http://tlf.disqus.com/The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.enThu, 22 Feb 2007 14:58:26 -0000http://techliberation.com/2007/02/22/additional-concerns-with-the-skype-wu-proposal/#comment-1449868<p>Both sides of the discussion of "wireless net neutrality" are missing the core point. I believe the incumbent operators are doing so intentionally, forcing the neutrality camp, exemplified by Wu, to try to climb the hill on the steep and slippery side.</p><br><p>The real issue is the Soviet nature of spectrum allocation. The barrier to entry is very high: There seems to be no efficient market for spectrum. One needs to buy too large chunks of spectrum in order to play.</p><br><p>Why can't spectrum be traded so that, for example, a small(er) provider can bid for a small slice of spectrum in a dense metro area?</p><br><p>"True" network capacity (i.e. landline) cost is negligible compared to wireless capacity. For example, the only thing that prevents me from offering very low cost 2.5GHz (licensed band) service to my neighborhood is the fact that I can't obtain a small enough license. Even my ISP is happy for me to share my DSL line (yes, really: Speakeasy).</p><br><p>You may argue that it's not economically feasible to "allow such fragmentation", in part because ensuring RF compatibility with neighboring providers would make in uneconomical.</p><br><p>Perhaps. But without an efficient spectrum market, all we have to go on is the "informed opinion" of insiders - the operators and the FCC. Biased, therefore suspect.</p><p><br></p><p>Markets have successfully securitized all sorts of things like credit card debt and weather, but we can't do radio spectrum? That's bogus.</p>dimitrisThu, 22 Feb 2007 14:58:26 -0000