ISOC-NY NOTICE BOARD

Internet Society New York Chapter 2:07 pm on 03/09/2011 Permalink Reply
Tags: fcc ( 86 ), spectrum ( 15 ), wireless ( 19 )   

• 

  Joly MacFie 1:41 pm on 03/10/2011 Permalink | Reply

  Harold Feld of Public Knowledge responds

  As for the summary, much of it seemed fairly reasonable and straightforward. I do puzzle at this constant introduction that everyone does that has become almost hopelessly formulaic. “Command and control bad, we must eliminate command and control and specific service allocations.” Is there anyone in the policy world who actually still thinks we need command and control?

  Frankly, what we actually need some work on is how to ensure that all wireless needs are met in the *absence* of command and control. Basic economics tells us that spectrum licenses will go to those who can win at auctions, which means those who can afford to pay the most for the license. This is justified by using this as a proxy for value to society. The problem is there are a number of uses that are beneficial from a societal advantage that are less profitable than other uses that will not happen — or will happen at a much higher cost. It is a classic application of the theories Joel Waldfogel set out in his book _Tyranny of the Majority_. A few examples of this that I have seen involve things like wireless meters, machine to machine communications, and certain types of industrial operations. Most of these are low bandwidth and useful, but there is no way that the users in question can afford to win licenses at auction. Nor is it a good solution to give it to them. They don’t need licenses. They need wireless access in ways that existing licenses find less profitable to provide than things like CMRS.

  The emerging answer to this has been that it emphasizes the value of unlicensed as a testbed and cheap source of wireless access for certain purposes. This is true. But if this is our policy answer we ought to at least recognize the issue and officially bless unlicensed as the answer. I happen to think dynamic spectrum secondary markets is another tool for addressing this. But what is frustrating is everyone wants to yack about the problems from 20 years ago and no one wants to address the emerging issues in the new market structure. Worse, there seems to be this almost religious belief among the Free Market warriors from the 1980s and 1990s that acknowledging that a flexible, market-driven approach creates a different set of subsidiary issues that require some refinements is a dangerous heresy that will summon back the ancient regime of command and control.