Slashdot Mirror
Revising Spectrum Rules
Orne writes "Whereas NPR is speculating on the television spectrum, the AP brings us news that the Bush administration is set to re-evaluate government and industry use of the radio spectrum. An executive order kicks off a year of public meetings held by the Commerce Dept; the official press release is here."
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush had his own channel where he repeatedly chanted the current color of Alert.
The press release doesn't say that Bush is planning on opening up more spectrum for unlicensed use, at all. In fact, with all the statments saying they want to "foster economic growth", I dare say it sounds like they just might be transfering more spectrum to private corporations, possibly rasing the price significantly in order to "create incentives for more efficient and beneficial use of spectrum".
You have to ask... What's the point of a press release when it's so vague, spewing out the same old "I want to do everything that is good, and nothing that is bad" that they now say pratcially nothing at all?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
i.e. Sell it to the highest bidder.
Is there nothing left that can't be purchased? Bush showed us that friends can be bought (Turkey), elections can be bought (Florida), Justice can be bought (Enron), peace can be bought (Iraq). He'd sell off his dignity if he had any.
Hopefully Bush will give more of the radio spectrum to public use, as it IS the public's country, not ClearChannel's. Yes, some should definately be sold to industry for money, but a good amount should remain deregulated (within reason) for public use.
> The radio spectrum is a ''vital and limited
> national resource'' needed for economic growth,
> scientific research and homeland security, Bush
> said.
What about the rest of the world? Doesn't it count?
Hmm...
No pr0n. That's what the internet is for. And you'll find more than you have time for there.
I think a better use for it would be a Govt. subsidized, public wireless network that can be used by all. Internet for everyone sounds better than 312 Spice channels. Dontcha think?
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
But wouldn't everyone be happier with 312 Spice channels?
The Political Programmer
I ran this through the anti-spin machine and it spit out "I want to find out who we can bump off their frequency allocations so we can re-assign those frequencies via auction to raise revenues. And for those that can't be moved, I want to figure out how we can tax them."
The government has not done a good job of encouraging free enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit when it comes to RF spectrum. Each and every time they have a spectrum auction, the telcos seem to walk away the winners each and every time regardless of whether or not they actually plan to deploy services on those frequencies.
If Bush is serious about this and it's just not another revenue grab for the government or a gift for big corporations, he's going to have to gut the FCC and give them serious instruction on who really should be the benefactor of any frequency allocations.
If the airwaves really do belong to the public, the government has done an incredibly bad job of stewardship.
There's nothing about what the outcome of re-evaluating the spectrum. It makes good sense to do so from time to time.
As an amateur radio hobbyist, though, I am hoping that this re-evaluation doesn't mean that we lose more of our frequencies to industry. We've already lost enough. I note that one of the uses of radio listed is national security. In times of disasters and emergencies, it's quite common for ham operators to assist in providing communications.
On the other hand, evaluating the rules to adapt them for the implementation of new technologies is probably a good thing.
I hope that this evaluation is done sensibly and what's best for consumers and amateur operators is taken into account in addition to what's right for industry and government.
Resistance is futile. We will control what you will hear, what you will believe and and what you will buy. You don't need trustworthy local news. Just look at the new FCC regulations. Definately change for the worse.
One thing about the rf spectrum - couldn't we give ourselves near-infinite total bandwidth by using directional receiving antennae that can be re-pointed (think eyes for radio) than stupid omnidirectional pickups that mean the rf spectrum is only divisible in one dimension, wavelength/frequency?
Sure, the cost of receivers would increase, but with modern technology, surely the commoditisation of wireless communication would more than make up for it for everyone but the current industry players?
"Sec. 5. Reports. The Secretary of Commerce, or the Secretary's designee, shall present to me, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs..."
This section would indicate to me that President Bush is out to see what kind of money can be squeezed from the Spectrum. Interesting to me that the first two people to report to him are involved in Economic affairs. Though this may appear to be a squeeze on big business it really would not be. They pass along any rate increases directly to us, at some multiple of their increase in costs.
"The Initiative shall undertake a comprehensive review of spectrum management policies (including any relevant recommendations and findings of the study conducted pursuant to section 214 of the E-Government Act of 2002) with the objective of identifying recommendations for revising policies and procedures to promote more efficient and beneficial use of spectrum without harmful interference to critical incumbent users."
Though the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bandwidth are currently free for public use, the new "recommendations" that this committee is to make could do away with that. What would happen if Microsoft or another large corporation purchsed those chunks of the spectrum at auction? Could we all be forced to pay for licenses just to operate our little Wi-Fi networks?
I don't really know how likely these outcomes are, but when we are talking about big business we should at least consider the possibility that it could occur. It seems to me like we should all be writing to our respective representatives about this issue. Spend a stamp, save a network node.
If Darwin was right, you'd be dead by now.
For some interesting reading regarding just how unscarce and unprecious this National Resource is check here:
http://werbach.com/docs/new_wireless_paradigm.htm
Unfortunately, I don't think this is what Bush has in mind. From is memo I gather that his intention is to make sure the corporations that already have it keep it:
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Look. I don't want to seem like a troll here, but I think that some of you are going a bit over when saying that like, the only reason that he is re-evaluating the spectrum is because he wants more money.
I recently did an FCC lookup in my town, and the Board of Ed. owns about 8 frequencies. I did some asking around, and someone said that they used to have radios on those frequencies to talk around the campuses (yes, i probably didnt' spell right), but they have replaced those with some FRS radios that are about 10 times better.
Think of all the frequencies that are being used up with things like UHF TV stations (move them all down to the VHF spectrum), and other things. Now, think of how crowded the unlicensed spectrum is (in my house, the wi-fi goes down when someone pick up the cordless phone).
Yes, Bush may get a bit of money, but wouldn't you want to have all of that nice, juicy bandwidth covering your area?
A year of public meetings?
Since we already know why the outcome, why not just pronounce the findings and move along. I'm sure Michael Powell won't be wasting his time at these meaningless meetings.
Not that I'm cynical.
This is a carrot to put in front of broadcasters during the year leading
up to the election to make sure they stay on their best behavior, and on
message, in exchange for (possible favorable) consideration when the
new pie is sliced up after the election. It also makes sure that instead of
having the many companies save up cash for spectrum auctions, that
they (and the employees that want to keep their jobs) instead make
a generous contribution to the party of their choice.
This administration never takes any action on behalf of "The People".
Especially in this coming year, the only focus is to stay in power.
Anything else is a waste of time for the BuSh administration.
1. Lobby the Bushies to shrink spectrum allocated to military services - seriously degrading all legacy infrastructure
2. Sell the Services new digital kit that can provide the old level of utility in the new smaller ranges
3. Profit!
A problem being that there will be a hell of a lot of lag time between 1 and 2, so the uniformed folks are screwed.
I would like to see more spectrum go to non-profits and see new licenses for small community broadcasters. I guess I better start writing letters, because I don't think The Shrub is going to do it without being agitated a bit.
It Interesting and distressing seeing people essentially sitting down and complaining that the "fix is in", "that we already know what will happen" with respect to this opportunity. Yes, that is right. This is a great opportunity. An opportunity to get in front of the FCC and make the case for modifying the rules to create an open commons for spectrum use. To create rules that will allow it to be open to expermentation as long as your experiment doesn't interfere with someone else's experiment (great place to use Justine Brandises' quote, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins", in a brief). To create a business model based on rental fees in relationship to revenues vs. one time licensing fees at auction, in order to create a playing field that will allow small businesses to get into the game as well.
So, how do we change the game? Well, first - to paraphrase Woody Allen - we will have to show up. This means that we will have to write position papers, showing at hearings, present a compelling case and work to get people behind it. We can't just sit back and bitch and moan about how the deck is stacked against us. We will actually have to get engaged in the political and rule making process. We will have to educate politicans and bureaucrats alike. We will have to frame our discussions not just in terms of geek-speak and the coolness of the technology, but also in terms that will make sense to them. We have to show them how they win in terms of their agendas, when they embrace our agendas.
What would be the first step? Well, we need a nationally known spokesperson. Someone of the caliber of Lawrence Lessig to lead the charge. And then we need a technology leader. Someone that people in the rest-of-the-world instantly recognize as a technology leader. Someone like Andy Grove, Bills Gates, or Steve Jobs. Yes, this combination makes for strange bed-fellows. Next, we will need a position paper. A position paper that lays out the economic and technologic case for following our roadmap. And then we need to get airplay for it. We need to get the NY Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc. writing about this, taking this up as a cause. And we need to get it in front of the hearings. We need articulate, well-presented, spokespeople that will get it presented at each and every hearing. And finally, we need thousands of people, with individuals in each and every state and congressional district that will write well put together letters (via snail mail and email) summarizing the case in their own words and sending our position people onto their Senators and Congresspeople.
A lot of work? Yes, it is. But do you expect hacking our society to be any easier than hacking code? Can we build a collaborative development model to hack society to what we believe is the right outcome? I think we can, but it won't be easy. Are you willing to participate. To paraphase the quote, the only thing required for the corporations and monied interests to trimuph is for men and woman of good well to sit around and complain about how the fix is in.
I was wondering if the FCC has considered opening up a portion of the FM and even AM radio spectrum for use by the public. It seems that radio has a need to have an allocation similar to that of public access on television. I realize that NPR affiliate stations fill part of this niche but really what I'm looking for is something where the programing is by the people for the people. This would be a chance for real community based radio broadcasts.
It seems that the people are in need of a public band on the FM spectrum to use for local & artistic uses. I know a lot of artists and local groups that could benefit from having a radio station run in a similar fashion to public access.
I'm not sure if the solution is one big organized station broadcasting with lots of power over the greater metro areas or instead many tiny low powered broadcasts that are more neighborhood specific. The FCC does have an initiative for a Low Power FM (LPFM) broadcast radio stations which could be used for educational non-commercial use. The range would be about 3 and half miles. Which could be great for neighborhood based programming. Trouble is that this initiative doesn't care if you get overpowered by other broadcasters. There are a lot of rules about getting permits and what your content is going to be though.
I'm not sure if these stations themselves would be managed by the FCC or by local government or by a new non profit that could work with government agencies. Ideally I see the service being run in a co-op style
||| technological transcendentalist |||
I posted part of this here but this thread is much better for my suggestions, and my reaction to the article.
First off, American cell phone providers should be told to fuck off. They should not be included or considered this time around in figuring out what to do to move the spectrum forward in any way, shape, or form. They have their parcel of bandwidth, and I'm not in favor of them getting even more of a chunk until the industry can come up with a national cell standard - one that makes "tri-mode" phones obsolete. They are just wasting space which could be better alotted if they'd just work together for a change.
Next up, we need "3G" radio. Satellite radio isn't local which IMHO is its only drawback. Current regulations and standards for AM/FM could be updated for more efficient use of spectrum. But screw it. Lets just go all out and make an FM2 or something. Yes, I know there is a technology in the works to "digitize" local radio, but they're going about it in a legacy-supporting way. By going about an upgrade in this manner, the FCC is preventing smaller players from going live. UHF is an over-sized playgrond that nobody uses and FM is an overcrowded ClearChannel clusterfuck. The FCC needs to fix it... starting over from scratch. Hell, let ClearChannel keep FM... but give us another way to broadcast and receive local content... digitally. "FM2" should have about 100 low-medium power channels for everyone to use... requiring an FCC permit, but unlike AM/FM, it should have very low or nonexistent broadcaster fees. It should be what LPFM strived to do, only much better.
In that vein of thought, let's go one step further, and give every high school in the nation the option of having one free (no FCC fee) channel of DTV and "FM2."
Thoughts?
A US high-tech community which will not organize effectively to defend its own freedom of speech rights or its right to make a living using technology and can not be convinced to make contributions towards defending its rights to organizations unless there's a tax deduction in it for them is not going to go forth and reclaim the RF spectrum as a public resource.
Tech Public Policy stuff