Latest Wireless Absurdity from Congress

Politicians on Thursday (02/19/09) called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet Service Providers (ISP's) and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, including hotels, local coffee shops, and private in-home users, to keep records about users who access their networks for two years to aid police investigations. They even have come up with a silly acronym so that the title of the bill - Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act - spells out "Internet SAFETY Act."

More on this absurdity here:


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10168114-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1\
_3-0-20


Geeez...and to think we elected some of these folks. What's the matter with us, anyway? Would someone explain to me just how this law will help prevent the "exploitation of today's youth"? IMHO, the promoters of this legislation have either lost track of reality or, are suffering from a high BER. (Actually, it's probably some of both!)


NR

TV "White Space" Spectrum Debate Simmers

For those following the TV spectrum "white spaces" debate currently simmering on the FCC's back burner, here is a policy backgrounder worth a read from Sascha Meinrath and the New America Foundation:

According to Meinrath, "smart" wireless devices can use the unassigned frequencies between broadcast TV channels to offer wireless broadband and other innovative services. A rulemaking is pending at the FCC (Docket 04-186 - with over 11,000 comments from the public and industry to date) as to whether to permit unlicensed access to this currently wasted spectrum, subject to technical requirements that will protect television reception from interference. Access to the vacant TV channels in each market has been the subject of intense lobbying, yet far too many of the arguments against "white space" devices rely upon misinformation about the technologies and the FCC process that will prevent harmful interference to DTV reception and other incumbent services.

This policy backgrounder offers a summary analysis, and is an effort to help policymakers strike the appropriate balance between protecting existing services from interference while making the benefits of mobile broadband services available and affordable for all consumers. It provides policymakers with:

1. a brief historical background to the current FCC proceedings;
2. a description of White Space Device (WSD) technologies;
3. a “Myths vs. Facts” section addressing the key concerns raised about WSDs;
4. an overview of the public benefits of WSDs; and
5. a concise summary of where we are in the multi-phase process of adopting WSD technologies for consumer use.

The complete document should be reviewed by anyone interested in or concerned about the development of "white space devices" (WSD's), FCC regulation, and technology -- because spectrum matters.

NR

Google Pushing the Technological Envelope ?

Recently, Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO had some rather interesting - if not somewhat perplexing - comments about how he thinks technology has and will help the Internet search engine companys' pending venture (read ADventure) into the world of wireless. Here is an excerpt of the portion of the conversation between Schmidt and Spencer Michels of NPR's Online NewsHour that caught my attention:


MICHELS: I talked to an industry analyst a week or so ago, Andrew Seybold, and this is what he said and I'm kind of curious as to how you would answer it. "Google's view of the wireless world is an extension of the Internet. And as much as I respect Google, the wireless industry can't be an extension of the Internet because wireless bandwidth is finite. It's a fixed resource and a shared bandwidth. The more people who use it in a given area the less data speed they have, so you can't take the Internet model and just move it to the wireless world. You have to change that model a little bit as you move forward." Is that fair criticism?

ERIC SCHMIDT: That's exactly the same criticism that was said about the wired Internet 15 years ago. That somehow the wired Internet would not scale, would not grow, that we would not learn how to build applications that could work for example in shared what are called hybrid fiber coax networks which you have at your home. The fact of the matter is that the industry can solve these problems and solves them very well. I completely disagree of the characterization that somehow the wireless network is going to be any different than the wired network. People want to use the Internet and they want to use it at home and in their office and when they're on the go and when they're on the airplanes. And they want to use the same powerful applications whether it's a personal device that they're carrying or on their desktop or at the beach.

SPENCER MICHELS: People want to use all the water they want to use, but there isn't enough water, so some people don't have enough water to water their lawns. That doesn't mean it's there.

ERIC SCHMIDT: Technology is different and the technology can create things out of nothing. The fact of the matter is that there's enormous spectrum becoming available through licensing programs, better radio design, faster computers, and so forth that in the next five or 10 years most of us will be carrying around devices that could speak on networks that are faster than the networks we currently use.

SPENCER MICHELS: Do you agree with the boss?

ANDY RUBIN: Absolutely. This is Moore's Law for wireless, or Moore's Law for spectrum. You know when we're on the wired Internet, in my day we had dial-up modems. Then we got DSL, then we got broadband, we're in the megabit speeds. Same thing happened to wireless. Remember those old analog phones where you'd get a dropped call every mile you traveled? Now we have digital phones, we have newer modulations that are helping us pack, densely pack, more calls in a single channel. And I'm just very optimistic that we'll have newer modulations throughout time that'll just get us faster and faster in the broadband areas.

SPENCER MICHELS: So Seybold saying that the bandwidth is finite, is it relevant?

ANDY RUBIN: Technology doesn't stand still.

With all due respect to Mr. Schmidt et all, may I remind him that there are many major differences between a wired and a wireless network? Technology is indeed advancing, and, has certainly changed a great many elements in our lives and the world. However, the laws of physics, particularly those concerning RF and wireless, remain firmly in place. Last I knew, no one had figured out how to completely circumvent them yet, but I know some are working very hard at it. :>)

May I further suggest that it may be far wiser for Google and company - prior to purchasing ANY wireless spectrum - to invest a few of their many dollars and enroll Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Rubin in a Basic Radio (that's the original name for the resource that everyone now calls wireless) 101 course? (IMHO, Radio 101 should be a prerequisite for any IT professional who wants to become involved with wireless IT) Upon successful completion of the course, perhaps each of them will have a clearer understanding of the many differences between a wired (IT) and wireless (RF) network that RF professionals have been attempting to share with them (and that their own IT professionals may NOT have)

(hmmmm....do you suppose my suggestion will help bring the IT and RF guys/gals a little closer to listening, understanding, and actually working with each other through some much needed and shared mutual collaboration? I suppose we can always hope!)

NR

(Repost)

Radio, Wireless, & the Internet -- A Transformative Technology

Fellow blogger Susan Crawford has another excellent post to her blog which I would strongly encourage folks to read for a bit of historical yet very timely deja vu....

Here's an excerpt to get you headed over there:

Transformative Technology

"Another technology was said to overcome key barriers between the voter and the candidate: the barriers of distance, of time, of inertia, and of crowd psychology. It brought to the physically remote voter a type of first-hand information he had never had before.

There was great excitement. Would this new technology prick into quicker, more coherent action our unwieldy democratic giant? Or with its shining novelty would its seeming power too be gone? What were the inherent political potentialities of this new technology? Aside from the immense publicity value which its newness gave it, what could it actually effect in a presidential election?

The new technology was remarkable. It had found a way to dispense with political middlemen. In a fashion it had restored the demos upon which republican government is founded. No candidate would be able to stand up to it who was unprepared to enlighten the electorate. It potentially gave to every member of the electorate the possibility of a direct reaction to the candidates themselves. It reproduced to some degree, for the first time in the United States, the conditions of the Athenian democracy where every voter, for himself, could hear and judge the candidates.

The year was 1924: “…America finds herself this year in the act of virtually choosing her chief executive by an instrument that was up to a brief two years ago generally considered a freakish fad.”

You'll have to visit her site for the balance of her post, but, she's absolutely correct - radio or RF (now commonly labeled "wireless") and Internet technology has and will continue to transform virtually every aspect of our lives and the world in which we live.

Yet another of the many reasons why spectrum matters.....


NR