« Dems on the Supreme Court | Main | Common(s) Sense of Thomas Paine »

clear channels on spectrum policy

January 11, 2004 12:58 AM - comments (1)

Paul Margie has a great and interesting new piece on spectrum policy -- and not just because he's a senior staffer at the FCC. This is the great if invisible fact about bureaucracies like the FCC -- they are filled with amazing people, at least one step down from the top.

Posted on January 11, 2004 12:58 AM | | technorati

Comments (1)

January 11, 2004 4:25 AM three blind mice:

To make this determination in a predictable and non-arbitrary way, the FCC needs a permissible interference standard.

margie really isn't saying anything that benkler has already said much better, but it is interesting to see how the U.S. FCC is grappling with the problem.

ironically, what benkler completely fails to appreciate, and what margie seems to under-appreciate, is that reduced regulation of "spectrum" inevitably leads to less "freedom," not more. (freedom defined as level of government intervention.)

in the 1920's radio communication was practically limited by thermal noise. this was the paradigm under which chopping the spectrum up into small pieces was born. under the this paradigm, as long as a radio device fit a spectrum interference mask, it could be shipped, sold, and operated. from the end user’s perspective, it’s pretty minimal government interference.

modern digital communications technology provides better ways of squeezing more comminications capacity from a given slice of bandwidth. cellular communication systems such as GSM, and CDMA, are proof positive of this. UWB, ultra-wide-band digital, probably comes as close to the theoretical shannon limit as possible.

but, like anything else based on thermodyamics, the laws of physics exact a price for this increased capacity and this price is power regulation.

cellular systems are tightly power controlled. in CDMA, the transmit power of handsets is adjusted thousands of times a second (slighty less often in GSM). regardless of the technology used, every cell phone is controlled by a base station, which is in turn controlled by a mobile switching center. there is no end user autonomy.

so from the end user's perspective, freedom to use more spectrum will require giving up a great deal of autonomy in the way she uses this spectrum.

if and when spectrum contraints are relaxed and operational power is regulated AND controlled - as it must be - no device will be able to operate without submitting itself to centralized, or local power control. to ensure this, it is possible, and indeed likely, that the heavy hand of government will likely be far more intrusive on the individual user than it is today.

of course, the benefit is that there will be more users.