> High powered broadcasts... FM radio stations on 106.7
are not even close to comparable. Cellphone towers do not use frequencies and powers that travel nearly as far as those employed by radio stations.
>The scarcity isn't artificial.
Nope, it's artificial.
The next generation of base stations performs beamforming for physics-based channel sharing in addition to CDMA ("algorithm-based" channel sharing). Beamforming effectively allows you to employ a sizable number of "virtual antennas", each aimed separately at individual receivers. With multiple base stations it's an even more effective strategy because you can create signals that constructively interfere at a point rather than along a line. Everyone gets their own spatially-localized signal and can transmit their own spatially-localized signal because the same trick works in reverse for reception.
So no, there isn't fundamental spectrum scarcity. Perhaps there are too few beamforming base stations installed, but that's a problem to be solved through investment in new technology, not by allowing carriers to impose business models that de-commoditize bandwidth.
None of those systems are interference free in practice, the amount of which increases with the number of users. Spectrum is still scarce but these methods may make it more efficient to use, especially if channel use is coordinated.
Also beamforming doesn't work as well from the mobile station because you don't have multiple, sufficiently separated antennas.
> beamforming doesn't work as well from the mobile station
Beamforming gives roughly the same advantage to TX and RX. While I'm sure mobile stations will eventually take advantage of it for power conservation purposes, very large advantages still stand to be gained even from a one-sided implementation at the base stations which can have multiple sufficiently separated antennas.
Radio astronomy provides a very good example of this: from Earth, stars look like point radiators, yet VLBI astronomy still yields an insanely powerful RX advantage once you get up to effective apertures the size of Earth.
That can help you make more efficient use of bandwidth and TX power, but doesn't come anywhere near making a free-for-all spectrum workable.
The carrying capacity for wireless customers (and carriers) could increase to above where it is now, but not the point where frequency coordination is unnecessary.
> but doesn't come anywhere near making a free-for-all spectrum workable
Why not? The ISM bands haven't become unusable even in densely packed residences with large numbers of Netflix-streaming cable cutters. Yes, cell phone towers have a longer range (which puts them at a small constant factor disadvantage), but they are also professionally maintained and can therefore make use of directional antennas and beamforming which gives them a constant factor advantage proportional to investment.
We have the technology to provide service to any reasonable density of people. It's a matter of cost, not scarcity. As opposed to, say, healthcare, this is a problem that markets should be very good at solving.
> The next generation of base stations
> Perhaps there are too few beamforming base stations installed
That is the key points. In the near future it'll be artificial but it hasn't been until those exist in sufficient quantities and with sufficient QoS. Simply because it is technically possible for them to get away with less spectrum doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of installed base stations don't function that way at present and that the technology wasn't available to get that performance until super recently.
That is like saying everyone could buy an autonomous cars and so human driver error is no longer an issue.
Of course hastily lifting the restrictions would be a bad idea. The correct approach would be to lift regulations at a pace fast enough that telcos could keep up with decreased regulatory protection through vigorous investment in new hardware. Sticking with spectrum auctions until the old equipment falls apart or telecom companies replace it out of the goodness of their hearts is a terrible idea.
At which point we are back to the scarcity not being artificial. Just because it is the rate of telecom investment in your view doesn't make it "artificial".
are not even close to comparable. Cellphone towers do not use frequencies and powers that travel nearly as far as those employed by radio stations.
>The scarcity isn't artificial.
Nope, it's artificial.
The next generation of base stations performs beamforming for physics-based channel sharing in addition to CDMA ("algorithm-based" channel sharing). Beamforming effectively allows you to employ a sizable number of "virtual antennas", each aimed separately at individual receivers. With multiple base stations it's an even more effective strategy because you can create signals that constructively interfere at a point rather than along a line. Everyone gets their own spatially-localized signal and can transmit their own spatially-localized signal because the same trick works in reverse for reception.
So no, there isn't fundamental spectrum scarcity. Perhaps there are too few beamforming base stations installed, but that's a problem to be solved through investment in new technology, not by allowing carriers to impose business models that de-commoditize bandwidth.