Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: The End of Spectrum

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:48:23 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: Barry Drogin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The End of Spectrum

>The End of Spectrum
>By Kevin Werbach, Thu Oct 02 2003
>
>There are two basic problems with the rules governing the radio spectrum: 
>there is no such thing as spectrum, and we don't need any rules....
>
>Radio signals are electromagnetic radiation, governed by the mysterious 
>laws of quantum mechanics.  [S]pectrum is the physical medium we imagine 
>carrying radio waves from one point to another....Regulators are actually 
>just telling owners of wireless devices at both ends of the transmission 
>what they can do with their equipment.... Using frequency bands to 
>separate systems was a design choice, not something inherent in wireless 
>communication....
>
>For example, many systems now use spread-spectrum as an alternative to 
>frequency division.... UWB systems can transmit at extremely low power, so 
>low that they appear invisible to licensed systems operating in the same 
>bands.   Other novel forms of wireless sharing include angle-of-arrival; 
>mesh networking; and cognitive radio....
>
>Whether a new wireless system can coexist with existing systems is a 
>fundamentally contingent question. It depends on the technical 
>characteristics of all the systems involved, and on the types of services 
>those systems provide....A tort-like system could be used for wireless 
>communication.  Every owner of a wireless device would have a baseline 
>fundamental right to communicate, in any way he or she desired. Others 
>could sue the owner for damages if his or her transmissions caused harm to 
>their own communications. The legal system would balance the interests 
>involved to determine who was actually at fault....

This is a very bold essay, with some very provocative statements, and my 
instinct has been to avoid a knee-jerk response but to contemplate some of 
the legitimate observations and ideas it contains.

Of course, the characterization of spectrum as a "physical medium" is 
semantic nonsense.  The FCC grants licenses for a particular range of radio 
frequencies within a particular physical hemispherical geolocation in real 
space.  The size of that hemispherical space is based upon the power output 
of the antenna; if the FCC has granted a license to another entity for the 
exact same range of radio frequencies at a certain distance away, it may 
deny a request by the owner of the first antenna to increase its power, if 
by doing so it will interfere with the license granted to the owner of the 
second antenna.

The FCC regulates something else, which the author completely fails to 
acknowledge - it regulates the emissions of electronic devices, both back 
through their power cords into the power grid (ever see those little 
toroidal boxes at the end of some power cords?) and out into "free 
space."  It also typically expects products to function without being 
susceptible to a certain level of "noise interference" from electromagnetic 
sources the product may be expected to encounter.

Interestingly enough, the FCC's "regulation" of this second category 
follows just about exactly the "tort liability" system that the author 
proposes.  Companies are expected to bring their own products into testing 
labs and have them tested to FCC standards, and then they put stickers on 
the products saying they meet the standards, and sometimes repeat the fact 
that they passed those tests in datasheets, advertising and product 
literature, and so on.  The FCC does not, itself, certify the devices, and 
does not collect a dime for any of the devices manufactured and 
sold.  Testing is typically most important in certain product markets, like 
medical, aviation and military equipment, and in trade of product between 
countries (where a country can keep your products out by claiming you 
haven't proven your product to be "safe" for use in its country, while 
gladly taking advantage of your lower self-certifying standards to export 
its own goods into your country).

But the main thing to remember is that the FCC not only expects, it KNOWS 
that ALL electronic products emit electromagnetic radiation across the FULL 
SPECTRUM, and that they merely expect manufacturers to run tests to ensure 
that those emission levels are below a certain threshold defined for the 
class of equipment.  If you place your AM/FM transistor radio RIGHT NEXT to 
the condensor motor of your air conditioner, well, you just might pick up a 
heck of a lot of static everytime you need to cool down your apartment.  As 
long as that motor has been shielded to meet the minimum FCC standard it 
must meet, I doubt that you or the radio station is going to be able to sue 
the air conditioner manufacturer for interference in its "band," nor will 
the FCC be able to levy any fines against that manufacturer, or whatever.

But the article CORRECTLY points to some new technologies which make FCC 
regulation a very interesting question.  I mean, if you use uni-directional 
point-to-point wireless communications to connect the roof of one building 
to the roof of the one next door, and you can prove that that communication 
does not interfere with the radio and television reception of cars in the 
street below or on various floors of the buildings themselves, can you 
legally "use" the allocated radio and television spectrum itself for your 
own private use?  What about that interesting notion about "electronically 
tunable" directional antennas - can those operate and coexist with other 
antennas in the same region?

The author moves too fast - there are too many pre-existing installations 
and users of certain frequency division spaces - broadcast radio and 
television, emergency and public safety users - for the FCC to allow ANYONE 
to transmit at ANY frequency and interfere with a host of old, legacy 
technologies that will never be replaced overnight.  But the author should 
not just be dismissed out of hand - there are new communications 
technologies that, particularly if they can be proven to peacefully coexist 
with old technologies, raise unique regulatory issues that could not have 
been anticipated when the rules were first written.

There would be a danger in ending up at the exact opposite policy - that 
there are no more "public" airwaves, that every property owner claims to 
"own" the electromagnetic spectrum within their building, or above their 
field, and even police, fire and ambulance personnel trying to save lives 
end up incapacitated and unable to communicate within these "private" 
environments.  This is not in the "public interest" either.  Must there be 
the equivalent of a Triangle Shirtwaist Fire before employers understand 
that "locking" their employees communication space may be deadly?

Very thought-provoking, thank you for posting it.

Barry Drogin
Drogin Consulting
www.geocities.com/bdrogin/drogin.html

------------------------ 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/