Slashdot Mirror
The Illusion of Spectrum Scarcity
Codeine writes "Presentations
to the Technical Advisory Council (TAC) of the FCC by Vanu Bose "Software
Radio: Enabling Dynamic Spectrum Management" and by David
Reed "How
wireless networks scale: the illusion of spectrum
scarcity." Counterintuitive results from multiuser information theory,
network architectures, and physics: Multipath increases capacity, Repeating increases capacity, Motion increases capacity, Repeating reduces energy (safety), Distributed computation increases battery life, Channel sharing decreases latency and jitter. Highly recommended presentation suggesting that the cost of spectrum management by "exclusive property rights" mandated by the State outweighs the advantages we could obtain
from a new model that acknowledges physics and the 70 years of receiver development since the regulatory model was adopted at the time of the sinking of the Titanic."
Like we need to encourage people to use more capacity! I have more waves buzzing around me already than I know what to do with! I can feel my nuts being sterilized as we speak...err, maybe I should take my Dell lAttitude with 802.11b off my lap.
Yeah, that's better.
On a serious note we really need this, I want technologies that can let my 802.11b network at home work without interfearing with my cordless phone and 2.4gig audio/video transitter and reciever. Right now they all fight for the same spectrum and all lose in someway or another.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
it was better the first time.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I want technologies that can let my 802.11b network at home work without interfearing with my cordless phone and 2.4gig audio/video transitter and reciever.
Strangely enough, these are all on unlicenced bands. Sounds like we still need the regulatory bodies to keep the spectrum in some semblance of order.
This is not to say that we shouldn't look into the technologies (quite the opposite). We're just simply not there yet. It would be good to set aside some spectrum for this, though, as a playground for developing new transmission techniques and receiver designs.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
There will always be centralized overall spectral management. Communications may be able to be given blocks which are decentrallized but they are not the only users of the spectrum. For example radio astronomers are currently allocated particular bands for operation. Their observations won't be possible if J random cellphone is pouring energy into their band. Also radar systems of various types don't benefit from having increased nosie floors in their operating bands. GPS signals also don't benefit from increased noise floors, you would loose lock on the satellites more frequently.
a new model that acknowledges physics and the 70
years of receiver development since the regulatory
model was adopted at the time of the sinking of
the Titanic.
The Titanic sunk in 1912, that's 90 years.
This is a philosophical discussion, but let's also look at the technology.
There are reasons to control. As a licensed radio ham (VA3MVW) I can assure you that if everyone were allowed to broadcast on shortwave ( 30 MHz) we'd have chaos. A kid in Brazil who uses $15 in parts to create a 10W shortwave transmitter can make an entire band unusable in all of Europe. Shortwave covers the world and there is very little bandwith - all of shortwave is only 30 MHz.
The reason things are getting easier now is twofild: technology and physics. Technology, because we can now transmit on GHz frequencies - unheard of just a few years ago. And physics: if you go up in frequency, bandwidth becomes almost infinitely available, antennas become shorter, and range becomes shorter (so less interference).
In other words, good reasons to control low frequencies and good reasons to allow much on wide bands of high frequencies. Which it seems to me is exactly the way it is happening.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
then it relays signals a short range to its neighbors...and doesn't broadcast all over the world. Spectrum at HF _is_ a scare resource because it bounces all over. But at line of sight frequencies, if radios have relaying and forwarding capability, then the total capacity grows with the density of radios.
Imagine every cellphone as repeater and network router able to forward several connections and software able to manage such a dynamic network. Then each connection only has RF signals that spread out around the path between all the routers. This means less radio signals falling on places that don't want to receive the signal.
He's just someone that understands physics and radio, unlike all these "armchair broadcasters" on Slashdot.
As ham radio operators, we know what it is really like out there, we know what an uncontrolled band is like.
Microwave is different, and more freedom there is justified, but when someone spouts bullshit like the original parent post, we have to call them on it.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
But the question is, "are our regulations and laws out of date?"
I say they aren't. Compared to something like copyright law and the Internet, radio is coming along nicely. There are a few lagging areas, like freely available microwave spectrum for fixed point to point Internet, but that is sorting itself out too with the availability of the various 802.11x bands.
There are bigger fish to fry. When radio regs become a problem, we should fight to change them, until then, concentrate on much more important things.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Well, first of all, the market would definitely help out in this fashion -- if someone is hijacking your TV show that you're watching, notably, an advertiser, would you go out and purchase that Whopper or that Nissan or those Nikes, knowing full well they are paying for some spammer to overrun the show you're watching? I think not.
Without SOMEONE paying for the transmission costs, the blurbs won't last. And whoever pays for them will definitely see a huge backlash, even if just a few percentage of the viewers object to the frequent interruptions.
As a libertarian, I have fought for many years to try to convince people that if the airwaves are indeed public, and I believe all communications is speech (including computer code), Congress shall pass no law infringing on my right to speak.
If I am in a room with 10 morons spewing corporate advertisements out of their boomboxes, and I want to blast my boombox 3 times louder, none of us will get anything accomplished -- the same is true of the airwaves. Why doesn't the FCC control the vocal frequency band of transmission, it is no different than someone broadcasting a low-powered radio transmission, and it is done over airwaves.
Finally, after years of screaming that we have too much bandwidth, and people telling me I'm nuts, scientists who aren't bribed by the broadcast industry are coming out and showing that I've been right all along.
Now if only real scientists would start coming out and blasting the socialist fraud we call the "decaying environment." Oh, they already have. They're called the founders of Greenpeace, and they know the truth about the current socialists running that organization.
Freedom = Responsibility.
Government = Corporate Abuse
There was a similar article posted on Slashdot a week or so ago.
Yes, advances in technology have greatly increased spectrum efficiency, to the point where we are nearly at Shannon's theoretical limit. But so far, there is nothing at all that indicates we have any way whatsoever of passing those theoretical limits.
Yes, cellular techniques can greatly increase capacity. But the question is - Is the complexity worth the added cost? For some systems, such as the cellular telephone system, the answer is yes. But for others (such as broadcasting), the answer is most definately no. (This may change soon - If we ever get flatrate 3G services, there's a good chance that could replace broadcasting. But that is a LONG way away.)
And let's not forget the huge installed base invested in the old technology. Throwing that all into the junkyard is not worth using newer and more efficient (but much more expensive) technologies.
One of the earlier posters (a ham, like myself) made a number of very good points too. Even with "infinite" spectrum, the FCC has to exist to regulate the airwaves somewhat to prevent interference between stations, especially malicious interference. Someone said it would be nice if their cordless phone didn't kill their WLAN equipment - How would you like it if your neighbor's WLAN equipment was wiping out your cellular calls, and you had no legal recourse whatsoever against him? That's what the FCC is here for.
Anyone who argues that the spectrum is infinite is talking BS. The spectrum itself is infinite, but the USABLE part is not. There are physical limits to which frequencies we can and cannot use. Those limits are expanding rapidly, but resources are still finite.
A final point - The increased complexity of cellular systems means reduced reliability. Their reliability is extremely high, but still, it is more likely to fail than other technologies, such as point-to-point radio, which will always have its place even though cellular phones are beginning to replace two-ways in many areas. 9/11 is an example - Despite being a theoretically higher-capacity system than "low-tech" NBFM two-way radio, the cellular system in NYC was quickly rendered useless by a combination of infrastructure damage and overloading. For at least a month and a half (I don't remember the exact time period), amateur radio (ham) operators provided a significant portion of the emergency communications capacity near the former Twin Towers.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
OK, so you've got an argument against that point. So, how about this?
I don't know if you are married. Let's suppose you are. Your wife is having a heart attack. You call 911.
Now, how would you feel if some kid with a 35W VHF transmitter goofing around on the police and ambulance dispatch frequencies prevents any help from reaching your house (or even knowing that they're needed), and your wife dies due to lack of proper medical attention?
Or your house burns down because someone's screwing around on the fire dispatch frequencies?
Thanks to the FCC, there is recourse against such people (HEAVY fines and serious jailtime - People don't take kindly to those who mess with emergency frequencies. Penalties are usually far less for someone broadcasting pirate radio (who the FCC may even overlook because they have better things to do) or someone intentionally screwing with a broadcast station.
Without the FCC, it's chaos, and our emergency services are in the Stone Age.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I think that bandwidth could be used a lot more efficently. Right now we are treating the spectrum like the analog medium it is. But a digital treatment is more justified. If we were to break everything up into packets, use reapeaters what not, we could achieve a far more efficent utilization of the airwaves. Nearly all bandwidth is allocated to something. But at the same time, most of it is unused at one instant. Using packets like the internet does could do a far better better job of utilization.
HOWEVER, it would require more control, not less. The government would need to mandate all radio equipment manufactors meet new standards (much more rigorous than they do now). All legacy equipment would need to be replaced. New laws would need to be drafted to regulate the medium better.
But so much more is possible. We're using an abundant natural resource like cavemen, and we could do better.
I make this point to some degree in another post, but I'd like to make it clearer here.
The "pirate radio" phenomenon is the exception, not the rule. They are the example of a small few people who are responsible enough not to interfere with other users of the spectrum. Yes, they might be unlicensed, but they (in most cases) aren't trying to interfere, which is why the FCC puts little effort into shutting them down, and the FCC might not even know about many of them. (The FCC doesn't take place too much in active monitoring - They are more like an FBI of the airwaves, investigating complaints of users of the spectrum.)
The moment one of these "pirates" interferes with a major broadcast station, the FCC will come down heavy on them.
Screw with an emergency communications frequency (Police, fire, ambulance), and welcome to a whole new ballgame... One or two complaints is all that is needed for a few FCC vans full of DF equipment and probably a few conscientious hams (who may be likely also legit users of the frequencies you interfered with - many volunteer firemen, cops, and EMTs have ham licenses) hunting you down.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Politinian? bling bling!
-- OMFG = Oh My Floatse Goatse
Sounds like you could have the ultimate finger-pointing nobody-is-responsible multivendor nightmare. Everything works fine for the first couple of years when there isn't much of the stuff around... and then a few more years down the road nothing quite works because the spectrum has been polluted...
and the "cause" is twenty thousand different devices in your vicinity, two thousand of which aren't quite up to standard?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Two (or more) radio transmitters on the same frequency within range of the same receiver will interfere with each other to the extent that usually one of them will not be heard well (or at all). The idea of "software radio" changes nothing unless every transmitter conforms to the same sets of rules and knows exactly where all the other transmitters are and what they are doing.
Even at microwave frequencies someone with a baby monitor on all the time at 2.4gHz will likely cause you problems with your WiFi network if it's close enough; or between you and the main antenna. One unmanaged device would be enough to create problems for everyone in its vicinity even using the software radio methods.
Government regulation of radio frequency spectrum was designed to minimize interference and create "bands" where users could reasonably expect the service they want to be located. Otherwise you would have to search through 10gHz of spectrum to find NBC news. Their concept of "software radio" only works if these radios know every source of possible interference in a geographical area and moves in the right way to avoid it. Who determines which way is the right way seems to me to be important and I'd much rather have a government entity do it.
In addition, the implementation of this system would pretty much require that all the other transmitters be confiscated and destroyed to keep them from mucking up the works.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Government regulation of radio frequency spectrum was designed to minimize interference and create "bands" where users could reasonably expect the service they want to be located. Otherwise you would have to search through 10gHz of spectrum to find NBC news.
Likewise, government regulation of Internet addresses was designed to minimize interference and create "bands" where users could reasonably expect the service they want to be located. Otherwise you would have to search through 4 billion IP addresses to find MSNBC.
Their concept of "software radio" only works if these radios know every source of possible interference in a geographical area and moves in the right way to avoid it. Who determines which way is the right way seems to me to be important and I'd much rather have a government entity do it.
Sounds logical. After further research into packet radio protocols is completed, I propose government-regulated location service on a dedicated location band and then a band for simply broadcasting packets.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The entertainment industry doesn't care much about the shortwave spectrum.
Oh, and the rules on shortwave are mainly set by the ITU - An international organization. Corporate influences rarely reach this far.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
5 WPM???
:)
Bah, not even that hard. I have a Tech-class license due to laziness.
Right now, that's what - a 55 question multiple choice exam that normal 7 year olds can pass (and have done so numerous times?)
I'll get my Extra one of these days. (General? Bah, why settle for that when the diff. is one more multiple-guess exam these days?)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
If I set up a 138db WW II vintage air raid siren in my back yard for fun and start testing it out -- in all likelihood I'll be dealt with by the local authorities who will be called in by just about everyone in a 1km radius.
On the other hand, if I'm talking to my neighbor over the back fence and some Feds showed up to stop our "noise" the local authorities (presuming this is a jurisdiction that doesn't receive a lot of Federal subsidies) would likely arrest them.
Seastead this.
Similarly you talk about fighting a fire with nothing more than a fire extinguisher - why the hell wouldn't a commercial service exist like with everything else you need? Fire protection would become a branch of the insurance industry like it was in the past.
Your argument is inconsistant.
In the past, a community of people dontated their time and effort to put out fires. If the fire department were commercialized, the cost to put out fires would skyrocket and be less effective. Eventually, there would be firemen's union demanding more benefits, more money and less work.
(Right now I think there are FM unions, but since they are gov't employees they aren't allowed to strike.)
Government control of important services is a requirement because greed and power are too important in a capitalist nation.
"The area of penetration will no doubt be sensitive." ~ Spock
Okay, an analogy. You're at a cocktail party where there are a few hundred people in the room. For some reason, everyone's feet have been glued to the floor. Instead of panicking, they try and continue their conversations.
As in every cocktail party, people soon get bored with the people next to them. They can't go visit someone else, because of the whole "feet stuck to the floor" thing.
At this point, the participants have two choices: They can either shout across the room or relay messages through third parties. If they take the shouting root, the effective bandwidth of the room drops to the point where only one or two conversations can be held at the same time. By relaying the messages through the people next to them, they can have dozens of conversations going on at the same time. Hence, a higher effective bandwidth.
So, instead of visualizing the repeaters as increasing the range, imagine them lowering the strength of the signal needed to take the message across the same range. Thus, you have a higher effective bandwidth.
If this analogy is either incorrect or just stupid, feel free to mod it into oblivion.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I don't know that this is true. in that the 300 mhz of bandwidth is still 300 mhz of bandwidth.
That said, the original article I cited has this info:
Please note that channels are not defined as a percentage of the total frequency, but are defined as the bandwidth needed for a specific application. A TV Video channel is much wider than an Audio channel because of the off the much wider bandwidth needed to handle video data. It is so much range of data signal communicated on or at a specific frequency.
You could very easily have AM radio in the gighertz band. 44khz band width (CD audio. etc) on a frequency of 4 giga hetrz. But it would be rather line of site, among other technical issues.
take a look at FM Radio. Frequency modulation only varies enough frequency enough to carrier the Audio as well as specialty signals like stereo information, etc. This makes an FM channel wider than AM (56khtz wide) but very small compared to a gigahertz range.
so there are a lot of channels there. This is why you see FM radio stationsd at 100.1, 100.3, 100.5, 100.7, 100.9, etc - Each of these are a single FM channel.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
It seems clear many posts are off the mark.
There were two main subjects. Software radio and how networking affects spectrum capacity. Note that this has little or nothing to do with UWB (ultrawideband).
(1) Software radio: This technology is still expensive, but costs are dropping rapidly. Normal radios are hardware designed for specific tasks, work at a specific frequency band, use fixed modulation schemes, and fixed energy levels. A software radio does all the work with a CPU. Just load up a new program and all aspects of the device are upgradeable. One device can work as a digital or analog cellphone using US or european protocall, or any future protocall. It can be reprogramed as a CB, TV, Walkie-talkie, HAM radio, beeper, intercom, 802.11, or bluetooth device. Heck, you could leave it on your dashboard as a police-radar detector. New protocalls can be downloaded on-the-fly. You can then upgrade the system without replacing $billions of obsolete hardware. Bandwidth can also be dynamically allocated were it is needed. Much radio capacity currently goes to waste - it's like reserving 15% of your bandwith for browsing, 10% for streaming audio, 20% for video, 20% for games, 5% for email, 15% for FTP, etc. Current regulations are an obstacle to software radio.
(2) Second was an analysis of the obsolete paradigm of treating radio spectrum as "property". This was based on a fundamental result that data capacity is equal to bandwidth, and that bandwidth is limited. The more devices in the system, the less data capacity each device can get. Try to use 1000 cellphones (or wireless laptops) in one place and the system dies. This is a result of analyzing a simple point-to-point or broadcast system. New systems working as a network throw the old rules out the window. With the proper protocalls each device added to the system can increase total capacity enough so that with more devices in the system, each device still gets the same data capacity. Data capacity per device is no longer a limited resource. It is also based on an obsolete interpertation of interference. In current radios, when two signals at the same frequency arrive at the same place there is interference and the information is lost. This is merely a flaw of current designs. Using "smart" antennas multiple signals at the same frequence can be received without interference. It turns out that multi-path "interference" can actually increases capacity, as does motion. It also allows lower power levels to be used. These results fly in the face of traditional electrical engineering, but they are solid physics/mathematical results. (Watch the presentaion before you argue that I'm wrong.)
In the next serveral years we may be in for a radical change in the way radio is used and regulated. These changes will enable "always-on" wearable networked computing.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The trouble is is that you are talking about the technology of 60 to 70 years ago. The point the article makes is that in the modern world it is just an anachronism, rather like a lot of what the government does. Technology has moved on and there isn't a call for the solutions of 70 years ago - solution that in all fairness were enforced by governments ultimately grabbing hold of the medium for propaganda in the run up to WWII. Merely because ham radio was ruined by "the tradgerdy of the commons" doesn't mean that all non-government wavebands have to be commons. In fact, can you think of a single common not held there by a government agaency anyway? Freeing the spectum from the FCC would not necessarliy give way to a commons, any more than property would revert to commons without the IRS. In fact life would be a lot easier.
"Multipath increases capacity, Repeating increases capacity, Motion increases capacity, Repeating reduces energy (safety), Distributed computation increases battery life, Channel sharing decreases latency and jitter."
People seem to forget technology is the great equalizer when it comes to limited resources. It's why we won't run out of oil in 2010 and why crowding won't remain a problem. It's using what you have more effciently, not basing your results on a static idiology when the world you live is in a dynamic progression.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I believe that your analogy mixes the concept of multiplexing with repeating. Repeating increases the range of the conversation. Multiplexing allows other conversations to take place during gaps in frequency use.
Without the use of multiplexing, the act of repeating in the manner you describe makes the conversation take longer and spreads use of the spectrum over a larger geographical area. It is true that it would be necessary to continue conversation but would hardly increase the capacity of the spectrum.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
With a store and forward type repeater you could use a simplex channel, this is true. If you can afford the delay in repeat transmission caused by the store and forward then that works well.
You still haven't increased the actual capacity of the channel. Only one device can transmit on the channel at any given time. By repeating the transmission you occupy the spectrum for a given conversation over a larger geographical area. The larger that area is the less availability of the channel for other users to engage in seperate use of the channel.
So store and forward techniques might allow you to use a single channel but they aren't going to increase channel capacity. In fact a store and forward repeating arrangement will not have any more capacity than a full duplex repeater arrangement and may even have less. Perhaps with some pretty fancy multiplexing footwork you can overcome that, but that wasn't the issue I don't believe.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Now routing would surely increase capacity, but I believe that the concept of routing would involve the use of multiple channels.
I still don't see where the authors claim that "repeating increases capacity" is possible. If the act of repeating has any effect on the capacity of a communications media I see only a negative effect.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
actually printing the work that needs to be complete in 20 minutes time before the latest chainmail email would be more efficent
if its a long piece it should redirect to the nearest printer
Our uni stores the documents on the local print server, and the first person physically to the printer prints first. You can go to another printer and print your copy if you dont want to wait too.
(* An alternate, and superior way, would be for the printer to print the shorter document first. *)
This may make it so longer printouts have to wait several hours. I agree that if 2 people request printing at the same time, then print the shorter one first. However, the longer one should not wait forever if there are a lot of shorter ones. There should be a upper limit to the wait time.
BTW, this sounds kind of like elevator and hard-drive optimization algorithm philosophies. "Shorter first" does not always work well.
Table-ized A.I.
The AX.25 amateur packet radio protocol works in a very similar fashion when multiple people attempt to transmit at the same time. Each waits a random number of milliseconds before retransmitting and whoever goes first gets through. But I don't think this is adequate for all types of data, or voice for example.
Also, regulating air is not such a daft idea. Even here on Earth with our bountiful air, we need pollution controls and such. Consider a possible Moon colony. Regulating air would become a life-or-death matter.
Those who do not know the past are doomed to reimplement it, poorly.
I agree that the concept is efficient in the case of point to point links and the use of multiple channels. But it does not increase spectrum capacity.
A given number of communication channels has a set amount of communication capacity. The act of repeating data does not, by itself, increase the amount of capacity of those channels, which is what I believed the author to claim. I can see where repeating combined with routing or multiplex techniques would increase the efficiency to maximize the use of that capacity.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Routing would absolutely increase the efficiency of the system and make maximum use of the capacity available. I couldn't agree more. Maybe that is what the authors meant.
If so they should have been more clear in their claim. The way it reads they seem to be claiming that repeating alone will increase capacity. Repeating COMBINED with other techniques makes it so.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Repeating is a method to relay a signal where a direct path does not exist. The idea of inserting repeaters into a path simply to reduce emission levels where a direct path does exist is not going to reduce the energy required to establish communication.
I guess if you wanted to look hard for a benefit you could say that the field strength will be less at each transmit location. Maybe that's a good thing. Certainly the transmit power and antenna system requirements will be less at each location which would make the equipment last longer and make it much smaller.
But actually reduce the energy? Come on!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
You are right, the wording is very poor. You are also correct that "ethernet" is the same as a radio system, or a telephone type system.
Regardless of media, you can divide the available bandwidth into channels. Each channel will only have so much bandwidth out of the total available (due to media selection).
Measuring the capacity of information you can communicate on those channels has very much to do with the technology used to encode/decode, transmit/receive, modulate/demodulate. The use of multiplexing or trunking technology can take advantage of idle time on each channel to make efficient use of each channel.
But repeating is simply a method to extend the range of the signal. It does nothing to increase the capacity of the available bandwidth.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
The point is, everyone should have access to the airwaves. It should not be based on how much money you have. No one has any right to claim they own the air or the airwaves, just as no one has the right to claim they own their air: that's bullshit.
This is sort of like saying "Forget traffic laws, let anyone who wants to get a vehicle and drive it any way they want." Sounds great until someone drives a tank across your front lawn. There might be laws against trespass, but the damage has already been done by the time the tank tread prints are in the grass.
Spectrum regulation isn't some cheesy artifact the government dreamed up to make your life miserable. Among other things, it means you can make radios that tune between 530 and 1700 kHz instead of having to guess where the broadcast band might be. It keeps people from plopping down TV operations right in the middle of a band used for medical telemetry.
I'm not saying the currect system is perfect or anything, but there are valid reasons why some of it (especially the lower areas where broadcasters can be heard across the country or around the globe) still needs to be.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Firstly, I'm not suggesting we do it all at once. We can deregulate part of it first, then the rest later once things are worked out.
Secondly, there's a difference between the government regulating air-pollution and the governmnet saying "you can't breathe the air". In effect, what the government is doing here is saying "you can't breathe the air, unless you can pay alot of money for it". That's wrong.
At the very least, the priviledge to use the airwaves should not be decided by who can pay the most.
Everyone should have an opportunity to use the airwaves. The scheme proposed by Lawrence Lessig is what I'm thinking of here.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Indeed the "digipeating" model of AX.25 is perhaps the best example of how easy it is to get exactly the opposite results from what Reed posits. AX.25 digipeating is truly awful. Been there, done that, gave it up in the '80s.
Reed's proposal is a whole lot smarter, but the devil's in the details.
Corporate controlled fire departments? You have to be joking. You think an occasional 30-minute response time is bad... I don't even want to think about what FDs would be like if they were commercial and privatized. 30 minutes would still be an exception - But exceptionally fast instead of exceptionally slow. Such things are the trend in corporate America. And would you take a care to guess one of the possible causes of slow response times? I suggest you take a look earlier in this thread and you'll see where I'm going.
I've never heard of a fire department "holding a city for ransom" - Hell, probably 50-75% of all firefighters are VOLUNTEERS. The government provides the equipment, not the salary.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?