[IP] More on: The End of Spectrum Scarcity -- an article and a comment on the article
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:38:09 -0700
From: Brett Glass <brett@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [IP] More on: The End of Spectrum Scarcity -- an article and a comment
on the article
X-Sender: brett@localhost (Unverified)
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At 02:00 PM 2/29/2004, Steven Cherry <s.cherry@xxxxxxxx> 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 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/