openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to PDXPLT
Re: Hell hath frozen over ...
said by PDXPLT  :Wow, TCH is advocating more government regulation!? Next thing you know, he'll want government permits issued for different categories of stores, so that competitors "don't step on each other". There's a difference. Physical stores are prevented from "stepping" on each other because they literally require physical space. You can't build a Lowes on top of a Home Depot store. Yes they can be next to each other and compete, which is great btw. There is no "physical separation" in unlicensed spectrum, therefore allowing providers to step all over each other. Two unlicensed transceivers right next to each other has potential to cause problems. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Precisely. It's no different than having two competing radio or TV stations on adjacent channels. That works fine. Putting them both on the same frequency obviously doesn't.
Self-regulation of RF spectrum users has never worked. Ever.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | said by RadioDoc :Self-regulation of RF spectrum users has never worked. Ever. I beg to differ. There are plenty of examples:
-- There are 600,000+ Amateur radio operators in the U.S.; while they are licensed to operate in certain bands, within those bands they are entirely self-regulated; e.g., no licensee is given exclusive use of the spectrum. They seem to manage themselves quite well.
-- FRS, CB, and other unlicensed (or non-exclusive licensed) 2-way radio services similarly function the way these services were intended.
-- Wi-Fi-based WISP's and hotspots share spectrum on a non-exclusive basis. In urban areas especially, you hear about conflicts between coffee shops, etc. The parties usually manage to find a way to compromise.
Really, this issue of sharing use of spectrum is not fundamentally different than any other application of the classic "commons" problem. It was axiomatic in the field of economics (game theory) that these situations would inevitably lead to anarchy, until Nash proved that equilibrium conditions can exist.
This is a hot research topic in university EE dept's (for example "The Multiuser Non-cooperative Cognitive Radio Networks Viewed as a Game-theoretic Problem" in »bul.ece.ubc.ca/Simon_Haykin_Cogn···2007.pdf.)
Self-regulation was much more difficult, if not impossible, with the state of technology back in the 1930's, when the FCC was first created by the Communications Act, and what the FCC now refers to as the "Command and Control" exclusive-use licensing schemes were enacted. With connitive sensing and flexibily radio technology, they are going to be more and more moving to more modern, flexible spectrum approaches.
Go to the FCC web site, and read the Spectrum Policy Task Force Report, to see where things are headed. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Hams are licensed and tend to respect it. Not a good example for you.
CB is a mess. FRS has very limited range.
Consumer WiFi has such limited range that it's not much of an issue unless you're in an apartment building. In that case it's a free-for-all. WISPs tend to use highly directional antennas. People attempt to modify equipment and add amplifiers to get past the interference. This is not 'equilibrium' unless you think barely functional systems are a good thing.
You give the mass market anything that can transmit more than a few hundred feet and you've got RF anarchy.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
