Forum: GNU Radio Wired article

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
D6e64317a80b6df81ee14ba397bd1ea0?d=identicon&s=25 Joel Kolstad (Guest)
on 2006-06-06 00:41
(Received via mailing list)
Regarding garage door openers -- all of the big-name manufacturers have
had
"rolling code" technology that changes the code to open the door for at
least 5 years now.  Nevertheless, there are plenty of old garage door
openers out there (including my own) that use a simple, constant RF
burst
and nothing more.  Additionally, the rolling codes systems may not be
that
hard to reverse engineer anyway -- Skylink managed to do so with
Chamberlain's system; see
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/cmp/20050406/20....

I am a little disturbed about Ettus' envisionment of "a world in which
bandwidth is not an issue. People will create applications that will use
that bandwidth, like complete telepresence." -- This strikes me as
tantamount to saying that you envision a world where roads aren't an
issue... you'll just build a vehicle that can drive wherever you want it
to, like into the middle of some nature preserve.  Hopefully it wasn't
Matt's intention to suggest that there should be no regulation of
bandwidth, but rather that there should be large public bands in which
anything goes.  I also hope the comment, "It enables everybody to be a
broadcaster," isn't meant to encourage, e.g., high-power pirate radio
stations on the commercial broadcast bands.

---Joel Kolstad
3596cfe1d579c65b9babd35e8787977c?d=identicon&s=25 Matt Ettus (Guest)
on 2006-06-06 00:59
(Received via mailing list)
Joel Kolstad wrote:

>I am a little disturbed about Ettus' envisionment of "a world in which
>bandwidth is not an issue. People will create applications that will use
>that bandwidth, like complete telepresence." -- This strikes me as
>tantamount to saying that you envision a world where roads aren't an
>issue... you'll just build a vehicle that can drive wherever you want it
>to, like into the middle of some nature preserve.
>
I would think of it more like "a world where roads aren't an issue --
you'll just teleport to wherever you want to go", and nobody needs to
build any roads or mess up any nature preserves.

> Hopefully it wasn't
>Matt's intention to suggest that there should be no regulation of
>bandwidth, but rather that there should be large public bands in which
>anything goes.  I also hope the comment, "It enables everybody to be a
>broadcaster," isn't meant to encourage, e.g., high-power pirate radio
>stations on the commercial broadcast bands.
>
>

I would never encourage breaking the law.  Besides, it is far easier to
go out and buy broadcast equipment than it is to use software radio, if
all you want to do is broadcast pirate radio.  Ramsey, Radio Free
Berkeley and several other manufacturers make complete kits which you
can get very cheaply.  I am a big fan of changing the law, and that is
why I supported the so-called "low power FM"  movement which the FCC
effectively squashed.

You are right that I believe there should be large public bands where
_almost_ anything goes.  I also think that eventually technology will
allow us to make the entire spectrum that way.  Why restrict one
person's use if it does not reduce what someone else can do?

There really is a lot of work being done on the subject of open
spectrum.  A google search will point you towards some of the most
interesting people and things going on.
Matt
63d6de710dcc83e3c19af98ab6c401d7?d=identicon&s=25 Marcus Leech (Guest)
on 2006-06-06 01:15
(Received via mailing list)
Matt Ettus wrote:
>
Being both a radio astronomer, and staunch libertarian, I find myself
personally conflicted on the subject :-)

I think the key (para) phrase is "as long as you do no harm".  Clearly,
allowing people to transmit in
  bands that are already set aside for certain astrophysical observation
purposes (sometimes geographically-delimited,
  and sometimes not) would be a bad thing.

On the other hand, if 10.5 to 10.950 Ghz isn't in use around here, I
ought to be able to use it for "personal communications".
D6e64317a80b6df81ee14ba397bd1ea0?d=identicon&s=25 Joel Kolstad (Guest)
on 2006-06-06 01:55
(Received via mailing list)
Thanks for the clarification, Matt -- you're clearly being quite
reasonable, and it's just the short quotes in the Wired article that
made
your statements less so.

Personally I'm also in favor of making LPFM licenses easier to obtain;
the
regulation changes in the past handful of years seem almost 100%
orchestrated by large commercial interests in the name of preventing
competition, and the FCC agreeing to them seems very much at odds with
their original mandate of managing spectrum in the *public's* best
interest.  (A mandate that seems largely forgotten these days...)

If you're looking for large chunks of spectrum to make public, the UHF
TV
channels are prime territory that's largely gone to waste in the past
few
decades as cable and satellite TV have become ubiquitous.

---Joel
821c1adf3f4be2f2aa6fbc89cce4c69a?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Dickens (Guest)
on 2006-06-06 04:05
(Received via mailing list)
> If you're looking for large chunks of spectrum to make public, the UHF
> TV
> channels are prime territory that's largely gone to waste in the past
> few
> decades as cable and satellite TV have become ubiquitous.

IIRC: UHF TV is scheduled to be turned over to the Justice and Public
Safety area in order to provide more continuous (and, I suppose,
contiguous) bandwidth for all the Emergency Responders in the US ...
federal, state, county, city, township, town, local, whatever.  JPS/ERs
are also getting in the 4.94 GHz band, but those are pretty new and
there aren't a lot of devices yet. - MLD
99cc8dfb87a09ad9853e903cb1fc29d4?d=identicon&s=25 LRK (Guest)
on 2006-06-06 14:46
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:03:16PM -0500, Michael Dickens wrote:
> are also getting in the 4.94 GHz band, but those are pretty new and
> there aren't a lot of devices yet. - MLD

A few UHF TV channels in the US are to be turned over for public safety
use. These will benefit the big manufacturers, not the first responders.
There are far more frequencies available now than needed and are poorly
used due to politics rather than technology. There are even proposals
to screw up these new bands Nextel-style already. It's about money, not
safety. The fleecing of your grandchildren.

The 4940-4990 range is licensed for mobile only, low power for WiFi type
comms between command posts. There are already proposals for putting
these on water towers for non-safety uses. Just like the 866-869 MHz
'public safety' band, this will be used by public utilities, trash
trucks,
and those who collect dead cats.

Fortunately, those who care still have high-band simplex for actually
fighting fires.


--
LRK
gr@ovillatx.sytes.net
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.