Allocating Spectrum

[lisarea]

I don't know if anyone but me gets all fired up about this stuff, but this is an excellent overview of the electromagnetic spectrum, and how we go about managing our collective bandwidth. This article would have saved me quite a bit of typing on II if someone had written it sooner. Bastiches.

Spectrum Policy (http://economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3084475)

I didn't know if this fits best in science or politics or what. It's both, really. The most interesting angle to me is how we allocate the prime frequencies, and how we collectively manage our common property.

I don't really have much to add to this at this point, but you know, I'm always game for arguing with libertarians.

At any rate, the article gives some good background on how and why we go about licensing airwaves, and why we should all be keeping a very close eye on Colin Powell's little boy.

I heartily endorse this event or product.

[pescifish]

I don't know if anyone but me gets all fired up about this stuff,
Discussion regarding this issue is generally a very popular session at one of the annual conferences I sometimes attend: International Telemetering Conference (http://www.telemetry.org/). There are tons of PhDs fired up about this stuff, trying to work solutions as old technologies must still be supported.

This article would have saved me quite a bit of typing on II if someone had written it sooner.
Is there a discussion at IIDB about spectrum partitioning? I'd be interested in that, if you have a link handy.

I heartily endorse this event or product.
Which event or product are you heartily endorsing?

[lisarea]

Discussion regarding this issue is generally a very popular session at one of the annual conferences I sometimes attend: International Telemetering Conference (http://www.telemetry.org/). There are tons of PhDs fired up about this stuff, trying to work solutions as old technologies must still be supported.

Don't send no PhDs over! The real reason I put this in politics is because I don't understand the sciencey parts very good.


Is there a discussion at IIDB about spectrum partitioning? I'd be interested in that, if you have a link handy.

Oh, no. If there were actual threads about spectrum partitioning, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. It comes up tangentially in threads on the FCC and broadcast regulations sometimes, though, and I've made it my solemn duty to argue with people who claim that the networks own the airwaves and the gubmint shouldn't be able to tell them what to do with it.

I'm talking about the very basics--how the spectrum is laid out, how it works, and how we license it for use. To me, it's one of the more compelling cases to discuss with libertarians and other free market types. The choice frequency range is a very limited, common resource that we can't produce more of, so it's an excellent example of the problems inherent in regulating the commons.

And the public's ignorance about the nature of transmission media is allowing the FCC to act in secret and to use their control over this limited resource for political ends.

The idea of taking back just a piece of the low end frequencies to reallocate is interesting, but I'm wondering just how they plan to go about it, why they're really interested in it at this point, and whether they plan to even solicit public input, or if they've got some nefarious plan that's going ahead no matter what. And if I'm just being paranoid. And I'm kind of hoping someone here knows a lot more about it than I do.


Which event or product are you heartily endorsing?

In this case, just the article itself. I thought it provided a good introduction to a subject that people should understand better, particularly in light of all the recent reallocations and such.

I really should probably have waited until I had something of substance to say about it, but I only had a couple of minutes when I posted it and I was afeared I'd forget if I didn't post it right away.

[viscousmemories]

I thought it was a very interesting article for numerous reasons, among them the fact that it is a good introduction to an interesting subject. Sadly it reads like yet another tale of "there's a more effective way of doing things, but all the multigajillion dollar corporations prefer it to stay as it is" story. Do these stories ever have a happy ending?

Anyway I didn't realize that lower frequencies provide better penetration, or that < 3 ghz is considered prime. I wonder what the supposed benefits of the 5.8 ghz cordless phones are, then. Also I was shocked to read that Cingular is acquiring AT&T Wireless and will then be the largest cellular provider. I thought Cingular was a little nobody.

[pescifish]

Which event or product are you heartily endorsing?
In this case, just the article itself. I thought it provided a good introduction to a subject that people should understand better, particularly in light of all the recent reallocations and such.
Yeah! It gave a great overview! However, I was surprised that some of the FAA, space and military issues were not mentioned much -- mainly because those are the main contexts In which I've ever heard it discussed. I don't know much about it, really, but I've dozed through a few paper presentations.
Sadly it reads like yet another tale of "there's a more effective way of doing things, but all the multigajillion dollar corporations prefer it to stay as it is" story. Do these stories ever have a happy ending?
One of the things to keep in mind about releasing previously partitioned frequencies is that the older technologies are still heavily used and in place for very critical purposes. And it's not just business and corporations involved, it's FAA, FCC, DOT, NASA, and the military who need/use dedicated bandwidths for communication.

For example, the only reason I have even heard anything about this subject is because everything we do in real-time flight test uses specific bands for our telemetry (i.e., downlink of the vehicle's data). Vehicle to vehicle communication uses specific bands, vehicle to base, missile, etc.. And we are just one example of non-public use. The entire infrastructure of the vehicles, the military bases, the receivers, the ground stations, etc. would have to be converted to take advantage of a new technology.

These things are all in the works (at least that's what I heard at one luncheon where this was the subject of the keynote speech), but it takes time and until then, those bands have to be managed cooperatively to avoid dangerous, life threatening communication collisions. I'm sure no one really wants to know lil' Johhnie's remote robodog "Speak!" command launched some missile from an overflying jet.

It's sorta like HDTV -- yeay! it's all wonderful and shit, but you can't just replace the regular old broadcast until a high enough percentage of the stations and population has the means to replace their equipment.

[lisarea]

I thought it was a very interesting article for numerous reasons, among them the fact that it is a good introduction to an interesting subject. Sadly it reads like yet another tale of "there's a more effective way of doing things, but all the multigajillion dollar corporations prefer it to stay as it is" story. Do these stories ever have a happy ending?

Not usually, eh.

I'm a little skeptical about the FCC in general, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I endores privatization of the airwaves. I don't.

Basically, though, we already have privatization by fiat. When was the last time a major licensee had their license pulled? When was the last time they made any effort to abide by their contracts? When was the last time the FCC actually made any effort to ensure that licensees are serving the needs of the public?

I don't know the answer, but it's been a while.

What I do like about the article is the simple fact that they have bothered to explain how these things work, and where things may be headed from here. See, I've always assumed that, at least to some extent, spectrum did have to be treated like real estate. That's what I'm all jazzed about. The idea that we can overcome those limitations through technology and could make some of the lower frequencies available for public use. And the prospect that we might.

I'm not happy about the prospect of privatizing spectrum, but about the prospect of opening up some of the spectrum that's going unused, and about the prospect of smart technologies that would allow us to use it more efficiently.


Anyway I didn't realize that lower frequencies provide better penetration, or that < 3 ghz is considered prime. I wonder what the supposed benefits of the 5.8 ghz cordless phones are, then.

Yeah, that's the part I don't know anything about at all. Conceptually, I kind of know that different frequencies work differently, and beyond that, I just believe anything anyone tells me.

I'd go try to figure it out, but I'm doing the insomnia thing, so it wouldn't make any sense to me right now, anyway.

[pescifish]

Since the keynote topic for the upcoming ITC opening session is spectrum allocation again, I was reminded of this thread. lisarea and viscousmemories, you both seemed interested in a readable primer on the subject and I found a very good one (I think) at the government site for the agency in charge of spectrum management:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/osmhome.html

There is a mind boggling representation of the current spectrum allocations at allocation chart (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html).

I thought the primer (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/primer.html) linked on that page and the myths vs. realities (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/myths.html) gave some good basic info on the fundamentals of this issue:The electromagnetic spectrum exhibits some of the properties of what economists call a Common Good. Other than the cost of designing, building, and operating radio stations, its use is free. Each user has no incentive to individually use the spectrum efficiently since there is no savings; and is, in fact, motivated to secure for his own use the maximum amount of spectrum. However, uncoordinated, wasteful use can easily result in everyone suffering interference, that prevents satisfactory operation, and denies access to new users.

The electromagnetic spectrum is an unusual common good, or natural resource because, unlike iron, oil, or coal, it is not destroyed by use. When one user stops using a portion of the spectrum, another can readily use it. The spectrum is scarce, though, because at any given time and place one use of a portion of the spectrum precludes any other use of that portion.
and

MYTH:
NTIA and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) do the same work -- there is no need for this duplication.

REALITY:

NTIA is the principal Federal voice for Executive Branch positions on crucial domestic and international telecommunications and information issues, including representing the Administration's positions before the FCC. In contrast to NTIA, the FCC is an independent agency. It does not represent or report to the Executive Branch.

The FCC regulates the private sector's use of the spectrum, largely by developing and enforcing rules mandated by legislation and licensing private companies' use of the radio spectrum. Regulations are on a case-by-case basis, in response to industry and private needs and according to the votes of the FCC's five commissioners. NTIA manages the Federal government's use of the spectrum.


Government spectrum needs -- many involving safety of life (air traffic control) and national security -- are best served through the Executive Branch. Because commercial needs may dominate, spectrum allocation decisions for these critical functions should be kept separate from the commercial allocation decisions made by the FCC.


NTIA initiates policies which encourage greater competition and development in the U.S. telecommunications industry. NTIA's past efforts and forward thinking have led directly to the FCC's implementation efforts today for spectrum auctions and telephone company provision of video dial tone service.

[lisarea]

THANK YOU!

I don't have time to really look at this right now, as I have the use of Fable (http://games.teamxbox.com/xbox/182/Fable) until the Little Muffin's friend gets home from work this afternoon, so I have to go wrest the Xbox away from that Maturin guy.

But this is exactly the kind of thing I've been looking for. The sheer volume and diversity of braniacs around here never ceases to amaze me.

Thank you, pesci. You rock.

[viscousmemories]

THANK YOU!

I don't have time to really look at this right now, as I have the use of Fable (http://games.teamxbox.com/xbox/182/Fable) until the Little Muffin's friend gets home from work this afternoon, so I have to go wrest the Xbox away from that Maturin guy.
No, no, thank you, Lisa. Now that squian has conquered Final Fantasy X-2 that Fable game looks like just the thing to convince him to quit postponing his purchase of a freakin' X-Box. :muahaha:

But damn, that thing looks more like a way of life than a game...

[dave_a]

I don't really have much to add to this at this point, but you know, I'm always game for arguing with libertarians.


Bitch :D

I think you should replace libertarian with anarchist in this case. I can't even imagine the mess that would result if there were no regulation of the broadcast spectrum.

Sidenote to VM: You thought Cingular was a small entity because of it's marketing. SBC is the majority owner of Cingular, but everyone recognizes SBC as a behemoth which is one of the reasons why we used Cingular to project a "we are a hip, little guy, so give us your money" image.

[viscousmemories]

Sidenote to VM: You thought Cingular was a small entity because of it's marketing. SBC is the majority owner of Cingular, but everyone recognizes SBC as a behemoth which is one of the reasons why we used Cingular to project a "we are a hip, little guy, so give us your money" image.
Ohh... that's so evil. Saturn totally sucked me in that way, too. Not that I ever bought one, but for a loooooong time I thought they were a hip, little guy too. Evil marketing bastards. :rollpin:

[JoeP]

When have you seen me fired up about anything political? The science part's cool, I've got to agree.

I enjoy the Economist: you always know what you're getting. Free markets for all. Sometimes they are still fighting for the repeal of the Corn Laws (1846). Their science reporting is pretty good, and broad.

This article's interesting because it shows that free markets in a limited sense (auctioning fixed spectrum) don't achieve as good a result as allowing free reign to technology. And a good counterpoint to the tragedy of the commons (the quoted example of overfishing is seriously worrying).

[lisarea]

I don't really have much to add to this at this point, but you know, I'm always game for arguing with libertarians.


Bitch :D

Yeah, you knew I was talking about you, didn't you?


I think you should replace libertarian with anarchist in this case. I can't even imagine the mess that would result if there were no regulation of the broadcast spectrum.

Feh. Regulation! What are you, some kind of socialist or something?

(Really, I'm pretty sure it's the junior high variety of libertarians that argue that, but I dare you to bring it up on II. But I'm game for any line of reasoning, no matter how flimsy, dishonest, and disingenuous, that provides me with an excuse to call you a socialist.)