Slashdot Mirror
Does OSS Make The FCC Irrelevant?
JordanL writes "Daniel Fisher over at Forbes.com wonders whether or not OSS makes the FCC irrelevant. From the article: 'The agency might have made sense in the 1920s, Moglen says, when it was formed to assign specific frequencies to broadcasters so they wouldnt try to drown each other out by cranking up the transmitter power. But a new generation of intelligent radios, combined with equally clever computer networks, is making it possible for anybody to use the airwaves without interfering with anybody else.'"
That's a stupid argument. They shut down Napster's central servers, not the software code. If they could shut down mere distribution of software then people distributing Gnutella clients would have been shut down a long time ago.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
...as long as they can make tons of money divvying up the frequency spectrum. For example, they're drooling over the eventual switch from analog to digital TV. The amount of cash they'll make off the range of analog TV frequencies will be huge.
The above comment shows an unfortunate lack of understanding if what the FCC does, and bandwidth allocation is only a small part of it. What would you do when someone builds a computer controlled spark gap (substitute in approbiate technological device), and proceeds to jam every frequency they can. Without enforcement, how is anyone going to be able to exchange meaninful content?
Perhaps we should just boycott Forbes until they get rid of Dan Lyons. Obviously, Forbes can't tell the difference between real journalism, and some sort of PR hack.
I agree with the article somewhat- OSS and software-tuneable packet-based radios will eventually push wireless bandwidth to unimagineably high levels. It will also make the FCC obsolete because the software will essentially be doing the same job as the FCC- negotiating for free open bandwidth.
But we ain't there yet- and given my history with used radios and TVs, and the current hassle over HDTV broadcast, I'd say we're at least 40, perhaps 50 years away from this becoming nationwide reality; and at least 100 years before it becomes worldwide reality.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
What do you think all your internet connections are running on? Wireless radio spectrums and cable lines.
Because if people can do whatever they want, some will be assholes. It is much easier to get high bandwidth long range transmission by using a lot of power and a wide frequency band than it is to do it with low power and creative encoding, so people will do just that. We need regulation to ensure that everyone plays nice. Perhaps not how it is now, but an unregulated spectrum wouldn't work out well and, as always, it'd be the little guy getting the biggest shaft.
While better encodings might make it possible for multiple signals to exist without interference, that doesn't mean thatthe FCC isn't necessary. The day that we see megabroadcasters fire up a gigawatt transmiter that plasters a broadband range with religious TV broadcasting across the entire country, you'll understand the problem. Not everything can practically switch to frequency hopping. In particular, anything based on broadcast concepts cannot do so because otherwise clients can't reasonably locate it.
Moreover, even frequency hopping requires a fixed frequency starting point in at least one direction in order to get communication started in the first place. At the very least, the FCC is necessary in order to prevent those frequencies from getting trampled upon.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The FCC does far more than just regulate the airwaves. They also regulate satellite TV, cable companies, cell phone companies, and phone companies. They also provide the National Do-Not-Call list, and regulate telemarketers. They regulate and monitor 911 services. They fine the phone companies when there are major outages, making sure the phone companies do a decent job even though they have a near monopoly in their geographic areas.
If you can show me open source software, or closed source software for that matter, that can do ALL of the above, then I'll agree. Perhaps the FCC just needs to be reduced in size and scope, just like every other government organization.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Yes, they enforce draconian "standards of decency" that are not documented. They used to have the "7 dirty words", and all broadcasters knew to avoid them. Now, anything goes. They assign frequencies, and enforce a undefined moral standard on the people. (for the children, of course!)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
But a new generation of intelligent radios, combined with equally clever computer networks, is making it possible for anybody to use the airwaves without interfering with anybody else.
Yeah, that's possible. It's also possible that I want to set up a huge-ass transmitter and saturate the neighborhood with radio waves. The type of thinking that's expressed in the summary assumes that everybody -- not "most people", but everybody -- will act ethically, at least in a utilitarian or "common good" sense. I say 'everybody' because (as many of us know) it only takes on rogue transmitter to pooch things up real good.
Don't get me wrong, a world in which everybody works together without regulation would be nice, but it's a fundamental problem of ethics.
Sony ha
"a new generation of intelligent radios, combined with equally clever computer networks, is making it possible for anybody to use the airwaves without interfering with anybody else" You're kidding, right? Look at what a mess the 2.4ghz band is. Every cordless phone and nonstandard wireless protocol device (wireless TV repeater from radio shack, etc.) uses it along with 802.11. I run into interference conflicts frequently enough that I still keep my networks wired whenever possible unless it's a laptop. Letting people blast away at 200mw is bad enough, imagine the mess that'll ensue if you do that with higher power transmitters.
There is only so much bandwidth in the radio spectrum. In signal theory, the bandwidth of an analog channel is pretty well defined: it's log(S/N)(fmax). That is to say, it's the logarithm of the signal-to-noise ratio, multiplied by the maximum number of samples per second you can send. The S/N logarithm determines how many bits you can commmunicate with each sample of the channel; the fmax determines how many samples per second you can transmit.
The current FCC strategy for allocating bandwidth is to let the natural background S/N dominate, and allocate pieces of frequency spectrum. The UWB strategy is to increase N over the entire frequency spectrum. They both consume bandwidth in the public airwaves. Remember, unless you're using angular encoding (like a camera) there is only one signal to be had: the voltage off an antenna, versus time. Traditional radio broadcasting uses the Fourier basis to describe that voltage signal and to cut up pieces of the signal for different people to use. CDMA, TDMA, and other WB strategies use different bases -- the effect is that their interference is spread over a LOT of Fourier space, so no one user affects any one channel more than infinitesimally.
But there's no free lunch. A zillion users, all degrading signal infinitesimally, are just as bad as a single doofus who's stomping on your allocated frequency band. Even worse, actually, because you can (usually) find and unplug the doofus's equipment -- but nothing short of a nuclear strike will stop the UWB interference once it gets bad.
The FCC is necessary but they aren't doing what they should. The best example I can give is the FCC's deregulation of radio in the late ninties. In the markets near me, Clear Channel bought every station and left radio in a sad state.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
It's true. The government can use any argument it wants to prohibit the "free speech" distribution of code. Look at how the government classified encryption software as "munitions" in order to prevent its export to foreign countries.
Sure, it is possible to regulate radio equipment using OSS to use finer and finer pieces of spectrum. That's really irrelevant. If I decide I want to use 97.111 MHz for my open-source-audio-blog, and the local radio station wants to use 97.111 MHz for teeny-bop-around-the-clock and Motorola wants to use 97.111 MHz for emergency radios, who gets to use that frequency? The FCC's role is critical to keeping the airwaves organized and prioritized. No matter how thin you slice the bandwith someone has to make the call to say "you use 97.111 - you use 97.113 - you use 97.115".
The other piece the FCC provides is the concept of licensing for the sake of assigning priority on a frequency. If one party interferes with another, who wins? FCC defines those priorities clearly.
If the FCC were not there, any venture onto the airwaves would be a crap-shoot of whether anything is there or not, like SETI. With the FCC in place I know I will get teeny-bop-around-the clock at 97.1MHz, 2M Ham Radio at 146.720MHz, and if I run my RC car at 37MHz it won't interrupt my WiFi connection at 2.4GHz.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
The hard quote here is this:
"My goal is to do all of the work it takes to be explaining to the Supreme Court in 2025 why broadcasting is unconstitutional," says Moglen, who speaks in perfect, rolling sentences. "We have a long march to do, we have a lot of education to do, society has to catch up with our vision of the future, but we are going someplace and the only question is timing and skill in driving."
Which first of all, implies he wants deregulation of broadcasting by 2025 and second of all implies that broadcasting is all he cares about, not, say, FCC regulations on interference caused by computer power supplies. Extremely hard to say with no context other than Forbes' interpretation.
There doesn't appear to be any source that puts his words in context. Other articles are appearing now on ZDnet, et al, but they only cite Forbes.
I don't think this is even remotely an accurate statement of Eben Moglen's ideas. Not to be an apologist; I think deregulation broadcasting is a stupid idea. I wouldn't mind seeing the airwaves repartioned to give more space over to public use, etc., but simple deregulation I wouldn't support. However, I strongly suspect Forbes of putting words in Moglen's mouth with its interpretation of whatever he actually said.
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
I can't think of a single thing the FCC does which isn't made obsolete by the Internet. If everybody had fast wired and wireless Internet access using open protocols, there would be no further use for the FCC. IMHO everything the FCC does now should be focused on establishing fast wired and wireless Internet service for every American citizen. Anything they are doing that does not help achieve that goal will soon be useless and irrelevant. Anything they are doing that hinders that goal is actively harming the American public.
He may not know beans but he does have a point.
You are confusing regulation with enforcement. People using illegal transmitters should be prosecuted as they are not allowed to do that.
Moglen's point is that the FCC is currently in charge of allocation and that's the problem. Because the FCC is a government entity, spectrum control is, in fact, going to be driven by those with the most cash, and not for public benefit. Opening up spectrum to general use and placing very clear rules on transmitter power in a meaningful way, i.e. limits on antenna gain and spectral density , pretty much solves the problem.
Opening up the spectrum and then ENFORCING the rules is what should happen. The current spectral micromanagement by the FCC is in fact a bad thing.
Then there is the fact that they are not trying to enforce things like the broadcast flag which affect your RECEPTION of the airwaves. The fact that it is illegal to receive satellite broadcasts without "approved" hardware is insane, and yet it is currently the law.
We all share the roads, but that doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want.
It should be the same with spectrum.
Absolute statements are never true
Actually if people used PVR systems they would get used to the "downloading" or recording of shows and then watching them when they want where they want. Using a PVR (mythtv, tivo, freevo) system changes the way people watch TV. About the only type of shows that anyone would want to watch "real time" would be sporting events or space launches. Most everything else does not suffer anything by being watched at a later time.
You can add some types of news into that list of yours. If there is a tornado, blizzard, flash flood warning or a few other things headed my way I want to know NOW. TV via the Emergency Broadcasting Service and Emergency Interuptions helps people find out what they need to know quickly. Additionaly, the Amber Alert notifications use this kind of system as well. Those kinds of emergencies work well for TV and Radio broadcasts. Not so well with websites. Especially when during a "Severe winter storm" most likely my internet connection has gone out due to power loss. A radio will work, mainly due to batteries and that broadcasters keep large generators on hand. I can't see that working in the model Daniel Fisher proposes.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Unlike RF, IR or visible light communications don't normally have potential for interference on local, national, international, or even global scales.
DNA just wants to be free...
The reason people can make such profoundly ignorant statements as "The FCC is obsolete", is precisely because the FCC has done a pretty darn good job of doing it's job. The FCC, at least in terms of frequency regulation and enforcement, has done a good enough job that they are largely invisible to the general public. Hence, a lot of people might think they are irrelevant.
Let me explain: the reason we are getting technology to make ever-more-efficient use of available radio spectrum, is in part due to the fact that the FCC, the ITU, and all the counterpart communications agencies of governments around the world recognized the need to regulate the radio spectrum, to slice it up for use by many different 'users'. Part of the FCC's job is to make sure the USA abides by the international radio-spectrum treaties, so that a resource that is fairly scarce, can have optimal usage.
These regulatory agencies, by the very work they do, encourage maximum usage of the available spectrum, and keep people from stepping on each other's signals. This is why we live in a world of wireless devices, wireless digital communications, cell phones, amateur radio, marine radio, military radio, tv, commercial radio, etc, etc and everyone can make use of the airwaves with minimal interference to each other. Once allocations have been made, you need someone to do enforcement (investigation and prosecutions of violations of the allotment), or else the allocations mean nothing.
If you got rid of the FCC, some people would stop playing nice with each other (even though the technology exists to co-exist). Some people would get frequency 'greedy'. And then the whole system would collapse. The sad thing about humans is, a certain percentage of the population always need 'police' to keep them honest (and some are crooked anyway, but at least you have a chance to stop them before they do too much damage, if you have police).
Another important thing to remember about radio frequency, is that different radio frequencies *behave differently*, and allocations need to take this into account (and currently, largely do). Shortwave radio allows worldwide communication with relatively low power output. But, because it is world-wide, it means you also have a truly global 'collision domain', to borrow a term from digital networking. So, if you just need to do local communications, you *don't* use these 'global' frequencies.
The FCC provides a truly useful service to the public (despite all the snarking about decency standards - something the FCC doesn't really want to be involved in, but is forced to by public demand, btw - remember, the FCC ultimately answers to politicians, whose chief concern is keeping the most people 'happy' so they can get re-elected). Let's give them a little respect.
The agency might have made sense in the 1920s, Moglen says, when it was formed to assign specific frequencies to broadcasters so they wouldnt try to drown each other out by cranking up the transmitter power
That is one of the functions performed by the FCC, although other mechanisms certainly would have taken care of that if the FCC had not. The FCC's powers went far beyond that. Congress nationalized the spectrum and took upon itself the authority to grant revocable licenses that must be used "in the public interest". Surely at this remove, we needn't parrot the simplistic grade-school excuse that was fed to the masses. Obviously, states like to control communications, and ours was no exception.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.