RadioBanter - View Single Post

Mike Coslo · July 28th 08, 04:09 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated

wrote in news:d7e2966c-1f78-4b35-9a0f-
:

On Jul 27, 2:37�am, Mike Coslo wrote:

This is a presumed frequency agile system that won't
interfere with other
signals already on the band. If it works, one possible
outcome is that no
available frequency will be found, and no connection
made. Failure is a built in option!

IMHO:

I think this whole business of "overlays", unlicensed users, and such,
is not the way to go. I think we (and more important, the FCC)
need to step back and get some basic concepts re-established.

I couldn't agree with you more, Jim!

The whole basis of licensing and regulation is to get the most and
best use of a limited resource (the RF spectrum) with minimum
interference. That's what started licensing in 1912, and is the whole
reason for the radio part of FCC.

And for a long time, if you wanted to intentionally radiate RF, you
needed at least one FCC license, and had to abide by the rules of that
license. If you unintentionally radiated enough RF, FCC would not let
you continue doing so.

Different parts of the RF spectrum were allocated for different uses.
Sharing of the same spectrum between licensed services worked with
varying degrees of success.

The idea of allowing unlicensed intentional RF emitters to share RF
spectrum with licensed ones probably dates back to the first "phono
oscillators" that used the AM BC band to let you play records through
a radio. That was a marginal idea in its time, but it's turned into a
very bad idea today.

The big problem of BPL isn't that it could interfere with us hams -
lots of things can do that. The big problem was that an unintentional
(and effectively unlicensed) RF emitter was and is being given
priority over and above licensed users. (See many reports of hams who
report interference from BPL, yet the BPL system is allowed to
continue operating).

Somehow, somewhere, the concept of "the greater good" came into play.
When coupled with the "regulation is bad" idea, it took on a new and dare
I say evil life of its own. Normally the greater good is a buzzword for
rwgulation fans. Here it was turned on it's head - since more people
were/are unlicensed, their greater good could overwhelm the licensed
users, who were part of the old, regulated paradigm.

The idea that various unlicensed users can "overlay" on top of
licensed ones, and that the whole business of licensing and regulation
can be relaxed, sounds pretty good at first.

It only sounds good to those who believe in ideology based physics.

But in reality, problems
do arise, and then the unlicensed users don't want to shut down. Often
they are unaware of the interference.

It is also very likely that they just don't care.

It's just bad engineering and bad planning. If RF spectrum is needed
for new technologies, allocate it! License the new technologies to use
their own allocations, rather than stepping all over other folks'.

I think that steps on the toes of ideology though. Keep in mind that I
think you are 100 percent correct.

And stop permitting so much RF pollution from unintentional emitters.
It's just not necessary; the technology exists to do things right.

Old-fashioned ideas? Maybe, but that doesn't mean they are bad ideas.

Might it be that the new fashioned ideas are just plain wrong? There
are some things that do not need regulation. If everyone were to get a
very good education, most things would not need regulation. However, our
society (in the US at least) tends toward specialization. Without a very
liberal education (whoee, now that's PI!) people are dependent on other
specialists to make policy for anything outside their own narrow
specialty. This naturally tends toward regulation. I don't like it. I
wish everyone was educated enough to make rational decisions on their
own. Unless I misunderestimate people.

- 73 d eMike N3LI -