Search
Recent comments
- This is new idea for all....
1 day 18 hours ago - "The question I have for NPR
5 days 16 hours ago - Thanx for sharing the new
5 days 23 hours ago - Very Useful information ,
5 days 23 hours ago - Broadband and digital is the
1 week 4 hours ago - Very Useful information ,
2 weeks 20 hours ago - Haha lol!
2 weeks 2 days ago - Lol!
2 weeks 2 days ago - Most importantly, the onus
3 weeks 5 days ago - One place to start is to
3 weeks 5 days ago
Blog Tags
Sascha Reads...
Syndicate
Jul
6
What happens when software defined radios become common-place? What happens when open source, freely available products like GNU Radio become known? What happens when every single Internet user has access to technologies that allow for user defined, frequency hopping tranceivers to be bought for under $50?
Today, right now, real developers (both open source and proprietary) are creating these very technologies, but our spectrum allocation and regulations have completely ignored this up-and-coming revolution. But the single most detrimental obstacle to really breaking things open is the complete lack of funding for Open Source development. The expertise, interest, and opportunity for creating viable new broadcast technologies all exist, but we're unable to tap into them because the actual development is relegated to volunteer efforts and hobby status.
We need to find a way to sustainably fund the 3-4 most importantly development projects so that we can push for spectrum reforms that will better serve the general public. Within the next year or two we're going to see incredibly path dependencies develop, and without successful rollouts of open source, open architecture technologies, the future will be governed by proprietary solutions and the handful of conglomerates that dominate market share.
We need to get more potential developers actively involved in specific regulatory processes. The next generation of radio tranceivers is coming, but our spectrum policies revolve around 1934 technologies. The FCC is being incredibly naive by ignoring the fact that software-defined radios are going to exist within the next 5-10 years, and that they'll exist as Open Source projects. If there isn't adequate unlicensed space people will engage in unlicensed broadcasting in licensed bands. And there will be no effective way to stop these micro-broadcasting devices.
I just came back from the Allied Media Conference and the absolute
hottest topic was micro-broadcasting and wireless. Folks were able to set up an unlicensed radio station within minutes, and scores of activists from grassroots organizations across the country are taking these technologies back to their communities to set up their own broadcasting and wireless data networks. So it's not enough to just talk about today's political "realities" in dealing with these up-and-coming technologies. FCC staff need to be educated that if they don't create unlicensed set-asides, they're going to be creating massive headaches within the near future as people get sick of the congestion in unlicensed bands and simply move their communications to congestion-free licensed frequencies. This will be like pirate radio on steroids -- but unlike pirate radio, the transceivers will be available for <$50 and in the tens- or hundreds of millions, and the software will be extremely easy to set up and available for free online. The best way to alleviate this coming crisis is to simply provide an outlet great/large enough so that congestion levels within unlicensed bands don't become high enough to force the public to broadcast in licensed bands. Otherwise the FCC will be relegated to attempting to stop the broadcasting equivalent of jay walking, on a national scale, 24-7-365.
I've already heard people arguing that the solution is to make SDRs
illegal, mandate some sort of shut-off device on them, etc. -- which
points to the ignorance of the proposers of these "solutions". SDRs are software -- anyone, anywhere in the world can create them, make patches, add features, etc -- they will be impossible to legislate out of existence or to control. The FCC needs to realize that they can either maintain a low "annoyance threshold" in unlicensed bands, or deal with the reality that massive numbers of people will spend 3-5 minutes to download and install SDR software on their local wireless devices and switch them to other frequencies.
Unless the FCC gets smarter about the technologies coming down the pipe, they're creating perfect conditions for a real mess down the line. And if the FCC needs to have its collective feet held to the fire on this, then it's SDR developers that need to help educate our policy-makers on the technologies. We can either be active now, or a part of the widespread civil disobedience later; personally, I'd love to see a more proactive engagement -- this way, we at least know that we've tried to work within the system. SDRs are going to exist within the next decade, and we should force the FCC to either get on the record stating that they are going to ignore this problem, or force them to address it. If they're not going to give ample space in the Digital TV (DTV) bands, where (and when) are they going to open up more unlicensed space?
I'm not just talking about set-aside-crumbs -- I'm talking about sizable swaths of unlicensed spectrum -- I'm talking about large, uninterupted frequency "chunks" that'll give the general public access to our own airwaves. I think we should push harder than we have been on this issue. And I think the stakes couldn't be higher -- technology's changed over the past 70+ years -- and it's high time that policies and regulations reflect and parallel these revolutionary changes.
We've linked to this item through our newsfeed, and actually said much the same in our "What is Open Spectrum?" page, but in a way less scary to regulators. From a tactical perspective, I'd suggest emphasizing the "SDR is inevitable" side of the argument rather than the "give us spectrum or we'll take it by force" side. A good collection of open source radio software solutions could indeed undermine radio regulation as we know it today. So there's no need to threaten the regulators verbally. In fact, success will be more likely if you sneak up on them quietly.
---www.openspectrum.info
Bob,
I suspect that, if your approach to regulators had been used in 18th century America, there never wouldhave been a Boston Tea Party or an American Revolution. The radicals in America, less than 1/3rd of the population in the 18th century, did NOT soft pedal their revolutuionary ideas about democratic self government. Nor are the right wing counter revolutionary reactionaries in control of the American government today soft pedaling their jihad today.
Open Spectrum is a very important political discussion about our confidence in true dmeocracy. Shall the right to communicate be regulated for the few at the expenseof the many?
We need to ask what is the least number of rules that will maximize the number of bits that the spectrum can transport for the greatest number of people for the greatest amount of time.
And we must not be afraid to ask this question for fear of aleinating regulators. After all, they work for us.
Regards,
Jock
Regulators work for the government directly and the public second hand. The political reality is that carriers paid billions to governments for spectrum that was allocated based on single-use. This scheme evolved due to the limitations of analog and early digital technologies to prevent intereference, making it impractical for multiple use of spectrum. Broadcast, military/goevernment, avionics, medical, satelite uplink, etc. bands had to be given priority and wide guard bands to prevent intereference. And, or course, mobile cellular gained prime allocations of spectrum because companies were willing to pay $billion into government coffers and pay many millions more in ongoing fees to lobyists and political contributions. That is reality, like it or not.
But the impact of SDR/cognitive radio and technologies, such as wide spectrum antennas and phase shift circuitry and nano-materials that allow radios to economically be used over a wider range of spectrums are creating a 'Wireless Broadband Revolution' that will put extreme pressure on regulators to do the obvious to reform anitquated methods of regulation... to open up spectrum to 'technology agnostic' and more open use.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your critique. It's definitely not my intention to threaten anyone, nor do I think that my piece does this. It does, however, directly speak truth to power -- I'm saying that the FCC cannot continue to ignore existing technological realities and that the FCC needs to engage in some fairly radical restructuring in spectrum allocation (regardless of the political difficulty in doing so) or they are going to have a huge mess on their hands down the road. And I work regularly with FCC staff, so I know for a fact that many of them "get it."
History provides ample examples of the general population taking control of communications mediums when they've been disenfranchised, ignored, or underserved. We saw it with the printing press, we've seen in with the mail, we've seen in with telephones, and we've seen it with radio. Cognitive radios are simply a new generation of devices that will allow people to communicate directly and cheaply. And when rules and regulations no longer serve the best interests of the general populace, people engage in civil disobedience.
In the case of cognitive radios and the public airwaves, I think we should expect (and thus meet head-on) the realities that this technology needs to be addressed immediately -- which can either be done proactively today, or reactively once the "big mess" already exists. Many of the staff I've spoken with at the FCC fully understand these sorts of issues -- but somehow we are still not seeing movement at the highest levels.
It all reminds me of the Benjamin Franklin quote, ""The tyrant's foe, the people's friend, a free press" -- tomorrow's communications medium of choice will be wireless. As Personal-, Local-, and Metropolitan Area Networks interface more and more, access to the public airwaves by US residents will become increasingly important. If we believe that the free flow of communications are a hallmark of a democratic society, then if this medium is kept artificially scarce -- if it's not free for use by citizens of the United States -- I think it would be naive to think that folks will just sit back and allow that injustice to continue unchecked. It's not a threat, just a prediction.
But feel free to post your thoughts or drop me an e-mail if you'd like to continue the conversation.
Sasha,
You might find this post on Greater Democracy of interest:
http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/2003_01_01_gd.html#90139353
It is one of our paperless white papers.
.... The question at the very root of the Open Spectrum issue, politically, is this: Connections and communications for the many or the few? Democracy of opportunity or strictly controlled privilege?
Do you need the central government's permission be connected and communicate? A permission system, as history has shown, means only the few may participate. This is blatantly against the grain of our democratic goals.
On the other hand, we can offer everyone Connection and Communications without permission, the pro democracy approach, if we adopt OS-WE [Open Spectrum - Wireless for Everyone]
We can build this as part of a system of new ideas. Reed offers "A Society of (cooperating) Cognitive Radios"
--- snip
Regards,
Jock
Excellent commentary!
I have always believed that "innovation trumps regulation" as you have alluded to. The "illegal" use of WiFi equipment is what created the wireless broadband delivery industry and I believe it would be realistic to assume that it would be near impossible to stop the progress of this deployment. In a similar way, if a plethora of low power, high bandwidth radios were to be deployed and no real measurable effect as far as interference was found it would be hard to justify making this type of deployment illegal.
As the manufacture of UWB chips hits the mainstream market and experimenters start to see what "alternative" uses these radios can be put to I suspect we will see just such a revolution.
SDR is already becoming commonplace and will help redefine how radios operate over the next few decades. But SDR is only part of the picture: there are a number of fields of technology that fit into the mix that will compel a dramatic improvement in wireless capabilities and force regulatory reforms:
#Sub thermal noise floor signal transform technologies. Ultra Wide Band such as that being used for recent development of UWB PANs is just the tip of the ice burg of developments likely to occur that allow communication of signals at very low (sub noise floor) signal levels. The potential impact is astronomical. If radios can be made to transmit signals at such low levels that they do not interfere with current uses, then they can operate in what the FCC calls '3D": The new radios, such as xG Technology's xMAX, could operate using the same frequencies as, say, broadcast radio or TV channels, or cellular or unlicensed spectrum uses. Other, somewhat similar 'wavelet transform' technologies are likely to develop that augment xMAX or compete with it.
#Circuits and device technologies including nano designed materials, that is materials that are designed from the atomic or molecular level for particular electrical or other properties, are starting to enter mainstream commercial markets. Phase shift and circuits and antenna elements that are able wide to be tuned over a wide spectrum will increasingly allow radios to work at multiple frequencies... allowing SDR/cognitive radios to morph to fit available spectrum while being very power efficient.
# SDR is already being used as a primary platform technology for WiMAX base stations and some end user devices. This trend is expected to grow. The IC devices and design platforms are increasingly coming available that allow both the end user and complex base station systems to be developed using modular SDR platforms. This makes it more practical to develop systems because individuals or companies don't have to re-create the wheel. And it also creates an environment in which developments cross-pollinate. Modules to do, for example, security functions or OFDMA can be developed by one company/individual and made available to others.
There are many fields of development that compliment each other and that all can benefit from a more open use of spectrum. Radios are becoming smart and are being made to pick out signals from others at very low levels... functions that are also 'smart' compared to traditional wireless.