The Curmudgeon believes that, without necessary and sufficient prior consideration, the US is embarking on a technological path that may well prove unfortunate, fraught with many unintended consequences. One wishes some rational consideration had been given before beginning the journey, but since most of today’s consumer technology is driven almost entirely by free-market companies, “anything that can be done…will be done” as long as money can be made.

The curmudgeon is usually a big proponent of using the electromagnetic spectrum (i.e. radio) to perform tasks that cannot be easily done in other ways, or in some cases cannot be done in any other way. But not in this present case. There are too many liabilities waiting to emerge.

He’s talking here about the ongoing, uncritical mass public adoption of portable one-way and two-way consumer wireless devices, of which the iPhone is probably the signature icon. This does NOT include specialty items such as wireless medical monitors, industrial barcode scanners, mobile GPS navigators, and RFID tags. These special-purpose wireless devices, along with many other similar items, have practical virtues and carry far less risk than the new breed of consumer-oriented devices.

These radio-based portable devices (i.e. commonly carried by the consumer) are intended to fulfill many contemporary telecommunications functions that were previously the purview of stationary systems. Some of these new acceptances, most notably cell phones, have advanced to the point where the devices are already in near universal use. Others are just emerging on the scene: wireless Internet access, portable television receivers, text messaging.

Now, the curmudgeon is not a technological Luddite; he understands the engineering behind it well, and owns and uses many different pieces of electronic communications systems (in the broadest sense). But The Curmudgeon is philosophically and practically opposed to mass consumption of the radio frequency spectrum by portable consumer devices, and in some cases strongly opposed. Since no one seems to want to make the case against them, I will present at least part of it here.

1. Most importantly, granting “instant direct-to-person access” through these devices, on what can easily become a 24/7 continuous basis, eliminates the possibility of maintaining an individual’s psychological “private space.” With these new devices in use, there is no longer any “wait time”, no chance to stop, to process the information already received, to consider possibilities, to plan the next steps. The world becomes real time, continuous and endless. The distinction between “work time” and “leisure time” evaporates. Addictions (ie “I can’t turn it off!”) begin, along with frustration as the individual begins to realize that the relentless incoming “data flood” can never be fully processed or mastered.

Most of the communication functions that are about to be adopted were previously handled by fixed wired devices (i.e., corded phones, desktop computers, radio and television receivers in the home) or, at most, in very limited ways by simple portable and mobile devices (car broadcast radios). Usually, you had to take very specific actions to use these, and if you were far from the fixed device locations, their use was postponed until a later time, almost always with very little negative consequence.

All of this is about to disappear in less than the blink of an eye on the time scale of human evolution. The problem is that… the human brain evolves very slowly; it has no precedent or existing adaptations for the “continuously connected” state. It is likely that the brain is only now becoming familiar with the previous generation of communication devices, and even for these there were few previous neural analogues when they were introduced. What does the brain have to do with this new massive assault on a person’s private space? What unexpected problems in human behavior are coming? Why weren’t these possibilities considered before rushing in with even more technology “just because we can?”

2. The practical liability of owning/using these fully portable devices is that they divert attention from the user’s local environment. Whether that environment happens to be a metropolitan street intersection, a busy highway, or even a farm tractor/harvester, such a detour carries real risks. A significant injury to an individual can occur in just hundreds of milliseconds, enough time to avoid danger if one is vigilant, or suffer the consequences if one is not.

Certainly not all portable devices require the same care. Barcode readers, medical monitors, RFID readers carry almost no risk. One-way audio devices, such as broadcasters, probably present only marginal risk. Slightly riskier would be some visual devices, such as mobile GPS receivers. Here, at least, the individual can choose his (occasional) viewing times. More risky are two-way audio devices, such as cell phones, which require little visual attention but require mental participation in a conversation. At the highest level of risk, in my opinion, are two-way visual devices, such as mobile TV and text messaging, which encourage both visual fun and mental engagement. Consequences should be seriously thought about before they are made available to the general public.

3. Mass adoption of what are, in essence, portable digital broadband wireless stations inevitably requires massive use of the (still) finite RF spectrum. While new technologies generally lead to more efficient use of each Hertz, there are “Tragedy of the Commons” limitations that await full spectrum consumption. What needs to be done in the coming decades, as new (and perhaps compelling) wireless applications are developed, only to be shelved due to unavailability of usable spectrum? Shouldn’t we “save” today for tomorrow’s needs? Let’s use the RF spectrum for tasks that can’t be done any other way, and use our wired networks (almost infinite bandwidth) for those that can do quite well without radio.

4. These portable wireless devices inevitably foster a sense of “self-aggrandizement” on the part of their users, telling everyone that “I can make my presence, my skills, my expertise available anywhere, anytime. Therefore, I am an important person!” The Curmudgeon, however, thinks differently. He is not a public safety officer, an emergency room doctor, or a Supreme Court justice sitting on the appeal of a capital execution of a convict. There is nothing he can do for another person *in real time* that will have major consequences. Anything you are capable of doing will not be delayed by a few minutes or a few hours, or in some cases even a few days. There is almost always time to stop, think, and consider before the action begins.

This is not to deny that there are times when real-time communications are absolutely necessary, and these portable devices can do the job well. But the curmudgeon argues that the number of such occasions is not as great as the number of cases where subscribers use their handheld devices to feel important, for tasks that even remotely require such real-time use. Perhaps the difference between the actual need and the use of self-aggrandizement amounts to orders of magnitude.

So, the questions remain: What are the real costs and real consequences of the mass adoption of these wireless and always-on consumer communication devices? Is the curmudgeon really the first to ask these questions?

What do you think?
“Let’s keep the universe safe for RF”

The old curmudgeon of RF