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."
prefer to think of it as "reducing the workload."
Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
Support your local pirate radio, much like http://www.freakradio.org/
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
The article ignores the fact that the FCC is not a business. It is largely a regulatory agency there to ensure that the spectrums don't get abused and misused. As long as people are using the spectrums, the FCC will be there to regulate them.
Free market, you're my hero! You've rescued pensions and defeated the evil of public water in South America, saved the airlines and the public schools here in the US and done countless acts of good around the world! Now that you have set your sights on the public airwaves, I'm sure we will all have gigabit wireless within a few months.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
FDR's Thought Police: Still Alive, Still Censoring
Ever seen the amounts of FCC fines?
-mkb
The FCC might seem like it's putting itself out of business by deregulating some bandwidth but the nature of radio is that those frequencies are scarce. No matter how much digital encoding and adaptive technology that is used there will still be legit uses for wireless analog communications at high power. Therefore there will always be a need for some regulation of the wireless spectrum and a need for some governing body to decide what is allowed where and how much.
Now, the question is, will the FCC become irrelevant. Well, if current governmental trends continue then no. The current feds will NOT give up their current moral valve that the FCC provides. The FCC may become absorbed by the FTC or the Dept of Homeland Defense, or it's responsibilites split between them but be sure that the government will not give up it's eminent domain over the radio spectrum because they want to control availability and content.
Another thing to consider is all the other nations that have not given up their regulations over wireless communications. The brits still license TV recievers and most nations license their Ham Radio operators. The FCC will not disappear until there is no international need for them.
So sez KC2MMW.
73's
Odd things can happen, and if the application is mission critical, it will likely fail.
The only reason we do things via the license free band is because of the fact, that it is, free.
I bet for most of us, if we had to pay $$$ to use our own private wireless networks (licensing) the popularity would have never been as high as it is.
For instance, FRS are relatively new frequencies for us to use. It has only been recently that we can use these (approx) 460Mhz radio spectrum with out a license.
Anyone who uses FRS knows that in a city all of the channels can be congested. This is the reason why mission critical services (like police, airport, etc) pay for 'private' spectrum. These organizations usually have access to big money, hence the reason why it is big money to purchase spectrum.
It costs way more to buy digital spectrum than analogue/narrow channel/voice/digital voice/low-speed spectrum.
I think in Canada to buy a 10khz wide VHF or UHF piece of the spectrum, say for a few mobiles with in a 25 km distance is only a few thousand a year. Where large (say 24mhz wide) microwave allocations get auctioned for millions of dollars.
In the past, scarcity may have been a money maker for the FCC. These days I think they're in the censorship business.
Gov't agencies get downsized and eliminated too.
"I beg to differ", says the 20-year old ham.
Nice troll, but I happen to personally know 7 or 8 hams under the age of 21. It is not dead.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
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.
Oh, I see... there are fewer IPv6 addresses than grains of sand, except there are more. WTF?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
So far it looks like the FCC's current regulation of radio frequencies is: 1) Make it impossible for small radio stations to exist on the FM band. 2) Make it easy for Mega-conglomerates to control all broadcasts on the FM band. 3) See above rules and swap FM for whatever band you are talking about. The reality is a pretty grim one. The FCC hasn't opened the small footprint radio station applications in many years, so smaller voices are not being given the opportunity to speak. I do not however think that the FCC should be shut down. The FCC needs to be about seeing that access to means of communication is not monopolized by a few commercial interests. What the FCC, and their "sponsors" don't seem to understand is that competition really is good for everybody.
I'm a happy pessimist. I expect and prepare for the worst, when it doesn't happen I am pleasantly surprised.
Do you really think scarcity is going away by assigning a couple megahertz to unlicensed use? Have you ever tried using Wifi in a densely populated area? 12 access points in one spot? Plus Bluetooth, video bridges and microwave ovens? Scarcity is right then and there. Also, longhaul connections are pretty much unavailable due to power limits, which can't be raised by much for unlicensed bands without risking health problems and interference with mission critical (licensed) applications.
If there were no shortage of usable radio frequencies, then the FCC would obviously be pretty much out of a job, except for power regulations perhaps, but the assumption that scarcity is somehow going away is bogus.
Seriously, it's a bad article that is not well thought out.
Considering if I pick up my 2.4Ghz telephone to take a call, it completely whacks out my 802.11 wireless internet signal... It doesn't seem at all clear to me that scarcity of the frequency was created by the FCC. Rather it was the FCC which was created to manage the already existing reality.
Now it's true that the FCC has gone beyond the boundaries of what otherwise rationale people would consider prudent. But that's not the focal point of this article.
It ain't easy though.
Here's a highly recommended book by the way, unfortunately out of print "No Way The Nature of the Impossible" by Philip J. Davis, David Park (ISBN 0716719665). It consists of a series of essays on the concept of "Impossible" in various fields such as physics, mathematics, biology, mountaineering and so forth.
It's relevant because in the essay on public policy, the writer points out that it is impossible to implement any policy a bureaucracy doesn't like, because the bureaucracy is your only means to implement it. One reason that the government grew so much under FDR (other than the war and the surplus of labor during the Depression) was that in order to make changes, he found it easier to create entire new bureaucracies rather than to try to change the old ones, which he left to slowly wither on the vine. It isn't just a liberal phenomenon either: my wife served (in an extremely lowly capacity) in the Reagan administration for a while, and the period was remarkable for the rate at which government and the various private entities that feed off of it grew. DC was busting at the seams after a couple of years. No surprise that deficits are through the roof these days and that we need a whole new cabinet level agency post 9/11 either.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You know the sticker about harmful interference on nearly every piece of electronic equipment you own? I doubt that the problems of interference, either purposeful not, are going to go away any time soon.
What happens when someone starts manufacturing some great device that belches out RFI all over your precious WiFi? How about the neighbor with a high power amplifier that screws up all your phones? When Verizon decides that Nextel's phones should be jammed? The new one mile range AP that just happens to cause burns if you stand near it?
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
Don't forget that the Bill of Rights was written to stop the new Federal government from infringing on the powers of the existing States.
The principles of the founding of the United States is one of "federalism". A weak central government of explicitly enumerated powers (article 1 section 8), separate from the several States, with their governments of general powers rather than enumerated.
That there were States with their own constitutions limiting their general powers is a testament to the fact that government at any level must be restrained or it will abuse its citizens.
The fact that certain states did indeed regulate speech, recognize religion(s), restrict firearms and all the other things that the Fed.Gov is prohibitted doing in the Bill Of Rights is just part of what the Founders lived with.
Some states were utterly against restricting the right of free speech, others utterly against having their power to restrict speech infringed upon. The compromise was to simply prohibit the Fed.Gov from interfering with the states one way or another at all.
Sounds like a great compromise to me. I wish we could all compromise by simply abolishing the power of government to make the decision for us. Whatever that decision is.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
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.
The author seems to have a decent grasp on the effects of technological innovation on the market, but he has no grasp of the structure of the market itself. Without centralized artificial restrictions on spectrum usage, the military, commercial radio, emergency services and hobbyists would all have had to wait until radio's tools caught up to make use of it. At the time of the establishment of the FCC, radio much less useful without artifically defining spectrum usage. The barrier to entry would have been too high.
The FCC will always be needed to protect spectrum for low-tech communications, which are still needed. As to the FCC's censorship and their handling of pirate radio, they've totally acted in contradiction to their purpose. However, the FCC is a public institution and can be raigned in, but I doubt that's the approach someone writing for the Von Mises Institute would take. The irrational belief in the 'a priori' axiom leads to a logic that makes throwing the baby out with the bathwater appear rational.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
> Exposing kids to everything allows them to become well-rounded
> adults who are aware of everything.
You didn't have to say you weren't actually a parent, that boneheaded remark was enough to tell everyone that you not only aren't one, you have zero experience with them and that you probably had a screwed up childhood yourself, so you have no reference points. Hell, you have probably never even had to teach an adult anything if you can make that statement.
Yes, children need to be exposed to all sorts of things if they are to become responsible citizens when they grow up. But at the appropriate time. Children AREN'T just small adults. The higher reasoning skills take time to develop. Some concepts need to be taught after others are fully understood.
Example. C wouln't exactly be the first choice to teach someone to program who had never done any codeing at all, but a teacher doing so would be merely odd who did so. (Might be trying a radical new technique.) But if that teacher then extected said student to figure out the hairier bits of pointers in the first week they would be zarking mad.
Same with kids. Advanced concepts in love/romance/sexuality/relationships can't be properly understood without a good foundation in both teaching and experience dealing with simpler relationships among family and friends. Not to mention that their hardware isn't properly configured (both the obvious physical changes to the external hardware and the ones you obviously have no concept of in the ol wetware) until fairly close to the modern legal adult line. Most of the readers here on slashdot, hell the whole world, are adults still trying to figure this stuff out, expecting a five year old to understand is just idiocy.
Democrat delenda est
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
Although some of the comments here have been intelligent and made with understanding of economics, many of them have been socialist and interventionist nonsense. Hence, I'd like to offer a broad, but brief, response.
The argument by many here seems to run something like the following: The spectrum is scarce, relative to the demand for it; therefore, the government should regulate it. This is simply nonsense. It is precisely when things are scarce that we most need private property rights in them. How would these rights be acquired? By homesteading the relevant portion of the spectrum. Of course, what constitutes "homesteading" a certain frequency is a continuum problem -- clearly, simply spewing out junk on it doesn't constitute homesteading it. One has to actually be making a real use of it.
In a For a New Liberty , Murray N. Rothbard, argued that we don't need State-intervention in the spectrum. See Personal Liberty: Freedom of Radio and Television . Contrary to the commonly held but mistaken view, there was not chaos in the spectrum before the FCC was created to intervene in it. Instead, things were working quite efficiently as courts recognized private property rights in spectrum homesteaded by different individuals. As Rothbard states, the belief that there was chaos prior to State-regulation of the spectrum is
As B.K. Marcus has noted, this account is supported by the memoirs of Herbert Hoover, who noted that One of our troubles in getting legislation [to nationalize the airwaves] was the very success of the voluntary system we had created. I would highly recommend reading the historical overview of the spectrum given by Marcus. Marcus argues that, in order to get support for legislation regulating the spectrum, Hoover purposefully created spectrum-socialism, granting licenses to all applications, free of price or restriction. This, of course, creates a tragedy of the commons.
What we need isn't regulation of the spectrum. Rather, we need deregulation and privatization (via homesteading) of the spectrum. Common law is perfectly capable of applying existing property-rights conventions to the spectrum, including accounting for interference (which would be analagous to building a mineshaft 2 feet under someone elses' house, hence causing it to collapse).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Wait—you're attempting to discredit an entire line of political and economic analysis by quoting an unrelated statement made by the emperor of Austria early in the last century? And pointing to the abysmal judgement of a political leader (an emperor, at that), as an argument for the virtues of top-down government control?
If only there were a "non-sequiturial, unintentionally ironic, ad hominem argument" moderation option.
I'm a little bit confused by the story leader. It doesn't appear to be a coherent sentence. I presume it means that the FCC should allow those bands to be used by unregulated transmitters.
It is true that if all players work on a common form of time-division multiplexing that the number of transmitters can scale very widely, but there is nothing magical about these bands (other than them being wide -- much wider than, say, AM or FM broadcast bands). Transmitters will interfere with one another. Poorly designed or built transmitters will radiate out of band. Intermodulation will occur, causing out of band interference.
The FCC may or may not be the best regulator, but someone has to resolve the disputes, and I guess I'd rather it was through regulation than through lawsuits (which would happen in the absence of regulation, I guarantee it).
It isn't just a liberal phenomenon either: my wife served (in an extremely lowly capacity) in the Reagan administration for a while, and the period was remarkable for the rate at which government and the various private entities that feed off of it grew.
Milton Friedman says that during Reagan's reign, government socialist activity dropped. Link here.
Milton Friedman says that during Reagan's reign, government socialist activity dropped. Link here.
What can I say? I can't argue with an Authority like Friedman. All I can say is what my eyes saw, which was DC experiencing massive, explosive growth. Now depending on your definition of "government socialist activity", it may well have been reduced. But unless there was some other major industry exists in DC other than federal government and toadying to the federal government, I'd have to say in my unscientific mind it seems likely that the sum of the activities in those area increased. They can't all have been selling coke to Marion Barry.
By the way, I prefer to think of our presidents as "serving terms" rather than reigning. Small-r republican tastes I guess.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.