Comments on: Spectrum sharing opens a potential attack route

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:55:32 +0000

P.S. — Lobbyists like Richard hate it when their ulterior motives are revealed. It shows his entire, deceitful industry for what it is.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:00 +0000

Not so, Richard. At every forum where I’ve seen a speaker from Intel talk about spectrum, he has always advocated exclusive licensing. Most likely because Intel believes that devices which use exclusively licensed spectrum are the real money makers. (It makes Wi-Fi chips, but halfheartedly.)

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:15:58 +0000

Intel is one of the biggest supporters of shared spectrum there is. They’re leaders in the White Spaces, Wi-Fi, and Wi-Max worlds, and were a huge supporter of UWB.

As usual, Brett Glass is pulling aspersions out of, um, thin air, to put it politely.

By: frankxavier07

frankxavier07 — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:13:32 +0000

Thank you Brett Glass. Excellent due diligence. Amazing how many angles there are to look at problems…each perspective lends its own spin to the problem/solution.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 22:09:52 +0000

P.S. — According to his Web page at http://www.rysavy.com/clienthistory.html, other consulting clients of Mr. Rysavy include CTIA, AT&T, and Verizon, all of which likewise have lobbied for exclusive licensing of all spectrum and against unlicensed spectrum or spectrum sharing. Again, a strong vested interest.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 22:04:36 +0000

Alas, GigaOm and Mr. Rysavy fail to disclose that his big client is Intel, whose corporate policy is to attempt to deprecate spectrum sharing. In this case, he conjures a fictitious bogeyman. Yes, it’s possible to jam radio signals, but if you do you’re much more likely to be caught than if you set up an explosive device to destroy a fiber cable. Why? Because you have to keep transmitting to keep jamming, and the signal can be traced to its source. As for an attack via malware: it’s no different from mounting an attack on wired infrastructure by infecting routers and switches. Mr. Rysavy’s vested interests and bias are apparent, and his arguments do not hold water.

By: Steve Crowley

Steve Crowley — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:50:28 +0000

Peter says “security has to be added as yet one more consideration, along with all the other concerns raised by spectrum sharing,” and I agree. It’s not, however, like we’re starting from scratch as of the publication of the PCAST report. A Wireless Innovation Forum document published in 2010, “Securing Software Reconfigurable Communications Devices,” includes guidance, key considerations, and recommendations for software-defined radio (including cognitive radio) developers on security issues. That advice should be updated and expanded as appropriate.

The PCAST report contemplates that more work needs to be done. Indeed, the report describes a long-term process, not a short-term switchover. Starting with sharing 100 MHz, increasing that to 1000 MHz over time.