Slashdot Mirror
Another View of the FCC and Spectrum Scarcity
Bob_Robertson writes "Tim Swanson on the Ludwig von Mises Institute site is asking, has the FCC put itself out of a job by allowing the 47-49 MHz, 2.4 GHZ and other "open spectrum" frequencies, thus focusing innovation and development into making fantastic use of limited resources? The basis of the FCC's existence is "scarcity", so what happens when there isn't any scarcity any more? LVMI has looked into the FCC before."
The point of the FA was that by being so stingy with unlicensed spectrum, the pressure to innovate around the limits was high. The result is a class of devices that can happily co-inhabit a chunk of spectrum, thereby destroying the 'bandwidth is like real estate" concept.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Uhh, the first 10 amendments were all written at the same time, by men who were by and large far from the Puritans and Calvinists you're referring to. In fact, the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech are both in the same amendment-the first one. As for when the ideas showed up, I would argue speech came way before religion-the Athenians were fine with saying just about anything, but you were in trouble if you didn't worship the same gods.
Gov't agencies get downsized and eliminated too.
Example:
(Emphasis added) While DSS can do many wonderful things for your signal, "spreading the transmission in 360-degrees" isn't one of them.
(emphasis added) AES voice encryption is a good thing. How will that be the primary factor allowing independence from the regulated terrestrial telco infrastructure?
The overall message of the article is interesting, but it appears to wander throughout the technical communications landscape. Throwing in multiple buzzwords in close proximity does not mean it makes sense.
Originally, the FCC was filled with engineers. Currently, the leadership of the FCC is dominated by lawyers. Until that trend reverses itself we shouldn't expect to see fundamental changes in spectrum licensing unless its ordered by congress.
The FCC isn't going to regulate itself out of a job. Such a thing would be the antithesis of government. There will always be services that fall under the regulation of the FCC, and users who are not willing to expend the required brain-power to make something better work.
Do some searches for "adapative radio" or "cognizant radio" and you'll find things which really could stand spectrum allocation on its head.
The ISM bands (Industrial-Scientific-Medical, blocks of frequencies in which the FCC does not require each transmitter to be licensed) were created to allow low-power telemetry-like radio systems for commercial use. The idea was that they would be limited to very low power and would likely be physically seperated by a long distance and so interference would be minimized. The FCC says that in these bands, if there is interference, it's your own problem: you cannot complain to anyone -- we gave up micromanaging this stuff.
This is what things were like before the FCC. People transmitted where they wanted, at what power they wanted, etc. It quickly became clear that some coordination was needed, and the FCC is that coordinator.
Most of the FCC's dealings involve licensed operations, where each transmitter (not manufacturer, though they have their own obligations to the FCC) must have a license and a responsible person operating the transmitter. Most consumers only interacted (before the boom) with these systems in the form of TV and Radio, and then only on the receiving end.
It's those ISM bands where consumer-technology companies saw a huge opportunity because they could allow regular folks to use wireless technology without needing to mess with this individual licensing stuff.
One might look at these ISM bands (900 Mhz, 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz, etc.) as little unregulated, free-range wireless playpens. The bands aren't that big, but technologies like spread spectrum have allowed much use to be had within the boundaries of the regulation.
Unfortunately, now nearly all consumer wireless equipment operates in the ISM bands, and the interference-mitigating technologies are being pushed to their limits. Hence your telephone and 802.11 system do not always play along. It's not just them talking, it's all the other cordless phones and 802.11 devices, telemetry devices, etc.
The mess that is the ISM bands was not the "existing reality" that the FCC was created to manage. They allowed the mess to occur in a controlled environment (away from licensed transmitters). We should thank the FCC for handling it this way, though we should also probably ask for some bigger ISM bands in the useful spectrum (900 MHz, 2.4 GHz). Unfortunately, almost every slice of radio-land is spoken for by something.
I hope Mr. Swanson doesn't consider himself an RF Engineer - quotes like this one are laughable: The following quote is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
- I'll wait for the actual 30Mbps, theoretical Mbps's are useless to me.
- Is that 1 Watt of power transmitting that theoretical 30Mbps EIRP, or the power at the transmitter? What antennas are specified? 1 Watt into a 30 dBi antenna is the same as 1 kW into a 0 dBi antenna.
- Excuse me? The FCC can't detect it? Huh? Even with 'normal' DSS, it's detectable. If your 'power-footprint' is so impressive, how can your receivers detect it?
- The FCC can't regulate it? Double huh? If it's between 9 kHz and 300 GHz, it's already regulated. It may not require a license, but it is regulated.
What a joke. Reminds me of the super-efficient modulation method VMSK debunked by Uber Nerd Phil Karn, KA9Q.Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I'm sorry you didn't understand what I wrote.
The various States pre-existed the Fed.gov. It is they that granted the Fed.gov a specific list of enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights was ratified by the States as a further restriction upon the powers of the Fed.gov.
How is allowing the states to make the choices keeping government out of our livs?
That has nothing to do with my opinion about "allowing" the States anything. The States were ensuring that the Fed.gov would stay out of State business, since the States came first and otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this new central government.
How is giving the states more power to abuse us then the federal government currently has/does "abolish the power of government to make decisions for us"?
Again, the States always had all they power they wanted, being governments of general (not enumerated) powers. Reading the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights makes that clear. All powers are reserved to the States and the People except those specifically enumerated.
My personal opinion is that the Constitution for the United States of America was a bloodless counter-revolution by vested interests who wanted to re-create the very merchantilist policies (like raising the tax on tea that was already a legal monopoly, see "Boston Tea Party"). Entering into the Constitutional compact was a severe step backwards for Liberty.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
since when does the FCC generate revenue?
Since they charge $85 for a GMRS licence, $300+ for a business band licence, thousands for cellular licences, and hold spectrum auctions.
www.wavefront-av.com
George Will is quick to point out that something like 95-98% of people testifying before Congressional committees are government employees -- government lobbying itself for its own existence expansion.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.