Spread Spectrum

I just finished an interesting article on spread spectrum. I got the article from a university subscription site so I won’t link but the title is “Into the Great Wide Open” by Jesse Sunenblick for the Columbia Journalism Review. Although I was told these issues have not been resolved, the article is a few years old so I am not positive.

The basic crux of the article is scarcity—in relation to radio spectrum—is bullshit. Admittedly, I can barely grasp the concept of delivering audio and video around the world via airwaves, so I won’t spend anytime trying to explain the technology. Here is his explanation:

…When you connect to the internet at Starbucks, when you use your cell phone, or when you use many of the other radio technologies that constitute our current wireless craze, you are using spread spectrum. Spread spectrum works by contradicting the traditional rules of radio communication, in which a signal is sent over a single frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum for which it has no license from the FCC…licenses aren’t necessary for spread spectrum transmissions, but the devices currently aren’t allowed to operate at more than a few watts of power…Spread spectrum offers a far more efficient way of using the radio spectrum…Now the FCC is considering a series of rule changes that would open up more of the spectrum for unlicensed radio…

Needless to say, the television and radio networks are lobbying hard against these rule changes. If the FCC did open up the spectrum, there are endless possibilities. However, that is a very big “if.” It is the exception rather than the rule for commissions to defy powerful lobbies. These lobbies are powerful precisely because they persuade commissions to implement their wishes. The sheer amount of money that could be lost by media conglomerates means that these lobbies will spend a lot more money fighting deregulation than the opposition will advocating it.

At the heart of this article is an idealistic notion that we would use this technology to increase public dialog, increase community activism, increase global education and even advance world peace. These noble ideas perhaps would be a component to this advance in technology. However, it is also likely that this would further segment audiences into smaller sections. Hate groups, exploitive pornographers and even increased governmental intrusion would likely result from this as well. The same things this article claims are possible is the same thing possible with the internet. To an extent some of these concepts have been realized. The internet has definitely torn down borders and made increased dialog and instant communication possible.

The latest trend of the internet blogging and online communities such as “My Space” seem to fall short of the ideal. Rather than increase dialog and understanding, blogs seem to further entrench people in their beliefs. For example, a good deal of blogging centers on politics. However, many bloggers are not attempting to find mutual consensus but rather rallying around ideologies and reading counter points only to attack, not to enter genuine dialog. Reinforcing beliefs and values rather than broadening them. Likewise, sexual predators have used MySpace.com as a hunting ground. Pedophiles use the internet to share pornography and further exploit children. Terrorist groups also create blogs, websites and videos to spread their hateful messages.
This does not mean that the negatives outweigh the positives. The possibilities of deregulation seem limitless and this alone is reason enough for me to support it.

Quote for the Day!

"Fear is stronger than love." Tupac Shakur

The Palestinians

Perhaps Israel should pull out of the West Bank. If the problems in the Gaza Strip are a sign of what we can expect, Israel might be better off pulling out and letting them fight it out.