http://www.sifry.com/alerts/2002/05/the-tragedy-of-the-radio-spectrum-commons/ Dave Sifry's Musings Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:38:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://www.sifry.com/alerts/2002/05/the-tragedy-of-the-radio-spectrum-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Hamish MacEwan Mon, 13 May 2002 22:04:40 +0000 http://www.sifry.org/alerts/?p=35#comment-15 “[1]Presentation to the Technical Advisory Council ([2]TAC) of the [3]FCC by [4]Vanu [5]Bose "[6]Software Radio: Enabling Dynamic Spectrum Management" and [7]David Reed "[8]How wireless networks scale: the illusion of spectrum scarcity."” “Counterintuitive results from multiuser information theory, network architectures, and physics: * Multipath increases capacity * Repeating increases capacity * Motion increases capacity * Repeating reduces energy (safety) * Distributed computation increases battery life * Channel sharing decreases latency and jitter” Highly recommended presentation suggesting that the cost of spectrum management by "exclusive property rights" mandated by the State outweighs the advantages we could obtain from a new model that acknowledges physics and the 70 years of receiver development since the regulatory model was adopted at the time of the sinking of the Titanic. Also suggests that tragedy of the commons, desirable as it is as justification for those with a bleak view of human self-interest, is more counter-intuitive and less inevitable in WLAN than we might expect. Hamish. References 1. <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/mt042602.ram" rel="nofollow">http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/mt042602.ram</a> 2. <a href="http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/tac.html" rel="nofollow">http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/tac.html</a> 3. <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fcc.gov/</a> 4. <a href="http://www.vanu.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.vanu.com/</a> 5. <a href="http://www.sds.lcs.mit.edu/~vanu/home.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.sds.lcs.mit.edu/~vanu/home.html</a> 6. <a href="http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~cjackson/TAC/vanuinc-tac.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~cjackson/TAC/vanuinc-tac.pdf</a> 7. <a href="http://www.reed.com/dprframeweb/dprframe.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.reed.com/dprframeweb/dprframe.asp</a> 8. <a href="http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~cjackson/TAC/Spectrum%20capacity%20myth%20FCC%20TAC.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~cjackson/TAC/Spectrum%20capacity%20myth%20FCC%20TAC.pdf</a> “[1]Presentation to the Technical Advisory Council ([2]TAC) of the [3]FCC by [4]Vanu [5]Bose “[6]Software Radio: Enabling Dynamic Spectrum Management” and [7]David Reed “[8]How wireless networks scale: the illusion of spectrum scarcity.””
“Counterintuitive results from multiuser information theory, network architectures, and physics:
* Multipath increases capacity
* Repeating increases capacity
* Motion increases capacity
* Repeating reduces energy (safety)
* Distributed computation increases battery life
* Channel sharing decreases latency and jitter”
Highly recommended presentation suggesting that the cost of spectrum management by “exclusive property rights” mandated by the State outweighs the advantages we could obtain from a new model that acknowledges physics and the 70 years of receiver development since the regulatory model was adopted at the time of the sinking of the Titanic.
Also suggests that tragedy of the commons, desirable as it is as justification for those with a bleak view of human self-interest, is more counter-intuitive and less inevitable in WLAN than we might expect.
Hamish.
References
1. http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/mt042602.ram
2. http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/tac.html
3. http://www.fcc.gov/
4. http://www.vanu.com/
5. http://www.sds.lcs.mit.edu/~vanu/home.html
6. http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~cjackson/TAC/vanuinc-tac.pdf
7. http://www.reed.com/dprframeweb/dprframe.asp
8. http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~cjackson/TAC/Spectrum%20capacity%20myth%20FCC%20TAC.pdf

]]> http://www.sifry.com/alerts/2002/05/the-tragedy-of-the-radio-spectrum-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Bennett Kobb Mon, 13 May 2002 17:45:12 +0000 http://www.sifry.org/alerts/?p=35#comment-14 It sounds as if you're proposing the "spectrum etiquette," in the 1910-1920, 1920-1930, and 2390-2400 MHz bands for unlicensed Part 15 devices. It already exists, enshrined in the FCC rules. I proposed it in 1991. It may not be perfect, but it is an alternative approach. It permits devices of unlike manufacture to intelligently share the spectrum without having to exchange information. No manufacturers of unlicensed data communications products ever used it. That's right -- two of the three bands are unused for unlicensed data communications. 802.11b captured their investment. The FCC has now proposed to re-allocate these three bands, and likely to auction them. One of these bands (1920-1930 MHz) is used for enterprise-level cordless phone systems. Virtually all of the proponents of this etiquette were members of IEEE 802.11, by the way. Eventually we turned our attention to what is now 802.11a at 5 GHz. It sounds as if you’re proposing the “spectrum etiquette,” in the 1910-1920, 1920-1930, and 2390-2400 MHz bands for unlicensed Part 15 devices. It already exists, enshrined in the FCC rules. I proposed it in 1991. It may not be perfect, but it is an alternative approach. It permits devices of unlike manufacture to intelligently share the spectrum without having to exchange information. No manufacturers of unlicensed data communications products ever used it. That’s right — two of the three bands are unused for unlicensed data communications. 802.11b captured their investment. The FCC has now proposed to re-allocate these three bands, and likely to auction them. One of these bands (1920-1930 MHz) is used for enterprise-level cordless phone systems. Virtually all of the proponents of this etiquette were members of IEEE 802.11, by the way. Eventually we turned our attention to what is now 802.11a at 5 GHz.

]]>