Spectrum Commons Catching On

I've written about the idea of treating radio spectrum as a commons - something owned by no one, but available for the use of all - subject to constraints on behaviour that might lead to a depletion of that resource, in this case through interference. It looks like the UK's Ofcom, which regulates this kind of stuff, is really getting in the commons groove:

Ofcom believes that, in general, application-specific spectrum allocations for licence-exempt devices result in inefficient utilisation and fragmentation of spectrum. Ofcom prefers the “spectrum commons” model, where a block of spectrum can be shared by as wide a range as possible of devices, subject to regulatory-defined mandatory constraints on radiated power profiles as functions of frequency, time, and space (i.e. politeness rules), in addition to standardised or proprietary polite protocols. We believe that this model would maximise the value derived from any spectrum set aside for licence-exempt uses.

Wow. Now if only the UK government could follow the same logic when it came to non-personal public data.... (Via openspectrum.info.)

The Real Spectrum Commons

I have referred to radio spectrum as a commons several times in this blog. But there's a problem: since spectrum seems to be rivalrous - if I have it, you can't - this means that the threat of a tragedy of the commons has to be met by regulation. And that, as we see, is often unsatisfactory, not least because powerful companies usually get the lion's share.

But it seems - luckily - I was wrong about spectrum necessarily being rivalrous:

Software defined radio that is beginning to emerge from the labs into actual tests has the ability to render all spectrum management moot. Small wonder that the legal mandarins there have begun to sneer that open source SDR cannot be trusted.

In other words, when you make radio truly digital, it can be intelligent, and simply avoid the problem of commons over-use.

From the Commons to...Managed Parks?

One of the areas where the commons is being increasingly invoked is that of radio spectrum, the idea being that there can be frequencies "held in common" for the benefit of all. WiFi is a good example, and more and more jurisdictions are looking to create spectrum commons of one kind or another in order to encourage innovation with the minimum of regulation.

But here's an interesting twist from New Zealand, which is considering creating both "public parks" and "managed parks" for radio spectrum:

A "public park" is analogous to common land, with complete freedom of entry balanced by a requirement that users do not interfere with the activities of other licensees. In New Zealand, limits and conditions of use are defined by a General User Licence (GUL). A common condition of use is operation on a non-interference basis which means that a (General User Radio Licence) GURL licensee shall not cause interference to, nor claim protection from, other licensed services. As a result, issues of interference are normally resolved between users, as a matter of common interest.

"Public parks" can be used for a variety of other purposes including, for example, security detectors, cordless phones, radio-controlled devices, medical monitors and RFID labels. It is possible that, at a local level, this may continue to be a satisfactory environment for some broadband service providers.

...

The Ministry has also been considering combining the advantages of the "public park" with features of the spectrum licence, by establishing "Managed Parks". If "public park" spectrum is analogous to common land, then the Managed Park is akin to a publicly-owned sports ground, in that there is a gate-keeper, consent is required to gain admission and users can engage only in the activities for which the facility is provided.

Aren't metaphors a wonderful thing? (Via Openspectrum.info.)

The Commonality of the Commons

Everywhere I go these days, I seem to come across the commons. The Creative Commons is the best known, but the term refers to anything held in common for the benefit of all. A site I've just come across, called On the Commons, puts it well, stressing the concomitant need to conserve the commons for the benefit of future generations:

The commons is a new way to express a very old idea — that some forms of wealth belong to all of us, and that these community resources must be actively protected and managed for the good of all. The commons are the things that we inherit and create jointly, and that will (hopefully) last for generations to come. The commons consists of gifts of nature such as air, water, the oceans, wildlife and wilderness, and shared “assets” like the Internet, the airwaves used for broadcasting, and public lands. The commons also includes our shared social creations: libraries, parks, public spaces as well as scientific research, creative works and public knowledge that have accumulated over centuries.

It's also put together a free report that spells out in more detail the various kinds of commons that exist: the atmosphere, the airwaves, water, culture, science and even quiet.

What's fascinating for me is how well this maps onto the intertwined themes of this blog and my interests in general, from open content, open access and open spectrum to broader environmental issues. The recognition that there is a commonality between different kinds of commons seems to be another idea that is beginning to spread.

The Healthiest Kind of Commons

Creating a commons is all about sharing, and there can be few areas where sharing is more mutually beneficial than health. After all, everyone aspires to good health, and the best way to get that is to pool what we know. Surprisingly, that doesn't happen as much as it could at the moment, because antiquated ways of looking at medical knowledge - shaped by pharmaceutical companies - try to enclose as much of the commons as possible.

Happily, others are fighting that tendency. Here's the latest manifestation, called the Health Commons, from the same bunch of idealistic nutters that brought you the Science Commons:

Health Commons is a coalition of parties interested in changing the way basic science is translated into the understanding and improvement of human health. Coalition members agree to share data, knowledge, and services under standardized terms and conditions by committing to a set of common technologies, digital information standards, research materials, contracts, workflows, and software. These commitments ensure that knowledge, data, materials and tools can move seamlessly from partner to partner across the entire drug discovery chain. They enable participants to offer standardized services, ranging from simple molecular assays to complex drug synthesis solutions, that others can discover in directories and integrate into their own processes to expedite development — or assemble like LEGO blocks to create new services.

The Health Commons is too complex for any one organization or company to create. It requires a coalition of partners across the spectrum. It is also too complex for public, private, or non-profit organizations alone - reinventing therapy development for the networked world requires, from the beginning, a commitment to public-private partnership. Only through a public-private partnership can the key infrastructure of the Commons be created: the investments in the public domain of information and materials will only be realized if that public domain is served by a private set of systems integrators and materials, tools and service providers motivated by profit. And in turn, the long-term success of the private sector depends on a growing, robust, and self-replenishing public domain of data, research tools, and open source software.

Good to see open source being mentioned explicitly here: it does, indeed, form the basis of all these commons efforts, because it provides a completely flexible infrastructure that is also completely free.

Selling Off the Family Spectrum Commons

Radio frequencies form a commons for each country. Mostly these have been enclosed through auctions selling them to the highest bidder. Whether that's a good idea is another matter, but assuming for a moment that you think it is, at the very least you'd try to get plenty of dosh for this precious resource.

Well, according to this fascinating, and extremely thorough, paper, that didn't happen in the US:

According to calculations presented in this paper, since 1993, the government has given to private interests as much as $480 billion in spectrum usage rights without public compensation. That comes to more than 90 percent of the value of spectrum usage rights it has assigned from 1993 through the present.

Now, admittedly "as much as $480 billion" includes zero, but I don't think that's the case here. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that the US public won't be getting. Which means that there are some companies - and corporate fatcats - who are richer by the same amount.

So, how about if we start treating like a commons instead? That way, you can be sure that everyone gets their fair share - unlike the situation in America.

Welcome to the Spectrum Commons

Dana Blankenhorn gets it:

When the history of this era is written, it will be seen that one of the biggest bi-partisan mistakes was to treat spectrum as property rather than a commons.

Billions have been earned off the spectrum, first by the government, then by those who won the auctions. But the spectrum has been under-utilized and it has been over-priced.

Commons Sense from the EU Parliament

There's a lot wrong with EU Parliament (the small matter of expenses, for a start), but it does seem to have its heart in the right place (next to its wallet, perhaps...).

For example, the spectrum dividend produced by switching terrestial television from analogue to digital means that there's a whole load of yummy electromagnetic spectrum coming up for grabs. Some people (broadcasters etc.) just want to the whole lot auctioned off, but since this spectrum is a commons, and so belongs to you and me, wouldn't it be nice if we got to use through unlicensed frequencies?

And lo and behold, that's just what the EU Parliament is recommending:

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'A market-based approach to spectrum management in the European Union',

etc.

etc.

etc.

(Via openspectrum.info.)

Tripped up for Want of a Commons

I'm not a poddie myself, but the idea behind Griffin Technology's iTrip - being able to broadcast your MP3 files to nearby FM radios - is a great one. A pity, then, that's it's currently against the law in the UK because it "trespasses" on someone else's "property" - the radio spectrum that has been allocated for their use.

The current fix, apparently, is to use the 2003 Wireless Telegraphy (Exemption) Regulations Act. But the real solution is to create a much broader spectrum commons where people can start trying out all sorts of wireless innovation - without having to jump through these kind of hoops.

Update: Wow, that was quick. Here's Ofcom with a consultation on Wireless Telegraphy Licence Exemption that amends the 2003 Wireless Telegraphy (Exemption) Regulations Act. Powerful things, these blogs. (Via openspectrum.info.)

Net Neutrality and Open Spectrum

David Levine has an interesting post that joins the dots connecting the net neutrality debate with the issue of creating a spectrum commons. I don't share his concerns about imposing net neutrality through legislation, but I certainly agree that breaking the last mile monopoly through wireless is ultimately a better solution. And while we're at it, let's try and get some global wireless meshes going too.

Open Spectrum Victory in US

Radio spectrum is inherently a commons, a resource that is owned by no one or by the state, but available to all. Too often in the past, that commons has been enclosed – sold off to the highest bidder. Now, it seems, some of the fences are being torn down, in the US at least....

On Open Enterprise blog.

Spectrum's White Space as a Commons

If you've ever wondered how spare electromagnetic spectrum can be used to form a commons, here's a good explanation of the issues in the US. It even mentions Armenia's greatest contribution to the field. (Via OnTheCommons.org.)

See Viv Run

Yes:

The European Union's telecommunications watchdog has called for regulators to take a backseat in setting standards--and allow consumers to take the lead by picking the platform that offers the services they want.

Speaking on Monday here at the ITU Telecom World 2006 conference, Viviane Reding, the EU's commissioner for information society and media, said regulators should no longer be the main force in charge of mandating standards.

...

Reding said the spectrum freed up by the switch to digital TV will offer a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" for expanded wireless services, adding that regulators must be flexible and "get out of the command-and-control system."

Now, if we could possibly make that liberated spectrum into a commons....

Fight for Net and Mobile Neutrality

As if it isn't enough having to fight for Net neutrality, now it looks like in Europe we've got to do the same for Mobile neutrality:

This study undertaken by Booz Allen Hamilton, on behalf of the UMTS Forum, considers the impact on mobile consumers and the overall industry ecosystem of two alternative spectrum management scenarios for wide area communications. Firstly, continuation of the current harmonised approach, which is based on internationally agreed band plans using a designated group of technology standards. Secondly, the liberalised scenario, which advocates flexibility through generalised technology neutrality.

The report concludes, through qualitative and quantitative analysis, that consumers and the overall industry ecosystem are best served through continuation of the current harmonised approach. The qualitative analysis demonstrates that in a harmonised environment consumers benefit from the increased penetration of end-user services due to the speed of innovation and network effects (i.e. Metcalfe’s Law); while the industry ecosystem benefits from the improved cost structure provided by the large market size, and scale effects resulting from a harmonised environment. Finally, the quantitative analysis suggests that spectrum harmonisation will benefit end-users through greater usage of end-user services, at lower ARPU, with a larger consumer surplus.

So, a report commissioned by opponents of mobile neutrality - the "liberalised scenario" - comes out against it: what a coincidence.

But all the arguments in favour of Net neutrality - level playing field, the ability to introduce new services without asking permission from network operators etc. etc. - apply here too. Don't be fooled by this arrant nonsense: long live the wireless commons. (Via openspectrum.info.)

FCC Opens up a Little Wireless Commons

It's not much compared to the swathes of spectrum that have been auctioned off, but it's a start:

The FCC officially signed off on the plan to allow low-power wireless devices to operate in so-called "white spaces" in the television spectrum.

ZigBee Who?

One of the premises of open spectrum is that if you create a wireless commons, a thousand electromagnetic flowers will bloom. WiFi and Bluetooth are two of the better-known blossoms, but another seems to be ZigBee.

The ZigBee Alliance - "an association of companies working together to enable reliable, cost-effective, low-power, wirelessly networked, monitoring and control products based on an open global standard" - puts it like this:

The goal of the ZigBee Alliance is to provide the consumer with ultimate flexibility, mobility, and ease of use by building wireless intelligence and capabilities into everyday devices. ZigBee technology will be embedded in a wide range of products and applications across consumer, commercial, industrial and government markets worldwide. For the first time, companies will have a standards-based wireless platform optimized for the unique needs of remote monitoring and control applications, including simplicity, reliability, low-cost and low-power.

The ZigBee Alliance site has buckets of useful links - as well as some mild untruths. For example, the FAQ claims that the name comes from the following fact:

The domestic honeybee, a colonial insect, lives in a hive that contains a queen, a few male drones, and thousands of worker bees. The survival, success, and future of the colony is dependent upon continuous communication of vital information between every member of the colony. The technique that honey bees use to communicate new-found food sources to other members of the colony is referred to as the ZigBee Principle. Using this silent, but powerful communication system, whereby the bee dances in a zig-zag pattern, she is able to share information such as the location, distance, and direction of a newly discovered food source to her fellow colony members. Instinctively implementing the ZigBee Principle, bees around the world industriously sustain productive hives and foster future generations of colony members.

But as the ever-acute Rupert Goodwins explains:

I checked on a few apiary Web sites. I even emailed a Professor Of Bee Things at a big agricultural institute. Of the 'ZigBee Principle' there is no sign -- although I do note that pictures of bees were used to signal the aiming point in antique urinals. A very dry Victorian pun that: the Latin for bee is Apis.

We are therefore forced to conclude that the ZigBee Name FAQ has nothing to do with reality, but is merely a PR taking the bees. Let's hope the rest of the standard isn't just pith and wind.

Since I've only just come across the said factitious ZigBee, I've not yet found my bearings, and I can't quite tell to what extent all this stuff is truly open. But it does sound interesting - if not quite the bee's knees yet. (Via ARCchart and Openspectrum.info.)