Well, the 2.2 - 2.3 ghz frequency is so close to the 2.4 ghz that we use in our ISP that to cover even 10% of the country with usable signal will require a HUGE investment in technology and towers. Our is the latest beam forming antenna system with the customer equipment being non-line of sight - meaning it can sit inside a structure and still work. The effective range on this system is about 3 miles from the antenna. It is subject to interference from trees with leaves, building surfaces, and so on where the signal tends to bounce around.
Advertising support would require a scenario like Netzero used and ultimately did not work. The provider still has to pay for maintenance of the system and with all those towers and transmitters and antennas and customer premise equipment, not to mention technical support I can’t imagine there are enough advertisers in the US to keep it afloat.
Our system requires weekly calibration, hand holding of the customers and of course technical support when Martha’s email doesn’t work - unless of course the free service opened up the door for PAY technical support!
Somebody with WAAAAY lots of money to lose will have to bid on the spectrum - they would be better off losing their money in Vegas!
5GHz works even better.
But you better understand line of site, and refraction, and grating. Really, really.
/johnny
The other problem in ad-based revenue is how many people filter out ads. The current ad model in commercial/cable TV is rapidly crumbling under the most lucrative customers (upper middle class and higher incomes) using PVR’s like Tivo and DishTV’s PVR. The network execs hate PVR’s with a flaming passion.
Ad blocking plug-ins for browsers are even more effective than PVR’s at removing ad content.
Looking at the Eshoo legislation, all I can see is a smoking hole in the ground into which a business could throw billions of dollars in investment and then millions in burn rate to receive a pittance of revenue in return.