more on Response to David Reed and Brett and the FRC

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: September 8, 2006 1:58:32 PM PDT
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: dpreed () reed com, Brett Glass <extreme () brettglass com>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Response to David Reed and Brett and the FRC

I’ve been mulling this for a while. The problem isn’t so much  
confusing a particular abstract model with reality as much as where  
the burden of proof lies. Imagine if the government proved that  
airplanes couldn’t fly and made any attempt illegal because it would  
interfere with balloon traffic and confuse the horses on the ground.

In 1927 the Supreme Court grudgingly accepted a compromise on First  
Amendment principles so as to allow the Federal Radio Commission to  
decide who was worthy of a license. Spectrum allocation was assumed  
but compromising the US First Amendment was not to be taken lightly.

Our understanding and technology has come a long way since then and  
examples like the 25 Watt Voyager which is able to send kilobits of  
data per second against the background noise of Jupiter and now all  
the way from the Kuipers Belt demonstrate the spectrum allocation  
isn’t the only coding system and, in fact, it would be difficult to  
find one that is more wasteful. It’s analogous to allocating cattle  
ranches into quarter acre plots to avoid risking any bovine getting  
more than its “fair” share.

The current system also assumes that you must reach any distance in a  
single hop – the aggregate capacity of 802.11 and even cellular  
systems is very large because we don’t need to shout – we can use  
packet networks far more effectively than DXing.

Given that the current system is requires an explicit exception to  
the First Amendment shouldn’t the burden of proof be on those who  
insist on maintaining spectrum allocation to demonstrate that it is  
still absolutely necessary? Of course existing analog radios may have  
problems if left unprotected but that isn’t sufficient grounds to  
maintain a ban on the all communications forever.

Even if one accepts the need for spectrum allocation why do we go to  
the extreme of having to prove no possible interference to the  
feeblest of radios – the analog ones that can’t get a clear signal  
anyway? It’s one thing to have a reluctant compromise of the First  
Amendment but it’s another to take advantage of the exception and go  
to any extreme without any need to justify such egregious restraints  
on our ability to communicate.

Longer term the cost of replacing all analog radio devices is  
negligible given today’s technologies and compared with benefits of  
alternatives. But if we’re using low power because we don’t have to  
shout those old radios will probably continue to work as well if not  
better than they used to because there would be less shouting  
traffic. The real reason to replace the radios is that a digital  
packet radio can “tune in” to the entire world. Emergency workers  
would have walkie-talkies that are not limited by manual relaying  
systems. Medical devices can call home. All sorts of exciting  
possibilities open up.

Free speech isn’t just a philosophical issues, it’s about the ability  
to create value and the ability to take responsibility for oneself.

Given the power of local packet communications, we have little to  
lose. I realize “power” is ambiguous – the physical power can be low  
but the power measured in terms of capabilities can be arbitrarily  
high. Today high power radio means one that can melt in your hand –  
it should mean one that empowers the user.

I know Brett is using packet radios as a bypass and he depends on  
relatively long distance connections compared with in-home use. One  
can argue whether or not there are better technical solutions to his  
problems but what is clear is that exclusive control of the wired  
transports is a problem. There should at least be some infrastructure  
option akin to roads – it would complement wireless connectivity. The  
idea of maintaining separate worlds for wired (tethered) and  
untethered packets is weird – it’s as if we had different rules for  
free speech depending on whether the medium was available in the  
1700’s or not. Paper is afforded the same rights as TTA (Through the  
Air) speech but OTA (Over the Air) is not.

On the Internet we define relationships in terms of identifiers like  
IP addresses or DNS names. We then simply route the messages between  
the two points.

The problems of using single frequency non-redundant signaling is  
exacerbated by channeling them into assigned bands. That alone  
requires a system for policing its use. The problems are deeper --  
the frequency regimen is fragile because the messages are not self- 
identifying so you must depend on others policing the bands on your  
behalf rather than taking responsibility for the relationships. There  
are many other consequences of this system – any change requires the  
intervention of congress and decades to effect. No wonder their  
flogging ten year old HDTV even as it’s lame compared with today’s  
screens.

Many of these problems are the result of the scarcity that is created  
by the use of spectrum allocation and that is then used as proof that  
you need to redouble the efforts to maintain the system – isn’t that  
a definition of madness?

So why do we need to prove that can’t do better than frequency  
allocation – it would be hard to do worse. Do we have to prove that  
everything we say and do will cause no possible harm? The regulatory  
gene, like the sickle cell gene, may have served a purpose at one  
time but all-to-often it causes more problems than it solves – it  
makes us deathly afraid of opportunity and that’s a fatal disease.





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

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