Deep Freeze 9

I’m still struggling to understand what spectrum really is – and to articulate why the question matters. I hope I’m not becoming that whacko who keeps pestering physics professors with his “proof” that general relativity is wrong... Any feedback would be appreciated.

It seems to me that “spectrum” is conceived of in two distinct ways. First, a spectrum allocation is seen as a right to operate radio equipment in a given way, for example centered on a certain frequency band. In this case, “spectrum” isn’t problematic, because the term doesn’t carry any real meaning. It simply connotes electromagnetic radiation. A spectrum allocation confers a bundle of in personam rights, and all that matters is system operation. As Coase said in the 1959 FCC paper, “what is being allocated by the Federal Communications Commission ... is the right to use a piece of equipment to transmit signals in a particular way. Once the question is looked at in this way, it is unnecessary to think in terms of ownership of frequencies or the ether.”

Alternatively, one can think of spectrum as a series of abutting frequency bands, and a spectrum allocation as the right to use of a frequency band. The band is treated as a thing which a person obtains an in rem right to, just as they obtain in rem property rights via things like inventions, apples, and land. Tom Hazlett is a leading proponent of this approach, though the notion of wave lengths, frequencies and spectrum being resources (and thus “things”) is entrenched in US legislative language.

Tom has been persuading me, via Merrill & Smith’s 2001 paper in the Yale L J, that in rem rights are some sense better than in personam rights for thinking about property. However, I’ve struggled to put my finger on what the “thing” is in wireless policy.

To rehearse a metaphor: An owner rents a piece of farm land. (The hunting license analogy is more fun, but the fact that game moves around complicates matters more than this case merits.) The renter obtains permission to perform various behaviors with a bunch of constraints, like boundary lines, planting crops vs. running cattle, providing so much fertilizer, etc. So far, this sounds just like the in personam description of spectrum allocation: the a contract between the owner and the renter is like a license granted by a regulator to a licensee. A wireless transmission is like a renter using the land. The frequency band edges are like land boundaries; they indicate a constraint (underspecified, but I’ll ignore that here) on transmission, ie, system behavior.

Now let’s imagine that the rental contract ends, and no other renter shows up. Nobody performs any actions; no in personam rights are exercised. However, the land is still there – the thing which anchors the owner’s in rem rights persists. This is where the analogy to spectrum breaks down for me. When a system ceases transmission (the renter goes away), nothing remains. The frequencies that indicated band edges are parameters. They parameterize an output (a transmission) not an input (“spectrum”).

Since frequency parameterizes outputs not inputs, what it measures – spectrum – isn’t a resource. Therefore the whole question of ownership of spectrum is moot. As for what the input(s) might be: I’d have to say it’s ingenuity in system design, capital to build infrastructure, and the labor of running the resulting operation.

This by no means precludes an in rem analysis. One simply needs to define another kind of “thing”. This leads me from land to trademark as the guiding metaphor. Intellectual property is intangible, just as wireless operation is, but one can still identify a productive resource. In the case of trademark, it’s a signifier coupled to an interpretative context. The signifier is analogized to transmission, and the context to victims of interference. Trademark infringement is largely in the mind of the customer: are they confused or not by an allegedly infringing mark? Similarly, radio interference is largely in the receiver. Patents work in the same way: the productive resource is an invention coupled to a context of what constitutes novelty, obviousness, and utility.

Ultimately, this leads to a restatement of wireless policy in terms of system operation rather than spectrum (easy), and a reformulation of the rights that are issued along the lines of trademark rather than real estate law (hard).

References

Coase, R H (1959) "The Federal Communications Commission," Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 2. (Oct., 1959), pp. 1-40.

Merrill, Thomas W and Henry E Smith (2001) “What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, p. 357

The New York Times story Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’ is a staggering litany of American exceptionalism. A few excerpts:

Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations. . .

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation . . . China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison [excluding those in administrative detention]. . .

The United States comes in first [in] incarceration rates, [with] 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. [Next]is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. . . . England’s rate is 151; Germany’s is 88; and Japan’s is 63. The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

The story cites a variety of causes, including higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net, and elected judges.

Labels: culture, factoids

Source: Guy Brown, "Death special: The bitter end" New Scientist 13 October 2007

It's not a pretty picture. The Big Hope used to be that we'd live longer, but that disease and disability would be compressed into short period at the end of life. Well-being would be a step function that dropped off quickly just before we dropped dead. Unfortunately, increasing lifespan is combining with an increase in degenerative disease to create "expanded morbidity," a long and painful decline towards our demise.

The factoid in context:

The prevalence of most degenerative diseases, such as cancer, and vascular and neurodegenerative disease, increases roughly exponentially with age. For example, the prevalence of Alzheimer's is about 1 per cent at 65 years of age and approximately doubles every five years after that, to around 25 per cent for 85-year-olds. In the US, 46 per cent of people over 85 years of age are thought to have Alzheimer's. There are an estimated 5 million people with Alzheimer's in the US today, and as people live longer this number is projected to rise to 12.5 million by 2050 (Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol 36, p 281).

. . .

Of Americans older than 80 years, 74 per cent have a disability. They are also more likely to be forgetful, confused or depressed. Almost a quarter of non-institutionalised Americans over 85 are thought to be severely depressed.

A friend who teaches geriatric nursing tells me that the Boomer Generation is particularly unprepared for this fate: they have always rejected the prospect of growing old.

Guy Brown argues that we need to put "death, dying and dementia" on the political agenda. He advances the need for more research and hospice funding - and for a new attitude to death.

The hard part is teaching our hearts what our heads (in their more sober moments) already know: death is a part of life. It's hard enough accepting the small inconveniences of life; learning to accept death seems almost impossible. At least longer life spans means we have a little more time to practice than our forebears.

Labels: culture, factoids, trends

In an example of how tools shape thinking, New Scientist reports on a study where using Mathematica led students to focus on the computational aspects of a problem, rather than trying to understand the underlying physics. (Mark Buchanan, "Physics tool makes students miss the point" 8 January 2008; source paper by Bing & Redish)

Mathematica frees scientists from the drudgery of solving equations by hand - but first you have to devise a solution strategy. Apparently this is a broader problem: automated thinking tools prevent people from thinking about the broader context of the problem they face.

I have to wonder whether the quants on Wall Street (and their bosses) were so wrapped up in their computer models that they didn't think about the underlying risks of sub-prime derivatives, or the moral hazard of decoupling the mortgage reseller from the consequences of a loan going bad.

In a version of "you get what you measure", here "the solution is determined by the tool."

Labels: cognition

Jakob Nielsen says that in their current round of usability research, only 76% of users who expressed a desire to run a Google search were successful - and these were "above-average" users. Instead, Nielsen reports, they either completely failed to get to any search engine or ended up running their query on a different search engine — usually whatever type-in field happened to be at hand.

That's a good reality check for the digerati...

Labels: design, factoids

Senators staying up all night to vote on budget resolutions doesn’t make the pulse race, unless you’re a C-SPAN junkie or a devoted listener to NPR News. But late last Thursday night both Washington State's senators cast important votes that will reduce poverty, and bring hope to millions of hungry people around the world.

The planet becomes daily more interconnected. America needs wise and active partners in every country to build a safe and prosperous world. Healthy and flourishing people in Africa will not only use our software, ride in our planes, and buy wheat from the Palouse; they will also help us write software, produce goods we need, and enrich our intertwined cultures. Alleviating hunger and poverty in the developing world is part of building a better America.

Malnutrition during the first two years of life affects a child's development by reducing IQ, slowing motor skills, and increasing learning disabilities. Chronic hunger increases people's susceptibility to disease. It leaves children listless and unable to concentrate in school, and adults lacking the energy to think and work productively. Approximately 800 million people in the developing world are chronically undernourished. Hungry people cannot be our partners in building a safe and prosperous future.

Ending hunger and poverty is also a moral issue. All religions and ethical traditions teach that the path to salvation leads through compassion. Each of us becomes a better person when we relieve the suffering of others. We can do this individually and collectively: through direct, personal action, and through discharging our obligation as the world’s wealthiest nation to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

No one disagrees that ending huger and poverty is a worthy goal, but it might seem utopian. In the face of so much suffering, entrenched for so long, can anyone really make a difference? The governments of the United States and 188 other nations believe so: in September 2000, they pledged to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty by 2015, less than a decade from now. The financial cost of ending hunger is relatively slight. The United Nations estimates that the basic health and nutrition needs of the world's poorest people could be met for an additional $13 billion a year. Animal lovers in the United States and Europe spend more than that on pet food each year.

The President and Congress doubled poverty-focused overseas assistance between 2001 and 2008. This has helped poor people in many ways, for example by providing wells near homes and fields. The resulting easier irrigation means more food, and more time for children to do their homework rather than spending hours every day carrying water from a far-away river.

But the work has just started; doubling poverty assistance is easy if one starts from a small base. Currently, less than one-half of 1 percent of the Federal budget goes to programs that help lift people out of hunger and poverty. A stronger International Affairs budget is essential to create partners for America in building a better world.

The Senate had actually been on track to cut this budget well below the President’s request. Fortunately, both Senators Murray and Cantwell understand the vital importance of building a hunger-free world, and they supported the passage of the Biden-Lugar Amendment on Thursday night. This brought the International Affairs budget back to the level of the President’s request. Both senators are also co-sponsors of the Global Poverty Act, which would make cutting hunger and extreme poverty in half by 2015 an official goal of U.S. policy.

To learn more about poverty-focused development assistance, see the Bread for the World web site