Abstract:Published in EastBound, Vol. 1, March 13, 2006For nearly a century, governments have imposed detailed limits on theuse of radio - who can use what frequencies and waveforms, at whatpower levels, in which locations, for what purposes. Licensessummarize these controls for specific users or stations. State controlof radio use goes far beyond what is accepted for other media,(publishing, photography, Internet, speech, etc.). Most people thinkthis is necessary to control interference; others felt thatbroadcasting was too powerful a social influence to be leftunregulated.But recently, there has been explosive growth in short-range, personaluses of radio - Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cordless phones, etc. The argumentsused to justify radio licensing seem inappropriate for such low-powerdevices. In fact, government regulation of purely personal, informalcommunications is unnecessarily intrusive and politically risky. Manycountries now allow some short-range wireless devices to be usedwithout a license in specific bands. In general, smarter radios go along way toward solving problems that once seemed to require rigidgovernment controls, giving rise to the open spectrum movement.At the same time, digitalisation and the widening use of TCP/IP makeit possible to transmit nearly any content through any channel. We useour mobile phones to take photographs, send text messages and watchvideoclips. Our cable television networks provide Internet access.Seeping out of their original contexts, dissimilar media traditionsnow mix and clash in interconnecting, hybrid networks. In thissituation, it is crucially important to the future of humancommunication which regulatory norms emerge as default choices anddominant models. Will it be broadcasting, telephony, publishing,Internet or ordinary speech that sets the tone for communicationspolicy in the age of ubiquitous networks? Which regulatory approach dowe WANT to set the tone?
Open Spectrum Application Plan for Connected Car
