Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT renonevada.net>]

Hi:  That was nice.  Imagine, then, speech->text mixed in with that concept, 
eh?

If Hollywood was upset before, wait'll this hits 'em!
Thanks,
Tom



On Monday 20 May 2002 11:26, James S. Huggins \(DMCA Discuss\) wrote:
> Because of all our discussion, including particularly our discussion of
> "scarcity", this article from Dan Gillmor seemed particularly appropriate.
>
> James S. Huggins
>
>
>
>
>
>
> S I L I C O N V A L L E Y . C O M
> http://www.siliconvalley.com/
>
> DAN GILLMOR ON TECHNOLOGY
> Monday May 20, 2002
>
>
> E-mail Dan at dgillmor AT sjmercury.com
> _____________________________
>
>
>
> Imagine: world with unlimited airwaves
>
> It's long been an article of faith that the airwaves are a
>  scarce resource. On this notion rides the existence
>  of the Federal Communications Commission, which
>  regulates the airwaves, not to mention the ownership
>  of great swaths of the spectrum by a variety of public
>  and private interests.
>
> What if the scarcity turns out to be an artifact of history
>  and outmoded technology? That's not a new thought,
>  but it's back on the table for discussion in tech and policy
>  circles. If scarcity can be overcome, the implications are
>  both exciting and disruptive -- a cornucopia of communications
>  that foreshadows woes for some of our biggest
>  telecommunications companies. Late last month,
>  David P. Reed gave a provocative talk to the Federal
>  Communications Commission's Technological
>  Advisory Council. He told the group of experts,
>  in effect, that the FCC's fundamental mission is
>  flawed, maybe obsolete.
>
> Reed is no newcomer to the tech scene. He holds a
>  Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
>  where he taught computer science and headed the Laboratory
>  for Computer Science's Computer Systems Structure Group.
>  He was chief scientist at Lotus Development and Software
>  Arts, two of the pioneering software companies, and worked
>  at the now-closed Interval Research, the Paul Allen-funded
>  think tank in Palo Alto. Lately he's been a consultant,
>  entrepreneur and researcher.
>
> He's been involved in Internet technical details for several decades,
>  and even has a ``law'' named after him. ``Reed's Law'' isn't as
>  famous as Moore's Law, but it's a big one. The importance of
>  the Internet, under Reed's Law, is at least as much about the
>  formation of groups that communicate and collaborate as
>  about person-to-person contact.
>
> In a panel discussion and interview last week at the O'Reilly
>  Emerging Technology Conference in Santa Clara, Reed put
>  in plain English some of the concepts he discussed at the
>  FCC and which he has put online at his Web site
>  (www.reed.com/dpr.html). Simply put, he said, we have to
>  start looking at spectrum as an almost limitless commodity,
>  not a scarce one.
>
> The current regulatory regime that allocates spectrum ``is a
>  legal metaphor that does not correspond to physical reality,''
>  he said.
>
> Why not? First, he said, the notion of interference has more
>  to do with the equipment we use to send and receive
>  signals than with the physics of radio waves.
>
> ``Radio waves pass through each other,'' Reed said.
>  ``They do not damage each other.''
>
> In the early days of radio, the gear could easily be
> confused by overlapping signals. But we can now make
>  devices that can sort out the traffic.
>
> The second way that reality defies the old logic is what
>  happens when you add wireless devices to networks.
>  I won't go into the details of Reed's argument, which you
>  can find on his site, but he contends that you end up with
>  more capacity -- the ability to move bits of data around
>  -- than when you started.
>
> ``In principle, the capacity of a certain bandwidth in a certain
>  physical space increases with the number of transceivers in
>  a given space,'' he said. Yet the FCC regulates the airwaves
>  as if the capacity was a fixed amount.
>
> Yes, he said, this is counter-intuitive. And, to be sure, there
>  are experts who disagree with him.
>
> But if he and others in his camp are right, we have a lot of
> work ahead to fix a hopelessly broken regulatory system.
>  And if that happens, the sky is literally the limit for future
>  communications -- but the consequences for some of the
>  most powerful companies in our economy may be grim.
>
> Reed wants the FCC to open up some spectrum for these more
>  open wireless networks, giving entrepreneurs a new public space
>  in which to innovate and create value for the rest of us. He's not
>  sure who'll make money in this space, but surely equipment
>  manufacturers and other companies, especially software
>  companies, will be in the middle of a wave of innovation.
>
> Software is a key, perhaps the key, to the future Reed envisions.
>  Most radio-like devices using today's spectrum -- radios, televisions,
>  mobile phones and the like -- are based on the old way of doing
>  things, constrained by hardware to receive and transmit signals
>  in specific ways and in specific places of the airwaves.
>
> To get the capacity multiplier effect, he said, we need devices
>  with fairly generic but powerful hardware components. ``Software
>  defined radios'' will be vastly more adaptable, and useful, than their
>  old-fashioned cousins, according to Reed and others who are
>  promoting the concept. The military has been using these devices,
>  also called ``agile radio,'' for some time; civilian availability is
>  getting closer as costs come down.
>
> Who stands to lose? Apart from regulators whose jobs might be
>  largely unnecessary, consider the potential plight of the phone
>  companies. Their business model is based on economics that
>  Reed's notions, should they become reality in the marketplace,
>  would shred.
>
> Getting from here to there is a huge, perhaps insurmountable task
>  given the business interests that would object to changes in the
>  rules. Some regulation would still be necessary in at least some
>  areas, no doubt.
>
> Imagining this new world has another attraction. It conjures a
>  boost for a civil liberty we take for granted in America but
>  which has been dampened under the current regulatory scheme.
>
> I'm talking about free speech. Regulation of the airwaves has
>  specifically included curbs on speech, such as the FCC's
>  commands to the nation's TV and radio broadcasters
>  about what may or may not be said on the air.
>
> Restrictions on speech have been justified under the idea
>  that the spectrum is a public and limited resource. If that
>  is not true, there's no reason to regulate speech in this way.
> Maybe, someday, the First Amendment will mean something
>  when people broadcast their views, not just when they put
>  them on paper or on the Internet.
>
> The worst direction for the FCC to move right now, Reed said,
>  is to keep giving or auctioning spectrum to ``monopoly owners''
>  that won't use it efficiently. A new kind of open space is all
>  about the public good, he said, and there's a fine analogy in
>  recent history.
>
> ``We need to do for spectrum,'' he said, ``what the
>  Internet did for the network.''
>
>
>
> Dan Gillmor's column appears each Sunday, Wednesday and
>  Saturday. Visit Dan's online column, eJournal at
> http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gill
>m or/ejournal/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------
> http://www.anti-dmca.org
> ------------------------
>
> DMCA_Discuss mailing list
> DMCA_Discuss AT lists.microshaft.org
> http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss