You're making my column oversimplistic by oversimplifying it.
My main argument is not that we can "prevent interference." It's the following, quoting from the piece:
In practice, there are still limits on how many users can communicate effectively, depending on available frequencies, power, competing uses and the design of transmitters and receivers. The benefit of open spectrum is that it's more efficient than the traditional licensing model, and that gap will widen over time.
There's much more detail in the issue of Release 1.0 that the column was based on (though unfortunately it's not available for free).
And no, I don't claim to be an engineer... which is why I rely on engineers like David Reed, Tim Shepard and Dewayne Hendricks who've done work in this area (both theory and practice).
-k-
Kevin Werbach
Editor, Release 1.0
http://www.edventure.com
As others point out below (and as I explained in the column), unlicensed is not the same as a free-for-all. 802.11 is an example of a service that coexists with others in the same frequency bands. How well this works depends on how devices are designed, what encoding mechanisms are used, etc. That's why, as I said, we need an "intelligent radio bill of rights."
I go into much more detail in the issue of Release 1.0 the column was based on.
-k-
Kevin Werbach
Editor, Release 1.0
http://www.edventure.com
Why does everyone keeps calling me "the author?" Guess I shouldn't complain -- at least the column got Slashdotted!
802.11 isn't a model; it's an illustration. Despite all the problems you describe, *and* the fact the FCC had no intention to facilitate widespread short-range wireless data connectivity, that's what we got with WiFi.
What if the FCC started with the goal of facilitating effective spectrum sharing? What if engineers had more latitude in defining the rules? Sure, there would still be plenty of interference issues, but overall we'd have more efficient spectrum utilization and more innovation.
That's my point in the column and my open letter to the FCC, which is at http://www.edventure.com/conversation.
-k-
Kevin Werbach
Editor, Release 1.0
kevin@edventure.com
Slashdot Mirror
You're making my column oversimplistic by oversimplifying it.
My main argument is not that we can "prevent interference." It's the following, quoting from the piece:
In practice, there are still limits on how many users can communicate effectively, depending on available frequencies, power, competing uses and the design of transmitters and receivers. The benefit of open spectrum is that it's more efficient than the traditional licensing model, and that gap will widen over time.
There's much more detail in the issue of Release 1.0 that the column was based on (though unfortunately it's not available for free).
And no, I don't claim to be an engineer... which is why I rely on engineers like David Reed, Tim Shepard and Dewayne Hendricks who've done work in this area (both theory and practice).
-k-
Kevin Werbach
Editor, Release 1.0
http://www.edventure.com
As others point out below (and as I explained in the column), unlicensed is not the same as a free-for-all. 802.11 is an example of a service that coexists with others in the same frequency bands. How well this works depends on how devices are designed, what encoding mechanisms are used, etc. That's why, as I said, we need an "intelligent radio bill of rights."
I go into much more detail in the issue of Release 1.0 the column was based on.
-k-
Kevin Werbach
Editor, Release 1.0
http://www.edventure.com
Why does everyone keeps calling me "the author?" Guess I shouldn't complain -- at least the column got Slashdotted!
802.11 isn't a model; it's an illustration. Despite all the problems you describe, *and* the fact the FCC had no intention to facilitate widespread short-range wireless data connectivity, that's what we got with WiFi.
What if the FCC started with the goal of facilitating effective spectrum sharing? What if engineers had more latitude in defining the rules? Sure, there would still be plenty of interference issues, but overall we'd have more efficient spectrum utilization and more innovation.
That's my point in the column and my open letter to the FCC, which is at http://www.edventure.com/conversation.
-k-
Kevin Werbach
Editor, Release 1.0
kevin@edventure.com