Subject: [NEXTEL-1] The Federal Communications Commission in a Box-

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:40:25 -0500

A different slant on "Interference"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Communications Commission in a Box-
The Open Spectrum movement would use microchips to help regulate airwaves more
quickly and efficiently

James H. Johnston

12-08-2003

Michael Powell has suffered his share of slings and arrows in his time as
chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, but now come the cruelest
cuts of all, claims that he and his agency can be replaced by microchips. At
least, this is one way of explaining what the Open Spectrum movement is all
about. Actually, it wouldn't eliminate the FCC entirely, not right now, but it
believes that advancements in radio technology have outpaced the regulatory
scheme. It is a revolutionary idea with technical merit that is taken seriously
by engineers, policy gurus, and some regulators. However, the telecommunications
industry's addiction to regulation may make the economic and political obstacles
to Open Spectrum greater than the technical ones.

The raison d'être for Powell's FCC — and its counterparts around the world — is
to prevent radio transmitters, such as television, radio, and cell phones, from
interfering with one another. This regulation, according to conventional wisdom,
is the only thing that prevents those tall radio antennas from becoming Towers
of Babel. Indeed, Congress passed the first Radio Act in 1912 in response to
public outrage over reports that radio interference and false messages hampered
rescue of the survivors from the Titanic.

Interference occurs when a radio receives signals from two or more transmitters
at the same time and on the same frequency. One common manifestation is the
static on an AM radio or the "snow" on a television set. To prevent
interference, the FCC first allocates spectrum, for example declaring that
certain frequencies can only be used for broadcast television, and then issues a
license that permits a person to transmit on a specific frequency. It is a crime
for anyone to operate a radio transmitter in violation of this regulatory
scheme.

NEW WORLD ORDER

The Open Spectrum movement believes times have changed. It thinks that
microchips, rather than the FCC, should oversee the airwaves. Thus, a box of
electronics would take over the FCC's job of spectrum policeman.

Radio certainly has changed since Guglielmo Marconi invented it in 1894, when
radio waves were thought to be carried through an "ether." What is more, the
computer has come along to allow radios to do things that Marconi never
imagined. Open Spectrum puts its faith in these technologies, many of which are
already in use.

WiFi is one example. Built into a computer's microprocessor or added with a
slide-in card, WiFi gives access to the Internet via high-speed wireless
connections in the home and in public hot spots. WiFi is an intelligent two-way
radio on microchips. Tens of millions of these devices are in operation — 16
million were sold last year alone — and yet they all share the same 83.5 MHz of
spectrum allocated to them by the FCC. Compare this with the older technologies
used by television. The FCC has allocated 402 MHz to the medium, but only 1,714
stations are in operation.

Of course, WiFi's startling efficiency, compared with television, stems in part
from the fact that it operates at a low power, not to exceed one watt, and its
signals carry only a few hundred feet, whereas television transmitters may
operate at a million watts of power and have a service radius measured in dozens
of miles. Still, WiFi represents a more sophisticated technology than broadcast
television and a legitimate success story for Open Spectrum.

Open Spectrum proponents point to a number of electronic tricks that permit the
airwaves to be used more efficiently. The Ethernet protocol of
listen-before-talk is one. WiFi transmitters don't talk if they hear another
device transmitting. It takes children about four years to learn such good
manners. It has taken radio 109 years. WiFi also uses "error correction." This
means that if interference garbles a transmission, the receiver will ask that it
be resent. Thus, the WiFi user never sees the "snow" of interference on her
computer. (On the other hand, listen-before-talk and error correction can cause
the computer to seem slow in a heavily used hot spot.)

"Dynamic frequency selection" is another trick. It allows devices to transmit on
whichever frequency is available at the moment. Thus, the FCC doesn't need to
micromanage the allocation of frequencies; computer-controlled transmitters can
do that.

Even more smarts can be put into an Open Spectrum box. A device might use the
global positioning system (GPS) to determine that it is in a rural area, where
the airwaves are less congested. It could thus operate at higher power than a
similar device would use in a city. The box might also have "automatic transmit
power control" to adjust the transmitter's power in order to use no more than
necessary to communicate with a distant receiver. People usually don't shout
unless they must, but radio transmitters often do. Automatic controls on power
reduce the potential for interference and permit more transmitters to operate in
a given area.

Intelligence can be built into radio receivers too. They can be told to ignore
low-power signals, thus allowing other devices to operate below a specified
threshold. Radios can function like humans whose whispered conversations aren't
heard by the hard of hearing. WiFi itself is an "underlay," meaning that there
are other, higher-power uses of the same frequencies. What is more, by using
different power levels and by altering other transmission properties, multiple
devices can operate in close proximity on the same frequency without
interfering.

For a dramatic illustration of what Open Spectrum means, attend a class at the
nearest college or law school. In all likelihood, there will be a roomful of
students with WiFi-equipped laptop computers that allow them wirelessly to surf
the Internet, send and receive e-mail, communicate with classmates via instant
messaging, and look up cases on Lexis or Westlaw while they sit in class. The
students don't need the FCC to tell them which frequency to use or to issue
licenses. All those functions are in a box of electronics in their computers.

Regulation has traditionally been justified with two related arguments. The
first, a legal argument, is that spectrum is scarce. Because there is not enough
to go around, so the courts have held, the government may decide which uses are
the more important and allocate, or ration, and otherwise regulate radio. The
second, more of a technical argument, is that overuse destroys the resource. In
other words, the airwaves are not like a water well, which dries up if overused.
Rather, overuse of radio means interference. It is like pouring poison into a
well, preventing everyone from drinking the water.

Newer technologies, such as WiFi, aren't an antidote to poison; they don't
repeal the laws of physics. But they do substantially alleviate the scarcity
problem. They allow more people to use the same amount of spectrum than older
technologies do. They also eliminate detailed FCC regulation.

DOUBLE REBUTTAL

Opponents of Open Spectrum advance two main arguments. First, they say, the
electronic tricks do little good for high-power, one-way services like
broadcasting. WiFi's success, they point out, stems in part from its short
range. Another WiFi device located a few hundred feet away can operate on the
same frequency without interference. Similar technologies, operating at low
power on the same frequencies, successfully provide "last mile" wireless
broadband services to homes and offices, delivering Internet access over
distances of several miles. But television transmitters have ranges of 50 miles
or more. They are intended to deliver signals to every user within range, and
they do not engage in two-way conversations like Wi-Fi. Open Spectrum's
opponents say that if its principles were applied to television, the high-power
transmitters would overwhelm everyone else on their frequencies or would become
Towers of Babel.

Second, opponents suggest, the better approach would be to let the FCC continue
regulating the spectrum through licenses and to rely on the licensees to put
these smart new technologies into the hands of consumers. This is essentially
how cell phone service is offered today.

Of course, incumbent licensees don't want anything to infringe on their
lucrative franchises. They oppose meddling in what they consider their spectrum,
even for underlays such as WiFi. Thus, the technical questions surrounding Open
Spectrum pale in comparison with the economic and political challenges to it.
Regulation is the OxyContin of telecommunications. Since it was first prescribed
in 1912, the patients have become addicted.

Media and telephone companies, for example, get alarmed by the slightest hint
that the entry barrier of FCC regulation might be removed. Without regulation,
any Tom, Dick, Jane, or Harry could start a television station or cell phone
company.

Wall Street has a big stake in regulation. What would happen to all the money
invested in the broadcast networks — NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox — and in the
cellular telephone companies if they faced free competition? The New America
Foundation, a Washington think tank that considers such things, puts a
theoretical value of $771 billion on spectrum rights based on the way they are
now regulated. If broadly applied, Open Spectrum would require a whole new
calculus for financing the telecommunications industry.

The public has a stake too. It wants products and services that are reliable,
easy to use, and within the consumer's budget. Who would protect the public if
the FCC weren't around? Economic theory says that free competition would, but
the telecommunications industry has never experienced free competition. The
transition might be painful for all concerned.

Nonetheless, Open Spectrum is the wave of the future in telecommunications. It
may not completely do away with the FCC, but in the least it will mean more
services on the WiFi model. WiFi gave the public a taste of spectrum freedom.
The FCC doesn't require WiFi users to be licensed, nor does it decide which
frequencies in the allocated spectrum an individual will use. Imagine if the FCC
chose to regulate WiFi as tightly as it does television. WiFi users would need
licenses. Each time they moved from one classroom to the next or from one hot
spot to another, they would need FCC approval in advance.

Even Michael Powell likes Open Spectrum — although he is not yet a disciple. In
a Nov. 13 ruling, the FCC gave WiFi an additional 255 MHz of spectrum. It also
started an inquiry into a more flexible approach to spectrum management based on
actual rather than theoretical frequency congestion. Still, the FCC seems to be
seeking middle ground in the debate over Open Spectrum. So far, it has applied
Open Spectrum principles only to the higher frequencies that are less amenable
to profitable commercial uses.

Eventually, though, the FCC could find itself in a different kind of box. Open
Spectrum could do for telecommunications what the personal computer did for
computing. It could empower the individual, giving him the right to use the
ether however he wants. In that case, Powell and his successors will face a
dilemma: Will they side with the establishment, or will they join the
revolution?

From:  ALM Properties, Inc

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/