In Release 1.0, “Open Spectrum: The Paradise of the Commons”, [November 20, 2001], Kevin Werbach writes that wireless networks are pointing toward a new way of addressing the build-out of broadband infrastructure. Wireless networks may be the best way to deliver “last-mile” broadband access to end-users. But there are political hurdles.

Werbach says that open spectrum means “moving from centralized networks built by carriers to decentralized services based on smart transmitters and receivers.”
Open spectrum challenges the spread spectrum (the privatized model for licensing use of the spectrum) in the same way that the Internet undermined the model of traditional communications networks, managed by the phone companies. He cites grassroots efforts in community wireless networking using 802.11b, quoting O’Reilly Network’s Schuyler Erle. Schuyler, along with Rob Flickenger, developed NoCat.org and a community network for Sonoma County, California. Rob recently published with O’Reilly, “Building Wireless Community Networks”. Congratulations to Rob and Schuyler on their efforts.

It’s worth watching the growth of these community-based, wireless networking co-operatives and the expansion of public wireless access.
Adds Anthony Townsend of NYCWireless in the article:
“People are interested in being the networking equivalent of the open-source movement.” Open spectrum and open source share a common vision of the network as public infrastructure.

Werbach does an excellent job of framing this issue, concluding that the “near-term outlook for open spectrum is grim” because spectrum stakeholders are more likely to act
to make sure that the government protects their interests. He believes the technology may eventually lead the way, if government regulation doesn’t preclude it. Still, to ensure the public interest in the spectrum commons (and the innovation made possible because of it), we have to understand its potential and be prepared to speak up on its behalf.

What can be done to protect the spectrum commons?

I was recently asked whether the bursting of the economic bubble will hurt open source. Certainly, it will be harder for programmers to work on open source projects. They’ll be busier at their regular jobs, and on the average they’ll be earning less, so they won’t be as able to take time off to work on volunteer projects.

But in a couple ways, the recession may help open source. First, many companies will fail, both open source and proprietary. But the wonderful difference between proprietary software and open source software is that proprietary software generally disappears along with its company, while open source software is in the community and can be enhanced by new volunteers, just as happens to any open source software whose original developer leaves the project. (Compare proprietary BeOS to open source Nautilus.) Worries, in themselves, about the long-term success of proprietary companies may drive users to open source as a safe haven. Second, companies will be more reluctant to pay ever-increasing licensing fees for proprietary software, and be willing to consider cheaper solutions even if they don’t have the bells and whistles of a proprietary project.

On the one hand, a judge in Victoria, Australia just issued a
ruling
whose implications are that anyone anywhere in the world can download material and sue you in their local jurisdiction.
On the other hand, a California court has
ruled
that typical postings to public bulletin boards are immune from defamation suits,
(Discussed in
Slashdot.)
because they are clearly opinion rather than statements of fact.
These two rulings don’t conflict directly, and the Australian one is much more serious.
I can’t help thinking that it will set a precedent for the next Satanic Verses
type of dispute.