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

at slashdot?

[mike77]

I hope that even persons without particular expertise in radio will take time to think about theseissues and discuss them.

Hate to tell ya, but this is slashdot, we rarely even read the articles before we post on them! ;)

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:ICANN for Radio Bands?

[Your_Mom]

Sorta like the ITU?

They don't do licenses like the FCC, but they are in charge of band planning IIRC.

Re:ICANN for Radio Bands?

[Hard_Code]

On the other hand, interference isn't going to be as likely at a global level than with DNS, so regional instead of global control makes sense. Who cares what somebody on the other side of the globe uses as long as it does not interfere with you.

Re:ICANN for Radio Bands?

[Our Man In Redmond]

In some bands you're quite correct (namely, any band where you can't do much better than line-of-sight). However, there is a very real chance of interference in the shortwave bands (roughly 3-30 MHz). For instance, the 40 meter ham band in the US is interfered with by the 41 meter broadcast band in Europe anytime 40 is open between the two areas (they share the same set of frequencies, roughly 7100-7300 kHz). At some points in the propagation cycle this happens on a fairly regular basis, like nightly.

In the global scheme of things broadcasters interfering with hams is no big deal (except of course to the hams involved), and hams interfering with broadcasters even less so. But, consider a maritime distress or aviation band in those same general frequency areas. There needs to be some sort of coordination to make sure, for instance, that a maritime distress channel in the Indian Ocean isn't dropped right into the middle of some high-traffic communications channel.

Radio Regulation

[kb3hag]

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?

[tenman]

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

Re:Douglas Galbi?

[Fantanicity]

This page says

WHO ARE THE ECONOMISTS AT THE FCC?
Chief Economist, FCC
Joseph Farrell

Deputy Chief Economist, FCC
Chief Economist, Common Carrier Bureau
Gregory Rosston

There are 6 Bureau Chief Economists

Jim Coltharp
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

Jerry Duvall
Competition Division

Doug Galbi
International Bureau

Dan Hodes
Cables Services Bureau

Tom Spavins
Competition Division

Doug Webbink
Mass Media Bureau

radio rights

[coronaride]

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'.

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.

(--... ...__)

Re:radio rights

[dschuetz]

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.

Actually, more often than not, it seems to boil down to "let's not let anyone regulate it, and let the consumers make their choice." And as a result, we have crappy airline service, super-expensive cable TV, balkanized cell phone service, and no AM stereo.

This may be a bit of an off-topic, but there's a great article in the latest Consumer Reports that talks about how all kinds of industries (CATV, Long Distance, Airlines, etc.) were ALREADY on a downward cost trend (services going up, costs going down) before government deregulation, and that since deregulation, the trend has either slowed down or reversed (and quality / service gone down).

Since "It'll be cheaper for the consumer!" seems to be the standard battlecry for people advocating deregulation, this was very interesting.

Anyway, I do agree that we need better regulation of certain technological fields -- be it frequency allocation or technology standards (like selecting a single cell phone spec for everyone to use so we're not 20 years behind the Finns). For some reason, though, we as a culture seem to think that's verboten. That it's an affront to the capitalistic ideal. But, in the end, the capitalist system doesn't "select" what's "best" for the consumer, it selects who was "best" at competing.

So, how do we make these decisions, then? I certainly don't want a bunch of bureaucrats deciding the specs for the next ethernet standard, do I? And I don't want industry to do it, either (at least I don't want the entertainment industry to do it). And it's difficult to get too many people together without someone crying "antitrust." Maybe a standardized process of academics and industry proposing and peer reviewing, with government oversight and approval? I dunno.

Either way, it sucks. There's no technical reason (as I've said over and over) why we can't all have fiber to our doorstep with a unified, standard data and hardware spec that enables me to switch, for example, from one CATV provider to another with a simple phone call.

And it's not getting any better, as the different specs for XM and Sirius prove -- I'd be less reluctant to buy into satellite radio if I could switch to the other provider if I don't like their programming.

Okay, I'm done with the tangent.

Okay, this is just neat.

[Saint Aardvark]

Slashdot as a way for (some subset of) government to test the waters, of proposing something to (some subset of) the public, and a way for a civil servant to exert some influence on his employer.

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.)

The FCC Reads Slashdot?

[Helmholtz Coil]

And here I thought it was only the FBI/CIA/NSA that found it interesting...

*cough*...JarJar is my friend????

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

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

Re:Get rid of shitty programming

[homer_ca]

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.

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

Don't forget Radio Astronomy

[davecl]

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.

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.

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

[isdnip]

Thank you for being the first commenter who seems to have actually read the paper! I did too, or more precisely skimmed it looking for him to "cut to the chase". He really didn't -- at the beginning, he cited Guatemala's example, and then he rambled on with a PhD-thesis-length collection of stories about radio regulation. Sometimes seeming a bit drunk in the process.

Guatemala's sale of spectrum rights as a kind of real estate is weird, of course, but then Guatemala's version of democracy is little removed from the Spanish Inqisition Empire that spawned it, a few wealthy families almost literally owning everyone else, with the European minority having the nearly untrammeled right to kill the indigenous majority. So sure, the airwaves should be "owned" by the Spaniards, like the land. Hardly an example for the USA.

But then Galbi contradicts this when he talks about software-defined radios. His absynthe kicks in when he complains that FCC regs for SDRs prohibit users from reprogramming them. The whole idea behind SDRs is to allow one set of hardware to run code that adapts to one or another set of rules, each designed to prevent interference. Homegrown unapproved code as Galbi seems to like it would allow anybody to cause any old interference they wanted. He views this as creativity. Sorry, officer, if your police radio broke. Sorry, neighbor, if your cellphone broke. Software "freedom" trumps your rights, according to Galbi.

Contradictions like that are about all I can glean out of an awfully-long read. This is not the first silly paper Galbi has written. He seems terribly hung up on the right wing ideology-du-jour as applied to communications practice. His research is actually pretty good; he just doesn't know how to synthesize cogent, or sane, conclusions.

Ayn Rand's Idea: Radio Frequency "Homesteading"

[Nova Express]

Ayn Rand propesed an alternative to federal regulation of the airwaves in (IIRC) Capitalism: The Unknown Idea: radio frequency "homesteading." The basic idea was to let anyone broaedcast anything on any unassigned frequency. The idea was that popular programming would live and thrive on their frequency whereas less popular comptetitors would wither away and die. After a certain amount of time (5 or 10 years), those who had successfully "homesteaded" that frequence would get a recognized "right" to continue using it. An interesting idea, and not all that different from what pirate radio stations are doing today, sans official recognition...