Revising Spectrum Rules 125
Orne writes "Whereas NPR is speculating on the television spectrum, the AP brings us news that the Bush administration is set to re-evaluate government and industry use of the radio spectrum. An executive order kicks off a year of public meetings held by the Commerce Dept; the official press release is here."
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
No pr0n. That's what the internet is for. And you'll find more than you have time for there.
I think a better use for it would be a Govt. subsidized, public wireless network that can be used by all. Internet for everyone sounds better than 312 Spice channels. Dontcha think?
Re:Good. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good. (Score:1)
Re:Good. (Score:1)
Surprise (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Well... (Score:1)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there nothing left that can't be purchased? Bush showed us that friends can be bought (Turkey), elections can be bought (Florida), Justice can be bought (Enron), peace can be bought (Iraq). He'd sell off his dignity if he had any.
Probably a change for the worse... (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to ask... What's the point of a press release when it's so vague, spewing out the same old "I want to do everything that is good, and nothing that is bad" that they now say pratcially nothing at all?
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:5, Interesting)
You are correct sir! I read yesterday (here [internet.com]), among other things,they are looking to unload some spectrum from military use into the private sector. To the consternation of the military, of course. I love when Bush uses the military for photo ops and then screws them on benefits and crap like this.
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Last night I wrote in the thread about over-the-air broadcasting how the gubmint should start re-farming part of the military aircraft band to other spectrum requirements. In retrospect, that post would have been more apropriately made here.
In a nutshell, that band is massive -- 175 MHz, or the width of 29 TV channels. Back "in the day" when encrytion was relatively primitive the need for so many frequencies was greater so users could "hide through obscurity" This is no longer needed, and a significantly smaller mil-air band would more than suffice given current DES-encrypted digital-spread-spectrum transmissions that are ultra-efficient in bandwidth requirements.
So it's much safer to re-farm let's say 2/3 of that chunk to other needs (give most to land mobile -- it's in a frequency range that's ultra-usable for them) and move cell and data around up above 800-900, etc. Everybody wins. Heck, I'd dearly love to see another amateur band in this region or an expansion of the 420-450 band.
To reply directly to your post, however, it's NOT screwing the military, despite their protests. They have the technology to use existing spectrum efficiently and securely. Spectrum efficiency is very much what's needed. Land Mobile is currently under orders to decrease bandwidth significantly in coming years and I don't see why other spectrum users can't be made to follow the same path. With effecient use, more users can have access to the same pie.
As to who gets what, well, that's a differnt story and one for another day and another thread!
The military and other government users are (naturally) concerned about security of communications. Current levels of data and voice encryption in fact allow for strategic security as well as tactical. The days of needing to hide through obscurity are gone.
I suspect this is more a case of a few spectrum-hungry technocrats not wanting to give up or share their exclusive-use and rather massive RF playground.
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:2)
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:1)
This is a simplistic view of the problems military communications have to cope with. Strategic communication tends to be point-to-point, so I will leave strate
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:1)
In a theater and time of war, all bets are off. You use any frequency you damned well want to if you have the ability to do so and believe it is tactically sound to do so. I also refuse to believe any heavily-armoured equipment in the US military is not frequency agile from DC to daylight. Hell, if you can build a ham radio for $99.95 that does it, they sure as hell can buy the necessary hardware for less than the cost of a Pentagon Ball-peen hammer.
Wanna go spread-spectrum across
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:1)
In that case, there is no reason in my sitting here and telling you otherwise.
You sound like electronics designers of the sixties who scoffed at the USSR still using electron valve technology in their planes. They stop
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:1)
There are areas of the U.S. where Amateurs are limited by location and power output levels on 420-450 to protect military installations. Areas of Texas and New Mexico come to mind.
Commercial interests would pounce on 420-450 if NTIA ever let it go. Amateurs would have a very hard time holding on to it. Be glad NTIA wants it still.
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't pretend to know a lot about it, but I do know I hear a lot of complaining, particularly around here. So why not take advantage of the fact that they're going to spend a year studying the "issue" and speak up? Try something positive.
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:1, Insightful)
If you think ideas like public, Open Spectrum [reed.com] have any chance of becoming reality under Bush, then all I have to say is "Wow you're naive".
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:2)
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:4, Interesting)
The best public use for the airwaves would be to spur adoption of software-based radios, rather than dedicating a chunk of spectrum to a specific function. This puts the government in an awkward position... how do you sell spectrum that is "self-regulating" and dynamically allocated?
Furthermore, if the band does actually self-regulate, where does the FCC fit into the equation? If you have eliminated the value to dedicated spectrum, how do your political allies make money off their licenses? Where does this magical money come from that is supposed to balance the budget in a few years?
I'm all for studying ways to re-allocate the spectrum for better public good, but unfortunately corporate greed from the entrenched players is a stronger force than what developing industries can provide.
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:2)
Tracking Usage (Score:2)
The problem, however, is that the activity that generates the most monetary transactions is not necessarily the most efficient use of the airwaves. For example TV and radio do an efficient job of distributing large amounts of information to the public...these uses don't generate that many monetary transactions since
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:2)
It's good for the economy, and certainly a more economically efficient use of those frequencies than before 802.11.
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:2)
We may know that it is far better to have open standards as well as spectrum, but I'd be willing to bet there will be no shortage of companies trying to sneakily push their ow
Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:1)
Hopefully... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can think of some uses. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2, Troll)
Not likely since the "public" doesn't seem to be represented.
(a) Membership of the Task Force. The Task Force shall consist exclusively of the heads of the executive branch departments, agencies, and offices listed below:
(1) the Department of State;
(2) the Department of the Treasury;
(3) the Department of Defense;
(4) the Department of Justice;
(5) the Department of the Interior;
(6) the Department of Agriculture;
(7) the Depa
Re:Hopefully... (Score:1)
This issue is not about the use of broadcast frequencies and the occupants thereof. It's a far greater issue than what you listen to between 530 and 1700 kHz and 88-108 MHz. It's about the entire radio spectrum. It's about who gets to transmit where and how
A *national* resource????? (Score:5, Insightful)
> national resource'' needed for economic growth,
> scientific research and homeland security, Bush
> said.
What about the rest of the world? Doesn't it count?
Re:A *national* resource????? (Score:2)
You know it doesn't.
Re:A *national* resource????? (Score:2)
"Here there be dragons."
Re:A *national* resource????? (Score:1)
The rest of the world counts in President Bush's considerations for what is best for the United States when the rest of the world asks and qualifies to join that group. Until then, no it doesn't count, nor should it.
Re:A *national* resource????? (Score:1)
At higher frequencies (VHF and up), a signal will (typically) not travel beyond line of sight. So at higher frequencies international cooperation is not as much of a factor. It is still useful for different countries to use spectrum in similar ways so that cell phones, wireless network cards, etc can work worldwide. Well, they could if everyone would get their shit together
Re:A *national* resource????? (Score:2)
Re:A *national* resource????? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they are really interested in openning up the spectrum for more and varied uses, particularly at the low power end of the scale, they would not be talking about spectrum as a "limited" resource. Instead they would be talking more about Open Spectrum [reed.com] and finding more ways for more uses to share spectrum and make it effectively an unlimited resource.
As to being international, don't you think that a lot of value can be had from international coordination of this sort of effort? At the very least, coordination might prevent situations where wireless equipment needs to be customized for each region. Even if this is strictly a configuration issue for flexible hardware, it introduces unnecessary complications and cost.
Re:"re-evaluate" (Score:3, Interesting)
As an amateur radio hobbyist, though, I am hoping that this re-evaluation doesn't mean that we lose more of our frequencies to industry. We've already lost enough. I note that one of the uses of radio listed is national security. In times of disasters and emergencies, it's quite common for ham operators to assist in providing communications.
On the other hand, evaluating the rules to adapt t
Re:"re-evaluate" (Score:2)
No really, some changes are needed. (Score:2)
I don't know about where you're living, but where I am the spectrum is only reaching the incrediblly urban areas. If you live four miles from an incredibly large city, you get nothing in my state. Perhaps licenses should be more range restricted...or a license should perhaps require a station to broadcast to their entire audience.
And why should broadcast licenses only be given to television and radio companies? What if someone else ha
Re:"re-evaluate" (Score:2)
A Troubling Announcement (Score:5, Insightful)
The government has not done a good job of encouraging free enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit when it comes to RF spectrum. Each and every time they have a spectrum auction, the telcos seem to walk away the winners each and every time regardless of whether or not they actually plan to deploy services on those frequencies.
If Bush is serious about this and it's just not another revenue grab for the government or a gift for big corporations, he's going to have to gut the FCC and give them serious instruction on who really should be the benefactor of any frequency allocations.
If the airwaves really do belong to the public, the government has done an incredibly bad job of stewardship.
Re:A Troubling Announcement (Score:3, Flamebait)
Nah. What he's a gonna do is wrangle up a posse, mosey on over to the FCC, find those pesky frequency allocations and smoke em out. Then he's a gonna appoint someone he trusts to ride herd the FCC to sweeten the pie for his buddies.
Re:A Troubling Announcement (Score:2)
Re:A Troubling Announcement (Score:1)
Re:A Troubling Announcement (Score:2)
It's not to say that the end of the process won't be tragic but that based on what's available there's room for a smidgen of hope.
We are ClearChannel. Resistance is futile. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We are ClearChannel. Resistance is futile. (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:We are ClearChannel. Resistance is futile. (Score:2)
Should be 'Informative'. Not 'Funny'.
Directional Antennae (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, the cost of receivers would increase, but with modern technology, surely the commoditisation of wireless communication would more than make up for it for everyone but the current industry players?
Re:Directional Antennae (Score:1)
Re:Directional Antennae (Score:2)
Re:Directional Antennae (Score:1)
But the really shiny stuff is with the usual military-industrial-complex crowd - For example, Roke's Agile Phased Array Antennae [roke.co.uk], designed for 7-8 GHz satellite communications to and from moving vehicles. On your own head be it if you choose to visit that link. Roke can be... scary... and might study their http access logs a little more closely than most...
You can also goo
Re:Directional Antennae (Score:2)
Re:Directional Antennae (Score:2)
This line says it all: (Score:2)
I'm very sure what goign to happen are those very rich telcos are goign to just buy the bandwidth then let it out to other companies for rents as high as their anuses.
Re:This line says it all: (Score:2)
There goes Wi-Fi (Score:5, Interesting)
"Sec. 5. Reports. The Secretary of Commerce, or the Secretary's designee, shall present to me, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs..."
This section would indicate to me that President Bush is out to see what kind of money can be squeezed from the Spectrum. Interesting to me that the first two people to report to him are involved in Economic affairs. Though this may appear to be a squeeze on big business it really would not be. They pass along any rate increases directly to us, at some multiple of their increase in costs.
"The Initiative shall undertake a comprehensive review of spectrum management policies (including any relevant recommendations and findings of the study conducted pursuant to section 214 of the E-Government Act of 2002) with the objective of identifying recommendations for revising policies and procedures to promote more efficient and beneficial use of spectrum without harmful interference to critical incumbent users."
Though the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bandwidth are currently free for public use, the new "recommendations" that this committee is to make could do away with that. What would happen if Microsoft or another large corporation purchsed those chunks of the spectrum at auction? Could we all be forced to pay for licenses just to operate our little Wi-Fi networks?
I don't really know how likely these outcomes are, but when we are talking about big business we should at least consider the possibility that it could occur. It seems to me like we should all be writing to our respective representatives about this issue. Spend a stamp, save a network node.
Re:There goes Wi-Fi (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There goes Wi-Fi (Score:2)
Though this may appear to be a squeeze on big business it really would not be. They pass along any rate increases directly to us, at some multiple of their increase in costs.
Who is us? They will pass along the rate increases to the people who use the spectrum. Cell phone bills go up. Taxes go down. This is a good thing.
Re:There goes Wi-Fi (Score:2)
The stakes are political generational dominance for the party that successfully manages the transition. Compared to 20 years of having uninterrupted access to steer contracts all across the govt. a few million
Don't get your hopes up... (Score:5, Informative)
For some interesting reading regarding just how unscarce and unprecious this National Resource is check here:
http://werbach.com/docs/new_wireless_paradigm.htm [werbach.com]
Unfortunately, I don't think this is what Bush has in mind. From is memo I gather that his intention is to make sure the corporations that already have it keep it:
Re:Don't get your hopes up... (Score:3, Informative)
That's a really big if. Too big for me to swallow, really. Republicans aren't for true deregulation of anything. They're for removal of regulation that prevents the rich from getting richer and could care less about the rest of it. Monopolistic ownership of portions of the spectrum works just fine for that.
Re:Don't get your hopes up... (Score:2)
We're heading for a govt. financial train wreck around 2019. If we have spectrum reform in the 2004-2006 time frame and it pumps up baseline US economic growth the fiscal train wreck gets pushed out a few years. If the Republicans can actually move us through the crisis years (SS going broke, Medicare going broke, etc) the prize they get is gen
Re:Don't get your hopes up... (Score:2)
I don't know which is worst, Democrats who want price caps on everything, or Republicans who keep on using words like "deregulation", or "liberation", to mean the exact opposite situation.
Bush making money... (Score:4, Insightful)
I recently did an FCC lookup in my town, and the Board of Ed. owns about 8 frequencies. I did some asking around, and someone said that they used to have radios on those frequencies to talk around the campuses (yes, i probably didnt' spell right), but they have replaced those with some FRS radios that are about 10 times better.
Think of all the frequencies that are being used up with things like UHF TV stations (move them all down to the VHF spectrum), and other things. Now, think of how crowded the unlicensed spectrum is (in my house, the wi-fi goes down when someone pick up the cordless phone).
Yes, Bush may get a bit of money, but wouldn't you want to have all of that nice, juicy bandwidth covering your area?
Re:Bush making money... (Score:1)
Re:Bush making money... (Score:1)
Re:Bush making money... (Score:3, Informative)
Anybody can use radios in the VHF and UHF spectrum for personal or business communications, provided (on most frequencies) a license is issued and radios meet a certain technical standard. There's also a group of five VHF frequencies that anybody can use license-
Re:Bush making money... (Score:1)
- KF6KBP
Re:Bush making money... (Score:1)
Re:Bush making money... (Score:2)
Re:Bush making money... (Score:1)
What a waste (Score:2, Funny)
Since we already know why the outcome, why not just pronounce the findings and move along. I'm sure Michael Powell won't be wasting his time at these meaningless meetings.
Not that I'm cynical.
Re:What a waste (Score:2)
A year huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
up to the election to make sure they stay on their best behavior, and on
message, in exchange for (possible favorable) consideration when the
new pie is sliced up after the election. It also makes sure that instead of
having the many companies save up cash for spectrum auctions, that
they (and the employees that want to keep their jobs) instead make
a generous contribution to the party of their choice.
This administration never takes any action on behalf of "The People".
Especially in this coming year, the only focus is to stay in power.
Anything else is a waste of time for the BuSh administration.
Defense Contractor Strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Sell the Services new digital kit that can provide the old level of utility in the new smaller ranges
3. Profit!
A problem being that there will be a hell of a lot of lag time between 1 and 2, so the uniformed folks are screwed.
Let's reserve some for power transmission... (Score:2)
Don't like the game, then change it! (Score:4, Insightful)
It Interesting and distressing seeing people essentially sitting down and complaining that the "fix is in", "that we already know what will happen" with respect to this opportunity. Yes, that is right. This is a great opportunity. An opportunity to get in front of the FCC and make the case for modifying the rules to create an open commons for spectrum use. To create rules that will allow it to be open to expermentation as long as your experiment doesn't interfere with someone else's experiment (great place to use Justine Brandises' quote, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins", in a brief). To create a business model based on rental fees in relationship to revenues vs. one time licensing fees at auction, in order to create a playing field that will allow small businesses to get into the game as well.
So, how do we change the game? Well, first - to paraphrase Woody Allen - we will have to show up. This means that we will have to write position papers, showing at hearings, present a compelling case and work to get people behind it. We can't just sit back and bitch and moan about how the deck is stacked against us. We will actually have to get engaged in the political and rule making process. We will have to educate politicans and bureaucrats alike. We will have to frame our discussions not just in terms of geek-speak and the coolness of the technology, but also in terms that will make sense to them. We have to show them how they win in terms of their agendas, when they embrace our agendas.
What would be the first step? Well, we need a nationally known spokesperson. Someone of the caliber of Lawrence Lessig to lead the charge. And then we need a technology leader. Someone that people in the rest-of-the-world instantly recognize as a technology leader. Someone like Andy Grove, Bills Gates, or Steve Jobs. Yes, this combination makes for strange bed-fellows. Next, we will need a position paper. A position paper that lays out the economic and technologic case for following our roadmap. And then we need to get airplay for it. We need to get the NY Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc. writing about this, taking this up as a cause. And we need to get it in front of the hearings. We need articulate, well-presented, spokespeople that will get it presented at each and every hearing. And finally, we need thousands of people, with individuals in each and every state and congressional district that will write well put together letters (via snail mail and email) summarizing the case in their own words and sending our position people onto their Senators and Congresspeople.
A lot of work? Yes, it is. But do you expect hacking our society to be any easier than hacking code? Can we build a collaborative development model to hack society to what we believe is the right outcome? I think we can, but it won't be easy. Are you willing to participate. To paraphase the quote, the only thing required for the corporations and monied interests to trimuph is for men and woman of good well to sit around and complain about how the fix is in.
Unfortunately, the fix *is* in. (Score:3, Interesting)
Give the spectrum back to the people (Score:2, Interesting)
I was wondering if the FCC has considered opening up a portion of the FM and even AM radio spectrum for use by the public. It seems that radio has a need to have an allocation similar to that of public access on television. I realize that NPR affiliate stations fill part of this niche but really what I'm looking for is something where the programing is by the people for the people. This would be a chance for real community based radio broadcasts.
It seems that the people are in need of a public band o
Re:Give the spectrum back to the people (Score:3, Informative)
NPR is not your friend.
They'll have to... (Score:1)
step 1, get rid of the FCC (Score:2, Insightful)
The radio spectrum is a ''vital and limited national resource'' needed for economic growth, scientific research and homeland security, Bush said.
And that is the problem - right there. It is not a limited natural resource, it is limited by nothing in physics - only by the devices we've currently locked ourselves into using because the FCC tried to "allocate" frequencies to begin with. If we shut down the FCC and respect that people should have unrestricted use of airwaves, then these "limited" problems
Re:step 1, get rid of the FCC (Score:1)
Why do you are what the FCC does with the rest?
Re:step 1, get rid of the FCC (Score:2)
Protection for "incumbent users". (Score:2)
This probably means selling off broadcast channels as "property", and eliminating all public interest requirements in broadcast licensing.
What I think (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, American cell phone providers should be told to fuck off. They should not be included or considered this time around in figuring out what to do to move the spectrum forward in any way, shape, or form. They have their parcel of bandwidth, and I'm not in favor of them getting even more of a chunk until the industry can come up with a national cell standard - one that makes "tri-mode" phones obsolete. They are just wasting space which could be better alotted if they'd just work together for a change.
Next up, we need "3G" radio. Satellite radio isn't local which IMHO is its only drawback. Current regulations and standards for AM/FM could be updated for more efficient use of spectrum. But screw it. Lets just go all out and make an FM2 or something. Yes, I know there is a technology in the works to "digitize" local radio, but they're going about it in a legacy-supporting way. By going about an upgrade in this manner, the FCC is preventing smaller players from going live. UHF is an over-sized playgrond that nobody uses and FM is an overcrowded ClearChannel clusterfuck. The FCC needs to fix it... starting over from scratch. Hell, let ClearChannel keep FM... but give us another way to broadcast and receive local content... digitally. "FM2" should have about 100 low-medium power channels for everyone to use... requiring an FCC permit, but unlike AM/FM, it should have very low or nonexistent broadcaster fees. It should be what LPFM strived to do, only much better.
In that vein of thought, let's go one step further, and give every high school in the nation the option of having one free (no FCC fee) channel of DTV and "FM2."
Thoughts?
HD Radio was Re:What I think (Score:2)
Several radio stations are already broadcasting in HD radio.
Re:HD Radio was Re:What I think (Score:2)
Then again, I could have been reading a bunch of lies.
No matter what though, radio needs a true upgrade coupled with a "channel" system. I'd like to see a "channel xx" format. That'd be so much better than keeping the current "xxx.x" format. And I can think of 20 more reasons. Ya dig?