Slashdot Mirror
FCC Head Wants New Wireless Devices Unlocked
[TheBORG] writes with news that FCC chairman Kevin Martin wants 700-MHz wireless devices and services to be unlocked. Spectrum auctions for the 700-MHz airwaves, being opened up for fixed and mobile broadband, are scheduled for early next year. "The proposed rules would apply only to the spectrum being auctioned, not the rest of the wireless business, which still makes most of its revenue from voice calls. But Martin's proposal, if adopted by the FCC, could reverberate through a U.S. wireless industry that has tightly controlled access to devices and services... Like most devices sold in the USA, the iPhone ... allows only features and applications that Apple and AT&T provide and works only with an AT&T contract. The FCC chairman said he has grown increasingly concerned that the current practices 'hamper innovations' dreamed up by outside developers. One example:... 'Internationally, Wi-Fi handsets have been available for some time,' Martin noted. 'But they are just beginning to roll out here.'"
It sounds good but I have a sneaking suspicion something in there is going to bite us in the ass. What is it?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Who is this guy and why hasn't Bush fired him yet?
Yeah, yeah. In Soviet Russia the FCC locks you!
This doesn't seem very capitalist?
A public official actually concerned about businesses reaming the consumer. What has become of the United States?
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
What happened to the FCC? This decision would actually benefit the country! The FCC is supposed to be spending all its budget on forcing Christian fundamentalist values on everyone! What went wrong?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
For those of you who thought aliens would take over by pretending to be human and infiltrating government, I apologize for calling you nasty names. If the Chairmen of the FCC is doing something consumer friendly, there is no other explanation. Now, I AM hardpressed to figure out who such action forwards the cause of these aliens, unless maybe they too are just sick and tired of crippled phones....
This should have been done with fucking cell phones a long time ago.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
how long before an official unlocked iPhone appears?
stuff |
he'd come out against spectrum auctions. Is there any single policy that's proven as pernicious lately? One of the most annoying things to come out of Congress has been the forced conversion of the VHF and UHF spectrums to, well, something else, and the retirement of NTSC broadcasts, mainly because Congress is greedy and wants the money such an auction would give them. Never mind that there's no compelling reason to ditch NTSC broadcasts, or that it will cost billions for consumers to convert their TVs to HD. Those auction costs eventually get passed on to the consumers of those products, too, and that's nothing to sneeze at.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I really don't know who stifles innovatino more, the fcc or private industry
He's a Republican...he's Eeeevilllll!
My world is shaken to its core.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Actually he is a Bush appointee. He was one of the lawyers/advisers to Bush and Chenney in the 2000 election. He was then coat tailed into the White House as a legal aid working with the FCC and on some other telecomm/technology groups. He worked in the FCC under the previous FCC Chair before Bush nominated/appointed him to the Chair in 2005. His wife is one of Chenney's aids to boot.
My first thought is that Haliburton is getting into the wireless device industry and doesn't want to have to play nice with the existing heavily stacked market. Remember, the only thing better than big business to a Neo-Con is a big business that the Neo-Con has investments in.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
For example, if I have a given phone that can access the various sub-channels in the frequency, how do I take my service from one carrier to another, etc.? given that alot of the services are essentially thin client apps run from data on the carrier's backbone servers.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
"One example:... 'Internationally, Wi-Fi handsets have been available for some time,' Martin noted. 'But they are just beginning to roll out here.'""
Is that because of lock-in, or just because there hasn't been enough demand for them in the states?
Most Americans are not willing to pay the full price for a phone. As long as the networks have people hooked on subsidized phones, the phones will be feature locked down.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What is your alternative choice for deciding who gets the spectrum?
The most compelling reason to ditch NTSC is that the spectrum it occupies is very valuable, in part because it is not as impeded by obstructions as other frequencies. The switch to HDTV is a catalyst that provides an alternative. A portion of the money gained from the auction of the previous UHF/VFH space will be used for vouchers for consumers to buy conversion devices for their TVs. I suspect, though, that these will be mainly unused, as the large majority of TV viewers are on either cable or satellite, neither one of which will be directly affected.
I believe he is actually concerned with the effects on other businesses the spectrum lock is having. He sites technological advancement and sales as his concern, not the well being of the people. He believes that there is more of a profit to be made by opening the door, between new competition, new sales, and new taxes. And I agree. As an added bonus, the American people might get to see some new technology and alternative wireless communication devices.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
OK, hold on, I think there is just a pinch of 'hate Bush no matter what' in your post. If none of the auctions were taking place, I could just as easily spin this as the Evil Bush administration staying in league with media giants to retain control over UHF and VHF spectrum that was being wasted (which it is in buckets by the way) and cut off from any and all new innovation. I could further decry the fact that the US was continuing to languish with the old NTSC transmission standard instead of moving into the 21st century with digital & HD standards, and how consumers were being hurt by the stifling entrenched interests that wanted to stop the growth of new technology. I have a question: If Hillary were auctioning off the spectrum would you still hate it, and if the Bush administration canceled the auction would you say it was a good idea?
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Its probably easier for the feds to get their apps running on an unlocked phone... no need to convince Apple (or the courts) that it is a good idea.
Just like how there are hundreds of brands of PC's to choose from (this helps keep the price down, improve selection, and companies innovating) we need to have hundreds of brands of cell phones.
We need to be able to home build cell phones. Personally I'd assemble myself a cell phone with a 3.5" (maybe only slightly higher) touchscreen 800 px wide display, 3G, Live Video Share and GPS. I'd run my own distro of Linux or OpenMoko on it.
While I'd love for my iPhone to be unlocked, I am wondering what authority does the Constitution give the government to mandate unlocking.
I like this idea quite a bit, I just don't think it's far enough. It shouldn't just be the new 700MHz spectrum. If you buy ANY new space, you should have to comply with this. If you USE any space you should have to comply. No locking cells to the carrier after Dec 31st, 2007. Not 2015, not 2010, THIS YEAR. Since this is just locking and it's not a problem over seas, they have no excuse why this couldn't be done.
I'd also say contracts should be illegal (or at least termination fees) and ditto with subsidizing phones (you want to subsidize? Must be and instant rebate, none of this mail-in stuff). But I don't expect those to happen.
I'll still be surprised if this was passed.
But please, free the cell phones. Won't someone please think of the cell phones?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
It sounds good -- use the force of the law to regulate businesses to provide unlocked devices "for the consumer's rights." But the idea of locking a device is irrelevant to this discussion, Mssrs. FCC, because it isn't the provision of locking a device that is anti-consumer.
The best situation for any consumer of a given market product is competition -- the ability for newcomers to a given market to try to provide better features at a lower cost and a higher quality. This gives consumers choice. Locking a device is the equivalent of removing a feature from a product, but the idea of locking a device may allow a manufacturer to offer better service because they won't have to pay for the support of third party hardware and software. In the print industry, I get significant breaks on same-day warranty service if I buy my toner and ink from the manufacturer (generally at a fairly competitive price, these are industrial machines).
So what is the anti-consumer situation here? Again, it isn't locking the device. The biggest anti-consumer provision in the communications market is also one that is anti-competition (amazing). It is called the Patent. In a market where almost every product is seemingly identical, we still see each product having patents or patents pending on the devices. Yes, the iPhone seems unique, but it really isn't. Apple just realized that the interface is more important than other features -- and they're proven correct so far in the short run. Yet the market is artificially disturbed because of the force of law (patents, copyrights, trademarks), and the FCC wants to patch the Congressional error by adding more regulation to the market?
Never mind that there's no compelling reason to ditch NTSC broadcasts, or that it will cost billions for consumers to convert their TVs to HD.
Well, in theory the freed up spectrums might result in additional wireless services that consumers will want.
I think it's also fair to say that there is no compelling reason to keep NTSC broadcasts, which is using technology over 50 years old. Consumers do not have to convert their TVs to HD. All they need do is buy a conversion box and Uncle Sam is supposed to subsidize the cost to those who will need them. I've heard talk of $50 vouchers being given, which should about cover it.
I fail to see even one argument as to how keeping the spectrum will benefit anybody. Your post seems to be kind of a luddite thing.
Follow the Market Share, Money, Monopolies, and/or Political Mojo and see what happens in this case. I wonder which is in play this time?
If the auction grants exclusive rights, that means other businesses can't develop the spectrum even further. Sure, the consumers get extra gizmos, but it'll be other businesses that are making those gizmos to sell.
Still, it does suggest a shift away from monopoly business practices and more towards competitive business practices. I did read that Republican money-raising efforts are floundering, so perhaps it's a way to either shake down the AT&Ts of the world, or get money from smaller businesses.
It's a good thing I'm not that cynical.
NTSC is very old, wasteful technology. Once freed up, new technology will able to make much more efficient use of the same frequencies. Much like how digital mobiles are more efficient that the small car sized devices we had 15 years ago.
- I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
Uhg, do we have to choose between the Republicrat and the Neo-Con? Can't we just get Nader or someone to drop a loaf on the spectrum and call it a day?
;)
In all seriousness though, spectrum auctions cut both ways. Getting rid of NTSC over UHF/VHF will open up tons of new opportunities. But at the same time the cost to each and every station has been millions of dollars. A lot of the smaller/NFP organizations (like PBS stations) have had a hell of a time pulling off the change over, and a number of stations are just closing rather than dealing with the financial risk. Tack on to that the direct cost to the consumer of HD tuners, converters, or new TVs, and the indirect cost through advertising and taxes. Personally, I agree with the auctions to some extent. I do not have the knowledge to make a well qualified statement on the decision, but there are many trade offs between licensed and open frequencies. Just imagine if you had to file with the FCC just to plug your WiFi router in.
And feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the initial move to retire NTSC start under Clinton's presidency?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
"The biggest anti-consumer provision in the communications market is also one that is anti-competition (amazing). It is called the Patent."
*looks and sees who the poster is*
*rolls eyes*
Same song and dance with you dada21. Would it be safe to say you don't have a bit of IP to your name? If I was into conspiracies I'd wonder what's in it for you if your "utopia" came about? Not the one you'd think it will be.
I know, republicans aren't evil. They only ACT that way. i know, republicans helped cnn and foxnews by making a war, and they helped those in armament factories by increasing defense spending. they also helped some people with large inheritances avoid paying taxes. But seriously, when was the last time a republican did anything that did any large group of people any long term good?
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
There is a reason to ditch NTSC.. it's an incredibly inefficient way of transmitting video. I believe that HDTV can transmit the same image quality in 1/4 or 1/6 of the bandwidth dedicated to over-the-air NTSC video.
And from an economic view.. auctions are very efficient. With all that unused spectrum, would you prefer to have more TV channels, or more (hopefully) interesting wireless services? Let the market decide.
Now it's up to the regulators to figure out how to make the auction fair. I don't know how to do that part.
I am so ipressed by his integrity No all he needs to do is puts this idea through congress AND get the president to sign it....
Oh, wait. That's right! This guy will be two years out of office before this is even a bill. He can demand anything he wants now, and so can any other department head becasue they won't be around to put it through congress.
Gosh, I wonder what the FCC head will be doing AFTER he gets booted by the next pres. (or this one). Could it be consulting for some group/company that would benefit from open devices?
Naw, that would just be jaded of me.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
if iPhone was truly open I'd buy it as a PDA - i have no interest in using it as a phone. i like the touch screen interface and wifi - it would replace my laptop. but im not buying something that commits me to thousands of dollars worth of business to AT&T, a known monopolist (who, like the liquid metal terminator in T2, has reconstituted itself from its fragments).
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
I had given up on waiting for the day that something the US government did made sense. Looks like somebody does have a clue. Too bad lobbyist, and greed mongers won't ever let this idea see the light of day.
- I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
There are all kinds of useful things that could be done with the VHF spectrum, that can't be done now because it's being taken up by all those analog TV channels.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Never mind that there's no compelling reason to ditch NTSC broadcasts
There's a very good reason to ditch the NTSC broadcasts-- when all those broadcasts are being broadcast on another spectrum of frequencies, it's a waste of a very useful range of frequencies to continue the duplicate broadcasts. It may be that HD hasn't rolled out as quickly as many people hoped, and therefore it makes sense to delay "ditching" NTSC broadcasts, but that's been going on for years. They keep delaying it (for good reason), but eventually, when most people have upgraded their TVs and/or purchased new tuners, we ought to cease the old broadcasts.
Part of the reason for all this is that we chose to put NTSC broadcasts (IANA expert, but so I've heard) on the frequencies they occupy specifically because they travel well through solid materials and get good penetration into buildings. These are very useful/valuable frequencies, and we should free them up for wireless digital communications if we can. It only makes sense. As to the "auction", I'm not sure whether it's good or bad. I don't know the ins and outs of regulating this stuff. Do we need to give control of the spectrum to specific large companies in order to develop ubiquitous wireless internet? Would it make more sense to make it more of a free-for-all like the 2.4 Ghz range used by WiFi? If so, does the FCC need to do anything in particular to keep people from interfering with each other?
I ask these questions because I really don't know and I'm curious. I'd like to hear from someone who really knows what they're talking about. I really think that if there's one thing the FCC should be working on, it's pushing the agenda of getting high quality, high speed, open, wireless internet coverage throughout the entire country. And when I say "open" I don't necessarily mean "public" or "free" (as in beer), but it should at least be an open standard for wireless data.
We don't pay enough taxes in this country. Taxes are part of your contract for living in a civilized society. Everyone always bitches about their taxes but then when a hurricane wipes out their house and they have no insurance - waaaaa! You want Uncle Sam to fix your boo-boo. I'd gladly pay more taxes to have a completely socialized medical system in this country and not to have to keep a sterile surgical suite and surgical implements to reattach my own limbs next to my power tools.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
The biggest anti-consumer provision in the communications market is also one that is anti-competition (amazing). It is called the Patent.
That is complete nonsense.
Patents and Copyrights allow creators to make a living. If I invest time and money into an invention, I want to profit from it. I don't want someone else taking my ideas and ruining any chance I have of making money and getting a decent return on my investment. Eliminating patents and copyright will greatly reduce or even eliminate the ability to profit from it resulting in innovation halting completely. Unfortunately here on /., everyone focuses on the abusers of the system and not on the folks who created something and added value to society.
Without Trademarks, there would be nothing stopping me from opening up the Disney Pornography store.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
how long before an official unlocked iPhone appears?
5 long years
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The problem is that specific models are designed so that, even if you could unlock them, certain features will only work with a specific carrier. Even if you could buy an unlocked iPhone for example, most of its features are only going to work with AT&T.
That may be true to a certain extent, but not totally true. For example the inability to install J2ME apps straight from your computer and the inability to use Bluetooth are examples of elements that are limitations that are imposed limitations and not technology limitations. There are some features that are actually provided by the network and can be added to any phone. For example when I traveled to New Zealand I had got my cellphone unlocked in Singapore and was using a Vodaphone pay as you go SIM. I suddenly found that you get a special Vodaphone sub menu with a whole bunch of extras.
In many ways I support the move by the FCC, since it would help change the business method of cell phone carriers. It would also highlight the limitations of any given carrier, instead of making it seem to be the limitations of the cell phone. Sure it would mean that cell phone carriers would have to compete on both wireless packages and wireless phone prices, but if that helps drive the market then even better. In fact having the cell phone manufacturers play a more active role in the support of their phones would also be a welcome change, since delegating this to the carriers is usually just asking for trouble.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The fact is that there hasn't been anything really "invented" in this country for years, probably going back to the 60's or 70's. Part of the problem is that here, everything *must* have a profitability schedule attached to it and it's return on investment must be steep and fast or its killed off. Free-Market idealogical thinking is responsible for this. I thought there was supposed to be a balance with this against a worth to the populous as a whole, but I guess something got lost in the translation somewhere.
Hence this is why a lot of stuff is invented elsewhere and even if something is invented here, it ultimately doesn't come here until much later after these people start realizing whats going on in Europe and other parts of the planet, and decide to bring it here.
I don't care if the iPhone sold for $100, I would not touch it because it's *locked* into AT&T. Sorry but I am for freedom of choice and this doesn't give me that.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Sorry, but what allows Apple to bring the iPhone to market is Apple's ability to lock-in with AT&T in order to maximize profits for a 5 year clip. Without lock-in, there wouldn't be an iPhone, or it would be much more expensive (even after you factor out the ATT contract).
All I can say is "WOW!" I've long been an advocate of unlocked interfaces. Actually, if I had my way, every product sold that has any ability to be "connected" to something else would be REQUIRED to fully and completely document any and all interfaces, API's, and/or file formats. We really need to end this current paradigm of creating lock-in and lock-out of end users' own property and data under the guise of "protecting intellectual property," which doesn't actually protect anything other than preventing an aftermarket and forcing updates at the vendor's whim. I'm not asking to open-source the internals of a device or software product, but providing interfacing information isn't too much to ask. The line the law SHOULD draw is at the interface. Inside the device is the vendor's territory, but outside is the customer's. Violation of this requirement should result in an injunction preventing any sale of the device or product until compliance is achieved, with a daily fine equal to the highest sales revenue for the product in question. Note that this will not allow infringements of patents or copyrights of the device, but will end the days of not being able to use some device with some other device. No more lockout of aftermarket printer cartridges, or devices that can't be made to work with Linux.
cost billions for consumers to convert their TVs to HD. Those auction costs eventually get passed on to the consumers of those products,
If one opts to not HAVE a new HD TV, how shall the masses obtain their soma?
Dog is my co-pilot.
Another of the "taxes are part of your contract for living in a civilized society" mavens. So, if we all paid 100% of our wages to the state, would that make us all sufficiently pious for you? What level is "enough"? Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. The "more taxes" crowd forgets this, forgets the abuses that more money collected by the state engenders: more wars (foreign and domestic — think of the War On [Some] Drugs), more secret programs, more spying on citizens, etc. Enough. E-fargin'-nuff.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Without Trademarks, there would be nothing stopping me from opening up the Disney Pornography store.
I guess trademarks do have some unfortunate consequences.
Spectrum scarcity is a fallacy whose roots based on ancient technology. Scientists and engineers who understand radio technologies invented but a few years after the FCC was established by Congress in 1934 (i.e. UWB and spread spectrum frequency hopping) know this. See, e.g, How wireless networks scale: the illusion of spectrum scarcity. The fact is, everyone who wanted to could use the airwaves free of interference if such technologies were properly implemented.
The problem is that Congress, now guaranteed a new source of revenue to spend on things like foolish wars and bridges to nowhere without direct taxes through the auction process, will scream bloody murder if the FCC tries to undo what it has done.
3300 hz ought to be enough for anyone.
0x7279727972797279
Why is the FCC telling businesses what they can or can not do with their phone offerings?
Not that I'm complaining but this is the USA and I don't think its unreasonable to allow the market rather than government to dictate these kinds of additudes. Some providers may have good reasons in terms of certifying devices to play nice on their network.
Ultimately I can't imagine this being a bad thing for us consumers but do the ends justify the means?
Now whats with Sprint not allowing me to use any of the new kyocera offerings? Its really starting to piss me off.
If spectrum were, indeed, not scarce, then the companies that owned spectrum already would deploy whatever technology is available to more effectively use spectrum instead of paying billions of dollars to get access to more of it.
The price paid for the spectrum indicates that it must be scarce. If it wasn't scarce, nobody would be paying big dollars for it.
paintball
I'm not the GP, but I'll attempt an answer anyway.
One solution would be to allocate spectrum in the same way as land is already allocated; namely, homesteading and contractual transfer (i.e. private ownership). Anyone can transmit whatever they want, provided it doesn't interfere with the reception of an existing signal (or cause other side effects, e.g. cancer). Interference at a historical reception point is treated as a trespass against both the owner of the transmitter and the owner of the receiver; any disputes over ownership fall under the jurisdiction of the civil court system.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
He probably wants an iPhone and doesn't want to go through AT&T.
and not iPhone. The video I've seen from them are not touch screen, you use a stylus, and they don't have finger gestures.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wonderful. Rich companies can squat spectrum by transmitting junk just to "be there" and own it forever. Moreover, any little guys can get mowed over by any company willing to spend more money in litigation than the little guy can afford.
That's a system that will be sure to serve the interests of the public.
The double threat of the current Admin is that not only have they repeatedly shown themselves to be not worthy of trust, they've gone to unprecedented lengths to block verification as much as possible.
There plenty of compelling reason to ditch NTSC. There has been for decades. It's only in the past several years that a substantially better approach is available. ATSC (as well as DVB where that is used) allows the spectrum to be more efficiently used. If you look at a spectrum analyzer plot of an NTSC signal in a 6 MHz channel, it's totally dominated by the carrier that is 1.25 MHz above the lower edge of the channel. Video information looks like some grass growing along the bottom edge (especially if you use one with a green colored scope). There's a small blip and fuzzy area around the color subcarrier 4.829545 MHz above the lower edge. And finally, you can see a bit of the audio subcarrier poking its head above ground at 5.75 MHz above the lower edge. Most of the power in transmitting is wasted in the carriers that really carry nothing. Real information is in the sidebands, which are spread out but don't have any redundancy. Contrast that with ATSC which looks like the grass has grown to a forest (that's all information) and widened to nearly fill out the entire 6 MHz channel. Look closely where the forest slopes down to the lower edge and you can see a small blip down near the ground level for the pilot carrier (which is weaker than all the information signals). That's really the 8-VSB modulation taking place. DVB's COFDM is not much different (the forest of frequencies is a little flatter but the total waveform is a little more bumpy). It's an efficient way to carrier information over a fixed RF channel. That combined with MPEG compression, gives you high definition, extra program subchannels, and extended range for the same power level (in the USA, digital power levels will be lower so stations end up with about the same coverage as they had in analog).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
That was the BEST THING I've ever read. Ever.
Pectrum scarcity is only a fallacy if you are prepared to exchange every radio transmitter and reciver with one top-of-the line model, which will be much more expensive, considerably larger and have a very high power consumption, compared to a typical FM-radio or cellphone. And then you will still have to solve the hidden-node problem , which seems to be a very hard one.... Spectrum scarcity is very much a reality yesterday, today and will still be tomorrow, if you look at a realistic scenarios.
Wow! So someone figured out why cell phones and wireless services in the US suck? Amazing...
Someone in our government made a rational decision that actually helps us? I'm actually pretty impressed by this.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Actually, this loss of VHF/UHF only applies to those who still use an antenna. Anyone using satellite, digital cable, or even basic cable will not be affected, as the signal is already digital. If anyone does use an antenna, however, he/she can buy a set-top box to get a digital signal on any normal TV. No need to convert to HD, or spend billions.
You are reading a sig. Cancel or allow?
Cognitive radio is considered the future of spectrum licensing and both the IEEE and FCC agree on this. It was discovered some time ago that spectrum usage varies in both space and time and is often wasted. Even in a metropolitan area many bands are unused up to 85% of the time. With the advent of software define radio (such as the popular GNU Radio) it is now possible for a wireless device to "sense" bands of little spectrum activity and adjust internal parameters (i.e. modulation type, channel coding, Nyquist pulse shape, etc.) and adaptively maximize bandwidth utilization, at least in theory. The engineering is difficult and considered to be the holy grail of communications by many.
t icleID=000C7B72-2374-13F6-A37483414B7F0000
What this means, in a nutshell, is that in the future it will be possible to completely open up the spectrum and charge commercial users in a pay-by-usage model, like the internet. Once the problems with cognitive radio were solved, this would require a simple licensing scheme (think unique FCC identifier in the packet header) and new layer 2-1 protocols.
If you're interested, more info can be found at: (IEEE info center) www.ieeep1900.org/crinfo (FCC workshop) www.fcc.gov/oet/cognitiveradio/ (Scientific American article) www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&ar
For a more technical discussion, refer to Mitola's PhD thesis (where the term "cognitive radio" was coined): www.it.kth.se/~jmitola/Mitola_Dissertation8_Inte grated.pdf
(Note: this is a repost of mine but it seemed applicable and I'm lazy)
Wait a second... you think it's reasonable to auction off a monopoly on a valuable public resource to one group of companies, and then to justify it by committing to spending a chunk of the profits to subsidize another related group of companies.
How about this: Subsidies and government granted monopolies are terrible for both the free market and for overall social welfare. Let's do neither.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
That's only true if you're dealing with goods in a free market - which isn't the case here. Instead, this is auctioning off government granted monopolies in a situation where corporations with existing government granted monopolies are allowed to bid.
Once government granted monopolies are involved, you're well away from "economically efficient" (or even "free market").
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
That's nice. I haven't heard anyone argue against Trademarks in a while. In fact, it seems that trademarks are a good idea simply because impersonating someone else is fraudulent.
Now, the completely unrelated issue of patents is less obvious.
That's nice. I want a pony. As far as I can tell, what I want is more reasonable than what you want - giving me a pony wouldn't drastically warp the economy in favor of large corporate monopolists.
The argument for patents is based on a social tradeoff, the story being something like this: "If we grant an inventor a short-term monopoly on their invention, that will encourage other inventors to invent useful things". The problem is that this policy has a number of unintended side effects, some of which have drastically larger economic impacts than the incentive to invent - negative economic impacts.
Read these for the argument in some detail:o mmons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_antic
http://members.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
I, for one, welcome our new consumer-friendly overlords.
Sounds like the telcos forgot to send Martin his monthly stipend.
Not what I said. I was replying to the comment that millions of people would be forced to buy new TVs or converters. Personally, I think the converters are a huge boondoggle.
I don't see anything wrong with auctioning off spectrum, especially when you compare it to the way that the government used to do it, by holding individual licensing hearings for each broadcaster, trying (and failing abysmally) to make sure that the broadcasters were using the spectrum for the public good. By treating the spectrum as property, they've allowed the free market to work.
They could have just given rights to the spectrum away and achieved the same end. The difference, though, is that by auctioning it off, the wad of cash goes to the government and not to the people they initially give the spectrum to.
Every time one of you socialized medicine, more taxes buffoons pipes up, I have to ask, what government run programs aren't bloated messes run by incompetents?
And you want your health care run by these people? You genuinely want a bureaucrat in charge of when and how you recieve your medical care? HAVE YOU BEEN TO THE DMV?
How fucking stupid are you?
I know a few inventors myself, and if they didn't have any protection from the patent system and the grounds to sue the "large corporate monopolists" when or if they do steal their idea, they wouldn't be inventing. Sure, they are some altruistic folks out their who would innovate for the sake of humanity (IIRC, the inventor of the kidney dialysis machine gave his idea away.), but then again, without the resources to spend the time without pay, I might add, and the associated costs with development, it really isn't worth it unless there was some payoff at the end (Some of these guys run up huge amounts of debt!). And, yes, patents aid in achieving that.
You are so focused on the big corps, that you've lost sight of the small inventors, writers, entrepreneurs who use the patent system to make sure that they are not trampled by the big guys. Without IP law, what would prevent the big guys from stealing your work and profiting of it as your own? I have a problem with that.
I'm ignoring the pony comment.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Do you drive on roads? Do you expect the fires consuming your house to be extinguished? Did you go to a public school? Do you expect Uncle Sam to keep Osama bin Butthead from blowing up your shopping mall? Somebody has to pay the folks who drive firetrucks, teach kids, pave roads, fix bridges, fight wars for oil, tap your phone, read your mail, sniff your baggage for marijuana, and look through your packages for primo Israeli ecstasy. That's 30% you won't spend on a stupid quad-core Pentium or an unnecessarily large SUV.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
"What fucking planet do you live on?"
I live on the planet where assigning positions to people when they haven't taken them on themselves is know as "the straw man" fallacy. You just used it. You happen to live here too.
As to your points, you did nothing to refute me. I stated support for not one of the positions you attempted to foist on me, so why do you think you said anything of value here? Government runs things badly. There is no disagreement, so fabricating an argument to use against me was your only shot, and it failed. You know I'm right, that's why you avoided my point and went straight to fallacy.
I guess the answer to my original question is "You're very fucking stupid".
I think I get you now: You want to create and make money yourself without having to worry about stepping on someone else's toes and getting sued for more than your investment.
Am I right?
If I am, then I get your argument and it is an intriguing one. I have to admit.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.