[IP] more on Response to David Reed and Brett and the FRC
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 8, 2006 1:58:32 PM PDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: dpreed@xxxxxxxx, Brett Glass <extreme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 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/