The FCC has announced it’s considering using unlicensed spectrum to provide connectivity in rural areas. This would include Wifi as well as other technologies that may arise. While this sounds promising and enlightened, some of the people I trust on this topic (AKA the evil slave masters who mold my mind) tell me that shoe-horning connectivity into unlicensed bands is the wrong way to go. Rather, Open Spectrum would not only deliver more bits — as many bits as anyone could want — but would open up the ether for the sort of end-to-end computing that enabled the Internet to flourish.

WiFi, after all, operates on two unlicensed “channels” (2.4gH for 802.11b and 5.7gH for the newly-introduced 802.11a). Why restrict access to a single frequency or two? In the old days (= now) it was assumed that signals had to operate within discrete bands because otherwise they would “interfere” with one another. But new technology obviates that model. (In fact, it turns out that even the metaphors are seriously off.) Modern devices can negotiate their frequencies as they go, like cars switching lanes, which maximizes the throughput of a highway. And Ultra-Wide Band can pack an enormous amount of information in short bursts that cut across all frequencies. Current law — permitting only those with FCC-granted licenses to use particular frequencies — is based on bad science and worse technology.

So, open the spectrum and you get: more bits than anyone can eat anywhere you get radio reception. You also give everyone with a connection many of the capabilities of the national broadcasters, which is a scary thought but only if you’re a broadcaster.

Spectrum without permission. What a concept.

(I have a white paper on open spectrum here. And my evil mind molders are Jock Gill, David Reed and Dewayne Hendricks. Don’t blame them for what I get wrong, though; they haven’t read this blog entry, for example.)

Categories: Uncategorized dw