[ba-unrev-talk] REVOLUTION IN THE AIR: "Stop Media Monopoly" withUWB-Open Spectrum (i.e., Time Sharing for Free Speech & Homeland Security)
REVOLUTION IN THE AIR AND BOOTSTRAPPING GROUP FORMING NETWORKS (GFNs)
BASED ON REED's LAW : aN + bN² + c2N (01)
The Truth About Open Spectrum (02)
Here's a great article by the Seattle Times that explains the truth
about the amazing consumer benefits of wireless and the fallacy of
spectrum scarcity: (03)
Open-spectrum advocates say it will boost technology
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134564261_btspectrum28.html> (04)
UWB technology allows an "unprecedented amount of high-density bandwidth
applications" without requiring assignment of a new frequency bandwidth,
essentially "creating" a new band of spectrum in the noise floor. So we
need to do for spectrum what the Internet did for the network. In fact,
what we now know about the physics and architecture of RF communications
contradicts the "property" model of spectrum. (05)
When UWB radios with opto-electronic integration are under software
control, they can dynamically trade data rate, power consumption, and
range. This type of flexibility is what is needed to enable the
power-constrained portable computing applications of the future. This
form of peer-to-peer collaborative architecture and interaction over a
wireless LAN is sometimes characterized as an self-organizing and
self-healing ad-hoc networks with an inherent robustness to multi-path
fading, and a low probability of intercept and detection for jamming due
to the nature of the short (sub-nanosecond) impulse. Since each node is
mobile, it needs to connect to the network dynamically and in an
arbitrary fashion. All participating nodes may act as routers, when they
forward data packets on behalf of other nodes on the network. They also
take part in connection discovery and route maintenance to other nodes
on the network. Sub-nets can form when a larger group of nodes
sub-divides into two or more smaller groups that are separated by
distance or poor RF propagation conditions. (06)
Furthermore, relative to the GNU-Radio Free Software technology, UWB
spectrum sharing is fundamental to Alan Kay's Croquet - a collaboration
architecture
<http://ftp.archive.org/movies/lisarein/oreilly/etech2003/alankay/tour.html>
for Group Forming Networks (GFNs) based on Reed's Law. On May 19, 2003,
FCC Panel Offers Public Workshop on Cognitive Radio
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233615A1.doc>
(aka: Software-defined Radio/GNU-radio). In the meantime, here's a
preview of a few current implementations
<http://www.vanu.com/implementations.html>, including pointers on why a
"Revolution is in the air": (07)
* THE FCC'S GREAT SPECTRUM SHAKEUP
<http://www.telecomasia.net/telecomasia/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=40771> (08)
It's not been widely publicised but the FCC is considering the most
radical rethink of spectrum policy in 90 years, going for a twin
private property and commons approach as well as placing the onus on
devices, not spectrum management, to avoid interference. (09)
.... "Central to the FCC's revised thinking is its belief that
technology can now be tailored to minimize interference at the
receiver end, rather than the traditional approach of regulating
interference via both the spectrum band and transmitter
specifications. The agency is proposing a new standard of
"interference temperature", expressed in Kelvin degrees, which
would be calculated using a formula based on power in watts,
associated bandwidth and a measure called Boltzman's Constant.
The FCC would set a maximum interference temperature that would
be constantly measured by the receiver - when exceeded, the
device would adjust its power output and/or frequency use to
"lower" its temperature. Under such a regime, the FCC envisages
a more dynamic spectrum environment, where low-powered "commons"
devices could operate on an "underlay" to higher-powered
"exclusive use" devices. Holders of exclusive spectrum licenses
would be free to use spectrum for any type of application, with
limited exceptions for satellite, public safety and broadcast
networks. More importantly, they would be free to buy and sell
spectrum on a secondary market, akin to the way the modern-day
stock market works." (010)
* The Trouble With Corporate Radio: The Day the Protest Music Died
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/opinion/20THU4.html> (011)
By Brent Staples for the NY Times (012)
"Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, had a potential
disaster in his district when a freight train carrying anhydrous
ammonia derailed, releasing a deadly cloud over the city of
Minot. When the emergency alert system failed, the police called
the town radio stations, six of which are owned by the corporate
giant Clear Channel. According to news accounts, no one answered
the phone at the stations for more than an hour and a half.
Three hundred people were hospitalized, some partially blinded
by the ammonia. Pets and livestock were killed." (013)
* David Reed's Comments for FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force on
Spectrum Policy (ET Docket 02-135)
<http://www.reed.com/OpenSpectrum/FCC02-135Reed.html> (014)
... "[I]t seems clear to me that there is a strong First
Amendment argument against any regulation that unnecessarily
limits constitutionally protected speech over radio. Since much
greater information capacity would result from internetworking
and dynamically adaptive radio architectures, it would seem that
barring internetworking and adaptive digital radio is not only
economically inefficient, but also legally unconstitutional." (015)
* Group Forming Networks (GFNs)
<http://www.reed.com/Papers/GFN/reedslaw.html> based on Reed's Law
<http://www.reed.com/Papers/GFN/reedslaw.html> : aN + bN² + c2N (016)
David Reed's Law
<http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3294951.htm> --
which says the true value of a network isn't determined by the
number of individual nodes it connects (Metcalfe's Law) but by the
far higher number of groups it enables. Reed believes that as more
and more of radio's basic signal-processing functions are defined in
software, <http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/12/18/gnu_radio/>
rather than etched into hardware, radios will be able to adapt as
conditions change, even after they are in use. Reed sees a world of
"polite" radios that will negotiate new conversational protocols and
ask for assistance from their radio peers. (017)
Below is a excerpt about how value created by connectivity scales,
and shows how "group forming" architectures outcompete
"transactional" architectures. (018)
[ ...] "What I found that's surprising and important is that
Group Forming Networks (GFNs) create a new kind of connectivity
value that scales exponentially with N. Briefly, the number of
non-trivial subsets that can be formed from a set of N members
is 2N-N-1, which grows as 2N. Thus, a network that supports easy
group communication has a potential number of groups that can
form that grows exponentially with N. (019)
The exponential, 2N, is a sneaky function. Though it may be very
small initially, it grows much faster than N², N³ or any other
power law. So if there is any portion of the total network value
that grows exponentially, scale effects will eventually bring
that value to the fore, where it will dominate any other source
of value. (To put it simply, if a network's value consists of
components that scale proportional to N, N², and 2N, we can
write the total value as aN + bN² + c2N where a, b, and c are
constants. As long as a, b, and c are positive, there will be
some M such that the total value is dominated by the term c2N
for all N>M. Even if c is quite small, the exponential will
eventually dominate.)" ... (020)
* (021)
Why spectrum is not property
<http://www.reed.com/Papers/OpenSpec.html> (based on Reed's Law
<http://www.reed.com/Papers/GFN/reedslaw.html>) (022)
An early, short rant on the case against treating spectrum as
property, based on the idea that cooperative wireless networks
create more value. (023)
* Spectrum Wants to Be Free
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/view.html> (024)
Never pay for phone, cable, or net access again
By Kevin Werbach for Wired. (025)
"A revolution is brewing in wireless. In an industry speech in
October, FCC chair Michael Powell expressed support for a
radical idea called open spectrum that could transform the
communications landscape as profoundly as the Internet ever did.
If it works, you'll never pay for telephone, cable, or Net
access again. (026)
Open spectrum treats the airwaves as a commons, shared by all.
It's the brainchild of engineers, activists, and scholars such
as wireless gadfly Dewayne Hendricks, former Lotus chief
scientist David Reed, and NYU law professor Yochai Benkler. The
idea is that smart devices cooperating with one another function
more effectively than huge proprietary communications networks.
The commons can be created through distinct, unlicensed "parks"
or through "underlay" technologies, such as ultrawideband, that
are invisible to licensed users in the same band. (027)
In an open spectrum world, wireless transmitters would be as
ubiquitous as microprocessors: in televisions, cars, public
spaces, handheld devices, everywhere. They would tune themselves
to free spectrum and self-assemble into networks. Anyone could
become a radio broadcaster reaching millions. Phone calls would
rarely need to pass through central networks; they would be
handed off and relayed across devices, for free or nearly so.
Businesses would track far-flung assets in real time via
embedded sensors. Big TV networks and cable operators would lose
their hammerlock control over media distribution. Entrepreneurs
would develop as yet undreamed of applications that we can't
live without. It happens any time open platforms emerge - think
eBay and Amazon.com." ... (028)
* (029)
Radio Free Software
<http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/12/18/gnu_radio/index.html> (030)
Call them hackers of the last computing frontier: The GNU Radio
coders believe that any device with a chip should be able to do,
well, anything. (031)
A snippet: (032)
[ ...] "OK, now imagine the looks of terror on the faces of
existing machine makers. Imagine if the only thing stopping your
handheld PDA from simultaneously being a GPS receiver, phone,
radio or miniature TV was your willingness to download and
install some free software program. (033)
"We're bringing the free-software ethic to radio," Blossom says.
"Who knows what's going to come out of it?" (034)
But that's not all: Even more intriguing is GNU Radio's
political component. A look at recent Hollywood-backed
legislation
<http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/03/13/copy_protection/>
reveals a growing antipathy on the part of content providers
toward modifiable consumer technology. Such laws, if passed,
would limit the ability of hardware manufacturers to consort
with software programs that let a user turn his or her home PC
into a digital television or TiVo-style recorder. (035)
[ ...] Ettus, a fellow electrical engineer, sees the overall
speed of the GNU Radio project as a clear indicator of how
"empowering" the software-driven radio approach can be. (036)
"To create a new HDTV chip from scratch would take probably 50
engineers, one to two years, and a $12 million investment," says
Ettus. "Taking the software route, it's been less than a year
and it's been mostly the two of us, and I'm working only in the
evenings." (037)
For the FSF (Free Software Foundation), such comments lay the
groundwork for a bold political strategy. No longer content with
matching proprietary developers, the Boston-based organization
hopes to use the GNU Radio project as a prime example of
innovation that will be crushed by any congressional legislation
or FCC regulation that seeks to limit device functionality, at
least on the receiving end. Put another way: If the GNU Radio
team can develop a proof of concept before the FCC gets a chance
to rule on the "broadcast flag" proposal, the FSF and its allies
in the consumer and small-business community will have seized
the high ground in the subsequent legal battle over innovative
fair use. (038)
"From our point of view, GNU Radio is the technological proof
that interesting things can be done and that those things can
also be taken away," says Kuhn. (039)
Since backing GNU Radio project, the FSF has sought ways to
build the momentum. Earlier this year, the organization launched
the Digital Speech Project, a Web site that keeps track of
ongoing congressional debates that could, potentially, have an
impact on innovation and fair use. The project seeks to build a
"grass-roots coalition" of students, musicians, artists and
software developers to repeal the 1998 Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. (040)
"At FSF, we have little choice but to enter this battle and take
an active role," writes Kuhn via e-mail. "We also know that we
can't win this fight alone; we need allies." (041)
As for Blossom, he hopes GNU Radio opens the way to even more
innovation. The reality of a universal device may still be a
ways off, but as the free-software tools pile up, developers and
consumers will have that much more to work with. (042)
"Technology ought to be useful to people," Blossom says.
"Ultimately, this will put a lot of technology decisions in the
user's hands, which should speed up innovation considerably.
That doesn't mean every user has to be a software developer, but
it does mean the freedom to innovate is there." (043)
* Reed's Law - " Imagine: world with unlimited airwaves"
<http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3294951.htm> (044)
"Simply put, he said, we have to start looking at spectrum as an
almost limitless commodity, not a scarce one. The current
regulatory regime that allocates spectrum ``is a legal metaphor
that does not correspond to physical reality,'' he said. (045)
Why not? First, he said, the notion of interference has more to
do with the equipment we use to send and receive signals than
with the physics of radio waves. ``Radio waves pass through each
other,'' Reed said. ``They do not damage each other.'' In the
early days of radio, the gear could easily be confused by
overlapping signals. But we can now make devices that can sort
out the traffic. (046)
The second way that reality defies the old logic is what happens
when you add wireless devices to networks. I won't go into the
details of Reed's argument, which you can find on his site, but
he contends that you end up with more capacity -- the ability to
move bits of data around -- than when you started. (047)
``In principle, the capacity of a certain bandwidth in a certain
physical space increases with the number of transceivers in a
given space,'' he said. Yet the FCC regulates the airwaves as if
the capacity was a fixed amount. (048)
Yes, he said, this is counter-intuitive. And, to be sure, there
are experts who disagree with him. (049)
But if he and others in his camp are right, we have a lot of
work ahead to fix a hopelessly broken regulatory system. And if
that happens, the sky is literally the limit for future
communications -- but the consequences for some of the most
powerful companies in our economy may be grim." (050)
* Open Spectrum FAQ
<http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.html> (051)
1. This sounds like a pretty geeky, technical topic. Why should I care? (052)
Imagine that every American had the same access to the public airways as
broadcasters do today. (053)
Imagine everyone living within reach of a radio signal had the ability
to communicate with everyone else. (054)
Imagine rather than having to worry about how much "bandwidth" is
enough, everyone had unlimited access to bits so that the size of what
you communicate simply didn't matter. (055)
You know the effect the Internet has had on how we live and work
together? Multiply it by hundred. (056)
Opening the spectrum would turn a federally-managed permissions system
into an open market for ideas and creativity. The effects on our
democracy and economy should not be underestimated. (057)
2. What are the goals of supporting Open Spectrum? (058)
1. To enable innovation in the wireless world by removing the
roadblocks: regulations based on incorrect technical assumptions, and
commercial interests afraid that innovations will loosen their control
of markets. (059)
2. To enable everything that can be connected to be connected,
accomodating the exponential increase in wireless communications driven
by the growth of pervasive and interoperable devices on the Internet. (060)
3. What is spectrum? (061)
"Spectrum" refers to the range of frequencies over which electromagnetic
signals can be sent. That includes radio, television, wireless Internet
connectivity, remote control toy race cars, and every other
communication enabled by radio waves. (062)
4. Who uses spectrum? (063)
Everyone who uses a technology that connects without wires. That
includes radios, TVs without cable, planes with radar, cell phones,
portable phones, garage door openers, baby monitors... In short, if you
live in the 21st century in a place with electricity or batteries, you
are almost certainly a user of spectrum. (064)
5. What is Open Spectrum (OS)? (065)
An Open Spectrum policy would permit anyone to send signals across any
range of spectrum without permission, with the minimum set of rules
required to enable the success of a "wireless commons." (066)
6. Is Open Spectrum a new technology? (067)
Definitely not. It's a new approach to governance that incorporates a
much more accurate view of the relationship between bits, their physical
representations as electromagnetic waves in space, and our tools for
manipulating signals (including the ability to build distributed,
adaptive, interoperable communications architectures). (068)
7. How much will Open Spectrum cost? (069)
The infrastructure is already largely in place. The incremental costs
will be quickly replaced by a dramatic drop in the cost per bit for
businesses, end-users and the government. (070)
In addition, the provisioning of every businessperson, family, content
creator and inventor with unlimited access to bits and easy connection
to all others will create a market for innovation that cannot be
overestimated. (071)
8. What's the current spectrum policy? (072)
The FCC has implemented a system where parts of the spectrum are
allocated on either an exclusive or shared basis. If 'exclusive', then
the right to use this spectrum is conveyed by a license. The terms of
this license give its holder the right to use this block of spectrum for
the term of the license. If 'shared', then access to the spectrum is
shared by many users, who are either given a license, or who use
equipment to access that spectrum which has been certified by the FCC.
With this type of access, the FCC specifies some 'rules of the road' so
that interference between the sharing partners is minimized. (073)
This method of sharing the radio spectrum has come to be known as
'command and control.' (074)
9. How did we get to the current policy? (075)
The policy began in 1912 as a reaction to the failure of the Titanic's
help signals. The Radio Act of 1912 enabled the Secretary of Commerce to
license radio frequencies but did not give him the right to reject
applications. By the 'Twenties, enough broadcasters had jumped in that
the technology of the time produced significant interference among
signals, a situation the Radio Act of 1927 addressed by declaring the
"ether" to be a publicly owned resource that should be doled out in ways
that meet public interests. In The Great Lakes Broadcasting case (1929),
the Federal Radio Commission (later called the FCC) said that "public
interest" means the broadcasts meet the "tastes, needs, and desires of
all substantial groups among the listening public . . . in some fair
proportion, by a well-rounded program, in which entertainment,
consisting of music of both classical and lighter grades, religion,
education and instruction, important public events, discussions of
public questions, weather, market reports, and news, and matters of
interest to all members of the family find a place..." Thus did the
federal government become the arbiter of what constitutes worthwhile
content. [Source <http://law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v50/no3/krasnow.html>] (076)
The FCC itself was founded as part of the 1934 Telecommunications Act. (077)
10. What's changed that now makes Open Spectrum plausible? (078)
Technology has evolved since the Titanic went down. The laws and
policies in existence today address limitations of the technology of the
early 1900's. (079)
Interference which we've treated as as law of nature is an artifact
of the way radio were designed 100 years ago. If interference isn't an
issue, then the reasons we started to license spectrum become irrelevant. (080)
In fact, the core premise that has undergirded our spectrum policy has
dissolved: There is no scarcity of spectrum. It does not need to be
doled out. On the contrary, there is an abundance of spectrum. (081)
Our current policies prevent us from benefiting from this abundance. (082)
11. Technologically, what's changed to make OS plausible? (083)
When radios were invented, they were designed to do one thing only:
receive as cheaply as possible. They were much less capable of
processing the signals they were receiving. Our electronic and
information processing technologies have advanced considerably since then: (084)
Today's receivers are capable of separating signal from noise well
enough that they don't need "buffer zones" around the frequency they
are receiving. (085)
Receivers and transmitters are smart enough to be able to switch
frequencies as a particular band gets more congested. As with
allowing cars to change lanes on the highway, this dramatically
increases overall throughput. (086)
"Software-defined radios" (SDR) can do more with a signal than
decode it as sounds to be played through speakers. SDRs can be
programmed to treat these signals as encoding any conceivable type
of data. (087)
12. What is interference? (088)
Interference is a metaphor. And it is a misleading one. Everyone knows
that waves don't actually interfere with one another. How do we know
this? Try talking while someone else is talking. Your sound waves don't
garble the other person's. Both sets of sound waves arrive intact. Of
course, it can be hard to understand what either person is saying. But
that's not because the sound waves have been deformed the way talking
through a pillow or a kazoo deforms the them. Instead, the problem is
with our "software's" inability to interpret the sound waves. (089)
Likewise with radio waves. The garbling of signal that prevents good
reception isn't due to interference but to the inability of the receiver
to separate signal from noise. But modern receivers are far better able
to do that. As a result, we no longer need a federal policy that is the
equivalent of licensing only one person to talk at a time. (090)
13. Interference is a metaphor??? Then why is my car's radio so lousy? (091)
Interference does not exist as a thing in itself. It only becomes
interference if the receiver can't isolate the information in a complex
signal. It's the processing ("detection" or "demodulation") that gets
confused, and the confusion is highly specific to the particular detector. (092)
For example, there are 3 or 4 types of FM demodulators that are
standard. Each one has its own way to extract information from an FM
modulated signal, and each one reacts to excess signals differently. But
one can design an FM demodulator that is highly robust to all kinds of
other signals. (093)
This is not to say that we should. But surely over a period of 50 years,
without regulation, we would have migrated many of our communications
systems to ones that work much better and cooperate much better.
Regulation has protected weak systems far too long from competition and
innovation. (094)
Interference is a metaphor. It cannot be precisely defined technically
without fully specifying a particular technology frozen in time, and in
any case has nothing to do with the legal definition given by the FCC. (095)
14. How much more "bandwidth" would Open Spectrum provide? (096)
This question makes an unwarranted assumption. It thinks that spectrum
is like a natural resource: there's just so much, so it needs to be
apportioned wisely and fairly. In fact, neither spectrum nor information
are things with fixed sizes. For example, as compression algorithms get
better, more information fits into fewer bits. And as more people join a
wireless network, there can be a cooperative gain effect whereby the
network actually increases its capacity. (097)
To take just one example, a recent New York Times article
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/16/technology/circuits/16next.html>
reported on a new technology, called BLAST by its inventors at Bell
Labs, that uses "the reflections that plague current wireless systems"
to expand the capacity "'far, far in excess of what people were thinking
of.'" (098)
15. Is unlicensed spectrum the same as Open Spectrum? (099)
No. Unlicensed spectrum refers to spectrum for which the FCC doesn't
issue a specific license to a user, but instead certifies equipment that
may be used in a segment of spectrum designated for shared use. For
example, the 2.4 GHz band is such a area, which is why you may have
noticed that that's the only place where innovations such as Wi-Fi and
long-range cordless phones operate. (The lesson: opening spectrums
enables innovation.) (0100)
16. Why wouldn't making more spectrum unlicensed do the trick? (0101)
While unlicensing more spectrum would certainly help the development and
deployment of new technologies, it would not allow the open and
ubiquitous access that could transform our economy and democracy. Merely
unlicensing some more spectrum keeps us in a permission economy. (0102)
17. Why not be incremental about this and open up some spectrum but not
all of it? (0103)
The push for increasing the amount of unlicensed spectrum tacitly
accepts the current metaphors and paradigms. The metaphors are outdated
and the paradigms legitimize anti-democratic power structures that give
permission and privilege to a few economic giants. We should instead be
reframing the question. And once the question is reframed, we believe
that Open Spectrum is the obvious answer. (0104)
18. So everything would change overnight? (0105)
No. If Open Spectrum is accepted as a policy, open market forces will
bring about change at the pace the market finds acceptable. As fast as
newer, better technology can be deployed to implement legacy functions,
those legacy functions will go away due to competition. (0106)
But the market has to be open if this is to work. For example, that
means that we should be able to send "TV" broadcasts over the Internet
and wireless networks, without attempts by content owners to limit the
path by which it gets to users. (0107)
19. What about security? (0108)
Security should not be built into Open Spectrum, any more than it is
built into the Internet. It will be more secure if it is done at the
"ends" of the communication, not in the middle. (This is the point of
the "End-to-End <http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html>" argument.)
In short: if you want security, encrypt your transmissions. (0109)
20. Should the military and/or emergency services have their own
protected frequencies? (0110)
First, we believe that the frequencies that the military uses for
communications, radar, etc. would be as secure and interference free as
any other set of frequencies in a world with Open Spectrum. This is a
question that needs to be argued on its scientific merits, free of
scare-mongering. (0111)
Second, assigned frequencies have their own vulnerabilities. One of the
basic technological enablers of the Open Spectrum approach is some form
of "frequency hopping" that opportunistically moves transmissions into
the most accessible bands. This approach was invented during World War
II (and, surprisingly, Hedy Lamaar is one of the two names on the
initial patent) to get around the fact that a radio-controlled torpedo
could be jammed if its assigned frequency were detected. If the military
wants to own its own slice of spectrum because allowing others onto it
might cause "interference," what would keep terrorists from purposefully
causing the problem? (0112)
We have all been learning, across the board, that open, distributed
networks are far more secure and robust than hard-wired, centralized
ones. That lesson applies to spectrum as well. (0113)
21. What is Ultra-Wide Band? (0114)
It's a technology that transmits complex waves across huge swaths of
frequencies in short bursts. It transmits in such a way that it has a
minimal impact on other users of the frequency bands that it crosses.
This effect is known as "'underlay." (0115)
22. What is the relationship of broadband Internet and Open Spectrum? (0116)
"Broadband" usually refers to increasing the size of the pipe through
which the Internet can pump bits to and from an end user. Big pipes are
better than little pipes, but Open Spectrum can connect people where
putting pipes is prohibitively expensive and constraining. Since
installing new cable typically costs hundreds of dollars per end point,
wireless solutions are naturally preferable in almost all cases. (0117)
Wireless technologies based on open interconnection and cooperative
networking can provide most or all the benefits of pipes, without the
costs and permissions needed to deploy wires. (0118)
23. What is Software-Defined Radio? (0119)
You can view a SDR either as a radio with a computer attached to it or a
computer with a radio attached to it. Rather than simply assuming that
the information coming via radio waves encode sounds, a SDR can treat
the information any way that it's programmed to. This makes radios much
smarter and it makes computers part of a ubiquitous network of
unimaginable capacity. (0120)
24. What sort of applications are we likely to see if spectrum is made open? (0121)
Some applications are obvious and predictable: more end user creation of
high definition TV works, more video-on-demand. But the real importance
is that we will see an outburst of innovation as people and businesses
realize they can reach a broad range of people with two-way applications
that rely on the rapid movement of large amounts of data. (0122)
What if we were all connected to one another wherever there's a radio
signal? What if we could communicate whatever and whenever we want? What
would we build? How would our economy grow? How would our spirit bloom? (0123)
25. Is the FCC seriously looking at opening the spectrum? (0124)
Michael Powell in a speech in October 2002 said "we are still living
under a spectrum 'management' regime that is 90 years old. It needs a
hard look, and in my opinion, a new direction....Modern technology has
fundamentally changed the nature and extent of spectrum use. So the real
question is, how do we fundamentally alter our spectrum policy to adapt
to this reality?" Citizens "deserve a new spectrum policy paradigm that
is rooted in modern day technologies and markets." (0125)
26. Won't the broadcasters and the military stop this? (0126)
They may try. But they don't hold their licenses for their sakes. They
hold their licenses because it was decided correctly in our view
that the airwaves are owned by all of us. Licensing spectrum brought the
public much good when the technology of the day required putting limits
on who can connect. Today's technology is erasing those limits. The new
public good is access and connectedness. (0127)
27. What effect will this have on broadcasters? (0128)
They will continue to have tremendous value as producers of content
people want to see and listen to. They will lose the advantage granted
to them that all others have been excluded from the airwaves. (0129)
Smart broadcasters will realize that there is huge potential economic
value to being the holder of valued content in an age of connectedness.
It is up to them to figure out how to deliver that value. (0130)
28. Does this require everyone to get new radios and TV sets? (0131)
No. Existing technologies will continue to work. They will be replaced
by customers as they we realize the benefits of the new technology. (0132)
29. Will I still be able to watch The West Wing? (0133)
Yes. The current broadcasters will continue to provide content we care
about, and we will continue to receive their broadcasts on the
technology of today and tomorrow. (0134)
But remember, Open Spectrum isn't just about broadcasting. It's about
connecting all of us so that we can talk, play, argue and laugh together
... and create our own content that may be better than what we currently
get from the broadcasters. (0135)
30. Is Wi-Fi an alternative to Open Spectrum? (0136)
No. The Wi-Fi specification enables networks to use slices of spectrum,
just as radios and garage door openers do. Open Spectrum would open up
all of spectrum for Wi-Fi and other applications. (0137)
But Wi-Fi is an important specification because it enables within a
narrow band of frequency some of the benefits we'd get with Open
Spectrum. Wi-Fi joins people together in networks that can grow and
adapt. But Wi-Fi networks are relatively low bandwidth (currently at
54Mbps), are short range, and can't scale the way Open Spectrum permits.
For example, Wi-Fi isn't suitable for networking together thousands of
people attending a conference. With an Open Spectrum policy, other forms
of wireless networking would rapidly emerge. (0138)
Nevertheless, Wi-Fi networks are an important development and show the
power of networks that grow from the bottom up. (0139)
31. What bearing does this have on the telephone networks? (0140)
The current telephone networks are already being challenged by the
Internet. This would intensify that challenge. It would also
dramatically solve the problem of the "last mile," i.e., providing
"broadband" connectivity to households and offices. (0141)
32. How does this fit with the FCC's exploration of unlicensed spectrum
to connect rural areas? (0142)
The FCC has recently asked for comments on the idea of using unlicensed
spectrum to provide Internet connectivity to rural areas. This is
attractive because running cable out to distant areas is expensive and
in some instances environmentally disruptive. But Open Spectrum would
solve this problem in a single blow without facing the probability that
it will be obsolete in a few years. (0143)
33. Who wrote this FAQ? (0144)
David Weinberger <http://www.evident.com> [mail
<mailto:self@evident.com>] did most of the wordsmithing, drawing on
content from Jock Gill <http://www.jockgill.com> [mail
<mailto:jock@jockgill.com>], Dewayne Hendricks <http://www.dandin.com>
[mail <http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/dewayne@dandin.com>], and David
P. Reed <http://www.reed.com/dprframeweb/dprframe.asp> [mail
<mailto:dpreed@reed.com>]. (0145)
34. Where can I learn more? (0146)
Here are some links. We'd be happy to hear about
<mailto:self@evident.com> more. (0147)
Why Open Spectrum Matters
<http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/framing_openspectrum.html>, by the
people who wrote this FAQ
David Reed <http://www.reed.com/OpenSpectrum/>'s page on Open Spectrum
"Societies of Cooperating Cognitive Solutions
<http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/2003_01_01_gd.html#90139353>" by Jock Gill
"Open Spectrum: The New Wireless Paradigm
<http://werbach.com/docs/new_wireless_paradigm.htm>" by Kevin Werbach
The FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force <http://www.fcc.gov/sptf>'s page
Lawrence Lessig's Stanford resource page
<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/spectrum/resources/>
Lawrence Lessig's conference on spectrum policy
<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/spectrum/>
Prior Restraint
<http://www.frankston.com/public/Writing.asp?item=Essays/SpectrumLegacy.html>
by Bob Frankston
Net Gains: Will technology make CBS unconstitutional?
<http://www.thenewrepublic.com/archive/1298/121498/benklerlessig121498.html>
by Yochai Benkler and Lawrence Lessig
Wireless Commons <http://www.wirelesscommons.org>
The Pico Peering Agreement <http://www.picopeer.net> (0148)
35. Where can I discuss this FAQ? (0149)
There's a discussion board here
<http://www.quicktopic.com/boing/H/L5zTVhKwmR3B>. (0150)