IP: Re: Response to David Reed

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Sender: bhunsake () aur alcatel com
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:42:42 -0400
> From: Brent Hunsaker <brent.hunsaker () usa alcatel com>
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Subject: Re: IP: Re: Response to David Reed
>
>
> > > Sender: rberger () imap ultradevices com
> > > Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:49:10 -0700
> > > From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger () ultradevices com>
> > >
> > >
> > > I haven't seen the TV/Radio broadcasters being open to sharing or leasing
> > > their spectrum and they got it for free...
>
> When the VHF spectrum was first allocated few wanted that spectrum. Because
> these broadcasters were transmitting to the public as a whole they were given
> use of that spectrum with requirments to provide for the public need free of
> charge.
>
> I am assuming the systems you are speaking of wanting to introduce here is for
> private use. What services to the community would your systems provide?
>
> > > The ARRL is already protesting the sharing of their spectrum with
> > > Ultrawideband and they got their spectrum allocations for free too...
>
> To extend the analogy of property ownership into the RF spectrum usage,
> amateur radio operators where the original users of the RF spectrum. Just as
> families settled the west and gained the ownership of land without paying for
> it does not mean they loose their ownership of that land just because someone
> else wants it.
>
> The ARRL was formed in part so the Hams could have a voice in how the spectrum
> is used. Hams have seen their use of the spectrum confined to smaller and
> smaller pieces over the last 100 years.
>
> Their services to the community is still at no cost to the community. During
> desasters the Ham community gives of their time and effort at no cost to our
> community. That is their cost for playing in the spectrum for free.
>
> > > Monopolists don't ever want to share even lease (see open access in Cable
> > > TV, Telecom Act with the ILECs) if it cuts into their Monopoly...
> > >
> > > I don't see a market mechanism emerging where incumbent monopolists will
> > > allow even non interfering Ultrawideband to begin to develop.
>
> I have yet to see true non-interfering RF transmissions. CDMA was designed to
> be robust against single point interfering transmissions. Yes, the transmitted
> energy is spread out across a greater portion of the spectrum, but it still
> contributes to the energy level in that spectrum, raising the noise floor.
>
> > > My suggestion is to have a market mechanism for legacy uses of spectrum
> > > with the explicit regulatory statement that all spectrum must be open to
> > > non-interfering secondary uses (such as Ultrawideband or SDR radios that
> > > find and utilize unused local bandwidth for instance). Legacy devices that
> > > are more than 10 years old should not be used to determine interference.
>
> Following your logic here and using the Ham bands with the SDR radios as
> secondary users, the SDR radio will find a frequency not being used at a given
> moment will begin to transmit on that frequency. When the Ham goes to that
> frequency to transmit will the SDR radio stop transmitting and move to another
> frequency? Or does the Ham have to go else where? As the SDR radios
> proliferate in that spectrum and use more of it will the Ham loose use of that
> spectrum? That sounds more like spectrum squating than spectrum sharing.
>
> > > We can then transition from the market legacy to a technologically
> > > mediated sharing of an inexhaustible medium.
>
> Picking up the real property analogy, the RF spectrum is a scarce resource.
> Due to the physical aspects of RF transmissions limits must be placed on the
> spectrum use. I disagree with your conclusion that this is an inexhaustible
> medium.
> Brent Hunsaker



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/