Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ftth who wrote (35525)	9/6/2010 4:50:26 PM
From: Charles Brown	1 Recommendation Respond to of 46821

A number of salient insights in this discussion. petere: "‘Validity’ comes from statutes and rules, not technology” siliconinvestor.com A schism has developed in the wireless industry. The significant discussion is not a debate about technological alternatives and public benefit. It is about who makes the rules. The nexus vision of the future of wireless communications is frightening to me. I believe it is no less than a betrayal of our inheritance and must be resisted at all costs. In short, it’s Orwellian vision is indefensible in terms of the socio-economic-political sphere. >ftth: All that considered, cognitive radio could be at a tipping point, and could die from neglect due to an increase in perceived lack of necessity. It’s already dead in Congress and at the FCC. Indeed, lack of “necessity and viability” is the nexus trope. The white spaces deal is signed, sealed, and will be delivered on cue later this month. Nothing to see here folks, move along please. I posit that the “unfettered market” is a better arbiter in terms of what people see, hear, and from which they feel and experience benefit. I am completely comfortable with the challenge of the the nexus model vs the Renaissance Radio model. It won't even be close. A “spectrum parallel universe” is a great metaphor. May I borrow it ftth? The parallel universe can exist without “interference” with the nexus model, except perhaps with respect to its revenue streams. Aye, there’s the rub. The nexus will never accept that argument and will claim “interference” on technical grounds, real or imagined, and on which they can put the forces of atrophy to work. But like string theory, they won't be able to prove anything outside of their own universe. >ftth: A solid case could be made that (as a high level concept anyway) it serves the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." That is a necessary argument for the spectrum gatekeepers to make. There are people within the regulatory regime and government who understand the importance of the development of alternatives but they don’t know what to do, as they see it anyway. It’s sad. >ftth: For similar reasons as the energy debate (fossil fuels vs alternative energy), "fossil spectrum" is running out while consumption increases, and a determined effort to make the multi-year transition to "alternative spectrum" should probably be a national priority, with a 10-20 year plan and annual milestones. The analogy to the energy situation is relevant with the notable exception that funding is scarce for scalable architectures using cognitive/software defined radio systems which lead to scalable, competitive infrastructure, while funds pour into the alt energy sector. This is indicative of the nature of the task at hand, and the ironic disposition toward their self-interest on the part of the government, citizenry, and investors. That will change though. 5, 10, 20-year plans - it won’t happen like that. It can’t. In another 10-15 years the expertise will have thinned-out considerably as well. We have the tools now; we need to use them now. It’s puzzling to me as to why anyone would think it practical to show-up at the FCC/Congress, or anywhere else for that matter, with a "well thought-out plan" to move the nation/world to another wireless comms model over the objections of the nexus. It’s DOA and utterly useless, and in any event, it's foolish to disclose strategy and tactics in advance of a battle like this one. Would you prescribe the rules for engineering and development in such an effort as well? I think that would be a huge, perhaps fatal mistake. As Energy Secty. Chu put it (paraphrasing), “Turn it over to the engineers and stuff will start happening.” It's a team effort that requires leadership, and it's worldwide - it’s a cultural process as well. >One thing is certain...there will be much opposition to any new seeds being planted. Yes, and there always are. A brief look at the cognitive radio R&O from 2005 will provide some sense of the Sisyphean task of just getting to something meaningful to discuss in this regard with the nexus. fcc.gov The “spectrum parallel universe” is realistic, it’s doable, and the sustainable benefits are there on multiple levels. In time, it will become mainstream. I seriously doubt there is common ground to be found between the opposing views; perhaps later, but the timing is not yet propitious. If the nexus has its way, it never will happen.

To: ftth who wrote (35525)	9/6/2010 6:05:12 PM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Respond to of 46821

Hi ftth, >> Can that happen in the face of the FCC believing its National Broadband Plan goal of "freeing up" 500MHz of spectrum in the coming years is a solution for at least the next decade?<< I think you have to look deeper in the NBP Spectrum plan than just the NBP 5.8 500 MHz for Mobile/Broadband. 5.2 A plan for a spectrum measurement campaign with NTIA 5.3 An ongoing spectrum plan 5.9, 10 Make fixed Microwave spectrum use more efficient 5.11 More contiguous unlicensed spectrum (NPRM Dec, 2010) 5.12 Complete the TVWS proceeding 5.13 More opportunistic use of spectrum 5.14 The Science of spectrum access 5.17 The needs of the U.S. Tribal Communities I think these other parts are more important than the 500 MHz, and point to cognitive radio as a tipping point. petere