purple motes

Just outside of Washington, D.C., Arlington County recently opened a new, state-of-the-art emergency communications center (ECC). The ECC includes a new digital radio system that complies with Project 25. Project 25 defines new standards for interoperability of public safety communication systems.

Interoperability is a common issue in the communications industry. Communications standards and universal interoperability were key to the growth of the internet. Interoperability did not develop as rapidly in public safety communications systems. Older public safety communications system often did not allow neighboring public safety organizations to communicate with each other.

Arlington's new digital radio system was about twice as expensive as all the rest of the center. The fact sheet for the project notes:

Cost of the new ECC is approximately $9.6 million, including construction costs; furniture; video capabilities; cabling; 9-1-1 software and equipment; and technology equipment, included computer-aided dispatch. Cost of the new digital radio system is approximately $18 million.

For comparison, consider the cost of your house, furniture, televisions, personal computers, and personal software. Compare that to the cost of your digital cell phones, DSL or cable modems, and all other digital communication technology that you own. The cost of your house and its contents is probably on the order of a thousand times greater than the cost of your digital radio systems. Moreover, just your house and furniture probably cost a thousand times more than all the digital technology that you own.

Of course, emergency communications systems have extraordinary requirements. But so too do emergency communications buildings, furniture, software, and other equipment used in an emergency communication center.

Digital radio systems for public safety seem to have lagged far behind cost-performance improvements for other digital technologies. This outcome suggests the importance of institutions and ideas to results in different communications fields.

1 Comment

An important trend in communications policy has been to give persons more freedom to communicate using radio devices. The U.K. Office of Communication (Ofcom) currently is consulting on new ways of defining licenses for communicating using radio spectrum. Ofcom proposes to specify in licenses spectrum usage rights. It proposes to define these rights by specifying geographic boundaries and about thirteen parameters relating to power flux density, including parameters relating to time and location density. Of course, many other parameters will be relevant to modeling and measuring these rights. Compared to the structure of parameters embedded in specific technologies and applications, this new structure of license parameters gives licensees more freedom to communicate using different radio technologies and for different purposes.

Adjudication of spectrum usage rights through an institution separate from the spectrum regulatory body would make spectrum usage rights less uncertain and more secure. The authoritative meaning of spectrum usage rights may not be clear. If the spectrum regulatory body adjudicates the spectrum rights that it issues, it can further specify or revise the rights it grants through the adjudicatory process. If an independent body adjudicates the rights, then the spectrum regulatory body cannot do this. Independent adjudication disciplines the public specification of spectrum usage rights. Similarly, the spectrum regulatory body might prefer at some future time to revise spectrum usage rights granted earlier. Having an independent institution adjudicate spectrum usage rights makes those rights more secure under subsequent changes in spectrum policy.

Offer Comments

About the year 2001, 40% of persons in the world lived in countries where there was less than one fixed-line telephone per hundred persons. Good radio regulation can help to foster rapid development of communication capabilities for many persons around the world.

Björn Wellenius and Isabel Neto of the World Bank recently posted a paper, The Radio Spectrum: Opportunities and Challenges for the Developing World. I hope this important topic gets more attention in development economics.

Update: Check out this very impressive website and book on Wireless Networking in the Developing World.

Offer Comments

With the aid of high-tech equipment not in general public use, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) monitors radiation emanating from a variety of sities, including homes. In addition, the FCC claims legal authority to enter a home without a search warrant, find a device of concern, and collect information about it ("inspect radio equipment").

Under such regulation, Benjamin Franklin might have gotten into trouble with the law for messing with spark-gap radiators (Leyden jars) within his home. Perhaps to avoid that danger he might have invented an effective cloaking technology.

Why is government monitoring of radiation associated with illegal home-based radio stations less controversial than government monitoring of radiation associated with a potentially catastrophic "dirty bomb"?

Why is inspection, without a specific warrant, of radio devices within homes less controversial than inspection, without a specific warrent, of suspected communication about terrorists acts?

Perhaps because spy agencies and terrorism provide an exciting framework for grave scholarly discussion and heated political hyperbole. Radio regulation, in contrast, is, well, boring. You don't even need leaked classified documents to find out about government monitoring of (radio) radiation!

Offer Comments