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