More on: The End of Spectrum Scarcity -- an article and a comment on the article

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:38:09 -0700
From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>
Subject: [IP] More on: The End of Spectrum Scarcity -- an article and a comment
 on the article
X-Sender: brett@localhost (Unverified)
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com

At 02:00 PM 2/29/2004, Steven Cherry <s.cherry () ieee org> wrote:

> I think IPers will be interested in an article in our March issue, "The 
> End of Spectrum Scarcity," by Kevin Werbach and Greg Staple.

Interesting article. Alas, the authors may have been listening too closely 
to those who preach the gospel of "unlimited spectrum" rather than 
investigating the real world experience of those of us who have been gamely 
contending with interference on the shared portions of the airwaves.

The article states:

"interference is not some inherent property of spectrum. It's a property of 
devices. A better receiver will pick up a transmission where an earlier one 
heard only static. Whether a new radio system "interferes" with existing 
ones is entirely dependent on the equipment involved."

Unfortunately, while those who covet licensed spectrum (such as FM 
broadcasters railing against low power FM stations) overestimate the 
likelihood of interference, this Polyanna-ish view goes to the other 
extreme by claiming -- with arguments largely supported by "hand waving" -- 
that the problem does not exist or will miraculously be solved by some 
unspecified technology that has yet to be developed.

The truth lies, as is often the case, somewhere in the middle. Shannon's 
Law, and its myriad corollaries and consequences, dictate that there are 
indeed limits on what equipment can do to avoid or overcome interference. 
While it is true that more can be done with sophisticated radio equipment 
and antennas than has been done in the past, even today's very best 
technologies experience interference. The Part 15 unlicensed bands, on 
which Wi-Fi and most wireless ISPs operate, have served as an excellent 
real life demonstration of the possible results of spectrum deregulation. 
Many new and exciting applications have been developed thanks to the 
relatively few rules that apply to these bands. But there have also been 
negative consequences. Wireless ISPs (WISPs), valiantly seeking to free the 
public of its dependency on wired monopolies, have been driven from the 
airwaves by personal wireless devices, by competitors' equipment, and/or by 
malicious parties intentionally seeking to derail their businesses. When 
this occurs, they and their customers (both damaged by interrupted or lost 
service) have little or no recourse. Some wireless technologies, such as 
cellular phones, are notoriously quirky and unreliable (Can you hear me 
now?) despite several generations of technological development. Were there 
truly "no such thing" as interference, the cellular companies, given their 
vast financial resources, would surely have eliminated it by now.

In creating new spectrum policies, we must eschew platitudes from 
ideologically or economically motivated parties (who tend to espouse the 
most extreme viewpoints) and seek answers that alleviate, rather than 
compound, the problems we now face. While spectrum need not be scarce, it 
is also not an infinite resource. Enlightened policy makers will need to 
cut through the misleading claims on both ends of the spectrum policy 
spectrum to come up with rules that best serve the public.

--Brett Glass


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/