So here are some basic facts, and some pretty clear suppositions:
Photo used under Creative Commons from genista
1. Data use by mobile devices has exploded -spectrum is the transmission medium for the data explosion
2. The transmission of data over a band of spectrum is limited by several things, including power of the transmitter, distance the information must travel, interference patterns, even atmospheric conditions
3. There are laws of physics limitations to how much data you can fit in a given amount of spectrum
Now, on to some pretty safe suppositions:
There are almost certainly places where spectrum is not overtaxed – in fact there may even be a spectrum glut. These places have one thing in common – no one lives there! If a chunk of spectrum – let’s call it “chunk A”, is underutilized in Laramie WY, I can’t magically make that empty chunk of spectrum useful in San Francisco because that “chunk A” is already in use in San Francisco.
Here’s an analogy: I know there are empty stretches of highway in South Dakota right now, but I can’t make that empty highway work to relieve traffic congestion in Washington DC. So you can be “right” that there is underutilized spectrum, but wrong because the spectrum isn’t useful in solving problems where we need it.
Conspiracy theories about carriers intentionally hoarding spectrum fall short pretty quickly when you look at the natural instinct to maximize profits. If the carriers had spectrum reserves in places like Chicago or San Francisco, then it would be a bad business decision for them to spend billions more on spectrum that they don’t need. Even if they wanted to sit on it for later use, they would have to justify to shareholders “sitting” on billions in value, with some ephemeral future payout. That just flies in the face of basic business logic. Make no mistake, I don’t look at the carriers as our BFFs, I look at them as needed providers of the kinds of services we need to make our mobile apps work. I know that I can count on them to try and make more money by getting more customers, or providing better services to the customers they already have.
Which brings me to the other obvious tinfoil hat part of your screed. Do you remember when the iPhone 3G came out and several reviewers made comments like “It’s a great phone, other than the ‘phone’ part”? That was not helpful to carriers. In fact it almost certainly cost them customers and service upgraders. The fact that in every major city in America people are constantly complaining about dropped calls, data dropouts and loss of service hurts the carriers far more than it hurts Apple or HTC or Moto – the handset guys aren’t seen as the problem, the service provider is. And if you live in a major city with inconsistent service, when it comes time to consider upgrading to a better data plan, part of your brain says: “why upgrade? the service sucks!” No business wants customers to walk away from either service or upgrades.
So the fact that the carriers are willing to stick their necks out and essentially say “hey, if we get more spectrum lit, you’ll get better service” puts them in a position of either delivering, or losing customers. Which brings me back to point one: if they could keep customers happy without having to pay billions for more spectrum, they would.
Verizon and AT&T are engaged in a (good) war of increasing customer expectations. The ads about “widest coverage” or “fastest service” are there to convince us to upgrade or change carriers. I don’t doubt that carriers will try to do everything possible to spend as little as they can to give us the service we all want – but I do know that they are in an endless chase to increase number of customers, and increase revenue from each customer. And they can’t do that if their service sucks.