Licensed vs. Unlicensed Wireless Spectrum and Plato's Children

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: May 7, 2009 9:34:36 PM EDT
To: "'Charles Brown'" <cbrown () flyingcircuit com>
Cc: "'Dewayne Hendricks'" <dewayne () warpspeed com>, "'Dewayne-Net  
Technology List'" <xyzzy () warpspeed com>, "'Prof. David J. J Farber'" <dave () farber net 
>
Subject: RE: Licensed vs. Unlicensed Wireless Spectrum and Plato's  
Children

While I want to encourage the enthusiasm behind NN I recognize that  
it’s too much about fixing telecom rather than fundamental change.  
Alas, as per my “cherry” example it’s very hard for people to hear  
anything without slotting it into the old.

This is why I’m now framing the issue more in terms of the “value  
chain” and using the example of how the IBM consent decree liberated  
the value contained in computing hardware beyond IBM’s designated  
application. Does that work any better – telecom is a nonstarter here – 
it’s just one application. All that infrastructure and all we get is  
telecom. The so-called private stuff is more a privateer model than a  
market model

If you want a reminder of absurd the current twisting winding passages  
model is watch http://www.bnettv.com/player.php?id=2536 and see how  
the cellular industry so desperately tries to warp itself into the old  
framing no matter how absurd. Of course the FCC rewards them by  
protecting from reality.

From: Charles Brown [mailto:cbrown () flyingcircuit com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 17:35
To: Bob Frankston
Cc: Charles Brown; 'Dewayne Hendricks'; 'Dewayne-Net Technology List';  
Prof. David J. J Farber
Subject: Re: Licensed vs. Unlicensed Wireless Spectrum and Plato's  
Children


On May 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Bob Frankston wrote:


Before I concur the real question is how do we get past the conceptual  
barrier that keeps slipping back into the same-old policies? I can’t  
help but think of the time I ordered vanilla ice cream with whip cream  
and nuts and was told that I couldn’t have it because the IHOP was out  
of cherries. How do we defy the tendency to view everything in terms  
of the familiar framings – in this case, the Regulatorium’s insistence  
on defining services and auctioning off property?

Yes, you have made this point very well in your writings and it's an  
important issue.

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I think we need a new  
terminology or lexicon, perhaps even a new "ontology" to describe the  
world around us in this regard.  This seems much more vital to the  
debate than spending $300 million of mapping broadband access in the  
US or taking an inventory of spectrum use, which varies by the day.   
Most people can't even agree on what the term "broadband" means.

The situation now is that terminology and meaning are supplied and  
manipulated by the press, lawyers, corporations, Congress and Wall  
Street.  That's a formidable group to overcome but a good way to start  
would be with new words that would promote new ways of thinking about  
the same phenomenon.  E.g., ideas like "network neutrality" might have  
started out with a clear meaning to someone, but soon became chewed  
and digested into complexity by all sorts of actors, not the least  
being the duopoly themselves.  Just look at this phrase:  it says  
nothing.  Does it imply a political position to be taken in an  
existing cyber war or some such phenomenon?  It sounds like you want  
to be a neutral actor (Switzerland) in the struggle.

It seems to me that the cost-benefit of such an enterprise would be  
enormous when compared to the way the problem is attacked now, with  
Google being the foremost example in mind.  That is not to say that  
New America and some of their other "beltway promoters" are not doing  
good work, but it is marginalized for the reasons you state.  And are  
Google's and the public's interests the same?  The debate takes place  
in the same old theatre of ideas, described by a worn and useless  
terminology trotted-out when required to maintain the status quo.     
We change the terminology and we change the debate.

Further, I think the spreading and use of this new terminology would  
be possible through various means, some of which I'm sure you can  
imagine too.  We make the old terminology look foolish, worn and "un- 
hip" and there are a few more "un-'s" you have already thought of.   I  
think this is the place to start.



I agree that selling spectrum by the acre is indeed bad idea and the  
discussion is driven too much by fiber mongers and radio mongers.

But we already have the technologies. We need to simply recognize that  
bits are bits and wired vs wireless doesn’t matter to the bits. We can  
then normalize the infrastructure to bits and in doing so create  
abundance. (What I’m calling the Bit Commons). We’d then have a  
vibrant market taking advantage of the opportunities.

If we had protocols that made it easy to transit from wireless to  
wired (or fiber) paths via hundreds of millions of existing “access  
points” (AKA wiredówireless routers and switches) we’d find we already  
have abundant capacity and don’t need power-gulping transmitters to  
get the bits across in a single hop by shouting loudly and annoying  
everyone in the surrounding area.

Femtocell seeks to achieve something similar within the context of the  
cellco, "private infrastructure", but for the purpose of off-loading  
traffic from the wireless network.  But note that the duopoly owns the  
gateway access (wiredówireless routers and switches) in this model,  
and the "squeeze play" is moving right along.

As per the FT story, what we need is the ability to go back to reality  
and discover what we can do with the physical infrastructures.

Alas, instead we have economists acting as Plato’s children with their  
fanciful ideal models substituting for reality. If someone so much as  
hints that the real world may be different he’s considered a heretic  
like the guy who showed that the square root of two is irrational.  
Where is Aristotle when we need him?


http://frankston.com/?name=TelecomPrison.

I agree, and take your point about flattening-out the existing  
infrastructure into a Bit Commons to achieve leverage of the existing  
investment, but that investment is considered "private" and is now  
protected under common law and unregulated.   I don't know if that is  
all the infrastructure we would need since the realization of the bit  
commons might invoke a dynamic elastic demand curve;  demand increases  
when prices drop, and particularly, in the case of eliminating current  
AUP restrictions.

Of course, the broader economic effects upon many business models  
would be devastating.  They control Congress and antitrust common law  
is neutralized by their puppies at the FCC.  You need to hit them  
where it will hurt;  in the world of ideas and fashion (many Americans  
are nothing if not fashionable), and rely on the 1st and 4th  
Amendments when they try to obliterate you.

Charlie



-----Original Message-----
From: dewayne-net [mailto:dewayne-net () warpspeed com] On Behalf Of  
Dewayne Hendricks
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:58
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Re: Smart Grid Debate: Licensed vs. Unlicensed  
Wireless Spectrum

[Note:  This comment comes from friend Charles Brown.  DLH]

From: Charles Brown <cbrown () flyingcircuit com>
Date: May 6, 2009 2:43:36 PM PDT
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Cc: Charles Brown <cbrown () flyingcircuit com>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Smart Grid Debate: Licensed vs. Unlicensed
Wireless Spectrum

Dewayne,

Here we go again;  the usual "spectrum as land" metaphor.  This looks
like another ploy for spectrum via backroom deals in Congress and the
FCC, or "public-private partnerships."   And we have the press
covering the" licensed vs unlicensed debate", yet again.  The
utilities are doing what everyone else does in their position at this
point:  "Hey, let's use this to go get our own spectrum.  Our
shareholders will love us!"

How about a debate called "technical ignorance and economic corruption
vs. science and free markets."

What if we referred to spectrum as "dark matter" or "electric air" or
"green sky" instead of real estate.  How many times have you heard
auctionable spectrum referred to as "beach front property", as the
700MHz spectrum was referred to in the press.  However, we can't
contain it, divide it up, measure it, nor do we understand its true
capacity, notwithstanding Shannon.  But we can put a deed on it!  We
can measure Eb/No but that's beside the point here.   And putting a
price tag on spectrum inhibits services, increases costs,  facilitates
corruption and stifles innovation and employment in the wireless
industry.   Look at the US:  Motorola has become a commodity company
whose longevity is questionable and Qualcomm has morphed into a chip
company reliant on its IP lawyers.  So where is the innovation in the
US?  At all of those new WiMax companies?

Instead of arguing about licensed vs unlicensed, wouldn't it be better
to take the money they are going to waste and invest it in new
technology development that would change the nature of the
discussion?  This is the way to get out in front again.   The
commercial vendors don't have much in the way of advanced wireless
technology for the "smart grid", however it is being subjectively
defined.  The smart grid is reading and controlling meters?  You may
remember a company called "Cellnet" that was doing AMR (automated
meter reading) 20 years ago in the 900MHz band using spread spectrum
modulation;  yes, that was 20 years ago, and these guys are doing the
same thing.

Take a utility company with low bandwidth application requirements.
With the right know-how and off-the-shelf components, a knowledgeable
group could create a scalable, low cost network, and get an open,
product reference platform in the nature of a Software Defined Radio
in the bargain.  In fact, the utilities should be careful because it's
just a matter of time, money and need before the "beach front
property" gets hit by a tsunami.  And then what might their
shareholders say?

This article might be retitled, "WiMax vendors looking for a free
beer, at the beach."

Charlie
RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com