Spectrum as Property

the economist troll writes "An article in this week's Economist argues that overcautious control of electromagnetic spectrum, on the part of regulatory agencies, has resulted in the sheer waste of up to 95% of available spectrum. The article suggests remedies for this sorry state of affairs, including (but not limited to) various methods of privatization. Peppered with history and interesting facts--for instance, did you know only 2% of America's spectrum allocation is determined by auction?--this is one article you won't want to miss."

Comments

For starters

[Politicus]

For decades after Guglielmo Marconi invented the radio in 1897

Um, Tesla invented radio technology, Marconi was the first to put it to use. He actually licensed Tesla's patents.

Sychronocity!

[AccordionGuy]

Clay Shirky has just posted his essay, The Possibility of Spectrum as a Public Good . It starts with mentioning that the FCC is considering opening up additional spectrum for unlicensed uses -- "the same kind of regulatory change that gave rise to Wifi" -- and points out that "The 2.4Ghz spectrum is not treated as property, with the FCC in the ungainly role of a 'No Trespassing" enforcer; instead, it is being treated as a public good, with regulations in place to require devices to be good neighbors, but with no caps or other restrictions on deployment or use."

Good reading all 'round.

A must read for everyone interested in spectrum rg

[PaulBu]

Thoughts of Dave Reed (the guy who gave us TCP/IP)
on the subject

Paul B.

Re:A must read for everyone interested in spectrum

[offpath3]

I belive the point the grandparent is trying to make is that it would be a much better system if we build more intelligence into the endpoints of the system (better transmitters, receivers), since in this case we obviously can't change the medium.

Re:If it's been so "overcautious"...

[offpath3]

then why do I hear two different radio stations on the same frequency so often?

Because current transmitters and radios are using the spectrum inefficiently. With smarter transmitters and smarter receivers we could much more effectively filter out different signals and use much less of the spectrum per broadcast. Or so the article argues.

Umm... no.

[cr@ckwhore]

The author has demonstrated his lack of understanding of RF basics.

Even a sliver of new unlicensed spectrum in the very low frequencies could therefore make an enormous difference. It could, for example, make possible a cheap alternative to cable and digital-subscriber line modems (for which roads have to be dug up and trees uprooted) in delivering high-speed internet access across "the last mile" to the consumer.

Nope, sorry captain. "Very low frequencies", A.K.A. "VLF" cover about 10-30kHz. Read up on Nyquist's theorem... there's some math involved, but it basically dictates maximum data rates at any given frequency. Even then, in real world applications, maximum data rates are typically lower than nyquist rates.

For example, I'm a licensed amateur radio operator, and I actively transmit and receive data at 144.390 mHz ... at this frequency (VHF, much higher than VLF), data is typically sent at 1200baud. Much higher than that and it becomes more difficult.

Basically, theoretical data rates increase as the frequency of a signal increases.

In another ham band, around 435mHz (UHF), satellites typically send data at 9600baud.

So, data rates are still relatively useless for broadband applications at any realistic point below anything ending with "gigahertz". There's no way in hell (do the math, thank you nyquist) that VLF could be a "last mile" solution.

On to another point regarding "mesh networks" ... (thank you oh great queen of buzzwords) ... I encourage you to study some basic radio theory, get your ham license, and experiment with the APRS network which runs on 144.390mHz ... it's a world-wide "mesh network" which is very active, and very effective, and very well suited for it's purpose.