My first paper discussed ideas about the future of a truly secure telecommunications network for mass consumption. However, it focused on traditional person-to-person voice communication (i.e. voice telephony). New technology and new forms of communication and entertainment have created demand for greater bandwidth. One possible source for this bandwidth is the electromagnetic spectrum, a shared and heavily regulated resource.

*Is current technology sufficient to create enough bandwidth for everyone to share? How much can be done within the existing regulations?

Even within the existing, tightly controlled regime, there is room for unlicensed operation of RF-emitting devices. 47 C.F.R. § 15 allows for unlicensed, low power operation of such devices within certain frequency ranges, including ranges commonly used for home wireless routers, wireless telephones, baby monitors, and garage door openers. Power for 802.11a and 802.11g transmitters is limited to 1500 W, but routers sold for home use do not even begin to approach this limit. Linksys’ popular WRT54G? router, for example, transmits at a power from 60 to 80 mW. Nonetheless, the city of Vienna is able to maintain a free wireless mesh network using about 400 nodes (many using free software modifications to the aforementioned router) that cover approximately 1/3 of the city.

However, municipal WiFi? has not really caught on in the United States. The current spectrum and power limitations mean that transmitters need to be fairly closely packed (e.g. 127 routers in the City of London to cover one square mile). Because of the relatively high frequency at which low-power consumer equipment operates, WiFi? signals do a poor job penetrating walls and roofs. *Does cognitive radio really obviate any justification for spectrum regulation?

A better technical solution would be one that employs a longer wavelength that does a better job penetrating walls and bending around buildings. Fortunately, just such an area of the spectrum happens to be unoccupied. Termed “white spaces”, the areas of the spectrum in between television channels could be used for wireless data transmission that is ten times faster than traditional wireless routers with far greater effective range. The FCC voted to allow unlicensed use of this area of the spectrum in November, 2008. Their reasoning was that new devices could sense whether or not a given wavelength was occupied and adjust their transmission to avoid interference, termed cognitive radio. One implementation of this idea is the IEEE 802.22 standard , intended for Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRANs).

Official opening of the spectrum was expected to coincide with the transition to digital television, on February 18th, 2009. That transition was delayed by a few months, but ultimately took place successfully. However, some exceptions remain for low power television broadcasts. A search for white spaces in Morningside Heights revealed only one channel’s worth of white space: http://www.showmywhitespace.com/. The National Association of Broadcasters filed suit to overturn the FCC’s ruling under the Administrative Procedure Act just before the rule was scheduled to take effect. Given the deferential standard of review, they are unlikely to prevail.

Currently, the real delays seem to be technical instead of legal. The FCC requires the maintenance of a geolocation database within the devices to prevent their operation near recording studios and other registered venues that employ potentially conflicting devices. Further, the devices all should ideally collaborate to establish a wireless mesh capable of channel hopping if it detects interference, which is a tall order, technically, though far from intractable.

*And, consequently, does spectrum regulation fail rational basis review?

*Is there any support in precedent for the idea that broadcast=speech, and such restrictions should be subject to a (much higher) 1st A test?

**Not done yet!