Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Media United States Hardware Your Rights Online

Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy 237

Posted by timothy from the appropriate-medium dept.
js7a writes "The New America Foundation has published The Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy (pdf). An excellent 14 page guide that everyone should print a few copies of to have handy in the backpack or car. Learn what would happen if the government regulated speech the same way they regulate airwaves. Learn the truth about microbroadcasting, smart radio, and so-called intererence (all previously covered on Slashdot.) Learn more creative ways to tell Congress to stop giving away public resources to private corporations. Make the most of your rights to use unlicensed wireless, before it's too late."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy More

Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy

Comments Filter:
  • These guys just don't get it.

    Loud speakers are regulated too. Tonight at midnight local time, go out to your car, open the windows, and turn up the radio as loud as it will go. Cops will be visiting you shortly for distrubing the piece. See, you need a license if you're going to speak so loudly such that your sound is going to travel beyond your property and/or personal area.

    These are just outlandish comparisions that don't hold water...

    • Re:Licenses and power limits... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gumbi west ( 610122 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @08:29PM (#9227472) Journal
      You may want to read some other information about this topic (or the cartoon itself), he is trying to defend whispering.

      The valid point here is that spread spectrum could allow significantly more dense communication using RF. This would lead to more microbroadcasters (read whisperers) to be able to broadcast.

      • With today's RF technology, you probably could pack the channels closer together. But you still have the problem with getting a channel at (for example) 101.7, but get it with static at 101.5 and 101.9. Not as bad now as it was 10 years ago, but it's still a problem.

        One of the cartoons implied that the military and police frequency get unused most of the time and the public should get access to those frequencies. It's shortsighted and stupid. The 1% of the time where the police or military need the fre
        • You're thinking about what they call 'stupid radio' though. The analogy with the highways illustrates the difference between doling out big chunks of spectrum to various parties, and what can be done with smart (spread spectrum channel hopping etc) radio. They *are* saying that the public should have access to current military and police frequencies, but not in the way you think.
        • I don't know about the US (hah!), but in the UK, the emergency services don't get their own highways; they simply use big signs and sirens on their vehicles and the other traffic gets out of the way. There's no reason the same can't happen on the airwaves.
      • And Circuit City and Best Buy and any number of other places will sell you devices to whisper with, they're the low power FM transmitters you hook up to your portable cd player/ipod/whatever so you can play them on your car stereo.
    • These guys just don't get it.

      No, you don't get it. There have been previous [slashdot.org] slashdot stories on the subject. [slashdot.org]

      Loud speakers are regulated too.

      Exactly! And they want SIMILAR sorts of regulations on radio! There is no objection to reasonable regulations on volume. People shouldn't be throwing out a hundred-kilowatts of radio any more than they should be driving around with a 200 decibel car.

      These are just outlandish comparisions that don't hold water.

      Yes they do. If they seem "outlandish" it's only b

  • They need to regulate. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by domodude ( 613072 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @07:51PM (#9227313)
    The FCC needs to regulate the air waves. Given, they do go a bit far in some cases. What if they did not? Personally, I would not like to be driving down the road listening to some nice music on the radio only to have it interrupted by death metal or the sounds of porn. That 802.11a/b/g connection you are using would be a whole hell of a lot less secure and reliable if they did not regulate.

    • Re:They need to regulate. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday May 22, 2004 @07:55PM (#9227338)
      If the 2.4GHz frequency band didn't have a power limit regulation on it, then it'd simply turn into a game of "biggest transmitter wins". Mega companies could just soak your house in 2.4GHz signals and therefore all of today's WiFi devices would get blown out of the water.
      • right, unless you use a spead spectrum transmission where you hop between many frequencies in a unique patern. If the spreading algo. is capable, it could be possible that everyone could have several transmissions going at once and nobody would know.
        • I don't see how spread spectrum would help. If they're transmitting random noise on every frequency cycle they're not using, no spread spectrum signal would ever be decernable from the noise. There's got to be regulation somewhere, or it really would be chaos.
          • Here is a primer [sss-mag.com] on spread spectrum. It covers some points you might find interesting. like: The military uses it because it is resistent to jaming AND when you use it you are less likely to jam another broadcast.
            • However, that assumes the "other" broadcast is only using part of the available bandwidth on the band. If the jamming is wide enough to cover the whole band, spreading the signal over the band still isn't going to get you anywhere.

              So, jamming does become harder, but not impossible.

              • that assumes the "other" broadcast is only using part of the available bandwidth on the band

                Well, kind'a. It certainly is true that it is possible to stop all RF communication with a large enough noise signal on all frequencies, but that's not really suprising.

                To emit all frequencies you have to have a large amount of power for all frequencies--i.e. 1 kW for 900 MHz and 1 kW for 901 MHz, et cetera. Even then low bandwidth communications could still happen between those, so you need a lot power to cover t

            • Spread Spectrum isn't a majic bullet (Score:5, Informative)

              by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Saturday May 22, 2004 @10:19PM (#9227820)
              > Here is a primer on spread spectrum.

              Key word being primer.

              Look, Spread Spectrum isn't a magik nostrum to solve all ills. It makes it harder to actually intercept the signal but it raises the noise floor across the band it is operating on. Get enough devices operating and the noise floor comes up and smacks you. Toss the regulations and everyone starts cranking up the outpower and that floor will hit you pretty damned fast unless YOU crank up your power, which means your neighbors have to up THEIR power to overcome your contribution to the noise level, spiral out of control to madness.

              Fact: Spectrum is not an infinite resource.

              Fact: Spectrum, like every other finite public resource will be allocated in some fashion.

              Discussing whether the current bandplan is sensible in the age of WiFi and other emerging technologies is a different debate, one I would love to get into; however there isn't much point of trying that in this thread:

              1. This cartoon is a bunch of propaganda from some corporate consortium wanting to SELL lots of small RF devices who managed to tool some leftist think tank to make their arguments for them in terms of anti-corporatism. Kinda silly if you think about it. But with that sort of red meat hanging, the "down with authority" crowd is going to be out in force on this article.

              2. This is slashdot, where the average poster is marginally qualified to discuss complex computer issues, I really doubt any sort of serious discussion would be possible on a subject so outside the average user's area of expertise. (Since the more ignorant the poster the greater the urge to post.)
              • The parent comment is right on. Considering how many people rely on wireless, very very few actually understand how it works (and in many cases, doesn't). I only hope articles like these & their comments teach people something instead of just make people argue and forget about the point. Oh wait, it is /.

                Nick, KG6NMP
                Butte County Sheriff Communications
              • Which consortium is trying to hawk "smart" radio?

                There are apparently a lot of forces involved with spectrum. A lot of hardware manufacturers managed to convince the FCC to allow research into broadband internet over TV frequencies, so that leads me to believe that the TV broadcasting lobbies aren't as powerful as some had feared.

                I really would like to see more unlicenced bands opened up. The bands given to wireless networking are IMO a pittance. I'm just not convinced that this NAF really understand
              • Discussing whether the current bandplan is sensible in the age of WiFi and other emerging technologies is a different debate, one I would love to get into; however there isn't much point of trying that in this thread:

                Right, because idiots like you are sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "la la la, I'm not listening!" It's rather appropriate that your side would have a reception problem. The cartoon is about regulating radio waves like regulating speech. There are lots of regulations on son

              • Fact: Spectrum is not an infinite resource.

                Um, wrong actually. The latest research shows that in networks of smart transmitters/receivers, if you use all the available tricks, the total bandwidth of all the participants goes up proportional to the number of nodes in the network- in other words- total network bandwidth each node sees is constant.

                2. This is slashdot, where the average poster is marginally qualified to discuss complex computer issues, I really doubt any sort of serious discussion would be p

                • Um, wrong actually.

                  You're wrong, as is anyone who conflates "spectrum" and "bandwidth".

                  The latest research shows that in networks of smart transmitters/receivers, if you use all the available tricks, the total bandwidth of all the participants goes up proportional to the number of nodes in the network

                  And also, if everyone became vegetarian, world hunger would end.

                  If you're suggesting a fairly high level of technology be mandatory for every radio, then that is just a different approach to advocating f
        • You will still need power regulation, and in fact radios may be required to have automatic power control so they only talk loud enough to be heard.

          Spread spectrum isn't magic. (It just seems that way :-)). If someone else's spread-spectrum signal is oodles more powerful than yours it can still disrupt your communications.

          Low power also allows reusing a frequency in nearby locations. Cell phones are a perfect example.
  • We've seen this several times along the campaign trail this year, and we're likely to see it several more. Try interrupting a candidate by yelling anything while he's trying to speak, and you're going to get thrown out of the venue.

    See, the owners of the venue have the right to decide who gets to speak on their property, and to throw out the people they don't want there.

    • Re:You don't have the right to heckle... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tukkayoot ( 528280 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @08:24PM (#9227456) Homepage
      But the "venue" in this case are publicly owned airwaves, are they not? In essence, nobody owns them.

      The question is, how much of the spectrum should remain open to the public and how much of the spectrum should be allocated to licensees, and how much interference (if any) on licensed airwaves is permissable and is it practical to allow portions of the spectrum remain unlicensed?

      Most of their analogies seem relavent. Yeah, you may not be able to shout over/interupt a candidate (which would essentially be the equivalent of attempting to use the same part of the spectrum that the candidate is "shouting" over), but you are, generally speaking, allowed to speak in softer tones to those in your immediate vicinity (referred to as "whispering" in the cartoons).

      If it is true that advances in technology allow radio signals to more intelligently distinguish and filter out different signals from different sources, perhaps instead of licensing the entire spectrum (or letting a lot of the spectrum go to waste), they should simply mandate that devices have the technology to "intelligently" distinguish and filter signals.

      • If it is true that advances in technology allow radio signals to more intelligently distinguish and filter out different signals from different sources, perhaps instead of licensing the entire spectrum (or letting a lot of the spectrum go to waste), they should simply mandate that devices have the technology to "intelligently" distinguish and filter signals.

        The logic that the FCC usually uses is that the first group of users allowed to use a given band are declared the "primary users" and have the right t

    • Re:OFFTOPIC!? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bastian ( 66383 )
      Are you mods even reading the article? The entire cartoon guide works on a comparison between achoustic transmissions (rock concerts, conversations, etc.) and radio transmissions.

      In that light, the poster's response is a perfectly valid critique of one of the assertions of this cartoon guide.

      Don't go modding people "Offtopic" if you don't even know what the topic is!

  • Is it just me or... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Roland Piquepaille ( 780675 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @07:52PM (#9227319)
    ...this pdf looks like a japanese VCR user's manual?

  • Cartoon rights guides == great (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jb.hl.com ( 782137 ) <<ten.niwdlab-eoj> <ta> <eoj>> on Saturday May 22, 2004 @07:52PM (#9227320) Homepage Journal
    This sort of thing is the best way to get something through to the public. What's more likely to get people interested: pages of plain text or a comic strip?

    Norml [norml.org] have some excellent comics [norml.org] which do exactly the same thing: put across an issue in an interesting way.

  • Free Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)

    by space oddity ( 564701 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @07:53PM (#9227325)
    Not sure what a few copies of this in the back of your car would do? Maybe you can hand it out with candy at your local school. It doesn't add to any debate, it provides no support for its assertations and propagates myths.

    Not helpful

  • The difference is (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wes Janson ( 606363 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @08:02PM (#9227370) Journal
    your loud speaker can't be heard fifty miles away, and your whispering can't be intercepted or interefere with everyone within a few blocks of your location. Left out that minor detail. It's all a matter of scale.
    • It's all a matter of scale.

      Nobody can speak acoustically and reach a million people. We've reserved specific sections of frequencies for specific uses, including such that a select few who we as the public trust get the right to broadcast on the broadcast channels.

      If we don't like what our broadcasters are doing with the frequencies that they're licensing from the government, we should let the FCC know. Afterall, without complaints, how would they know what to take action on?
    • So why not leave transmissions under a given wattage unregulated? This is okay on the FM band, and many people who want to use their MP3 players in their cars have found that to be very useful.

      • Re:The difference is (Score:4, Informative)

        by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday May 22, 2004 @08:27PM (#9227467)
        Actually, Part 15 of the FCC Rules [gpo.gov] outlines legal use of nearly every band in low-power situations.

        They're very loose when you consider what we're talking about. You can broadcast on the 88-108MHz FM band so long as you keep yourself to a whisper. In fact, a "pirate" AM radio station on a college campus that manages to confine all of its signal to the campus area isn't breaking the law at all...
    • If you spoke loud enough, you could be heard 50 miles away. Of course, you'd need some serious speakers to help you speak that loudly... and noise pollution laws would make doing so illegal.

      If you broadcast at a low power level, it would be very hard to detect from 50 miles away, and your battery life would be prolonged. The equivalent of noise pollution laws might be able to prevent excessive wattage.

      Admittedly it takes less energy to broadcast radio waves discernable from 50 miles than it does to do t
      • "If you spoke loud enough, you could be heard 50 miles away. Of course, you'd need some serious speakers to help you speak that loudly... and noise pollution laws would make doing so illegal."

        Screw that, you probably wouldn't survive the experience. The only times I remember hearing something from 50 miles away involved the space shuttle.

  • Right to recieve... (Score:5, Informative)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday May 22, 2004 @08:10PM (#9227400)
    Everybody has the right to transmit on the FM radio band!

    What, you don't believe me? Just go to your local Best Buy or Circuit City location and look at the iPod accessories. You'll see several models of battery powered FM transmitters. Yep, you can plug those into to your iPod and go, no FCC license required, but batteries are not included.

    Of course, the catch is that it has to comply with some pretty low power limits [gpo.gov] but that's the point. You're only allowed to affect the radios in your immediate area, not to set up a major broadcaster that'd interfere with the already licensed stations.

    See, everybody else has the right to hear what the licenced transmitters are putting out, and your right to broadcast falls when it comes into contact with their right to recieve.
    • For the most part you can have my "right to receive". When I tune across the spectrum, >95% of what's playing I don't like to hear. Ergo, I don't listen to the radio ror more than 40 minutes a week in toto -- well, with one important exception: I gotta have my "Off the Hook" which is available at 2600.com. You see, they are supported by the listeners, and not corporate interests. (I really need to send some money to those guys.)

      I'd totally be willing to listen to some pirate radio if they played the mus

      • Re:Right to recieve... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jardine ( 398197 )
        I gotta have my "Off the Hook" which is available at 2600.com. You see, they are supported by the listeners, and not corporate interests. (I really need to send some money to those guys.)

        The entire radio station (WBAI in New York) is listener supported. The great thing about Off the Hook is that almost all of the shows since the beginning are available in mp3 (there are a few shows that have no known recording). So you can listen to Off the Hook from 1989 onwards. I'm up to Oct 1992.
    • Even if you don't interfere with broadcasters you can still get it trouble. If you set up a "pirate" station at low-to-medium power on an unused frequency the FCC can shut you down.

      It's a crude and inefficient regulatory system designed to work with receivers using 1930's technology.

      >You're only allowed to affect the radios in your immediate area, not to set up a major broadcaster that'd interfere with the already licensed stations.

      Your cellphone doesn't interfere with mine even if we're next to each

      • Re:Right to recieve... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by alienw ( 585907 )
        If you set up a "pirate" station at low-to-medium power on an unused frequency the FCC can shut you down.

        That's because it probably interferes with another licensed station (not necessarily in the FM band -- ever hear about harmonics?). Otherwise, that frequency would be allocated to somebody else.

        It's a crude and inefficient regulatory system designed to work with receivers using 1930's technology.

        Most receivers still use something pretty close to 1930s technology. Your basic radio receiver hasn't
        • We could even be on the same frequency

          Only if you use TDM and there is more channel bandwidth than you can use.

          Actually CDMA can support a large number of phones on the same frequency. I don't remember the average number, but its something like 16 or 32 per frequency. Walsh codes are a very cool thing.

          • Yes.

            But its still a finite number of transmissions per frequency per time slice.

            Spectrum is finite. There is a mathematical absolute limit to how much data you can stick into a given amount of spectrum at a given power level. There is no way around it.

            FDMA, TDMA, CDMA, they're neat hacks to maximize usage, but eventually without regulation you will run out of spectrum.

  • How about Italy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eric76 ( 679787 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @08:33PM (#9227484)
    I read an article a few years ago that said that Italy allows anyone to open a radio or tv station that wishes to do so.

    According to the article the results were pretty interesting. An enormous choice of things to listen to, some with really limited interest to most of us. One example the article gave was a 24 hour Hare Krishna station broadcasting nothing but chanting 24 hours a day.

    I've long wished that the same rights were available in the U.S. If the law was changed tomorrow, I'd be in the market tomorrow for the equipment to set up my own radio station. If it could reach 20 miles, I'd be happy.

    • Re:How about Italy? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      One example the article gave was a 24 hour Hare Krishna station broadcasting nothing but chanting 24 hours a day.

      No, that was actually a Bush Presidential Address regarding the Iraqi war.
    • One example the article gave was a 24 hour Hare Krishna station broadcasting nothing but chanting 24 hours a day. I've long wished that the same rights were available in the U.S.

      I bet people don't borrow your CDs much

  • Human audible frequency spectrum.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There is a typo in page 16 (page 10 of the pdf [newamerica.net] file.

    Humans can hear frequencies from 20 Hz to 20 kHz
    not 20 kHz to 20000 kHz.

    The 0 kHz in the radio makes me think somebody typoed all "Hz" words to "kHz".

  • Cartoon Guide, eh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sounds like they are finally reaching out to Dubya!

  • Why you can't use an FM radio RECEIVER on a PLANE. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 22, 2004 @08:48PM (#9227528)
    Here's a little tidbit of knowledge for you folks:

    Modern FM receivers work by mixing a beat frequency with the frequency you want to receive. You wind up with (a+b) and (a-b), one of which is trivially filtered out with a high (or low) pass filter.

    Now there's a nice, simple, standard design (and corresponding set of chips) for handling FM at a particular frequency. So given your target frequency (a), you can choose a beat frequency (b) such that (a-b) matches the standard chip frequency.

    For standard US FM radio, that beat (b) frequency is right in the middle of the aircraft band.

    Aircraft use AM for their comm gear.

    So your little FM walkman receiver can jam air-to-ground comms.

    That's a RECEIVER! Once you get into transmitters, it's really easy to jam everything around for miles. Not only on your frequency, which may be quite wide, but also on all the harmonics.

    Take it from someone who used to jam his little brother's radio reception. "Turn it down or I turn it OFF!"

    • I am not saying you are wrong, but please tell me, how do you reconcile your statements with the FCC warning on every transmitter that (paraphrased) "This device does not emit anything, but must accept any interference caused by other devices." ?

      If every radio in fact emitted radio waves, even if only to weakly mix with existing strong signals but enough to interfere with the plane, why would this statement exist?
      • You are misreading the statement. It says that the device may not cause harmful interference, that means if it does cause harmful interference, it is the legal obligation of the device's owner to stop using the device, have it repaired, or whatever is needed to stop the interference.

        See this page [i-spec.com] for a listing of the FCC EMC rules.

    • I tried googling for this without success, but there was an article on Slashdot about this very subject a while back, where a company developed a highway billboard which would detect what radio station you're listening to and track the results. It does this using the method you've described -- detect the base frequency that radios are emitting.

  • factual error (Score:3, Informative)

    by inio ( 26835 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @09:48PM (#9227743) Homepage
    One error popped out while I was reading it. In the section near the end on failures of the analogy, it lists the human hearing range as 20-20,000kHz. That should be Hz, not kHz. Right next to that they list the usable EM spectrum as 0Hz-30GHz. I've never seen a radio that could tune below 10kHz.

    • Re:factual error (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nick0909 ( 721613 )
      Correct, while Very Low Frequency radios exist the bands are not usable. In the 50s there was much experimentation in these areas, but mosly listening to nature make noises and seeing how transmissions on these bands affected nature. Naturally occurring ELF & VLF radio phenomena make it very hard to reliably use this area for communications, especially when you can bump up a few hz and get much better results. Also, how would you transmit on 0Hz? Your antenna would be infinitely large...

    • Re:factual error (Score:3, Informative)

      by westlake ( 615356 )
      The Navy has used 76 Hz to communicate with submarines 300-400 ft down. Stations, ITU Licences and Services Below 22 KHz [www.vlf.it].

  • Rediculous (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FractusMan ( 711004 ) *
    A Comic format to emphasize the point of the very important issue of radio regulation? No. If it took making the article into a cartoon format to get through to someone, that particular person most likely did not care enough about the issue in the first place, and if they do now, they've already shown themselves to be less than active in the area. Chances are they'll remain so.

    No, a properly written article on the benefits and draw backs of liscencing the airwaves would have been better - using frank a

  • Like a wireless network instead of 'broadcasting' which is outdated. Broadcasting is old school and is a waste of time. We need a public longdistance wifi network.

  • Umm, the Military is Losing Out Too... (Score:5, Informative)

    by airider ( 728197 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @09:59PM (#9227770)
    Last I heard the military is losing out to commercial interests as well. They're losing out on new freqs for expanded comms and radar to commercial interests. Main reason...government agencies are forbidden to lobby other government agencies. In the end the military is fighting for the scraps as well since they can't "contribute" (cough, cough) to the FCC's decision making process the way corporations can.

  • What about old radios? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nwbvt ( 768631 )
    "...whereas radios have until recently had no advanced computer processors to analyze radio waves. But as the computer revolution comes to radio, this is rapidly changing."

    How recently is this guy talking about? Will the radio in my '92 Acura be able to work like that? What about even older devices? Or would the recommended policy make all those radios obsolete?

    I'm generally against overuse of government power, but it seems the new technology has to fully overtake the old technology before the govern

  • Freedom of Speech Primer (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ReadParse ( 38517 ) <john@fun[ ]ow.com ['nyc' in gap]> on Saturday May 22, 2004 @10:52PM (#9227916) Homepage
    Here we go again. Let's review what Freedom of Speech is not:

    1) The right to say something offensive to somebody before they beat your ass. You're protected under the law as a victim of the crime of battery, but the perp didn't violate your free speech rights.
    2) The right to say something at work that gets you fired. Your employer has no obligation to let you say anything you want. They have the right to put their own best interests first with regard to your speech.
    3) And yes, the right to broadcast on radio and television. It's not a right, it's a privilege. More about that in a moment.

    So, what is this mysterious freedom of speech that people talk about all the time? Well, it's hard for many Americans (most westerners, actually) to understand what it really means, because we've never known anything else. Well, like calling President Bush an idiot, for example. You're allowed to do that. You won't get shot or thrown in jail for saying it. You're allowed to say basicaly anything you want to and the federal government can't come after you for it, with some obvious exceptions:

    1) If you suggest that you're going to harm the President or anybody else under Secret Service protection.
    2) If you call in a bomb threat or any other kind of threat.
    3) If you lie to an investigator or in a court of law

    ...things like that. It's understandable that, since most westerners have never experienced anything that comes close to a free speech violation, we have a way of making them up. Things like this are a good example.

    Now, back to the topic at hand. It's probably a great idea, now that radios are getting good enough to distinguish the signal they want from the signal they don't want. Of course, you can't really expect the government to jump on this development immediately. One great thing about radio is that it's really backward compatible. You can still use radios from many decades ago and they work just fine.

    The part where I get upset is when people get upset about evil corporations buying the airwaves. Yes, the FCC has had some pretty crappy decisions in the last 15 years or so about their ownership rules, allowing companies like Clear Channel and Cox to reallly build major empires. But it's not a free speech violation. We do not and have never had any right to broadcast on public airwaves within certain frequencies. The reason for this is that those frequences are not unlimited. In fact, they're quite limited. So they are a public trust and must be regulated by the government. Don't like it? Go invent something better.

    RP

  • Who is the "New America Foundation"? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CaptainCheese ( 724779 ) on Saturday May 22, 2004 @11:20PM (#9227992) Journal
    from their site "The Foundation invests in outstanding individuals and policy ideas that transcend the conventional political spectrum."
    and they're funded by "public intellectuals, civic leaders, and business executives." Although if these "intellectuals, civic leaders, and business executives." are so public, why don't they want to publicly put their names to this organisation.

    It seems to me that they're a professional political lobbyists - guns for hire, if you will - but who pays their wages? I don't like the idea of raising the profile of an organisation without knowing exactly who they are... ...after all, for all we know, next month they'll get hired by neo-nazis and start promoting death camps and slavery!
  • Astronomers have radio telescopes that are extremely sensitive. Some areas of the frequency spectrum are more interesting than others (those that can pass through the ionosphere, for example). So let's pretend these scientists are dogs with hearing so acute that someone blowing an ultrasonic dog whistle 1000s of miles away is painful, or hides the sounds made by rare pelagic squirrels. They're glad ultrasonic whistles are banned but willing to tolerate whistles at other frequencies.

  • Not all or nothing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 )
    Spectrum regulation does not have to be all-or-nothing. There can be heavily regulated sections and non-regulated sections (as long as you broadcast within the specified non-regulated range).

    Some applications of radio/TV/ephones work better for pre-defined bands and some work better under free-for-all.

    Let's have ranges set aside for some of each and let the market-place decide which they will choose.

  • Cancer? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 )
    With all the new uses of radio waves coming, won't we be bombarded by too much radiation? If every frequency just about is being used, that must mean a lot of electron particles flying through the air and through our brains and asses. (Please no jokes about goatse sitting on a cell phone.) How far are we from dangerous levels at this time?

    • No way (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Scott Richter ( 776062 )
      With all the new uses of radio waves coming, won't we be bombarded by too much radiation? If every frequency just about is being used, that must mean a lot of electron particles flying through the air and through our brains and asses. (Please no jokes about goatse sitting on a cell phone.) How far are we from dangerous levels at this time?

      Nowhere close. Radio waves cannot effect electronic transitions in DNA. Period. At that point, it has to be a massive radiation density argument, and the W/m2 created

  • What should happen is that the FCC should be eliminated. Private individuals and companies should then be allowed to homestead the airwaves -- by using them -- just like people homestead unowned land. If I start using a certain bandwidth frequency within a certain radius, I've homesteaded the use fo that bandwidth frequency within that radius, and courts can enforce property rights in that.

    See For a New Liberty: The New Libertarian Manifesto -- Personal Liberty. Murray N. Rothbard. Search for "Freedom of [mises.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close