[IP] FCC in a Box
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 07:39:24 -0800
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[Note: This item comes from reader James Johnston. DLH]
At 9:48 -0500 12/9/03, James H. Johnston wrote:
From: "James H. Johnston" <jimjohn@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Dewayne Hendricks" <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: FCC in a Box
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:48:06 -0500
Here's the piece that I did for Legal Times on Open Spectrum.
Jim Johnston
The Federal Communications Commission in a Box
James H. Johnston
Legal Times
12-08-2003
Michael Powell has suffered his share of slings and arrows in his time as
chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, but now come the
cruelest cuts of all, claims that he and his agency can be replaced by
microchips. At least, this is one way of explaining what the Open Spectrum
movement is all about. Actually, it wouldn't eliminate the FCC entirely,
not right now, but it believes that advancements in radio technology have
outpaced the regulatory scheme. It is a revolutionary idea with technical
merit that is taken seriously by engineers, policy gurus, and some
regulators. However, the telecommunications industry's addiction to
regulation may make the economic and political obstacles to Open Spectrum
greater than the technical ones.
The raison d'être for Powell's FCC - and its counterparts around the world
- is to prevent radio transmitters, such as television, radio, and cell
phones, from interfering with one another. This regulation, according to
conventional wisdom, is the only thing that prevents those tall radio
antennas from becoming Towers of Babel. Indeed, Congress passed the first
Radio Act in 1912 in response to public outrage over reports that radio
interference and false messages hampered rescue of the survivors from the
Titanic.
Interference occurs when a radio receives signals from two or more
transmitters at the same time and on the same frequency. One common
manifestation is the static on an AM radio or the "snow" on a television
set. To prevent interference, the FCC first allocates spectrum, for example
declaring that certain frequencies can only be used for broadcast
television, and then issues a license that permits a person to transmit on
a specific frequency. It is a crime for anyone to operate a radio
transmitter in violation of this regulatory scheme.
NEW WORLD ORDER
The Open Spectrum movement believes times have changed. It thinks that
microchips, rather than the FCC, should oversee the airwaves. Thus, a box
of electronics would take over the FCC's job of spectrum policeman.
Radio certainly has changed since Guglielmo Marconi invented it in 1894,
when radio waves were thought to be carried through an "ether." What is
more, the computer has come along to allow radios to do things that Marconi
never imagined. Open Spectrum puts its faith in these technologies, many of
which are already in use.
WiFi is one example. Built into a computer's microprocessor or added with a
slide-in card, WiFi gives access to the Internet via high-speed wireless
connections in the home and in public hot spots. WiFi is an intelligent
two-way radio on microchips. Tens of millions of these devices are in
operation - 16 million were sold last year alone - and yet they all share
the same 83.5 MHz of spectrum allocated to them by the FCC. Compare this
with the older technologies used by television. The FCC has allocated 402
MHz to the medium, but only 1,714 stations are in operation.
Of course, WiFi's startling efficiency, compared with television, stems in
part from the fact that it operates at a low power, not to exceed one watt,
and its signals carry only a few hundred feet, whereas television
transmitters may operate at a million watts of power and have a service
radius measured in dozens of miles. Still, WiFi represents a more
sophisticated technology than broadcast television and a legitimate success
story for Open Spectrum.
Open Spectrum proponents point to a number of electronic tricks that permit
the airwaves to be used more efficiently. The Ethernet protocol of
listen-before-talk is one. WiFi transmitters don't talk if they hear
another device transmitting. It takes children about four years to learn
such good manners. It has taken radio 109 years. WiFi also uses "error
correction." This means that if interference garbles a transmission, the
receiver will ask that it be resent. Thus, the WiFi user never sees the
"snow" of interference on her computer. (On the other hand,
listen-before-talk and error correction can cause the computer to seem slow
in a heavily used hot spot.)
"Dynamic frequency selection" is another trick. It allows devices to
transmit on whichever frequency is available at the moment. Thus, the FCC
doesn't need to micromanage the allocation of frequencies;
computer-controlled transmitters can do that.
Even more smarts can be put into an Open Spectrum box. A device might use
the global positioning system (GPS) to determine that it is in a rural
area, where the airwaves are less congested. It could thus operate at
higher power than a similar device would use in a city. The box might also
have "automatic transmit power control" to adjust the transmitter's power
in order to use no more than necessary to communicate with a distant
receiver. People usually don't shout unless they must, but radio
transmitters often do. Automatic controls on power reduce the potential for
interference and permit more transmitters to operate in a given area.
Intelligence can be built into radio receivers too. They can be told to
ignore low-power signals, thus allowing other devices to operate below a
specified threshold. Radios can function like humans whose whispered
conversations aren't heard by the hard of hearing. WiFi itself is an
"underlay," meaning that there are other, higher-power uses of the same
frequencies. What is more, by using different power levels and by altering
other transmission properties, multiple devices can operate in close
proximity on the same frequency without interfering.
For a dramatic illustration of what Open Spectrum means, attend a class at
the nearest college or law school. In all likelihood, there will be a
roomful of students with WiFi-equipped laptop computers that allow them
wirelessly to surf the Internet, send and receive e-mail, communicate with
classmates via instant messaging, and look up cases on Lexis or Westlaw
while they sit in class. The students don't need the FCC to tell them which
frequency to use or to issue licenses. All those functions are in a box of
electronics in their computers.
Regulation has traditionally been justified with two related arguments. The
first, a legal argument, is that spectrum is scarce. Because there is not
enough to go around, so the courts have held, the government may decide
which uses are the more important and allocate, or ration, and otherwise
regulate radio. The second, more of a technical argument, is that overuse
destroys the resource. In other words, the airwaves are not like a water
well, which dries up if overused. Rather, overuse of radio means
interference. It is like pouring poison into a well, preventing everyone
from drinking the water.
Newer technologies, such as WiFi, aren't an antidote to poison; they don't
repeal the laws of physics. But they do substantially alleviate the
scarcity problem. They allow more people to use the same amount of spectrum
than older technologies do. They also eliminate detailed FCC regulation.
DOUBLE REBUTTAL
Opponents of Open Spectrum advance two main arguments. First, they say, the
electronic tricks do little good for high-power, one-way services like
broadcasting. WiFi's success, they point out, stems in part from its short
range. Another WiFi device located a few hundred feet away can operate on
the same frequency without interference. Similar technologies, operating at
low power on the same frequencies, successfully provide "last mile"
wireless broadband services to homes and offices, delivering Internet
access over distances of several miles. But television transmitters have
ranges of 50 miles or more. They are intended to deliver signals to every
user within range, and they do not engage in two-way conversations like
Wi-Fi. Open Spectrum's opponents say that if its principles were applied to
television, the high-power transmitters would overwhelm everyone else on
their frequencies or would become Towers of Babel.
Second, opponents suggest, the better approach would be to let the FCC
continue regulating the spectrum through licenses and to rely on the
licensees to put these smart new technologies into the hands of consumers.
This is essentially how cell phone service is offered today.
Of course, incumbent licensees don't want anything to infringe on their
lucrative franchises. They oppose meddling in what they consider their
spectrum, even for underlays such as WiFi. Thus, the technical questions
surrounding Open Spectrum pale in comparison with the economic and
political challenges to it. Regulation is the OxyContin of
telecommunications. Since it was first prescribed in 1912, the patients
have become addicted.
Media and telephone companies, for example, get alarmed by the slightest
hint that the entry barrier of FCC regulation might be removed. Without
regulation, any Tom, Dick, Jane, or Harry could start a television station
or cell phone company.
Wall Street has a big stake in regulation. What would happen to all the
money invested in the broadcast networks - NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox - and in
the cellular telephone companies if they faced free competition? The New
America Foundation, a Washington think tank that considers such things,
puts a theoretical value of $771 billion on spectrum rights based on the
way they are now regulated. If broadly applied, Open Spectrum would require
a whole new calculus for financing the telecommunications industry.
The public has a stake too. It wants products and services that are
reliable, easy to use, and within the consumer's budget. Who would protect
the public if the FCC weren't around? Economic theory says that free
competition would, but the telecommunications industry has never
experienced free competition. The transition might be painful for all
concerned.
Nonetheless, Open Spectrum is the wave of the future in telecommunications.
It may not completely do away with the FCC, but in the least it will mean
more services on the WiFi model. WiFi gave the public a taste of spectrum
freedom. The FCC doesn't require WiFi users to be licensed, nor does it
decide which frequencies in the allocated spectrum an individual will use.
Imagine if the FCC chose to regulate WiFi as tightly as it does television.
WiFi users would need licenses. Each time they moved from one classroom to
the next or from one hot spot to another, they would need FCC approval in
advance.
Even Michael Powell likes Open Spectrum - although he is not yet a
disciple. In a Nov. 13 ruling, the FCC gave WiFi an additional 255 MHz of
spectrum. It also started an inquiry into a more flexible approach to
spectrum management based on actual rather than theoretical frequency
congestion. Still, the FCC seems to be seeking middle ground in the debate
over Open Spectrum. So far, it has applied Open Spectrum principles only to
the higher frequencies that are less amenable to profitable commercial uses.
Eventually, though, the FCC could find itself in a different kind of box.
Open Spectrum could do for telecommunications what the personal computer
did for computing. It could empower the individual, giving him the right to
use the ether however he wants. In that case, Powell and his successors
will face a dilemma: Will they side with the establishment, or will they
join the revolution?
D.C. lawyer James H. Johnston is a frequent contributor to Legal Times. He
may be contacted atjimjohn@xxxxxxxxxx
Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net>
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/