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.'"
Yeah right. If I go by your same logic and just for the sake of argument let us also assume that Napster was Open Source. Do you really think RIAA still wouldn't have crushed it? First Amendment my ass. Our "friendly" (and genius) lawmakers will find a loophole or make a law that First Amendment will violate. Yup the greenback has a voice, and it is fuckin' loud!
...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?
Do we have a cite for this? It sounds bogus. Moglen is smarter than that.
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.
Yeah, I mean, if we didn't have the FCC, who would fine TV stations for showing bare asses and hot cheerleaders during football games?
-=JML=-
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The FCC is still needed. There is still a finite set of bandwidth available. Technology may allow more and more things to utilize that bandwidth but there are limits. And if it is unregulated then the most powerful transmitter wins will be the way it works. This would result in areas where lower power devices would not be able to operate because someone is splattering the spectrum those devices use with their own noise.
:)
Actually it might not be bad if you could walk/drive around with a cell phone jammer. Or even better a high frequency Ham radio that can cause that rolling speaker that pulled up next to you some serious interference directly into the speakers.
Just need enough power to permanetly damage his speakers with one ear shattering squelch!
If we were a nation of boy scouts that might work, but experience in wireless band usage in the unlicensed ranges indicates this is not the case
Unlicensed wireless spectrum in Omaha, Nebraska, population 500k, is managed by a mixture of microwave design and troubleshooting, back stabbing, jamming with amateur gear, intrusions into ISP's networks, 'uncoordinated' adjustments of competitor's antennas and radios in shared facilities, lawsuits, character assassination, 'testing' of heavily amplified frequency hopping products, and occasional play on the part of aircrews on RC-135 Rivet Joints flying out of Offutt AFB.
Never in a million billion zillion years would the licensed band network operators here tolerate that sort of conduct. Eben needs to stick to software licenses and leave radio physics alone
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
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.
That's all I could think of when readingTFA. He managed to cover one of the 6 bureaus that make up what the FCC does. Granted they do some stupid crap with all the censorship, but they do kinda help make sure telecommunications work around here.
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.
"...GNU Radio is developing a new generation of radios and TV receivers that use software for just about everything except the antenna and the power source. The FCC can prohibit manufacturers from selling radios that transmit on illegal frequencies, but it would have trouble shutting down a Web site distributing software that does the same thing."
Look dude, I just got a brand GNU radio!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
What would prevent the kiddie down the street from buying a 1000 watt transmitter, radiating himself and his neighbors, overmodulating his signal and washing out half the FM radio spectrum within a nearby radius?
There is no way to mandate computer networked transmitters, or to enforce things from the transmitter side.
The fcc handles figuring out land topology, power, assignments, and a myriad other factors involved in assigning a frequency and maximum power- for the entire country's radio space over several ghz of spectrum.
What does open source really have to do with this anyway? Sure, open source could theoretically implement the system he talks about, but the post is more about the supposed irrelevance of the fcc and is using OSS as a buzzword to generate hype.
The GPL does not prohibit the sale of OSS - it prohibits hiding the source code from whomever the binaries are distributed to.
Looks like someone forgot to check at least one fact...
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.
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.
"There is still a finite set of bandwidth available." Clarification: saying that there is a shortage of radio spectrum is like saying there is a shortage of colors. Both are infinite. Colors become finite only when you restrict yourself to a discrete color-space, like a box of Crayola crayons. Radio spectrum becomes finite only when you chop it into big discrete chunks, like radio stations. Reference, for example, http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interes ting-people/199507/msg00023.html, as well as numerous other discussions along the same lines. Radio bands are as big as they are only because early 20th century vacuum tube technology required them to be. Modern microlectronics could allow modern radio bands to be however "skinny" we like.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
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
The FCC isn't that active in cracking down on annoying emitters, but they do try. This went out on August 24th:
"The Federal Communications Commission has been made aware that an electronic transformer manufactured by W.A.C. Lighting Company, model number EN-12PX-AR, located in a lighting circuit at your residence, is causing harmful radio interference to the AM Radio Broadcast Band as well as to a licensee in the Amateur Radio Service."
People tend to forget that a switching power supply is a high-powered RF generator. If it weren't for strict emissions regulations and type approval, the frequencies below a few megahertz would be full of power supply hash and not much else.
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.
Tell that to my microwave.
Clones are people two.
While the electromagnetic spectrum is in theory infinite, the physically usable spectrum is finite.
We have at most 20-24 GHz of economically usable bandwidth. For some applications (point-to-multipoint broadcast), LOS restrictions and the difficulty of generating appreciable amounts of power at higher microwave frequencies limits us to far less than that.
Honestly, the only economical transceivers I know of that work above the 5.8 GHz ISM band are specialty devices not well suited to communications. (Gunn diode and magnetron sources at 10 GHz and 24 GHz. Good for radar, not good for communications due to large amounts of noise and frequency drift.) Generating more than a few milliwatts above 5.8 GHz is HARD and expensive! To handle high power, an amplifying device (i.e. transistor) must be large, but at microwave frequencies, the device size is a more significant portion of the wavelength of the frequency to be amplified. Developing more than a watt or so at 2.4 GHz and above requires either hundreds of dollars, or specialty vacuum tubes (magnetrons as used in microwave ovens, or traveling wave tubes.) Note that magnetrons are very noisy and unstable sources that are useless for all but Morse code communications.
Anyone who things the FCC can be made obsolete in less than 50-100 years is ignorant to the realities of communications systems and RF engineering. Software defined radios are a big step forward, but they're still best considered to be an infant technology. The only SDRs that are actually in use today are by people who ABSOLUTELY need the flexibility *at any cost* (read: military applications). Broadband RF design techniques and high-speed general-purpose DSPs needed for a flexible SDR designs exist, but both broadband RF design and high-speed general-purpose DSPs are EXPENSIVE.
Even 50-100 years from now, we're going to still need the FCC to make sure that people's SDRs play nicely with each other, otherwise (as a previous poster mentioned) someone will fire up a multi-kilowatt spark gap attached to a microcontroller and call it a "smart radio".
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?