Slashdot Mirror
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.
Check out an outline of the contents.
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?
Check out an outline of the contents.
Hate to tell ya, but this is slashdot, we rarely even read the articles before we post on them! ;)
--Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time
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.
First, Amature radio bands should be nationaly standardized, trying to talk to a pearson listioning on a frequancy they can't trans on that you can and the other way around is very tiring.
Second, geographical regions with tought terain should be forced to use hf frequancies, 49.999 mhz and below because of it's propagation properties. And local governments should have a say in there frequancy usage, but there must be internatioanl templates for diffrent bands and usage.
Third, radio regulation should be somthing people can vote on. people should be able to have a say in what they can and cannot do with radio bands. there should be an international radio regulation panel that regulates radio usage. atleast that's my thoughts and my 2 cents
Douglas Galbi, I don't know who you are, but your not the FCC's Senior Economist, I am. That's MY title. This story is a fake, and I'll prove it...
Don Corleone
FCC Senior Economist
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
This is a very similar argument to all sorts of other issues. In America, it always seems to boil down to either the government regulating it, a private entity regulating it, or a private entity hired by the government to regulate it. Is this the result of our capitalist society? I honestly don't know.
What we need is individual civic entities operating out of goodwill, not money, in order to establish rights and rules for all things, not just airwaves. Of course, no good American will do this, becaus it requires things like 'goodwill' and 'selflessness' and 'working without pay'.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
Remember, CmdrTaco, use this power for good, not evil. The Trade Federation is in thrall to the Dark Side, and cannot be trusted. JarJar is your friend...
Um, sorry everyone...too much cough medicine.
(Still think this is neat, though.)
Carousel is a lie!
Here I saved some for just this sort of occasion:
101010010101010100101010010101010101010100110100
101001010101010101001111110101010100101010100000
010100101001010101010010100111110101010001011011
010111110101000100100101010001010010100100100100
100101001001010100101010010100101001001010101010
010101001001010101001010100101010101001010101010
100101001010100101010010101010101011010011001010
(this part's fucking hilarious)
010100000100100100100100100010010010000000010000
I'm glad I could show it to you.
I've got some old avid streams from 1997 I could show you too, if you want. (160x120 streaming pr0n YEAH)
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
And here I thought it was only the FBI/CIA/NSA that found it interesting...
If that's the case, I'll work with the evil throne.....don't give me choices like this.
"..freedom from choice, is what you want.." Devo
That would be a direct result of Clear Channel buying up so many radio stations nationwide, a process enabled by the 1996 Telecommunications Act lifting previous ownership limits (no more than 40 stations nationwide, no more than 4 in one city). Reinstating those limits would go a long way in righting the wrongs: lack of local content, moronic prerecorded DJs, repetitive playlists.
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
#include
When I hear someone from the FCC talk about regulation for broadband radio, for some reason I think that means he intends on making broadband radio as stale and generic as commercial FM radio, probably have it all owned by 3 companies, make broadcast licensing too expensive, and keep it all flooded in paperwork. Thus taking away any sort of local community flavour (and local ownership) in broadcasting so all transmissions governed by the FCC can reflect the views, music, and adverts of "Generican Culture".
ObKindaSaysItAll: the "Personal Freedoms and Licensing" link is b0rken.
Of course, I've got an agenda and have known people who've had their radio equipment pilfered by the FCC[0], so I'm not a real fan of theirs. Funny how a non-elected part of the US gov't has so much power.
[0] A pirate station. Sure, it wasn't legal, but it was pretty low power and didn't step on anyone's freq or say "fsck" on the air.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
ooops... sorry. RIAA has just sent me a cease and desist. oh well
Lets hear it for HAYWOOD!!!!! I'm glad someone caught the Name. Right on.
Maybe it is just time for radio stations / radios to adapt to instead of using a set frequency, to use spread spectrum to broadcast/receive signals. This would get away from the fights over who 'owns' a frequency.
One thing I found suprising after skimming the article was the difference between the amount of commerical operators licensed and the amount of amateur radio operators licensed. There's more of us then there are of them.
Being a ham - this was interesting to me when you consider the slivers of bandwidth we are fighting to keep right now.
When I first saw this I was very suprised - ham radio is just a sliver in the ocean of spectrum.
Personally I think its pretty well managed - the FCC is very responsive to needs of people (you can call them up and often talk to a real human in seconds). I don't like the fact that the head of the FCC (currently the son of Colin Powell) is appointed by the bush administration - I think there's definately a conflict of interest between the head of the FCC and the presidents men and the powers of the FCC.
Speaking as one who uses wireless, and is a ham (KG6LGI)...
/. troll - is as severe a violation of your rights as, say, arresting you for murder just because you're black, even if you're not actually black but some photo of you came out discolored so some functionary thought it looked black and put out a warrant.)
/. account, for that matter). Even though I heavily disagree with what he has to say, I would like to applaud Mr. Galbi for saying it in this forum.
The main problem with this paper, IMO, is that it proposes that regulators should care at all about the content of the message, and not just the context. That is, that it should matter at all whether someone's broadcasting political messages, art produced independent of any major corporate or government resources, public domain (and uncopyrightable) technical information that might change how people use certain products, or just simple personal messages (say, chatting with one's family or loved ones) broadcasted over free airspace because the for-pay communications providers went out of service or were just too expensive. (Of course, from the viewpoint of certain businesses - i.e., that rich people have a natural right to make more money by any means they desire - allowing just anyone to communicate, or even just anyone who can get a ham radio license - which is easy and cheap if you have even as much brains as a typical
Currently, regulation of the airwaves is limited to technical matters because those who set up the system knew that regulation would be abused to regulate content improperly, and they wished to limit said abuse. Unlimited communication will produce more crap, but also more gems: that old "90% of everything is crap" applies to the sheer volume, and history shows that regulation more often than not cuts out both crap and the quality content, even if it was intended only to limit the crap. (Which means it may be defensible when the mere existence of the worst crap is detrimental - which almost never happens in reality, because people can just ignore said worst crap, thus it does no harm merely by existing. Unless you're one of the monied elite, who believes that the mere existence of this crap makes you lose face, a belief that is usually incorrect but is widespread nonetheless.)
That most people don't care about the technical matters that regulation is restricted to, and just want to talk, is a good thing. But he makes this into the "problem" that he proposes to solve. The freest government is no government, i.e. anarchy - and in this specific case of the content of radio communications, as opposed to making sure the communications do not interfere with each other, anarchy actually works.
All that said, it's impressive that anyone that high up in the government would actually bounce something off the public like this (or even have a
Cell phones? A lot of the cost is government license fees
... It's like FM stereo but all staticy
Yeah, there are a lot of government taxes. But that's not what I was getting at -- there are too many "standards," none of them interoperate worth a damn, most of the cell phone companies restrict you from moving your phone from one provider to another, and NONE of the phone hardware interoperates with others. So, you buy a phone, and everything that goes with it, and if you decide your provider sucks, you're out a lot of bucks to replace EVERYTHING you just bought.
AM stereo?
I'm not saying I *want* AM stereo, I'm saying that there were four or so proposals, and the FCC, after extensive research, decided not to decide, and to let the market choose the best system. So no system was ever adopted. Some of those, I believe, included some basic noise reduction that would have made them at least partial competitors to FM. The point being, the FCC had a chance to push the market towards a unified standard, and the market just gave up.
the free market should decide this kind of thing, NOT the government which more likely than not will force a single inferior standard rather than the best thing possible.
That's Exactly my point. The government shouldn't decide which is best, but the free market isn't doing any better, either. Left to its own devices, the free market will choose what's best for stockholders. Sure, it's great if you're a significant stocholder in one of these companies, but if you're a consumer wanting choice and service, it sucks.
The two things that come to mind when reading comments here are: who owns the electro-magnetic spectrum? and When and where is DSSS a good thing?
First, I submit that no one owns the electro-magnetic spectrum any more than someone owns gravity. Therefore, no one - including the FCC or some company or some radio station - should be allowed to profit from it or buy it up for the highest price.
Secondly, I see a lot of posters advocating the use of spread spectrum technology as a replacement for fixed carrier AM/FM/SSB, etc. Sure, I think spread spectrum is cool. Don't we all? The problem is: I can't build DSSS circuits! I can build simple circuits that work on fixed carrier modulation with designs and parts I know how to use. Designing and building DSSS cicuitry requires equipment and knowledge that are beyond my resources and, I suspect, the resources of most HAM operators and electronic hobbiests.
Do I think we should split bands into 3 wide-band FM channels each? No, but I do think that the public should be provided free use of spectrum throughout all bands and that there should be provisions in each band for many different types of users. Lastly, licensed channels in each band should be licensed according to the merits and public benefit of intended use, and the quality of the technology to be used - not according to who has the deepest pockets. The licenses should be virtually free.
Vortran out
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
They should stay clear of the Ralph Nader-like economic fascism and stick to product reviews.
Okay, I'll grant you that they can be a little, er, leaning.
But it's hard to argue with the facts that, since deregulation for the industries cited in the article, service has gone down, prices haven't changed appreciably (or, in the case of Cable, have gone up significantly), and choice has evaporated.
Buy the issue, read the article, and then tell me you think it's crap. But at least point out specific problems with the article, rather than dismissing it as nader-esque fringe politics.
One set of users of radio spectrum who should not be ignored are radio astronomers - in fact it could be argued that they helped to establish global radio communications in the first place, so should get some credit!
Radio astronomy is now restricted to a few small regions of radio spectrum. Many interesting scientific targets cannot be observed because of man made interference (eg. HI emission lines in moderately redshifted galaxies). Even the small scientific reserves that exist are being encroached upon - for example by the Glonas satellites - and are under threat of commercial exploitation.
One thing that a review of radio frequency use should do is to formalise and strengthen the protections of parts of the spectrum for scientific use.
ClearChannelSucks.org
;)
brand new website, enjoy it and feel free to comment and read the stories and links...
well at least till ICANN takes the domain name away
The main argument for this is that Guatemala is doing it. Really.
I dream of having a job, even if I have to put up with having rats gnaw the flesh off my fingers.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Before thinking too hard about regulations for the longer term it would make more sense to open up some space for experimentation with what kind of services radio might help deliver in an era of ubiguitous computing, ubiquitous digital storage and ubiquitous wired bandwidth.
Personally, I only use radio in car and in bed, but even there I would like to get a lot more value from my listening time.
Ideally almost all radio broadcasts would be mediated and buffered using my local storage and preferences, with a simple enough control to be used while driving (and in bed) enabling me to skip/kill items or request more depth/options.
Once in a while I'd like the ability to fine tune my preferences from a browser, especially the integration of my personal music collection with broadcast material.
And I'd be more than happy if localised advertising paid for the costs, both at home as a smarter substitute for junk mail and in transit as a smarter substitute for billboards.
Unfortunately, I suspect, that the kind of people likely to buy up property rights to the radio spectrum are unlikely to ever have the wit to risk that level of potential destabilisation to their tired business models.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Unless it favors the Big Six media, that is.
"Their Man in Washington: Big media have an ally in new FCC chair Michael Powell.
-- haaz.
The Fairness Act (if we're talking about the same thing it was actually called The Fairness Doctrine) predates Limbaugh's rise by a decade or three. More like back around the days of Joe Pyne.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.