Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media United States

Revising Spectrum Rules 125

Posted by michael from the oh-boy-here-comes-the-fcc dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revising Spectrum Rules More

Revising Spectrum Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Surprise (Score:3, Funny)

    by exspecto ( 513607 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @08:19AM (#6138232)
    I wouldn't be surprised if Bush had his own channel where he repeatedly chanted the current color of Alert.
  • Seriously, though, with such a move to cable and satellite over the years, the excess bandwidth has added up. It's time to make good use of it.

    • Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      i.e. Sell it to the highest bidder.

      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)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @08:26AM (#6138242) Journal
    The press release doesn't say that Bush is planning on opening up more spectrum for unlicensed use, at all. In fact, with all the statments saying they want to "foster economic growth", I dare say it sounds like they just might be transfering more spectrum to private corporations, possibly rasing the price significantly in order to "create incentives for more efficient and beneficial use of spectrum".

    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?
    • With the ITU conference on the Radio Spectrum allocation taking place very soon, are announcements like this not "jumping the gun" a little?

    • Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by terraformer ( 617565 ) <tpb@pervici.com> on Saturday June 07, 2003 @09:40AM (#6138404) Journal
      I dare say it sounds like they just might be transfering more spectrum to private corporations...

      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)

        by W2IRT ( 679526 ) <pjd@panix.com> on Saturday June 07, 2003 @12:09PM (#6138905) Homepage
        I love when Bush uses the military for photo ops and then screws them on benefits and crap like this.

        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.
        • You are the first person I have seen that has said anything useful. You should be moderated at 5 informative (or 10 if their was such a thing). You actually talk about it, and you don't get into a Bush bashing rant. Good job!

        • 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.

          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

          • This doesn't hold water.

            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

            • 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.

              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

        • You do realize that the military is Primary at 420-450, even though you use it as an example of an Amateur band? NTIA is protecting it -- Amateurs are Secondary there.

          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)

      by Azghoul ( 25786 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @10:21AM (#6138511) Homepage
      Wow you're pessimistic. Perhaps you're right. But to me, at least someone is looking at it. Someone is paying attention to the idea that spectrum use isn't as "good" as it could be.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Half a million letters were written to the FCC, discouraging the move towards media consolidation. Now the big media companies are shaking their champagne bottles and spraying it all over each other.
        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".
        • I would love to see a move to seperating tuners out from display devices by moving to a system where fixed spectrum assignments aren't locked in for decades. Open spectrum is always going to be under pressure from other uses that bring money to the Treasury. At least if they force a shift into technology that means you might swap out $20 in electronics every few years to receive the signal the corporations can make more money on both the new signal boards and the extra space the create for themselves thereb

      • Re:Probably a change for the worse... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @01:36PM (#6139156)
        I don't pretend to know a lot about it, but I do know I hear a lot of complaining, particularly around here.

        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.
    • If the Bush administration announced that it had already picked a winner in the spectrum redesign, every freaking comm lobbyist on capitol hill would mobilize to change it in Congress. Announcements like this are *supposed* to be general.

    • Being free marketeers, I suspect the administration is wanting to put the spectrum on the market where people can bid for it openingly...letting the market determine the bandwidth allocation.

      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
    • Unlicensed 802.11 is a money-maker. It is just making money in a different fashion than most spectrum use - instead of one person paying a lot for one band, millions of people pay $50-$100 to 802.11 equipment makers.

      It's good for the economy, and certainly a more economically efficient use of those frequencies than before 802.11.
      • You know that, I know that, yet, somehow, companies don't know that. There is no end to companies that try hard to push their lowsy propritary products and formats on the public. I'm sure they aren't trying to loose money, so they must think that people would be happy to be locked-in... Sony is probably the single biggest offender.

        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

  • Hopefully... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07, 2003 @08:28AM (#6138245)
    Hopefully Bush will give more of the radio spectrum to public use, as it IS the public's country, not ClearChannel's. Yes, some should definately be sold to industry for money, but a good amount should remain deregulated (within reason) for public use.
    • I would like to see more spectrum go to non-profits and see new licenses for small community broadcasters [natat.org]. I guess I better start writing letters, because I don't think The Shrub is going to do it without being agitated a bit.
    • Hopefully Bush will give more of the radio spectrum to public use..

      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

    • Hopefully Bush will give more of the radio spectrum to public use, as it IS the public's country, not ClearChannel's. Yes, some should definately be sold to industry for money, but a good amount should remain deregulated (within reason) for public use.

      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)

    by rjmx ( 233228 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @08:28AM (#6138247)
    > The radio spectrum is a ''vital and limited
    > national resource'' needed for economic growth,
    > scientific research and homeland security, Bush
    > said.

    What about the rest of the world? Doesn't it count?
    • What about the rest of the world? Doesn't it count?

      You know it doesn't.

    • What about the rest of the world?

      "Here there be dragons."

    • What about the rest of the world? Doesn't it count?

      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.

    • Um, spectrum that supports international communication is shared cooperatively. Obviously there would be chaos if this didn't happen.

      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
    • Sure it counts but contrary to the conspiracy theorists GWB only runs *this* country.

  • A Troubling Announcement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zentec ( 204030 ) <zentec.gmail@com> on Saturday June 07, 2003 @08:42AM (#6138276)
    I ran this through the anti-spin machine and it spit out "I want to find out who we can bump off their frequency allocations so we can re-assign those frequencies via auction to raise revenues. And for those that can't be moved, I want to figure out how we can tax them."

    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.
    • 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.

      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.
    • Wait a minute here, you're telling me you put spin into an anti-spin machine and it didn't blow up catastrophically? Are you sure you have that thing calibrated correctly?
    • Perhaps a hopeful sign is that the FCC is not in charge of this process, Commerce is. You'd think that spectrum, being the FCC's specialty, would come under their oversight.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07, 2003 @08:50AM (#6138290)
    Resistance is futile. We will control what you will hear, what you will believe and and what you will buy. You don't need trustworthy local news. Just look at the new FCC regulations. Definately change for the worse.

  • Directional Antennae (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One thing about the rf spectrum - couldn't we give ourselves near-infinite total bandwidth by using directional receiving antennae that can be re-pointed (think eyes for radio) than stupid omnidirectional pickups that mean the rf spectrum is only divisible in one dimension, wavelength/frequency?

    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?
    • Do you want to have to aim your cell phone? Reorient your radio every time you change stations? What about in your car?
    • Sure, we can, it's just expensive. Right now the cost is too high to be practical. Otherwise the cell phone companies would be doing exactly that. After all, near-infinite total bandwidth would be a damn good selling point.
    • Actually, current license holders would likely make a mint selling off pieces of their current licenses to new players. Progress is most likely when *all* players win by it, even the nogoodniks who were best at holding it back in the past.
  • The agency decided last month to allow cell phone companies and others to lease unused portions of their airwaves, letting them make deals for slices of spectrum to fill cell phone dead zones or provide wireless services to certain locations for limited times.

    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.

  • There goes Wi-Fi (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spector30 ( 319592 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @09:11AM (#6138337) Homepage

    "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.

    • 2.4GHz is unregulated because it sucks for long range. It's absorbed by water and other common compounds on earth. Additionally, Bush would catch flak for doing something that severely hurt business.

    • 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.

    • The elephant in the room is that we're running smack into a major fiscal crisis with SS, Medicare, and all those other political bribes politicians used to buy our parents votes. For spectrum use, this is actually a hopeful sign because no telecom has the money to bribe enough politician in this case.

      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)

    by visualight ( 468005 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @09:14AM (#6138348) Homepage

    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:

    ...policies and procedures to promote more efficient and beneficial use of spectrum without harmful interference to critical incumbent users. (emphasis mine)
    • "If the US Government wants to put in place the most pro-innovation, pro-investment, deregulatory, and democratic spectrum policy regime, it should do everything possible to promote open spectrum."

      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.
      • You can depend on one thing in politicians, a lust for power. In this case, the Republican's lust for power is likely to play out pretty well for the general public.

        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
      • I agree, in California the "deregulation" of the electricity-generating industry was actually a "reregulation" and not a deregulation.

        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)

    by powerline22 ( 515356 ) <thecapitalizt@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday June 07, 2003 @09:47AM (#6138420) Homepage
    Look. I don't want to seem like a troll here, but I think that some of you are going a bit over when saying that like, the only reason that he is re-evaluating the spectrum is because he wants more money.

    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?
    • Shouldn't this get at least a small interesting karma? I had no idea that schools could/would own parts of the spectrum. That's freakin cool.
      • yep. According to my teachers who attended my school when they were kids, the narcs had their own radios.

      • Re:Bush making money... (Score:3, Informative)

        by W2IRT ( 679526 )
        Actually, that part of the spectrum is called land-mobile radio and is blocked off to individual users grouped in services (schools radio systems falling into the block called Local Governemnt, and allowed to use frequencies within certain ranges).

        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-
        • I was thinking the same thing. I didn't have much time to get into amateur radio, but I still had some fun with it. Just hope they don't decide to knock out everything but 2 meters or something... we can pray, at least, that this act [arrl.org] is passed.

          - KF6KBP
    • FRS is the wrong frequency range for the Board of Ed. FRS isn't supposed to be used for business purposes. Sure, the Board of Ed is non-profit, but they're still doing business.

  • What a waste (Score:2, Funny)

    by EriDay ( 679359 )
    A year of public meetings?

    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.
    • Michael Powell's been demoted to a consultative role in this process, which is a bit strange if the scenario you're hinting at is the goal. The Commerce Dept., not the FCC is in charge of this.

  • A year huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by presearch ( 214913 ) * on Saturday June 07, 2003 @10:23AM (#6138519)
    This is a carrot to put in front of broadcasters during the year leading
    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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    1. Lobby the Bushies to shrink spectrum allocated to military services - seriously degrading all legacy infrastructure

    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.
  • We're going to need some bandwidth allocation to allow solar power satellites or other space-based power options to transmit power to the ground without interfering too much with ground-based communications - quoting Hoffert and Potter [spacefuture.com]:

    the microwave spectrum is a limited resource jealously guarded by commercial and nonprofit users alike. Allocation of the spectrum must be addressed promptly and effectively to avoid preemption of space power technology before it's born.


  • 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.

    • A US high-tech community which will not organize effectively to defend its own freedom of speech rights or its right to make a living using technology and can not be convinced to make contributions towards defending its rights to organizations unless there's a tax deduction in it for them is not going to go forth and reclaim the RF spectrum as a public resource.

  • 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

    • NPR doesn't fulfill that mandate. They are owned/operated by corporations and the philanthropy arm of those corporations. They lobbied against LPFM. They lobbied in favor of the just passed changes by the FCC.

      NPR is not your friend.
  • pry the shortwave frequencies from my cold, dead fingers.

  • 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

    • If it's truly unlimited then surely any unlicensed band will do, no matter how small.
      Why do you are what the FCC does with the rest?
      • Actually, I don't really care what the FCC does with the rest of it (other than I don't think I should be considered a criminal for using a frequency that they dont approve of). But unfortunately because specturm is a "limited natural public resource" in their eyes - that implies that they half to manage the content for the publics best interest. EG - regulations on the types and styles of music you can play in your FCC charter, or the types of programs you can broadcast. It also facilitates bad media, b
  • From Bush's press release:
    • ... facilitate policy changes to create incentives for more efficient and beneficial use of spectrum and to provide a higher degree of predictability and certainty in the spectrum management process as it applies to incumbent users

    This probably means selling off broadcast channels as "property", and eliminating all public interest requirements in broadcast licensing.

  • What I think (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cinematique ( 167333 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @02:56PM (#6139447)
    I posted part of this here [slashdot.org] but this thread is much better for my suggestions, and my reaction to the article.

    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?
    • There is an evolving standard for "hi-def radio" which used to be called IBOC (in-band, on-channel) but is now HD Radio [ibiquity.com]. This technology augments existing analog AM and FM signals with additional digital modulation, allowing both new receivers to enhance the audio quality, and old receivers to remain compatable with the system. They claim it makes AM like FM, and FM like a CD.

      Several radio stations are already broadcasting in HD radio.
      • This is what I described as the legacy-supporting digital upgrade to radio. Unfortunately, I've heard nothing but bad things about it, ranging from driving lower-powered stations out of the sky and the like.

        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?

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close