1960s, but the law of diminishing returns seemed to set in sometime in the 1980s and more and more radios, each with more bandwidth, didn't _seem_, to me, anyway, to add all that much to our operations.

Radios (including radars) are good things, we ought to have lots of 'em ... for a whole lot of reasons - security, conservation of spectrum, and other - we should use them with caution.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2013)

Perhaps someone can explain to me why an Afghan\ Indian\ Pakistani that makes < $200 US a year can afford a cell phone, and get reliable service, but we have to pay approx. $35 and up\ month for the same service.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

Because we as Westerners are not satisfied with just using a cell phone to just talk...we are slaves to smartphone technology and wanting it to do everything our PCs can. The vast majority of carriers there only provide basic service anyway. They are also subsidized by the national governments.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone can explain to me why an Afghan\ Indian\ Pakistani that makes < $200 US a year can afford a cell phone, and get reliable service, but we have to pay approx. $35 and up\ month for the same service.




Maybe because we are burdened with a _Marxist_ legacy from the 1960s and '70s - specifically the _Broadcasting Act_ (1968) which: confirms CBC's position as a national broadcaster; strengthens already stringent restrictions on foreign ownership; requires that Canadian programming be created mainly by Canadians; confirms the unproved (and downright silly, in my opinion) notion that the broadcasting system can strengthen Canada's cultural, social and economic structures; and creates the Canadian Radio-television Commission (CRTC), a new regulatory agency to replace the old Board of Broadcast Governors that becomes the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in 1976; and then the _Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act_ which  expands the CRTC's jurisdiction to include telecommunications companies.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

No


----------



## chrisf (27 Jul 2013)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of our problem is from hanging on to out dated technologies, for backwards compatibility, so we can use old out-dated equipment.

Many of the "modern" advancements in communications aren't all that new, they just haven't been implemented.

Think about how much bandwidth could be freed up if all AM communications were changed to FM? Think about how long it's taken (and is taking) to change from analog to digital broadcast television?

A few years ago, I worked for the local power company, doing the pole engineering to start installing fibre optics... we had to install bigger poles in a lot of places to bare the extra weight of the fibre optics, the fibre optics were only tiny, maybe a centimeter diameter, but the existing poles were already over loaded from an enormous amount of copper communications plant installed on them... several feet of copper could easily be replaced by a centimeter of fibre... the copper won't be going anywhere for I'd say at least 50 years though, because it's still in use...


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2013)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of our problem is from hanging on to out dated technologies, for backwards compatibility, so we can use old out-dated equipment.
> 
> Many of the "modern" advancements in communications aren't all that new, they just haven't been implemented.
> 
> Think about how much bandwidth could be freed up if all AM communications were changed to FM?



Ummm?  I am not a Sig Op, but even I know that a radio wave is a radio wave.  You can change technology all you like, but you are not going to change radio waves nor wavelengths of Light in this millennium.  Going Digital from Analog has not changed any wavelengths, just the means of transmitting and receiving them.  Any problems you had dealing with Frequency wavelengths in the past, you will still face in the future.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Going digital, in pretty much every radio service, _conserves_ bandwidth because you can pass more information in the same bandwidth or pass the same information is narrower channels. 

With specific regard to AM (medium frequency (300 kHz to 3MHz)) broadcasting: it, that frequency range, still has HUGE advantages in range/coverage which makes it very valuable for service in rural areas and for wide area "low fidelity" coverage in dense urban areas.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

Those freqs have very limited range and will require repeaters all over creation...ever notice the proliferation of cell towers...


----------



## chrisf (27 Jul 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummm?  I am not a Sig Op, but even I know that a radio wave is a radio wave.  You can change technology all you like, but you are not going to change radio waves nor wavelengths of Light in this millennium.  Going Digital from Analog has not changed any wavelengths, just the means of transmitting and receiving them.  Any problems you had dealing with Frequency wavelengths in the past, you will still face in the future.



What do wave lengths have to do with anything? I think the point flew right over your head there..

"new" technologies change how we use the resources we have... stuff like side bands, modulation type, and channel spacing all became "standard" a long time ago... we could easily use more narrow side bands, and reduce channel spacing, but we (The whole world) don't, because we're so heavily  invested in the standards we have.

Think about the digital TV example... digital transmission is not new, but it's only in the last couple of years that it's being adopted, because of band congestion... it hung around so long because when the switch is made to digital TV, older television sets can't receive the signal...

We could free up an enormous amount of bandwidth if every communications device suddenly went to digital... we could completely re-arrange entire portions of the spectrum... but it'll never happen, not in the near future anyway... because suddenly your car radio won't be compatible, suddenly McDonalds will need to get new wireless headsets for their drive through, suddenly countless FRS walkie-talkies sold over the counter won't be compatible...

"AM" is not a frequency range, "AM" is a modulation type... it just happens that there's a frequency band that we use primarily AM to transmit in... AM needs a wider channel spacing, and only has two side bands vs an theoretically unlimited number of side bands in FM... *but* because when first invented, we standardized AM on those frequencies, we're now stuck with AM, because of that standard.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

AM does not provide the cleanest broadcast...sure it has range, but it degrades over distance.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2013)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> What do wave lengths have to do with anything? I think the point flew right over your head there..



I think the point is flying right over your head.

Heavy cloud, obstructions of any sort, still block my signals; analog or digital.  You can not change radio waves.  What they carry is different, but what blocks that wave, still blocks what it carries.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> AM does not provide the cleanest broadcast...sure it has range, but it degrades over distance.




Indeed, but digital radio at that band - which is widely used in the US (_iBiquity's_ in-band on-channel (IBOC)), even for classical music - is clearer (less susceptible to naturally occurring noise), but it doesn't degrade "gracefully" because digital receivers have more defined thresholds.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

You lose stereo...


----------



## Robert0288 (27 Jul 2013)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> What do wave lengths have to do with anything? I think the point flew right over your head there..
> 
> "new" technologies change how we use the resources we have... stuff like side bands, modulation type, and channel spacing all became "standard" a long time ago... we could easily use more narrow side bands, and reduce channel spacing, but we (The whole world) don't, because we're so heavily  invested in the standards we have.
> 
> Think about the digital TV example... digital transmission is not new, but it's only in the last couple of years that it's being adopted, because of band congestion... it hung around so long because when the switch is made to digital TV, older television sets can't receive the signal...



Speaking of spacing, I wonder if we convert current FM radio stations into using cell phone technology to shrink their overall RF band footprint...   Though it would never actually be done.


----------



## chrisf (27 Jul 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think the point is flying right over your head.
> 
> Heavy cloud, obstructions of any sort, still block my signals; analog or digital.  You can not change radio waves.  What they carry is different, but what blocks that wave, still blocks what it carries.



No, the point is definitely flying over yours  you missed the poit I was making in the beginning.

Not saying use different frequencies, saying use those frequencies differently.

"Am" is not a band, it's a modulation type. The frequencies that we currently use "am" in are typically in the lf/mf/Hf bands.

The waves still propagate the same whether yourself am or fm, but we use am in those bands because its the established standard.

Am you get two side bands, upper ad lower, that's it. If we (the world) was to stop using am in those bands and use fm instead, which has a theoretical infinite number of side bands (there is of course a practical limit, but even with current standard the channel spacing for the bands we use for fm is much narrower.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Thucydides mentioned that, like most CF members, he is less than expert* on spectrum issues and he's a bit dazzled by the technology.

The points that CF members, all Canadians, indeed, need to remember are:

     1. The spectrum is a finite natural resource, which all, civil and military, friend and foe alike are obliged to share;

     2. The definition of successful spectrum management is that all those who need to use the spectrum may do so without causing or suffering harmful interference;

     3. Electromagnetic waves (or particles (photons) if you prefer that theory) obey the laws of physics - even the ones we don't yet understand - but have no respect for human laws, including borders;

     4. The military is nearly completely dependent on spectrum for tactical operations because tactical operations are almost always mobile - at sea, in the air or moving across the ground;

     5. Large sectors of the economy depend, to varying degrees, on spectrum for their success; and

     6. The International Radio regulations which govern spectrum use for all constitute a treaty that Canada has signed and which it is bound, by international law, to obey. (Odd as it may seem seem almost all
         countries, even those as contemptuous of international law as Russia and America, take the International Radio regulations very seriously - failing to do so invites chaos.)

The point is that technology (or money if you want to get right down to brass tacks) can solve most spectrum issues. But, because spectrum management is a large scale (global) and highly technical issue, the _solutions_ can be slow in coming. Further: just because you have a radio doesn't mean using it is either necessary or even a good idea. Further still: just because someone with a couple of stars demands more bandwidth or more information doesn't mean she or he needs it, nor does it mean that making more bandwidth available is a good idea.

_____
* In my experience and opinion the handful of spectrum experts in the whole country have both advanced degrees in engineering physics and considerable, relevant field experience. There are exceptions that prove the rule: DND's top spectrum manager, the director for many years, had a second class BA, and one of Canada's top international spectrum negotiators had a PhD, but it was in sociology ... sociology?!? Both surrounded themselves with the best engineering physics graduate they could find and then focused their own attentions on the policy and process issues.


----------



## chrisf (27 Jul 2013)

That's the head of the nail struck right there... spectrum management is global, which is why we're stuck with standards that are far older than any of us despite huge advancements in the equipment that use those standards.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> That's the head of the nail struck right there... spectrum management is global, which is why we're stuck with standards that are far older than any of us despite huge advancements in the equipment that use those standards.




Remember the old saying about always being able to spot the pioneers because they're the guys with the arrows in their backs?

If the "arrows" were old, 1st generation, standards, then we, North Americans and Brits, being the pioneers of the "mobile" (radio) era, were, still are, the pioneers - the ones who are holding back the march towards better, more modern, global standards because we are protecting _pioneering_ industries. Consider mobile phones; we were first, in North America with the AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone System) standard; Europe was second, with the first 2nd generation standard, GSM; we responded with IS-95. We got together with 3GPP and 3GPP2 (two global bodies developing 3rd generations standards based on GSM (3GPP) and Asia's CDMA2000 (3GPP2). We moved quickly to a 4th generation standard: LTE (long-term evolution, developed in Canada by Nortel). Work on 5G and, without a doubt, 6G, too, is well underway, but, as far as I know there is no global body leading the development of a 5G standard yet. The problem is competitive advantage. Everyone wants a global standard but everyone also wants it to be *their* standard.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

and....? What the hell is your point?
All you've done is give a history lesson on mobile tech advances.

The UN has a spectrum managment agency known as the International Telecommunications Union. The purpose being to synchonize each countries use of the EM spectrum as it best fits thier requirements. That is as close as you're going to get to harmonizing users of the EM spectrum.


----------



## Robert0288 (27 Jul 2013)

Ok sure, the ITU can harmonize all it want,but that just deconflicts the RF spectrum.  The problem is that we're running out of bandwidth on the parts of the spectrum already allocated for certain uses.  And we need to figure out a technological change to either better utilize the existing allocation, or figure out what legacy devices are no longer necessary, and redistribute those frequencies.

Picture of Canadian RF distribution


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

Thanks for the pic...but being a signaller for 24+ yrs I'm kinda familiar with that particular image.

Your comments are redundant


----------



## Robert0288 (27 Jul 2013)

No one here said that that pic is just for you.  As many other people in the thread probably havn't been a sigop for 24+ years.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

Seriously... :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> and....? What the hell is your point?
> All you've done is give a history lesson on mobile tech advances.
> 
> The UN has a spectrum managment agency known as the International Telecommunications Union. The purpose being to synchonize each countries use of the EM spectrum as it best fits thier requirements. That is as close as you're going to get to harmonizing users of the EM spectrum.




My point was made in Reply #1, #3 and #20.

My point remains that spectrum is a vital, but poorly understood resource for the military. Many of the comments in this thread confirm my opinion.

(As an aside: in several years of working on spectrum issues within the CF, the Government of Canada, the ITU and the private sector, I remain convinced that the farther one is from the _sharp_ end the less one is likely to care about spectrum ~ I found high levels of interest and knowledge of spectrum issues amongst RCN seagoing officers and sailors - ops and engineering branches, alike, equally amongst Army combat arms folks and amongst aircrew. As the article in reply #2 shows interest and knowledge are high at the very, very top levels of e.g. Bell and Rogers. It (interest and knowledge) was, broadly and generally, lower in support branches.)


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

So you implication id that Army signallers could care less about the EM spectrum?
Let me help you out from the Army POV...in my experience far and wide domestically and internationally..CA types don't give a damn about HOW it works...just that it DOES work.

We in the RCCS have a vested interest in both...not to mention having to manage and deconflict the myriad reqirements made in a multinatioanl environment WRT frequency allocation and usage. Lots of things have to be taken into account such as what is being used...ranges, is there a repeater or rebro unit being used to extend range over a paticular AOR...is it going to interfere with air ground comms...is it secure or in the clear.....get the point?


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

Several years? Hmmm....perhaps not enough in an operational environment. Once again yo come off as someone who has an opinion based on "I heard it from a buddy of mine so it must be true" type.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> So you implication id that Army signallers could care less about the EM spectrum?
> Let me help you out from the Army POV...in my experience far and wide domestically and internationally..CA types don't give a damn about HOW it works...just that it DOES work.
> 
> We in the RCCS have a vested interest in both...not to mention having to manage and deconflict the myriad reqirements made in a multinatioanl environment WRT frequency allocation and usage. Lots of things have to be taken into account such as what is being used...ranges, is there a repeater or rebro unit being used to extend range over a paticular AOR...is it going to interfere with air ground comms...is it secure or in the clear.....get the point?




I understand your point; I was doing those same things 30+ years ago.

I know that most people don't care HOW it works, or even less, WHY it works ... but I can only repeat my experiences: the C&E Branch, broadly and generally, is neither particularly interested in nor knowledgeable about radio and radar; perhaps that's changed since I retired - I would like to hope it has, but periodic discussions with serving senior officers makes me fear that it has not.

I'm sure there are lots of good senior NCOs who are working very hard to do what you describe in the field, there were in my day; I'm less sure that work is being done as well as it can or should be done.

But more important: spectrum _demand_ is growing, as George Cope said it is growing at a rate that shocked experts. Increased consumer/commercial demand will put pressure on the military to release some of it very valuable UHF and low SHF spectrum because the technology (1 micron manufacturing, etc) exists, now, to build civil market equipment in those bands.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Several years? Hmmm....perhaps not enough in an operational environment. Once again yo come off as someone who has an opinion based on "I heard it from a buddy of mine so it must be true" type.




I really don't give a damn how I "come off" to you ... or to anyone else for that matter.

If you would like to discuss my credentials by PM I will tell you; but I will then insist upon a formal, public apology for your comment.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

No

I do take exeption to your comments about the RCCS not taking itself seriously typifies a disconnected viewpoint. Things have changed somewhat since you last wore a uniform.

DND doesn't own any part of the EM spectrum. We lease what we need from commercial providers when it come to SATCOM, we have to apply for HF use from Industry Canada.

Tactical VHF is allocated to units in Canada besed on region and availability. That goes for ALL services not just Army.

I don't care about your resume. Just that you get off yuo high horse and stop preening yourself.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> No
> 
> I do take exeption to your comments about the RCCS not taking itself seriously typifies a disconnected viewpoint. Things have changed somewhat since you last wore a uniform.
> 
> ...




That's incorrect and demonstrates my point about ignorance amongst most military members. 

No one "owns" any spectrum - it is all part of Canada's sovereign patrimony and it is all managed, as a nation resource, by Industry Canada. The Canadian Radio Regulations/Table of Frequency Allocations, in Footnotes C5 and C5A, reserve several bands for exclusive use by the Government of Canada, which, in almost all cases,means DND ~ that's as close to ownership as anyone ever gets. DND does not _lease_ much if any spectrum from anyone. I don't know where you might have "learned" that, but it is wrong. Most spectrum DND uses is allocated or allotted to it, formally, by Industry Canada; some is shared with civilian users (but not leased), sometimes under formal system plans (as is the case for some naval radars and one of the cellular bands, for example), other times under less formal arrangements. Army VHF frequencies are assigned, not allocated (those words have precise meanings to people who actually know anything much about the topic) on regional bases - the frequencies are assigned and reassigned, over and over again, within regions. Many RCN and RCAF systems use national and even global allotments. 

----------

As to my high horse: when you actually _know_ something about the topic at hand fell free to chime in ...


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

Oh my..don't we have a high opinion of ourselves....but it is you who are incorrect.

It's not learned information but actually working in strategic SATCOM. DND DOES lease...period. I know because it's my job to know. If you read my post correctly and not through your already decided thought  process you would have understood that I did say allocated..by whom...Industry Canada...FML! 

Nothing worse than a stubborn service retiree who still thinks they are in the game and knows better than those of us still in.

Ignorance of most militay members...great job...you will have made lots of friends here and dashed whatever credibility you may have had by that statement.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Oh my..don't we have a high opinion of ourselves....but it is you who are incorrect.
> 
> It's not learned information but actually working in strategic SATCOM. DND DOES lease...period. I know because it's my job to know. If you read my post correctly and not through your already decided thought  process you would have understood that I did say allocated..by whom...Industry Canada...FML!
> 
> ...




DND leases the satellite _capacity_, not spectrum.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

Sweet Jeebus...I didn't say spectrum.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jul 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Oh my..don't we have a high opinion of ourselves....


Apparently.  You _may_ want to reconsider your "Mentor" tag until your ego-check is complete.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Sweet Jeebus...I didn't say spectrum.



It was implied as whole topic has been the spectrum.    :-\


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

Thanks for the tip. 

YOU might want to read the whole thread and re evaluate your comment.

Some people will not accept another opinion or yeild to others who are more knowlegable about CURRENT activities and not what was in the past.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

..and this is why there has been a decided decay of the quality of the forums.


----------



## cupper (27 Jul 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> ..and this is why there has been a decided decay of the quality of the forums.



Perhaps if you learned to receive instead of operating on transmit only, the quality may improve.

Or perhaps your bandwidth is jammed.

 :irony:


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2013)

That's rich...from a Reservist wrenchbender


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2013)

Put down the beer and step away from the keyboard.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Put down the beer and step away from the keyboard.



What could possibly go wrong? ;D


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2013)

Based on recent operational experience, the idea that a lot of what is being demanded in over the air Tx is trivial or redundant is certainly true; a lot of training and self discipline is probably a huge corrective for the issue of spectrum use and allocation. OTOH while sending large quantities of data by "sneakernet" (USB memory sticks delivered by CLP's) is an efficient way of saving bandwidth, the time delays really impede the ability to do business.

What is bothering me about this discussion is while *we* may have the technology and training to manage our own allocations (and maybe find magical technological work arounds), there is the implication that the civilian world does not. Certainly the explosive growth of "Smart Phones", WiFi and other high demand items isn't being matched by higher quality work either: sending FaceBook updates and funny pictures of cats seems to be the default use of the Internet these days. Edward notes that there may well be an irresistible demand to poach some of our allocations as technology makes it possible to operate cheaply in these bands, and the Government, desperate for cash, probably can't resist the temptation to auction off some of that bandwidth for a really big fistfull of dollars.

Rereading some of the ideas that I posted on the Recent Warfare Technologies page, it seems that there is nothing really strange or outlandish about them (well, maybe duplex Tx on radios), the real issue for the Armed forces is if we adopt these technologies wholesale we will be able to flood the various HQ's with full streaming video of everything that every servicemember does 24/7, but be totally unable to talk to anyone outside the CF. (I actually had this experience in KAF, the digital MBTR radios the Americans used could not "talk" to the digital "Clansman" radios the Brits used or the TCCCS radios we used. Actually all the radios existed in digital isolation from each other; as an experiment I had several examples of each radio zeroized then programmed exactly the same way (frequencies, crypto, squelch); when you hit the PTT the lights went on in the other radios, but no data was received. After conferring with experts, we concluded the problem was each radio used a different standard to send and receive digital packets; the radios were picking up the signal but could not "understand" them. Luckily, there were plenty of Motorola's and base stations....).

For some Army applications, it may be possible to gather up signals from antenna farms and "trunk" it via fiber optic land line or use some freakish manipulation of the laws of physics to create a high capacity over air "trunk" to satellites or distant headquarters, but this is pretty impossible for aircraft and ships, so for now, the best thing we can do is teach our troops to minimize and attempt to train our CoC in better information management.


----------



## MikeL (28 Jul 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> (I actually had this experience in KAF, the digital MBTR radios the Americans used could not "talk" to the digital "Clansman" radios the Brits used or the TCCCS radios we used. Actually all the radios existed in digital isolation from each other; as an experiment I had several examples of each radio zeroized then programmed exactly the same way (frequencies, crypto, squelch); when you hit the PTT the lights went on in the other radios, but no data was received. After conferring with experts, we concluded the problem was each radio used a different standard to send and receive digital packets; the radios were picking up the signal but could not "understand" them. Luckily, there were plenty of Motorola's and base stations....).



I assume you were just trying to do voice communications, and not send data?

Provided the radios are set up properly, the same crypto, freqs, etc the 522, 148 and 117 will be able to speak to each other.


----------



## Jammer (28 Jul 2013)

There were a lot of issues working wiht UK kit...Interesting though that the 522 is in fact a Brit radio...My radio of choice there was the 117F. It (and the new G),is the swiss army knife of tactical radios. Harris make a great product.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jul 2013)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> I assume you were just trying to do voice communications, and not send data?
> 
> Provided the radios are set up properly, the same crypto, freqs, etc the 522, 148 and 117 will be able to speak to each other.



Yes, we were trying for voice communications, and to ensure there were no issues, the radios in my experiment had no crypto installed. Perhaps there was some other factor that we were overlooking, but for my tour anyway, the radios existed in their own separate digital domains.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Jul 2013)

Jammer - not sure where the animosity is coming from but keep things civil please. The snarkiness detracts from your message.


Army.ca Staff


----------



## Jammer (28 Jul 2013)

Ack..


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jul 2013)

I figure one way to make better use of the spectrum we are either allocated direct access to use by the appropriate agency, or are provided proxies capability via others and their access is twofold:

1) bandwidth (primarily data) discipline; and

2) more effective use of the spectrum.

Bandwidth discipline will be difficult to achieve, as we have a hard enough time policing our data-hogging ways on the DWAN (Data sharing through hyperlinking to common drives or share points, vice Outlook-based e-mails that clog both workstations and Exchange servers alike).  The vetting of what bandwidth-intensive material truly needs to be transmitted over non-terretrial comms means is managed/controlled not by extant policies or generally-known data best practices, but by being told that server X or Y is going to 'blow up' if we don't clean our Q: drives, or by de facto conditions when a data stream becomes sluggishly reduced to 1200-baud like speeds.  

More effective use of the spectrum will require a phased approach, as new data compression algorithms and reduced channel spacing are applied.  As nice as the 177G is, it too, is not the physically most efficient radio out there...not that it couldn't be, but because we haven't gone that far to embody the latest capabilities into our particular RTs.  Software-definable (improvable) radios, with further reduced channel spacing than what we use today will allow better spectral use in the future.

From my viewpoint, the two-fold approach would be pan-Command-enforced (which means first understood, THEN imposed) comms/data discipline, BALANCED with increased spectral efficiency with more effective data (including VoIP/IP) transceivers (I'll take four ARC-231 Skyfires, please).

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Jammer (29 Jul 2013)

I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to everyone I have offended by my crass and insensitive remarks on this thread. In particular to Mr Campbell. 

There was no excuse for baiting, trolling and spoiling for an argument when I did not fully have the facts. My views were very narrow and related to a very small and specific aspect of the topic being discussed.

I hope you will all accept this spology in the spirit intended.

J.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2013)

Here is an interesting, and pretty accurate and useful _infrographic_ which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Post_:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/07/27/graphic-a-look-at-canadas-prized-spectrum/?__lsa=4f08-aeaa












Edit: format


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2013)

I want to shift this thread in a somewhat _political_ direction, in order to illustrate, using the above _infographic_ and this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, the incredible monetary value of the spectrum:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/canadas-hang-up-with-foreign-mobile/article13534011/#dashboard/follows/


> Canada’s hang-up with foreign mobile
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




My information is out of date, to be sure, because I retired from my _second career_ in the radiocommunications sector about seven years ago but, even then:

     1. Commercial broadcasting - over the air radio and television and cable and fibre services - were either losing money or just breaking even;

     2. Wired telecom services had ceased growing at all;

     3. Mobile services were growing at an incredible rate - and so were the profits they generated.

Bell, Rogers, Telus, Videotron, etc are all using the income from their wireless divisions to prop up the money losing services they provide.

With the connivance of the CRTC - maybe just "conniving" because it had no other sensible alternative - the "big three" plus Videotron have pretty much managed to achieve a closed market.

There are fair arguments about just how much we are charged, relative to the rest of the world, (and Konrad Yakabuski, in the article takes sides against the companies) and about the quality of services we receive - I will say, based on my experience, that consumers in some Asian countries get markedly better service for what appears, to me, to be lower rates - measured as a % of a typical pay packet, for example.

I must also admit that I am a convinced free trader, my own study of history convinces me that free trade always benefits all trading partners. (I acknowledge that the transition from protectionism to free trade can be painful to many, many individuals and that the transition always has a price, but, on balance, freer trade means more prosperity for more and more people.) Thus I am inclined to favour a much, much more open telecom market than exists in most countries including Canada and the USA (the latter market is at least as "protected" as ours). I listened to John Manley, the CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, about whom Konrad Yakabuski referred in the opening paragraph, on CBC Radio a few days ago - he made a good, cogent case for "fairness" to the "big three." But ultimately, despite my admiration for Mr Manley, he's wrong on this one. So are George Cope and the others who are mentioned in Reply #1 in this thread. But: if Verizon is allowed in you will see changes to more than just the prices of mobile services (which will, almost certainly, fall, or, more likely, just stop rising). You will see increased prices for newspapers, many web sites, and POTS (plain old telephone service) and you will see fewer Canadian programmes on fewer cable channels.


----------



## GAP (1 Aug 2013)

> you will see fewer Canadian programmes on fewer cable channels.



You just gave the CBC the "cry out of the wilderness" mandate it will want to plead for more sustainment......


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> You just gave the CBC the "cry out of the wilderness" mandate it will want to plead for more sustainment......




The CBC, specifically the French TV network, cried poverty when TV went digital. I'm not sure what the solution was: some analog TV, still, in rural Quebec? CBC _seems_, to me, to be slower on the transition to programming on mobile devices - but that may be a perception problem on my part. I am not a big consumer of TV.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2013)

>But ultimately, despite my admiration for Mr Manley, he's wrong on this one.

Why?  Is there a factual foundation for that assertion?

The spectrum issue is very interesting.  It is the first issue I have seen in which mere discreditable greed (the desire to be in constant high-volume communication with friends about trivial matters, at low cost) has unified many Canadians to do what is normally unthinkable for the majority of Canadians: support the Stephen Harper Conservative government in a policy which favours a large US company to the disadvantage of Canadian companies, workers, and taxpayers, with respect to a "commodity" (modern mobile telecommunications) which is chiefly a luxury, not a necessity.  (Necessity could be dealt with by a very small fraction of the bandwidth in use.)

Will a fourth member of the oligopoly change the landscape in a way that three have not?  Unproven, and unreasonable to assume.

Is it wise to license a strategic national resource to the control of a foreign company?  To emphasize: it is either strategically important, or it is not, and needs to be controlled accordingly.

Regardless, what compelling reason is there for prejudicing the auction of licences against Canadian companies?

A set-aside of auctionable spectrum represents a subsidy to the purchaser, in that the uncontested reason for the set-aside is to prevent the bids from going as high as any interested party is prepared to take them.  Any subsidy of a sale of federal resources is money taken from Canadian taxpayers to benefit the recipient of the subsidy.  In 100,000 words or less, please explain why I or any other taxpayer should subsidize a US-based company to provide primarily luxury services to people who can already afford them.

Simple exercise: think about the cost of reaching 5,000,000 subscribers in Canada, under pressure from the government to service remote communities, versus the cost of reaching 5,000,000 subscribers in western Europe, the US, or the parts of Asia the "experts" are so fond of using as comparisons.  Reality check: Canadian telcos will put up towers to reach a relative handful of subscribers, as part of what they are mandated to do, and continue to keep the wirelines in service as well.  Please explain why Verizon, or any other company, should benefit from that investment rather than make its own.

What percentage of Canadian land-based infrastructure - part of our vital civil infrastructure - should Verizon pay to support, as part of its "fair share"?  Should it be able to reap all of the benefits of competing only in wireless, without the competitive burden of supporting our wireline?

Shall we continue by auctioning mineral rights, drilling rights, and timber licences to foreign companies under conditions more favourable than those offered to Canadian companies?  Please explain why it is justifiable in one context, but not in another.

A lot of people need to seriously shake their heads.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2013)

We've already subsidized the incumbents significantly; and they have significant regulatory capture to protect themselves.  Why should we not seek to promote competition?

Much of the "Oh, Canada is so big" claims fail under any sort of examination.  The actual service area supported by Canadian suppliers is remarkably small compared to the overall landmass.

Promoting competition is a good thing.  Protecting fat, inefficient gouging companies is not.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2013)

"Free trade", btw, assumes a level playing field, not a tilted one.  Anything else is not "free trade".  Crony capitalism and government intervention are not capitalism.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2013)

The incumbents were subsidized in the heyday of provincial monopolies to build the wireline infrastructure, not wireless, and I am unaware of any competitor proposing to enter the market to increase wireline competition and improve that part of our national infrastructure.  I am also unaware of generous subsidies in recent years to maintain and upgrade wireline.  This discussion needs to separate what was subsidized in the past from what is not subsidized now, and to include in the net accounting - I am tired of reading "experts" in the news beaking off about high profits, when they choose (or are just too pig ignorant to realize an oversight) only the wireless figures - the cost of supporting the "legacy", not just the profits of the wireless piece.  Some parts of the business cost more than others, but the ILECs are responsible for all of their turf - they don't get to pick and choose.

>The actual service area supported by Canadian suppliers is remarkably small compared to the overall landmass.

http://about.telus.com/community/english/news_centre/news_releases/blog/2012/03/02/telus-investing-3-billion-in-bc-over-next-three-years

of which one of the pices was:

"Connect 35 remote and geographically challenging B.C. communities to broadband internet this year, including Moyie, Manning Park, Clucluz Lake, Kitwanga, Canoe Creek, Hansard, Beaver Valley, Wet’suwet’en, Reid Lake, Boswell, Appledale, Elko, Bridge River, Jaffray, Little Shuswap Lake, Duncan Lake, Christina Lake, Inklyuhkinatko, Kanaka, Neskonlith, Nicomen, Nooaitch, Sahhaltkum, Siska, Trout Lake, Marble Bay, Ditidaht, Tork, Pender Harbour, Puckatholetchin, Saltry Bay, and Skatin."

The issue is cost per consumer served, not area served.

>Protecting fat, inefficient gouging companies is not.

Please state the net profit margin (percentage) at which "reasonable" passes over to "fat, inefficient gouging".

We could adopt my preferred solution, prompted by the whining about oil company profits: the profits of every enterprise in Canada which exceed the margin (percentage) of the most profitable oil company in Canada in each calendar year are confiscated by the federal government and paid out as rebates to all Canadians.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >But ultimately, despite my admiration for Mr Manley, he's wrong on this one.
> 
> Why?  Is there a factual foundation for that assertion?
> 
> ...




Because Verizon, no matter how big or how foreign, is a "new entrant" by the rules ~ rules with which I can find much fault, but the rules that have been in place for every spectrum auction in Canada. Like all new entrants it will have to "build out" a network and compete for a share of a finite customer base.

In my opinion Verizon's status as a foreign company ought not to be a penalty. The foreign ownership rules, which are, by the way, just as silly in the USA, are relics of the 19th century. Verizon's size is equally irrelevant except that it, unlike _Wind Mobile_ and the others _might_ have deep enough pockets to actually establish a viable, national, fourth carrier.

dapaterson addressed the issues as well as I can.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The actual service area supported by Canadian suppliers is remarkably small compared to the overall landmass.
> 
> http://about.telus.com/community/english/news_centre/news_releases/blog/2012/03/02/telus-investing-3-billion-in-bc-over-next-three-years
> 
> ...



We're discussing wireless service.  Canada's size is irrelevant, since 95%+ of Canada's landmass is not served by cell towers - only a thin band.




> >Protecting fat, inefficient gouging companies is not.
> 
> Please state the net profit margin (percentage) at which "reasonable" passes over to "fat, inefficient gouging".
> 
> We could adopt my preferred solution, prompted by the whining about oil company profits: the profits of every enterprise in Canada which exceed the margin (percentage) of the most profitable oil company in Canada in each calendar year are confiscated by the federal government and paid out as rebates to all Canadians.



I'd rather have an open market where companies compete, instead of the current oligopoly which quenches competition.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2013)

While not directly related, this shows that there are technical "work arounds" for Verizon (or any other carrier, for that matter). Since the bulk of internet and phone signals go over the land line (even transferring cell signals between towers at times), ideas like speeding up throughput in existing lines will go a long way to conserving spectrum and bandwidth. I'm also starting to believe that some modified form of WiFi, allied with VoIP technology like Skype may be the way future "cell phones" (of that is even the proper terminology with that sort of technology) may become the wave of the future. Consumers are addicted to streaming data, which favours WiFi and allied technology using fairly high frequency spectrum bands (compared to VHF and cell phone bands), despite the short range and other issues.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/08/google-will-boost-starbucks-wifi-speed.html



> *Google will boost Starbucks Wifi speed by 10 to 100 times and copper telephone wires can transmit at gigabit per second speeds*
> 
> 1. Google will team up with Starbucks to bring faster, free WiFi connections to all 7,000 company-operated Starbucks stores in the United States over the next 18 months. When your local Starbucks WiFi network goes Google, you’ll be able to surf the web at speeds up to 10x faster than before. If you’re in a Google Fiber city, we’re hoping to get you a connection that’s up to 100x faster.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Aug 2013)

>In my opinion Verizon's status as a foreign company ought not to be a penalty.

What penalty?  As a new entrant, Verizon enjoys advantages.

The cost of entering a business - any business - is not a "penalty".  It is just the cost of entering business.  I don't see very many regulatory hurdles hindering new entrants; the opposite seems to be true.

I can see why people are drawing odd conclusions, if they believe that Verizon should have overnight - at someone else's expense - what the incumbents took decades to build.

>Canada's size is irrelevant, since 95%+ of Canada's landmass is not served by cell towers - only a thin band.

Which is what I wrote: "The issue is cost per consumer served, not area served."  I see no ambiguity in that statement.  Some consumers cost much more to serve than they will ever return in fees.  In fact, some consumer's services will cost much more to maintain each year than the consumers will ever return in fees.  (For example, beetle-killed pine near utility poles does not clear itself without risk of taking down poles and lines.)  Other utilities companies (electrical, natural gas) have similar issues with customers in sparsely populated areas - which are still part of the "5%" that has to be served.

The media is doing about as good a job providing a full picture as it does with defence issues.  If you replace the names of the quoted experts with your favourite well-regarded knowledgeable defence expert - for example, Steven Staples or one of the others - you will better be able to gauge the worth of the media-provided information.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Aug 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We've already subsidized the incumbents significantly; and they have significant regulatory capture to protect themselves.  Why should we not seek to promote competition?
> 
> Much of the "Oh, Canada is so big" claims fail under any sort of examination.  The actual service area supported by Canadian suppliers is remarkably small compared to the overall landmass.
> 
> Promoting competition is a good thing.  Protecting fat, inefficient gouging companies is not.



I will disagree with you the need to service rural areas is there, now doing so in Alberta is not that difficult as 1 large tower can cover a broad area, but in BC you need a significant number of towers just to provide coverage along a major highway. Most are isolated from power and solar in the valleys up north is generally ineffective, unless you pretty much double the size of the collectors and then you get other problems. My government supplied Rogers phone dies quickly outside of any large urban area and is spotty within those areas. Telus phones generally have excellent coverage within existing cell areas.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Aug 2013)

At the very least, both versions of the Trans Canada Highway should be blanketed with cell coverage.  Jasper to Kamloops is a long dark zone where many bad things can happen, Ditto with Kenora to Sudbury, with the odd hot spot along the way.  Winter travel on both routes can be hazardous at best, terrifying at worst, and the ability to summon help shouldn't be optional.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> At the very least, both versions of the Trans Canada Highway should be blanketed with cell coverage.  Jasper to Kamloops is a long dark zone where many bad things can happen, Ditto with Kenora to Sudbury, with the odd hot spot along the way.  Winter travel on both routes can be hazardous at best, terrifying at worst, and the ability to summon help shouldn't be optional.




It is technically possible, but difficult and very, very expensive. Look at this map, hover over Tacoma, WA or Duluth, MN and you will see that the US has similar problems: no coverage in many mountainous and sparsely populated areas.

When I was still working the government badgered the carriers to provide better coverage in rural, remote and mountainous areas; the carriers responded, simply and clearly, by asking for HUGE sums of money; the badgering stopped for a year or so and then the cycle was repeated.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Aug 2013)

As a matter of public safety, I'd rather see some of my hard extorted tax dollars go to this sort of thing than a host of other less palatable pet projects *coff~CBC~coff*.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2013)

There _may_ be a case for some sort of taxpayer covered "saftey service" in areas like the Trans Canada Highway, which can be covered from the Provincial Ministry of Transport or EMS, but this should be limited to low bandwidth service (enough to alert the emergency services and get them in the right grid squate), otherwise it will be abused by people insisting on trying to stream video as they drive through the mountains....


----------



## Jacky Tar (2 Aug 2013)

As it's been a while since I was a TQ3 RadSea (back when they existed), the details of spectrum management are a tad on the fuzzy side (besides, in practical terms, as an OS, my job consisted primarily of POTS telling me to get back on the broadcast and mind my own business - one of several reasons I decided being an ETECH was a better bed). 

However, I seem to remember one principle is that one can overlay different types of modulation to pass information. In fact, I believe there are radios already that employ both AM and FM, thus providing two distinct information channels on a single frequency (and possible more if one employs SSB in the AM regime). I was thinking that although it's not common, phase modulation could be added to the mix to add yet another layer of information transport and thereby relieve at least partially the demand for spectrum. Similarily, although I don't know if it's ever been done - a quick Google search seems fairly unhelpful, at least - it seems to me that modifying the polarization of a signal could also be used to impose information on a signal.

Has anyone in the signals world heard anything along these lines, that you're allowed to talk about?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Aug 2013)

I haven't heard of using different modulations on the same frequency, however most cell phones use TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) to assign a timeslot to each device, allowing the same frequency to serve multiple users near-simultaneously. There's also other methods of DMA that use Frequency or Code to accomplish the same task. In fact, the upgrade to our Combat Net Radio will give us TDMA capability, effectively quadrupling the voice/data capacity of the radio with a negligible increase in overhead. I haven't seen the CNR(E) work yet, but if the shiny powerpoint slides are to be believed, it will be easier to juggle the massive amounts of voice and data bandwidth required by a modern battlegroup.


----------



## Jacky Tar (2 Aug 2013)

It'll be interesting to see if any of that kind of stuff comes across / has already come across to the Navy side of the street for task force / fleet comms. Not that I care professionally; as long as there's power to into the end-user kit, my work is done. Just personal nerdiness curiosity.  8)


----------



## Occam (2 Aug 2013)

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> It'll be interesting to see if any of that kind of stuff comes across / has already come across to the Navy side of the street for task force / fleet comms. Not that I care professionally; as long as there's power to into the end-user kit, my work is done. Just personal nerdiness curiosity.  8)



The RCN has been using TDMA (DAMA - Demand Assigned Multiple Access) for decades using USN satellites.  We're now going to much more sophisticated means.  Google "Protected Military Satellite Communications" if you'd like to read up on it.


----------



## willy (2 Aug 2013)

I am a latecomer to this thread.  Everything I'm about to say has been said already by others.

In response to the question posed by Jacky Tar, the answer is: sure.  There are all kinds of ways that we can take the existing pie and make it "bigger" so as to accommodate more users.  The issues are (and again, I'm not saying anything new, just reiterating):

- The RF spectrum is congested now, more than ever, because of the proliferation of modern devices that use it.  

- Whenever a new technology is implemented you have a bunch of stakeholders coming to the table and fighting with each other in order to have their own standard adopted as "the" standard.

- Once a standard is adopted (nationally, internationally, etc) a lot of people sink a lot of money into using it and once they've done so they then become incredibly resistant to change.  This limits progress, with the digital TV example quoted previously being a key example.

Technical means exist to solve most of the bandwidth problems we experience, but I would be very surprised to see these means coming to any sort of widespread fruition in the near future.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2013)

This is interesting on multiple levels, and could be launched on may threads. The driving force behind this development is the desire for privacy from Government snooping, so it migh have gone on the Edward Snowdon thread. It is aso a reaction to how ISP's deal with data, applying various levels of filtration, "throttling" and service charges according to who is sending data, so it could possibly go on a economics thread. The military can and probably will use "Mesh net" enabled devices such as ruggedized tablets capable of sending data like map traces and preformatted templates (think of crossing a contact report with "Twitter") and even voice traffic with VoIP software (I saw a version of this as far back as 2006). But since the technology depends of RF frequency (I doubt many users will be establishing fiber optic cables between nodes any time soon...), then it will have an impact on radio spectrum use and availability:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929294.500-meshnet-activists-rebuilding-the-internet-from-scratch.html#.UgbCfRz5lg9



> *Meshnet activists rebuilding the internet from scratch*
> 
> 08 August 2013 by Hal Hodson
> Magazine issue 2929. Subscribe and save
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Aug 2013)

Radio signals can be intercepted and downloaded, any encryption software will likely be compromised at some point. The problem is that government can devote more time and effort to it, then the average joe. There will be people out there that are diligent enough to thwart the attempts of government to track their usage, but that will require an almost religious devotion to security. As I recall the Mexican cartels ran/run their own cell/wireless networks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2013)

Related - Retired General Rick Hillier on why "Canadian First" is a good idea when it comes to letting Verizon into the market ....


> .... Let me be clear, I do have a relationship with TELUS, one of the three major Canadian telecommunications companies in Canada, and I know that they welcome healthy competition, and in fact, have a history of encouraging competition in our country.
> 
> This remarkable Canadian company employs more than 28,000 Canadians, many in high tech and management roles, invests billions annually in our country’s economy and is recognized, worldwide, as one of the top companies globally for its people practices and its philanthropy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Aug 2013)

While your link, milnews.ca states: 


> Gen. Rick Hillier is Canada’s former Chief of the Defence Staff.



Other links to the same op-ed state:

General





> Rick Hillier, retired, is the *chair of the Telus Atlantic Canada Community Board*



http://opinion.financialpost.com/category/fp-comment/

He is getting_* paid*_ for that opinion.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> He is getting_* paid*_ for that opinion.


That's why I included the "Telus family" reference from the piece - thanks for sharing the "chief warlord of the Atlantic clan of the family" reference  ;D


----------



## PanaEng (23 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> While your link, milnews.ca states:
> Other links to the same op-ed state:
> 
> General
> ...


He did clarify what that meant and I like the spirit of the message; however, we need more competition and an entrant with big pockets is just what the Canadian market needs - as well as some more smaller ones.
Access to freq is important for new parties iot operate. As well is access to the infrastructure - at a market price if there is a market or a mandated price if the is a monopoly.
There is also some bovine excrement being spouted about giving our money to the US. Money invested and jobs will benefit Canadians. If you want a share of the profits, invest in the company - anyone with an RRSP or other form of investment account can do it; Americans also own Tellus, Bell and Rogers.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Aug 2013)

To listen to the three telecoms and the union, Verizon is the deathstar. 

If Canadians think that Verizon will operate in Canada with US prices they are nuts. Wal-Mart/Target et al, all came into Canada to make a profit knowing that Canadians will pay. "Whatever the market will bear" means  larger profit margins for business in Canada and Verizon wants a piece of it.

e.g. just one example. Why with the 1965 Canada-U.S. Auto Pact, which created a duty-free North American market for the automobile _industry_ and NAFTA. 1994, are Canadians still paying thousands of dollars more for autos than in the US? Why is the Camaro, built only in Oshawa costing a couple of thousand dollars in F & PDI in Oshawa, and less than a thousand in Hawaii?

Note, the next generation (Oct 2015) of Camaro will be built in Flint Michigan. Goodbye 3500 + CAW jobs. You priced yourself out of the market just like you did with Caterpillar.

Verizon would not be able to operate in Canada without hiring people who live in Canada.

P.S. I have a Verizon cell phone with a Canada US call plan. No roaming or long distance charges. I do have a US address.

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/plan/nationwide-plus-canada


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2013)

Just the fact that the "Big 3" are doing so much catterwalling, fear mongering and bringing out the big guns to sway opinion tells me that someone like Verizon needs to come in here and shake things up.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Aug 2013)

>Money invested and jobs will benefit Canadians.

It's an interesting idea - more competition will result in lower costs to subscribers which means less revenue overall, but somehow with less revenue companies will be motivated to "invest more" and "hire more" rather than "cut costs" (eg. capital and payroll).

Prediction: the rate of change of wireless penetration is not going to be deflected significantly; the existing market will be divided among N+1 competitors rather than N; investment and head count will fall as companies seek ways to lower the cost side of the "profit = revenues - cost" equation.  Whatever Verizon adds in terms of hiring and investment will be lost (and more) from layoffs and reduced investment elsewhere.

>Americans also own Tellus, Bell and Rogers.

Foreign ownership limits apply to share ownership percentages.  TELUS has argued for higher limits on foreign ownership.

It'd be refreshing if people would acknowledge that the Big 3 are not out to stop Verizon from entering the Canadian market; what they have consistently argued is for Verizon to compete on exactly the same cost terms.  They aren't asking for Verizon to step in and bear a share of providing the vital national telecommunications infrastructure to all parts of Canada, only that Verizon compete on level terms for the privilege of entering the highly-profitable, high-density, urban wireless markets in order to ensure people get a few bucks a month off the cost of their YouTube downloads and have one more provider with which to eventually enjoy a dissatisfactory customer experience.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2013)

My guess, and it may be a bad guess, is that Verizon, or another of the big foreign companies, will guarantee loans for the small new entrants to allow them to bid on the spectrum necessary to roll out a substantial national network. Then, and only then, a big foreigner can, safely, enter the market by buying up one or two of the new entrants.

The rules governing sharing of towers and so on are flexible enough. It is the spectrum rules that are contentious. And it's a two edged sword: if the auction is "free and open" then the _Big Three_, who have deep pockets and sweetheart deals with the big banks, will win; if some spectrum is reserved for new entrants then one of two situations will obtain ~ they will go belly up, no matter what, or they will be bought up by one of the _Big Three_ à la _Clearnet_ in 2000 and _Fido_ in 2004.


Edit: typo


----------



## Infanteer (23 Aug 2013)

Screw the big three, my cousin in the States was paying half of what we paid for monthly cell phone service....


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2013)

Some more technical means of assuring sufficient spectrum is avail for commercial use:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/08/optimal-placement-of-femtocells-will.html#more



> *Optimal placement of femtocells will help meet demand for wireless broadband*
> 
> Communication will account for $4.5 trillion in economic activity globally in 2020. But if we have only half the spectrum we need to conduct business like we are used to doing, it could negatively impact the U.S. economy by about $750 billion.
> 
> ...


----------

