Re: [802.19] Possible 802.11n spectrum scanning requirements
Scott et al.. I'd like to add my two cents worth by making a small
attempt to bring this conversation into a "real world" context..
Take a look at this piece that talks about WISPA's recent 04-186
(TVWS) filings..
http://www.rbr.com/tv-cable/isp_organization_tries_to_inject_sanity_into_white_space_debate.html
Forgetting about the specifics of these filings, I think its easy to
see their suggested approach at TVWS co-existence/licensing is really
an instance of Scott's Volvo vs Motorcycle example in which everyone
in "the park" will be able to "see" your license plate and, if you do
wrong, you will be exposed as a "bad actor"
To point back at Steve's comment about "civil society" for a moment..
what happens when you have a "bad actor" in the park? Who enforces
"civility" so that everyone behaves? ..especially if such enforcement
is not able to be part of the technology being used--even tho it was
clearly needed?
In an 802 context, clearly ExCom starting dot 19 is a step down this
road. I'd offer my opinion that to make this work in an 802 context,
a truly end-to-end spectrum use Standard would be required.. then what
is left is for Regulatory Law to handle. (..ie "bad actor" enforcement
requirements etc)
To finish off Steve's concept of civil society in an 802 context.. I'd
offer that, without 802 Standards on spectrum use setting up some
common goals (..which is a rarity in a competitive marketplace,
right?) our "civil society" breaks down unless someone is there to
enforce the common good.
This begs the questions.. Are any of the 802 WG's actually ready to
pursue the "common good" of intelligent spectrum use? And.. can 802's
governance structure give rise to the pursuit of the "common good" in
a Standards context?
Respectfully,
Dan Lubar
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:11 PM, scott blue <blue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10-24-08 Shellhammer, Steve wrote-
>
>
>
> "We have public parks, road and beaches and we also have unlicensed
> frequency bands."
>
>
>
> Very true, but if you choose to drive a motorcycle on the public road, you
> are several times more likely to be killed than if you drive a Volvo. That
> might not be fair, but it is accurate. And while I do expect that Volvo
> drivers to follow the rules of the road, I certainly don't expect them to
> buy a "motorcycle protection package" to keep me safer on a bike.
>
>
>
> On 10-22-08 Gregg Rasor wrote-
>
>
>
> "You don't want to mess with the FCC by not playing fair under the rules..."
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course the FCC has already set the precedent as to the "fairness" of
> 40MHz operation by approving hundreds of pre .11n and dual channel mode .11g
> based devices.
>
>
>
> Fairness in resources allocation questions is N-P complete over time from
> the prospective of the user, so until someone figures out how to put a
> quantum computer in a $5 radio, the problem is best avoided in technology
> and should be dealt with by enabling the users to resolve disputes.
>
>
>
> It should also be remembered that what is "fair" to the FCC is subject to
> change every 4 years. The fact that the current Chief of the OET is someone
> that most of us hold in high regard as an engineer makes it palatable to
> adopt the FCC's ideas of "fairness" in an international standard, but once
> the position is again held by a wholly political appointee; fairness will
> more than likely be dictated by lobbyists, and become even less likely to be
> resolved by technical means.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10-23-08 Bill Shvodian wrote-
>
>
>
> "Is everyone familiar with the concept of The Tragedy of the Commons?"
>
> I am, and Garret Harding's assessment that has given rise to the modern
> concept of the ToC has been proven to be no more accurate the notion that
> there were WMD's in Iraq.
>
> The original "tragedy" in England was that the threat of over grazing was
> used as an excuse by Lords to move "commoners" off of land that they had
> successfully shared for 100s of years. The primary motive for this was an
> attempt to gain control over the food supply as a tool to press the
> commoners into military service during the English civil war.
>
> Historically, there are very few examples of a resource being ruined in the
> manner "pictured" by Harding. ToC like conclusions have almost always been
> evoked as propaganda by a party looking to gain control over the resource to
> the disadvantage of others.
>
>
>
> On 10-23-08 David Bagby wrote-
>
> "Let's use the grazing analogy...."
>
> Dave, we are not the farmers. We simply provide the sheep. If my customers
> want my sheep to play nice, they'll play nice. If my customers want
> omnivorous sheep that eat the occasional pasture mate, I'll open a genetics
> lab… Such is the reality of difficult economic times.
>
>
>
> Scott Blue
>
> Sensible Radio
>
> 650 276 0565