The democratization of radio
The democratization of radio
Posted Jan 28, 2015 23:07 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: The democratization of radio by drag
Parent article: The democratization of radio
Covering the bit of this which nobody else has covered:
preventing them from using it great portions of it at allThe thing is, radio spectrum is not only a communications channel. It is a sensing channel as well, and for that use, it must be kept quiet. Radars use a lot of spectrum which is, indeed, normally empty -- but when the military need it, they really need it. (Also, when it comes to the 'threat of force', well, they're the military. "The trouble is, when you say to a general 'You and whose army?', he just has to point out of the window.")
The other use, and I think it's even more crucial, is radio astronomy. Radio astronomy absolutely depends on quiet radio skies. You fill it up with people checking Facebook and making phone calls, you lose your radio telescopes. You could easily get to a state where radio telescopy can't be done on earth at all any more (and probably can't be done anywhere except the far side of the Moon) because of interference from terrestrial sources. (We're too close to that as it is now.)
And, to be honest, if there are a hundred thousand piddly little sources ruining your radio telescope, what can you do? You're an astronomer: you don't have a military and you can hardly quash a hundred thousand sources. So rather than destroy radio astronomy and throw away a lot of very expensive telescopes, the bands especially useful for radio astronomy (such as the hydrogen window) are kept clear.
Please don't fill them up.
Posted Jan 29, 2015 23:28 UTC (Thu)
by dfsmith (guest, #20302)
[Link] (5 responses)
> Please don't fill them up. re radio astronomy bands. I've had time on a radio telescope for astronomy. But I do wonder about the relative benefit to society of thousands of "people checking Facebook" vs a few hundred people writing their dissertations. It's not clear which is the better use of the resource. Astronomers are clever, and will find ways around the noise.
Posted Jan 29, 2015 23:51 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted Jan 30, 2015 7:14 UTC (Fri)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link] (3 responses)
Why should they have to? It's not clear we're short of bandwidth so that people can check their Facebook. That kind of stuff with always be better served by copper/fibre where you have the whole spectrum to yourself.
There is no sharp limit to the bandwidth available within a frequency band (see WiFi which carries a huge amount of data world-wide due to having a vast number of cooperating low-power transmitters). There is a limit to bandwidth at a particular point which is a function of technology. And with improved technology we'll get better results.
Given that releasing new frequencies for such use is an essentially irreversible decision, saying no is the only reasonable choice for now. Wait until the technology hits a wall before discussing new frequency allocations.
Posted Jan 30, 2015 8:29 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
As for radio-astronomy, one advantage the astronomers do have, is that it is extremely easy for them to give the cops the addresses of every single unlicenced garage remote contol opener in town, but I can't imagine the police being that interested in going round enforcing it :-(
Cheers,
Posted Feb 6, 2015 17:23 UTC (Fri)
by jdulaney (subscriber, #83672)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 6, 2015 20:32 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
The democratization of radio
The democratization of radio
Perhaps using nukes launched from Hubble on the worst offenders?
The democratization of radio
The democratization of radio
Wol
The democratization of radio
The democratization of radio