[DMCA-Activists] Frankston: Single Frequency Signaling, Federal Speech Commission, Single Hop Signaling

[Seth Johnson]

> http://www.satn.org/archive/2005_01_23_archive.html#110687480732562016


Thursday, January 27, 2005

BobF at 8:09 PM:

Single Frequency Signaling and Single Hop Signaling

It’s hard to argue against what seems natural. After all, today’s
wireless communications industries and policies seem to work very
well. The established technologies are not at all natural – they
are choices borne of century old ideas that are long due for
reexamination.

To level the playing field we need to give the old technologies
neutral names.

    SFS – Single Frequency Signaling. A 19th concept modeled on
the tuning fork. Each tuning fork oscillates at a single
frequency. A tuning fork that vibrates 278.4375 times per second
sounds like and is the note middle C. If you have two tuning
forks with the same frequency, vibrating one will cause the other
to start vibrating. Thus you can tune into a given frequency if
you have the right tuning fork.

    The idea was supposed to be used for the harmonic telegraph
but it wasn’t until the invention of the vacuum tube and wireless
communications in the early 1900’s that it became feasible. The
need to share a common wireless space required a way to sort out
the various signals make it necessary to find some solution.

    The problem with SFS is that you have to make sure that only
one transmitter uses the given frequency. Otherwise you couldn’t
sort out the signals – we call it interference. Inteference is a
consequence of SFS and not fundamental.

    The solution was to create a dead zone in which no other
transmitters were allowed to use a given frequency. Since there
were only a few transmitters in those days – it was a new
technology – it seemed feasible to police them. Today we have
billions of transmitters yet have internalized the requirements
of SFS to the point that we accept not only regulation of the
transmitters but regulation of speech.

    FSC – The Federal Speech Commission. When “wireless” was new
it didn’t seem necessary to distinguish between the word
“communications” as a term for the meaning being communicated and
the technology used to transport speech itself. We live with the
legacy of that sloppiness. We need to be careful to distinguish
the transport (tele) form the meaning (communications). We can
write this as tele/communications and avoid treating them a
single concept and thus justifying giving transport providers
control over what we can say and to whom.

    One consequence of this confusion is that the agency which
regulates radio is the Federal Communications Commission. It
doesn’t just regulate technology, it acts as a Federal Speech
Commission.

    SHS – Single Hop Signaling. AKA Shouting. If you want to talk
to a friend far away you just pick up the phone and call. In
today’s technology that can be implemented by converting speech
to packets and sending it over a network.

    In the world of “wireless” we have transmit with enough power
(i.e. shout) to reach the receiver directly. There isn’t even the
concept of packet routing! You either have a direct connection or
no connection at all!

    This is rude and crude. Since SHS is often used for SFS we
have to create a large dead zone that covers the possible
shouting distance. No other transmitter can use the same SFS
frequency within the zone lest it cause interference. It’s a
crude system – if you are beyond shouting distance you can’t get
the signal.

    Using audio over the Internet is far simpler, creates no dead
zone and has no limit on distance! Why would anyone accept the
restrictions of SHS?

SFS and SHS seemed wonderful in their time just as leaches seemed
essential to 18th century medicine. We pay a high price for SFS
and SHS in a technical policy that protects them from newer
technologies that can do far better. They aren’t just inefficient
but toxic – we have to create a dead zone around SFS/SHS to avoid
“interference”. The bureaucracy created to police the ownership
of radios goes further and regulates speech, not just technology.

In the United States we require extraordinary justification for
restrictions on speech. Coddling obsolescent technology doesn’t
meet this test. Ignorance of the laws of physics is hardly a
justification for such blatant disregard for the Constitution.

The restrictions on innovation required to protect SFS and SHS
come at a great price both in restrictions on speech and
prohibitions on innovations that drive the economy of the US and
the world.

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.