Revolutionary Ideas for Radio Regulation

gummint writes "Radio is becoming more important to the Internet (Wi-Fi, etc.) and to software (software defined radios, under the right conditions, could be very important). Unlike the Internet and software, there's no excuse for not recognizing right away huge public policy issues. To foster broader and more informed public discussion of radio regulation, I've posted a preliminary discussion paper on my website, galbithink.org. The abstract and outline are below. I hope that even persons without particular expertise in radio will take time to think about these issues and discuss them. Douglas Galbi, FCC Senior Economist."

Revolutionary Ideas for Radio Regulation

National and international broadband strategies should include radical changes in radio regulation. Radio technology is the key to rapid broadband development that reaches even geographically remote areas of the world. To get radical changes in radio regulation, a new world-wide conversation is needed around three questions.

• First, what is a good separation and balance of powers in radio regulation?
• Second, how should radio regulation be geographically configured?
• Third, how should radio regulation understand and respect personal freedom?

Most persons understand revolutionary ideas that answer these three questions. The challenge is to recognize this common knowledge and apply it to radio regulation.

Check out an outline of the contents.

Comments

ICANN for Radio Bands?

[march]

I've been thinking about this for some time - it sounds like we need a world wide governing body for radio frequencies. Sort of like ICANN, but one that works. (Yeah right, that'll happen!)

In fact, only understanding this partially, it seems to make sense to have standards that propose "trunking" or on the fly channel switching so we can utilize the bandwidth more evenly.

Re:radio rights

[rot26]

Amateur radio makes heavy use of volunteer coordination. Hams do a lot of "working without pay", and are good Americans.

Yup. Unfortunately most hams are older, and aren't really being replaced by a younger generation (which has substituted the computer for a radio.) And even if there was a new generations of hams, I'm afraid they wouldn't be blessed with the altruistic spirit that kept amateur radio going all these years.

I imagine there are more than a few companies right now who are greasing palms and smoking on the devil's johnson to make sure they get a piece of the billions of dollars worth of public airwaves which will be made available when the last ham signs off, and nobody else who gives a shit is left around.

(--... ...__)

License internet users? Regulation? Huh?

[smoondog]

I couldn't care less about most wireless communications nor could I care about Ham radio operators. I do care, however, very strongly about regulation of the Internet and the views of the FCC on it. IMO, The FCC would love to get its fingers into that pie.

But I shudder at even a suggestion that the internet needs to be regulated, for it shares none of the common issues usually brought up in radio communication.

But he does indirectly identify that the thought has crossed minds when he measures the reaction (pg 69):

Nonetheless, government licensing of Internet users would be abhorred as a violation of God-given inalienable rights

But later, he brings up the scarce resources argument, just the thing regulators like to hear (pg 70):

The large volume of unsolicited email ("spam") distributed on the Internet essentially creates noise in Internet users' mailboxes and causes inefficient use of personal attention, a scarce resource. [Later he points out that most wouldn't like gov't removal of such noise]

If the FCC is truely considering the notion of internet regulation, we need to nip that in the bud here and now. He is correct that most of us, IMO, would be p*ssed.

As much as they might *want* to be in the internet space, the FCC needs to reflect on its opinion that regulation is even a public policy issue. Because it is not a scarce resource nor is it any of thier business. By even debating this issue, I worry that we might somehow legitimize the suggestion.

-Sean

It's a "let's privatize the spectrum" scheme.

[Animats]

If you actually read through that long, turgid paper, it turns out to be an argument for privatizing the RF spectrum. The proposal is to have tradeable "spectrum real estate", with the use of a given band in a given geographical area to be a permanent, saleable property right.

The main argument for this is that Guatemala is doing it. Really.

Another Freakin Economist

[ONOIML8]

So now we hear from another economist about how the spectrum should be managed. Obviously he's the expert since the FCC has, in recent years, taken to selling spectrum for the government.

To hell with technical issues. To hell with getting the most use and re-use of spectrum. And just don't you worry about coordination with neighboring countries to provide rapid assignment of spectrum resources.

Nope, all of that seems to mean squat to the FCC. They are in it for the money. Auction it all off, that's what they say. Spectrum to the highest bidder, no matter what the bidder wants to do with it or how badly he wants to abuse the spectrum he gets.

There is no doubt in my mind that they are in it for the money. The odd thing about it is that the money goes into the general fund and the FCC's budget doesn't increase based upon how much revenue they bring in. So they still can't afford to do a decent job of enforcement with the silly rules they spew out.

Whatever. As long as they are raking in bucks to put against the public debt I guess.