-
Website
http://techliberation.com/ -
Original page
http://techliberation.com/2006/09/07/long-range-versus-short-range-spectrum-licensing/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
****
I think the issue with spectrum management comes about because of a failure of technical understanding. The people who argue that spectrum doesn't need to be managed by regulation and auction believe, incorrectly in my opinion, that interference is not a problem for modern packet radio systems.
This wrong idea has severe consequences. There is a concern, somewhat legitimate, that limited consumer choice in wireline broadband access to the Internet demands some sort of regulation on Internet access plans and services.
The market solution to this problem is simply to expand consumer choice, and the most straightforward way to do this is through wireless technologys like EVDO and WiMax. But these services depend on reliable wireless channels, and with the radio technologies of today (and the foreseeable future) reliable radio channels depend on "permission" and limited access.
So the very people who complain about a dearth of choices in broadband Internet access argue for a regulatory status quo for wireless that effectively prevents it from ever becoming a useful alternative to wireline access. It's easy to become a conspiracy nut when you see things like this, but it's actually a matter of technical ignorance rather than malice (in most cases; some net neutrality freaks actually want the government to own broadband Internet access networks.)
The Internet neutrality access regulators have got the problem upside down: the laws of networking suggest choice is enhanced by the de-regulation of wireline services and the regulation of wireless ones, and it's all because of interference and scarcity. We can always add bandwidth to a wireline system by adding more cable, but with wireless, once its gone its gone.
They aren't making any more spectrum, you see.
****
The regulatory approach of the future will probably go beyond the analog "power levels and ownership" system of the past, and dictate packet radio protocols. This will ensure basic interoperability, but not Quality of Service. To ensure QoS, it's necessary to apply Admission Control and the neut freaks go nuts when you even suggest such a thing. They're wedded to the idea that network protocols are metaphors for social structure, so their regulatory positions are colored by aesthetic considerations more than technical ones.
I also believe that the analysis in many of the posts confuse the availability of the spectrum with devices that use the spectrum. For example manufacturers can build and sell many wireless devices to consumers because certain portions of the spectrum are freely available for those uses. As Tim notes, low power devices are nearly non-rivalrous. To go on - the manufactures already have a permissionless market and decentralized decision making process.
I however, disagree with Tim's position that long-range spectrum should be propertized. First, as I have previously stated, the spectrum is already owned by the government. While many people perceive of the government as inefficient, I don't think that a corporation would do any better. Large corporations tend to take on the "look and feel" of government agencies (especially when they are a monopoly). So I don't see much point in trading one "bad" for another "bad".
But wait, Tim of course is advocating a decentralized decision making approach which would imply many smaller nimbler players. While this appears rationale, I don't think it would work in the real world. As an extreme example, John has a radio station in Washington DC that can be heard in Baltimore. Now Jane in Baltimore claims that she now owns the spectrum in Baltimore and demands that John start paying her. Later Tom in Columbia claims spectrum ownership and starts demanding royalties from both John and Jane. Frankly, I would envision the same mayhem that we are seeing with patent infringement lawsuits which continuously attempt to aggrandize a private property right beyond any reasonable limit. Again, my solution is that the government manage the commercial portions of the spectrum as any corporation would.
As for disputes over spectrum ownership, I don't see this as a big issue. I think most of the spectrum would be auctioned off on a nation-wide basis, with spectrum owners free to sub-license the spectrum geographically if they choose. The FCC might auction some spectrum on a geographic piecemeal basis, or they might allow spectrum owners to divide and re-sell the spectrum themselves. Either way, I don't see why it would be all that difficult to keep track of who owned the right to transmit at what frequencies and in which geographical areas.
The primary issue with the patent system is the lack of clear boundaries between peoples' rights. I think it would be much easier to define clear boundaries for spectrum rights.
PS: I agree with the FCC autioning off the spectrum as a lease were private property ownership is retained by the government. Further, companies could sublease as they desire, they simply wouldn't own.
Would the lease be perpetual? And would the lessee have flexibility to use the spectrum for different uses? If so, I'm not sure I see any important differences between a perpetual lease and ownership. The only difference is that with formal ownership the property owner pays for the land in an up-front lump sum instead of in installments.
As for the government operating as a business, I certainly think they should act more like a business when they're engaged in what are essentially commercial operations. However, I'm skeptical about how feasible that is. To some extent, government is inherently wasteful and bureaucratic.
I, unfortunately, can't refute that government is inherently wasteful and bureaucratic. Furthermore, one of the problems that I have whenever the government is discussed as one entity is the fact that government, if it were one entity, really suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Essentially government is schizophrenic.
You in fact recognized this to a degree when you wrote "Railroad Network Neutrality and New Technologies" on August 3, 2006. You wrote "As I explain, the pro-regulatory side won that debate, creating the Interstate Commerce Committee. And the results were not good: by the 1920s, the ICC was helping the railroads restrict entry and raise prices. In 1935, as a result of railroad and ICC lobbying, Congress gave the ICC authority over the trucking industry. And the surface transportation industry was uncompetitive for the half-century that followed. As a Ralph Nader report put it in 1970, the commission became "primarily a forum at which transportation interests divide up the national transportation market."". What I am trying to say is that while many people complain that government is obstructing business they fail to also see that government is also in bed with business (Kelo v. City of New London). I believe that government should be in business and NOT give special privilages to business (such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act).
To answer Tim Wu, permissionless market entry would be great. But, the rules needed to create a spectrum commons with permisionless entry will necessarilly limit what entrants can do with the spectrum (e.g. power limits). While such rules might create more entry, they will likely also prevent spectrum from being put to its most valuable use. Second, and the main point of my paper, is that if we are all agreed that command-and-control spectrum management is inefficient, then government created commons are not an alternative because the same inefficient command-and-control processes will be employed to set commons rules.
One has only to look at the network neutrality rules proposed by Snowe-Dorgan, Markey, and the others to see this principle in action: in the name of management of the commons, the morons want to ban all for-fee QoS for everybody. For-fee QoS is a perfectly legitimate service that's key to successfully absorbing TV and telephony onto IP networks, but these idiots only see it as enforcing the "Tony Soprano model of networking."
This is "The Tragedy of the Commons" writ large.
1. How serious are the interference problems at various frequencies; and
2. How limiting for market entrants are the any set of rules that might deal with those intereference problems.
The answer to those two questions for various frequencies, if they exist, determines the ideal mix of unlicensed and propertized spectrum.
As for which side to err on. While obviously interference problems exist, my concern is that they can be fetishized. For example, during the low-power FM radio debate, trumped up claims of interference that was really impossible to detect manage to kill the FCC's proposals. The problem with claims of interference is that there's always SOME -- and if that's a trump card it kills alot of interesting spectrum proposals.
Its similar to the criticisms of ethernet. Obviously ethernet is a protocol that's going to lose alot of packets. But that doesn't mean it isn't great anyhow. If you were a real stickler for perfect networking, you'd say no to ethernet, and that's the same instinct i have with unlicensed spectrum. Lossly but maybe good.
Finally, as for "command and control." If we agree that the experiment with unlicensed garage band spectrum was a success (perhaps for the reasons suggested) it cannot be true that all commons schemes are doomed to failure as "command and control" regimes.
Finally finally. As much as I like talking about network neutrality, it can't be that EVERY issue we discuss here somehow need to be related to the "Tony Soprano model of networking?"
TW
There's actually a third option beyond "take it or leave it," which is "improve it." The original Ethernet - Bob Metcalfe's Ethernet - was prone to congestion and loss under high load because it relied on a fully-distributed access control scheme, and those things never work well. So we improved it by adding a level of centralization above the individual computer level - the hub or switch - with the ability to mediate access among a group of computers by exercising flow-control and using queuing. This is the Ethernet that we all use today, and it almost never drops a frame.
The designers of Bob Metcalfe's system fetishized decentralization and noise immunity, and didn't pay enough attention to ensuring high throughput, a typical rookie mistake. But in 1973, we were all network rookies, um, except for the phone company, and their contributions made Ethernet the robust, high-performance system it is today. There's no substitute for experience.
Regarding radio interference, the issue isn't frequency as much as it is power levels and coding (coding being the ways that bits are represented in the analog domain and extracted therefrom.) We can design point-to-point packet radio schemes with frequency and code division agility that adjust and adapt around similar point-to-point exchanges, but designing point-to-multipoint schemes like WiMax and WiFi with agility is a lot harder, which is to say more costly to throughput. Someday we may be able to solve the problem of multiple simultaneous packet radio streams at the same frequency with no reduction in throughput, but we're nowhere close to it today. The people who say they've solved it have actually solved the easier point-to-point case.
The irony of Tony Soprano is that he's a character on a premium cable show who was roped into a scheme to deny a premium option to Internet users. If you'd have said it was "the HBO model of networking" I would have agreed.
I disagree with Jerry's statement: "Second, and the main point of my paper, is that if we are all agreed that command-and-control spectrum management is inefficient, then government created commons are not an alternative because the same inefficient command-and-control processes will be employed to set commons rules." My belief is that it is a pointless exercise to replace the government with a private entity that will do the same thing.
To explain, lets assume that Washington DC and Baltimore are seperate markets (property rights). Only a finite number of "deeds" can be granted since the spectrum real estate is limited.
Initially we will have a free wheeling and open market envisioned by the TLF. Over time, however, we can assume that one or more corporations will buy all the deeds to a piece of spectrum and begin to assert monopoly power. While this is going on all the various players will also begin to organize into formal and informal "associations" to work out any problems so that the system functions. (This type of approach is used in the ham radio community to coordinate repeaters and I believe represents a positive aspect of how the FCC is managing the spectrum. The FCC has delegeted local spectrum control to the users to self regulate.)
To conclude, the appearance of monopoly power and associations will result in a private FCC with all the same command and control inefficiencies of the existing government FCC. I would prefer the government FCC, since in theory; it would be managing the spectrum on behalf of the citizens of this country.
I didn't say that.
PS: I am thinking of posting to "Cyren Call, Verizon, and public safety". The theme will be that there is still a great deal of confusion between access to the spectrum and the devices that allow you to use the spectrum. The issue appears to me more how public safety agencies design (devices used) their radio system than access to the spectrum. If I post, it will be a while since I will be busy with other activities.