I learned the other day that the Commission had terminated a couple of proceedings that might have cast some light on all this spectrum policy wrangling.
One had to do with receiver standards. It's very hard to move towards using spectrum more efficiently if you're stuck dealing with a bunch of dumb legacy devices. (Even if devices could just promise to receive IP packets that might make them smart enough. But a lot of devices can't yet do that, of course.)
The other had to do with interference. If you don't have any measurements for interference, it's hard for anyone to discuss what it means or how much is too much. Someone can always claim that planes just might fall from the sky if someone else does X or Y.
Because the incumbent carriers (both telcos and television broadcasters) are perfectly happy with dumb-but-customized devices and can work out their own interference deals behind closed doors, they don't mind having these proceedings end. But their absence makes it harder for the rest of the ecosystem to predict the future and attract investment. Many years of work went into these two proceedings. (I see that Harold blogged about this eons ago.)
We can't move all of communications into the internet model - the "indifferent transport" model - using the white spaces without piercing this darkness.
|
|
||||||
Comments
Re: Darkness
As an ICANN Director, planted by Esther Dyson, you should be very
familiar with processes that operate in the dark and claim to shed light on the world. The world is not fooled. More than a few people see thru the opaque ICANN charade, and they are routing around it. It is not clear that you really know what the "internet model" is. One of the main features is that the .NET routes around damage. There is no central committee to determine what or where the damage is. Despite your efforts to control the .NET via ICANN, and also the FCC, it will not be possible. That of course does not prevent people like you and Esther from trying. For some people view you is entertainment, tilting at the windmills (or webmills) of the .NET. With respect to the "internet model", as a Google Groupie, you may want to note the excellent talk presented by Van Jacobson[1]. Since Van continues to engage in technical activities (unlike the never ending stream of .NET politicians), Van is starting to see how the old "internet model" may be wrong, or the hard way to look at things. He compares this era to the time when people thought that the Earth was at the center of the solar system. Some things could be explained, but other theories did not work. Moving the Sun to the center, made the puzzle easier to solve. Your outdated views about "internet models" and the implicit view that ICANN is at the center of the .NET are not reality. As you continue to tour around and tell people that the Earth is flat and at the center of the solar system, you may want to note that people give you a polite nod and then move on. I hope that everyone gives ICANN a polite nod, and moves on. As Van Jacobson points out, these are really good times. We should all be happy we have low-cost broadband digital dial-tone, and build from there. ...the broad-band .NET community no longer has to be delayed and derailed by groupies that have no clue... [1] A New Way to look at Networking [...a new way ? or a different way that some people always knew...] "Today as in the 60s problems go unsolved due to our tunnel vision and not because of their intrinsic difficulty. And now, like then, simply changing our point of view may make many hard things easy." Van Jacobson is a Research Fellow at PARC. Prior to that he was Chief Scientist and co-founder of ... all ยป Packet Design. Prior to that he was Chief Scientist at Cisco. Prior to that he was head of the Network Research group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He's been studying networking since 1969. Re: Darkness
The interesting thing to me about this pair of actions is that both were Spectrum Policy Task Force recommendations. The receiver standard issue was noncontroversial and even supported by NTIA. The interference issue was the dreaded "interference temperature" proposal that struck fear in the heart of all incumbents by proposing to quantify their rights and take them out of the ploitical "8th floor" arena. Both met the same fate.
But oddly, a few weeks later the 700 MHz R&O basically implemented SPTF Recommendation #27 now called "public safety/private partnerships" - never mentioning SPTF. |
blogs to read
Contact information
|
|||||
