Using an analogy to Radio (0.00 / 0)

It's of great frustration to me that setting up a radio station/signal is so hard. I'd like to see a small bit of spectrum (similar to the WiFi spectrum) set up for people to set up their own local wireless networks. I'd like to avoid the position we are in today with Radio, where there's a lot of white space and room for new stations, but it's way too hard to set one up.

That paragraph looks kind of confusing.

Ben Scott said it best:

Expand unlicensed public spectrum. The greatest success of recent broadband policies is Wi-Fi, which uses unlicensed spectrum. We should expand the availability of unlicensed spectrum into lower frequencies by opening up the unassigned television channels (also known as "white spaces") for wireless broadband.

I blog on InnermostParts.org

---

by: Sayhar @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 17:47:15 PM UTC

not enough unlicensed? (0.00 / 0)

Last time I looked at Part 15 of the Act, I counted up over 600 MHz available for unlicensed use.  Granted, a good deal of it is encumbered, and any use of unlicensed commons means accepting interference (e.g., 2.4GHz band).  But the spectrum is out there.  If it is not being used today, then why are we anxious to allocate even more spectrum to unlicensed use?

Prof Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 21:18:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Its about propagation.... (0.00 / 0)

The spectrum you're referring to is virtually all at higher frequencies that are very poorly suited for WAN applications.  They are largely irrelevant to this conversation.

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 22:16:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

really? (0.00 / 0)

UPCS is at 1950 MHz, exactly where cellular is.  20 MHz and as far as I know no one uses it.

And 2.4 GHz was considered junk, and now we are saying what a great success it is.  Of course 700 MHz is better, but the other stuff should not be written off; I have high hopes for our technologists.

Prof. Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 22:54:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for clarifying (0.00 / 0)

I wasn't aware of the UPCS at 1950, though a quick Google search suggests that this unlicensed band is now only 10 MHz. In any event, I certainly wouldn't want to write off any usable spectrum. 

I think most major cellcos are using not only PCS spectrum in the 1.9 GHz band, but also the original cellular spectrum, which I think is in the 800-900 MHz band.  That gives them not only more spectrum, but also more architectural flexibility to take advantage of each spectrum block's characteristics. 

I certainly share your high hopes for our technologists.  I'm not quite so hopeful about our regulatory process.

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 23:09:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: last paragraph (0.00 / 0)

You got that right, buddy!

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 23:23:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

White space spectrum & the public interest (4.00 / 1)

Senator,

My apologies for posting such a long comment.  But I wanted to offer it up relatively early in today's discussion as one model you (and today's commenters) might consider.  It focuses on the "white space" spectrum, which I believe holds great promise for helping policymakers address the key issues we are discussing with you this week.  It is based on a report I recently completed on this subject.  I also plan to post it as an Open Left diary entry. 
----

As we hold this online discussion, the FCC is in the final stages of deciding if and how to authorize use of the TV broadcast "white space," which it could make available by early 2009, when broadcasters are scheduled to return their analog channels and switch to all-digital transmission. 

The so-called "white space" is comprised of channels in the broadcast band that were historically set aside as unused "guard bands." This was done to avoid interference with stations transmitting on adjacent channels in the same market and broadcasts on the same channel in nearby markets. 

The Commission's current proceeding reflects a growing belief that, thanks to modern technology, these channels can be made available for unlicensed use without causing harmful interference to licensed broadcasters.  But, at the same time, the politically powerful broadcast industry is pushing the FCC to place onerous restrictions on  unlicensed use of the white space.  Should the FCC accept broadcasters' self-serving arguments, this historic opportunity for broadband innovation, competition and expanded access could be lost to the American people.

Should the Commission open up the white space for unlicensed use, many parts of the country could see as much as 150-200 MHz of unlicensed spectrum become available, with more than 200 MHz potentially available in some areas.  To put this in perspective, consider that: 1) the entire cellular, PCS and recently auctioned AWS bands include 50 MHz, 120 MHz, and 90 MHz, respectively and; 2) the white space spectrum has much better propagation characteristics than the 83.5 MHz of spectrum in the heavily used 2.4 GHz unlicensed band and, even more so, than the unlicensed bands above 5 GHz, which are not well suited for wide area access networks.

The white space proceeding (Docket 04-186) requires the FCC to make decisions on a number of technical and operational issues that together will determine how much and on what terms white-space spectrum will be made available--and, potentially, the nature and economic viability of networks and services employing that spectrum.  Between late January and early March of this year, the Commission received two rounds of comments on these issues. 

Having read most of these comments, I developed my own recommendations for how best to address issues raised in the white space proceeding. 

At the core of my recommendations is a proposal to encourage white space-enabled "Public Interest IP" networks that use public spectrum assets to serve the public interest more directly and fully than has been the case in the past.  As their acronym suggests, these PIIP networks would serve as open-access "pipes" for transmission of Internet Protocol data packets and the nearly endless forms of IP-based content and service this would enable. 

In contrast to the profit-seeking motivation of private network operators, a key financial goal of PIIP networks would be to move in the direction of providing free universal connectivity, to the extent this can be done in an economically sustainable manner.  In this respect, the PIIP model is a 21st century expression of the underlying "public interest" principle shared by the 20th century policy goals of "universal phone service" and "free over-the-air television."

Key goals of the PIIP proposal contained in this report are to maximize: 1) the amount and efficiency of white space spectrum made available for unlicensed use and; 2) the benefits associated with harnessing that spectrum to the purposes of municipal or "community" broadband networks.  These benefits include:

1) more universal and affordable Internet access;

2) providing a low-cost and Internet-friendly open-access alternative to incumbents' vertically-integrated "gatekeeper" access models;

3) delivering cost savings and increased efficiencies to local governments and other non-market "public service" institutions;

4) increasing beneficial "externalities," including economic growth and social value driven by the Internet's ability to facilitate efficient exchange, evaluation, combination and implementation of new ideas;

5) a lessening of the First Amendment restrictions on non-licensees that result from the FCC's practice of granting exclusive spectrum licenses.

6) cost sharing and cooperation with next-generation public safety networks that will be using 700 MHz spectrum in the same timeframe that white space spectrum becomes available.

Though the PIIP proposals discussed in my report encompass a range of specific options, they all assume, to varying degrees, the following general roles for local governments:

1) helping to maximize the amount and efficiency of white space spectrum use while, at the same time, helping to avoid and, as necessary, resolve interference problems with broadcasters and other spectrum users;

2) providing rights of way and other resources to support efficient network deployment and operation, including cooperation and, as appropriate, coordination with public safety networks and users;

3) delivering public services and facilitating other economic, political and social benefits via white space-enabled networks that provide broadly available untethered and non-discriminatory access to the Internet;

4) through these cost savings, efficiencies, services and benefits, generating value that can help justify the cost of providing universal broadband Internet connectivity.

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 18:04:37 PM UTC

Can Only Say "Amen" (0.00 / 0)

mitchipd says it all.

The 700MHz bands have a lot of advantages for a public wifi service based upon shared spectra, including better range, and better ability to get past trees, and so on.

Giving these bands back to the public is the single best thing Congress can do to create competition in the "last mile" market.

---

by: mbayrob @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 19:53:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

700 MHz spectrum (0.00 / 0)

Certainly agree that it's about time we got the whitespace back from the TV broadcasters.  But committing some 500 MHz of whitespace to unlicensed is a wildly irresponsible experiment at this point.  There is plenty of unlicensed spectrum currently available which has gone unused (think UPCS and UNII spectrum).  Do we have a shred of hard evidence that making this much spectrum available as unlicensed will be used efficiently?

I am reminded of the high-minded experiment of the FCC in the 1950s with UHF TV; a huge swath of spectrum was devoted to this noble experiment, which as a major flop.  Unfortunately, we are still living with the huge inefficiencies of that experiment; we are only now just beginning to dig ourselves out of that experiment.  What evidence do we have that going unlicensed with the white space spectrum is not just another noble (but laughable) government experiment in telling people what they need?

Prof. Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 21:26:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The balance of evidence (0.00 / 0)

I don't know what you're referring to in your parallel to UHF.  Drawing parallels to anything in the 50s seems pretty iffy to me, especially when the situations and time periods are so different.

I'd suggest that the success (i.e., massive growth in apps and devices) of the existing unlicensed Part 15 spectrum for LAN applications (for which its fairly well suited) is clear evidence of potential success for additional unlicensed spectrum.  Further evidence can be seen in the proliferation of unlicensed WAN deployments by WISPs and munis, in spite of the fact that this spectrum is crowded and not well suited for WAN applications. 

I don't know where you come up with 500 MHz.  That would be nice, but I don't think there's that much available in the broadcast band--more like 100-200 MHz. 

Citing one "noble experiment" that was a "major flop" 50 years ago, without explaining its direct relevance to what you're comparing it to doesn't seem very convincing to me.  Could you explain more about how these two situations are similar?

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 21:46:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

fail to see the relevance? (0.00 / 0)

I thought the relevance was pretty obvious, but it is sometimes best to state it clearly.

During the 1950's, the FCC allocated a large swath of spectrum to UHF TV on the theory (without evidence) that local broadcasters would swarm to use this spectrum to broadcast local news, events, etc. to their areas.  They even forced the set manufacturers to install UHF receivers (sound like DTV?).  As it turns out, this experiment was a failure.  The regulators thought they understood the needs of the market, acted on their convictions, and they were wrong.  Well, happens to us all.  But in the case of the government, it's errors are pretty well irreversible, and the spectrum devoted to UHF has been virtually unused since the 1950's, an enormous waste of a key national resource...because of regulation.

Similarly, we are about to embark on an even bigger experiment: committing 500 MHz of white space to unlicensed use, without a shred of evidence (but lots of rhetoric, as with UHF) that it will be used as hyped.

Here's what hasn't changed since the 1950's: politics, the inability of the FCC to recover from failed experiments, and what I think of as "public interest hype."  Same with UHF in teh 1950's as with unlicensed today.  Does this make it clearer?

I found the 600 MHz for unlicensed in Part 15 of the Act; I also found the 500 MHz white space browsing the FCC website; frequencies in question appear there.

Prof Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 23:04:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still think the analogy is weak (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the clarification.  A few more points in response...

I still don't think the 500 MHz number is correct re: broadcast white space (maybe all broadcast channels?), but if I'm wrong, then I think my case for 100-200 MHz for unlicensed is even stronger (there'd still be plenty of spectrum left for licensing).

Giving free exclusive licenses to entrenched broadcasters and mandating extra receiver capabilities in the 50s is very different than opening up spectrum on a non-exclusive basis to anyone and everyone willing to operate within certain technical requirements in today's much more technically advanced and Internet-centric environment.

In fact, given the level of interest in the broadcast white space by the likes of Intel, Microsoft, Google, Dell, HP, Philips, Samsung, etc., I think we can expect very dynamic and intensive use of that spectrum should the FCC open some of it up for unlicensed use.

So, while I agree with your critique of the UHF policy, I still don't think it applies all that well here.

And there are certainly examples of licensed spectrum acquired in auctions that is warehoused for long periods of time, so auctions are not the perfect solution, even when we consider only efficiency and ignore the First Amendment issues I raised. 

A good example would be to compare three bands in the 2 GHz range--Wireless Communications Service (WCS) at 2.3 GHz, Broadband Radio Service (BRS, formerly known as MDS/MMDS) at 2.5 GHz, and the 2.4 GHz IMS band.  The first two of these are licensed, the third unlicensed.

Though large amounts of WCS spectrum were licensed back in 1997 (with telecom giants BellSouth and Comcast among the largest winning bidders), this band has seen relatively little commercial deployment.  And, in various incarnations, exclusive licenses for the BRS band have been available for decades, and have changed hands numerous times and at a wide range of prices, with buyers including some of the nation's largest telecom providers.  And while there were some deployments using this spectrum, they were typically limited in scope and, in many cases, proved unsuccessful in terms of long-term economic viability.

As you know, today the lion's share of BRS spectrum (along with commercial spectrum leases for the nearby Educational Broadcast Service band) is controlled by Sprint and Clearwire.  Until AT&T agreed to sell its BRS licenses to Clearwire as part of a deal that led to FCC approval of its BellSouth acquisition, the latter had also been among the largest owners of BRS licenses.

After years of aggregating spectrum, Clearwire had deployed broadband networks in only about 40 mostly smaller markets.  And Sprint, which had agreed to certain BRS deployment milestones to win approval for its Nextel merger, will only be launching its first commercial markets this year.

This tendency toward warehousing licensed spectrum in the 2 GHz band contrasts sharply with the intensive use of the nearby 2.4 GHz IMS band by an ever-expanding variety of unlicensed devices and applications.  And, even though the band was already being used intensively for wireless LANs and other low-power applications, it has seen, in recent years, a wave of wide-area deployments by WISPs (mostly in relatively rural areas) and, more recently, muni-wireless systems.

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 23:36:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wholeheartedly agree... (0.00 / 0)

...with your statement "In fact, given the level of interest in the broadcast white space by the likes of Intel, Microsoft, Google, Dell, HP, Philips, Samsung, etc., I think we can expect very dynamic and intensive use of that spectrum should the FCC open some of it up for unlicensed use."

Except the last phrase.  I think we would see very dynamic use of this spectrum by these same companies if the spectrum were sold at auction (along with all other spectrum, as I keep saying).  In fact, perhaps Google would like to buy it and wholesale it to others (as they keep saying).  Lots of interest, lots of potential players...so why insist it all be unlicensed?  I'd like to see lots of spectrum licensed, and lots of spectrum owned by a government agency (say, Commerce, the City of Philadelphia, e.g.) and made available for unlicensed.  We need both, and we need a model that allows for both.  Think regime change here; think beyond grubbing for a few extra KHz from the FCC spectrum czar.  Let's get all the spectrum out there and exile the czar to Siberia;-)

The good senator has asked us to think outside the box; let's do it.

Prof. Gerry Faulhaber

[N.B. last post for a while; I need to cook some dinner.  I'll leave you all to your own devices.  Been lots of fun.]

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 00:09:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Freedom from the spectrum czar (0.00 / 0)

I certainly agree with your point about the spectrum czar.  Thanks again for joining us, and enjoy your dinner.

---

by: mitchipd @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 00:53:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the informative intros (0.00 / 0)

Thanks to all involved in this project, including Sen. Durbin and his staff. This is what (what I refer to as) Politics 2.0 needs to look like, and it's very heartening to see.

My schedule probably won't permit me to be online during the conversation today, but I'll look forward to catching up the comments after the time established for real-time input.

---

by: readerOfTeaLeaves @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 18:11:52 PM UTC

Thanks to the Senator, and a few comments (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, Senator Durbin; good to know someone's concerned and (I hope) listening.

I too support the spread of broadband, but there are many avenues, not just unlicensed wireless, and I hope you are willing to remove all government impediments to the spread of broadband.  Restrictive municipal fees and taxes on firms/organizations that put physical infrastructure under the streets in cities and towns is one impediment that comes to mind.

With respect to WiFi, I am certainly a fan, but "greatest success"?  I don't think so.  It is about as successful as cordless phone in terms of penetration and revenues, which is pretty good.  But it is not even close to the wild success of cellular, both here and overseas.  Within 10 years after PCS was introduced in the US, we had more wireless phones than landlines; everyone over the age of ten seems to have a cell phone.  Talk about universal service!  The regulated phone industry took 50 years to achieve universal service, but the unregulated (free market, if I may dare utter the phrase;-) cellular industry accomplished it in a decade.  The lesson, for those who would learn it, seems pretty obvious.

I must respond to the claim that the private sector is full of tricks and monopolies, and has done great harm to the public.  The litany of historical concerns re: the old Bell System was done under the most pervasive scheme of regulation this country has seen; surely government has to take some of the blame here.  Yet the unregulated cellular industry has provided steeply falling prices, dizzying new technology, and access even to African villages.  "Tricks and monopolies"?  "Great harm"?  Check the facts before you rush to judgment.

Is the day of auctions over?  Do they ill-serve the public?  On the contrary, they have been the greatest boon to efficient use of the spectrum since 1927.  Our problem is not too much auction, but too little.  The FCC has dribbled spectrum into the market a little at a time, and the result is high prices.  The solution is simple, really.  Get ALL the spectrum into the market, and the price will drop like a stone!  High prices and monopoly power are cured by abundance, and that's what the government has failed to deliver.  Get all the spectrum into the market, let the government keep or buy what it needs for unlicensed and other uses, and get the FCC out of the spectrum nanny business.  If individuals or organizations have their own pet project, let them buy their own spectrum and try it out.  Today, as this blog shows, the way to success is to lobby the government to impose your favorite plan.  What makes us think that highly politicized decisionmaking in spectrum allocation is a good idea?

Prof Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 21:12:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Help us build a new model (0.00 / 0)

As I read Sascha's proposals (http://www.openleft....)
and others offered this week, I'm struck by how powerful and sensible is the vision of a commons-based, universal, high-capacity open-access Internet.

While imposition of network neutrality or structural separation rules on incumbents may be feasible, I think what's most important for achieving this vision is to unite the municipal broadband, unlicensed, open-access and open-source movements around a strategy that incorporates key elements of what Sascha, Harold, Ben and others are proposing, along with the approach to white space spectrum I laid out in an earlier comment (see: http://www.openleft....).

If the collective forces of what I'll call "freedom" and "community" are able to leverage the large amount of white space spectrum (and maybe also some of the 700 MHz spectrum) to begin building an attractive alternative to what is offered by incumbents, the result will be a shift in real-world market power. 

Rather than insisting that incumbents adopt the model we believe is best, it makes more sense to me that we focus on insuring we have the freedom and resources to manifest that model ourselves.  And, as this online discussion reminds us, the Internet provides an efficient and ever-evolving platform for aggregating and synthesizing ideas and resources in highly efficient and creative ways. 

Pursuit of NN and SS rules is essentially an effort to control those who seek to control, so they don't abuse the ability to control that their market power gives them.  In key respects, this is playing the incumbents' game in the arenas in which they've aggregated great skill and resources (e.g., Congress, the FCC, the courts, the Patent Office, etc.), and have shown a willingness to invest those resources massively and relentlessly.

The approach I'm suggesting, and which seems to be embodied in Sascha's proposals, is that we build alternative networks and "business models" that are based less on top-down control and more on voluntary cooperation, community, collaborative innovation and what Yochai Benkler calls "commons-based peer production." 

I believe this model can thrive if both models are offered to the American people.  The combination of smart radios, open software-based applications, innovative approaches to community-based fiber deployment, and the power of Internet-enabled collaboration and entrepreneurship...these embody the best of what this country is about. 

My recommendation to Congress is to focus on enabling this model to have its chance to become a reality...listen to folks like Sascha, the advocates of unlicensed spectrum and the local communities who want to insure they have the right to build 21st century Internet roads in their community.  Then make it a priority to adopt policies that help this model grow and scrupulously avoid those that stifle it, regardless of how much pressure you may feel from incumbents to do otherwise.

As you seem to realize, Senator, you and your colleagues face a historic opportunity.  If you embrace it, you can unleash the power of American citizens to help you fix the many problems you (and we) are struggling with, and to reinvigorate an American spirit that has become weakened by the excesses of fear, dishonesty and dysfunction now polluting our political, economic and media systems.  Ultimately, this is much bigger than a "communication policy issue."  It is, in fundamental ways, a "future of this country" issue.

I believe you appreciate that, and I thank you again for joining us this week.  Please come back regularly to continue our collaboration.

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 20:15:18 PM UTC

Well said; just one small point (4.00 / 1)

I am struck by the comment above: "Rather than insisting that incumbents adopt the model we believe is best, it makes more sense to me that we focus on insuring we have the freedom and resources to manifest that model ourselves."

Well said!  I know many believe the open model of free access adds much more value than the proprietary model, so I propose we test that proposition.  Let the FCC auction off the whitespace spectrum (all 500 MHz) with no use restrictions at all.  With that amount of spectrum in the market, it should be easy to pick up 50-100 MHz rather cheaply, so Sascha, Yochai Benkler and the New America Foundation can buy some spectrum and set up the open model of free access.  You can become the "backbone" of the new model, and if you are right, you will do well by doing good.

But it seems your strategy is not to put up your money, but to get the government to give you what you want, and hope your model works.  Now I understand why you would want the government to fund your experiment; don't we all?  But underneath all the high-sounding language, isn't this what your recommendation is all about?

Prof Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 21:40:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The First Amendment component of this... (0.00 / 0)

Where is it written in stone (or the Constitution) that the spectrum belongs to the federal government and that we have to pay them to use it?  And why would I rather give the federal government money it's likely to piss away on Iraq, when I can spend it to build a 21st century Internet?  You may think that's a good tradeoff/investment/policy, but I disagree.

There's also a First Amendment element to the licensed vs. unlicensed issue.  In a 1998 article, for example, Yochai Benkler and Larry Lessig questioned the constitutionality of FCC spectrum allocation policies in the face of technological change that allows efficient spectrum sharing:

"Our argument is straightforward: The FCC regulates speech. It says that, if you want to speak on 98.6 FM in Boston, you must get a license (or, now, buy one). If you speak on 98.6 without a license, you will have committed a crime. The FCC will prosecute you and seize your transmitter. All this despite the fact that the First Amendment to the Constitution says, 'Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.' What gives?"

The traditional rationale goes something like this: 98.6 is part of the radio spectrum; radio spectrum by its "nature" must be allocated for it to be useable...Nature makes it so, the government says, and government must respect nature...But what if 'nature' changed?...What if the spectrum could be shared by all rather than set aside for a narrow class of licensees?...Instead of a market in spectrum, we would have a market in efficient wireless modems."

"If shared spectrum is possible," argued Benkler and Lessig, "then the First Amendment would mean that allocated spectrum--whether licensed or auctioned--must go."

"The First Amendment...is strongly opposed to a system of licensing or prior restraint…When the state creates a regime where all speech must be licensed; when it establishes monopolies over valuable speech resources; when it erects a framework that concentrates, rather than decentralizes, opportunities for speech, then the state needs a very strong justification."

"Necessity would be such a justification. If the only architecture for broadcasting that could work were the architecture of allocated spectrum, then spectrum allocation would be justified. But, when technology advances such that this concentrated architecture is no longer required, then 'necessity' disappears and…the reason for this state-sponsored monopoly--abridging the freedom to speak without a license from the state-vanishes."

Recent comments filed by NAF et al. in support of unlicensed white space also highlight the First Amendment issues related to spectrum auctions and exclusive licensing in general.  These comments argue that, even if the promised efficiency gains were fully realized through such auctions, neither these gains, nor the scarcity doctrine, give the government "unlimited authority to curtail speech."

"[W]here technology allows users to speak through the electromagnetic spectrum without interference to the productive uses of higher powered licensed services, the FCC has no right preventing them from speaking. Economic grounds alone are not a substantial government interest, and thus cannot support exclusive licensing where the threat of interference does not exist."

Citing City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, NAF et al. argue that "The Supreme Court has explicitly found that the First Amendment prohibits the government from granting exclusive rights in communications media unless the physical characteristics of the medium require exclusivity as a precondition of productive use."

"The Constitution would not tolerate an auction for rights to protest in a town square on the grounds that an auction would increase government revenue, or to ensure that only those who 'most value' the right to speak publicly have the opportunity to do so. Such a scheme could not circumvent the First Amendment by arguing that winners at auction would resell or rent to other speakers if it were genuinely more efficient to allow just anyone to speak...

It makes no sense as a matter of First Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, to posit that the First Amendment rights of the vast majority of citizens to speak directly to one another, rather than through a government-licensed intermediary, can arbitrarily be circumscribed in the name of economic efficiency."

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 22:13:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who owns the spectrum and 1A issues (0.00 / 0)

Couldn't agree more with your first paragraph.  Some scholars that have researched this claim that in the early days of radio, the courts were groping toward a property right system in spectrum to solve the problem of broadcaster interference, but Herbert Hoover, Sec'y of Commerce trumped it all via the Federal Radio Act of 1927, putting it under gov't control.  Since then, they have made a complete hash of it.

My solution: auction every KHz off ASAP, get it into private hands (or gov't hands for their use)just like we do with land.  Use the auction proceeds to give us all a tax credit, so we won't waste it on dumb wars (altho I'd spend some at Walter Reed Hospital, thank you very much).  Then we the people can buy, sell and trade this stuff just like we do real property. 

As for the First Amendment, it seems to be an extremely popular area of legal scholarship, still searching for its first empirically testable hypothesis.  I think I'll leave the theorizing to others.  And as for Larry L., when I was on a penel at Stanford at a conference he moderated, he shut me up for 45 minutes.  I was outraged that a leading 1A expert could deny me my 1A rights ;-) by regulatory fiat. 

Prof. Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 23:21:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Property rights, commons, licensing... (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the reply.  I'll have to absorb it later, since I've got to shift gears now.  It does, however, remind me of a recent paper by Jim Snider of NAF on the relationships between the "licensed vs. unlicensed" and "property rights vs. commons" questions.  Jim's paper struck me as a helpful contribution to the policy debate in terms of clarifying the real relationships among these terms. I'd be interested in your comments on it.
Here's a link:
http://www.newameric...
I appreciate you excercising your 1A rights in this discussion;-)

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 23:53:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

quick response (0.00 / 0)

Don't actually have time to read the paper, but I think we all  know that licensed sort of fits with property rights and commons sort of fits with unlicensed.  I've been in this debate for several years now, with several papers.  See my last one referenced in my opening statement.

But I go further; having a property right in a license should have only technical restrictions: power, frequency, location, plus other stuff.  No restrictions on use, no requirement to get FCC approval to sell, buy, trade, subdivide, aggregate.  No time limits on the license, either.

Prof. Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 00:14:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unlicensed spectrum property rights (0.00 / 0)

If I remember correctly, one of Jim's key points is that, in a world of increasingly low-power smart devices, property rights can be unbundled from licensing.  I think that's a key insight that changes the terms of the debate and the potential solutions. 

Jim's paper draws parallels between trespass and other local laws and locally-managed interference control mechanisms that could be developed.  Some spectrum rights, rather than being bundled with auctioned licenses, would instead be bundled with real property rights.

Just as local laws (or just direct communication and coordination among the parties) are used to resolve issues if someone makes too much noise and disturbs their neighbors, so too would these same tools be applied if spectrum use on my property interfered with the spectrum use of my neighbors on their property.

Another benefit of this is that it would take spectrum management increasingly out of the hands of federal regulators and put it directly in citizens' hands and, where needed, conflicts could be managed locally.

There could still be licensed spectrum used for high-power wide area applications, but the trend seems to be toward lower-power applications, which could be expanded via mesh networks to achieve wide area coverage with much more spectral efficiency than exclusive high-power licenses.

This approach also gets us back to the First Amendment issue.  Why should citizens need to pay the federal government to exercise their first amendment rights in their home?  We don't have to do this when we speak to each other directly, why must we pay and receive approval from the federal government to speak electronically within the confines of our home? 

In my view, this perspective presents a fundamental and healthy challenge to the entire spectrum regulation scheme we've known since early in the 20th century.  The world is not just about markets, nor are all problems solved by trying to fit them into market solutions.

---

by: mitchipd @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 00:50:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good points: a low-powered world? (0.00 / 0)

Lots of very good points here.  The idea that low-powered use of spectrum could be associated with real estate is intriguing.  We economists would call these two assets complementary.  For example, I own a house in Delaware and I owned a boat slip in the nearby marina (just as I might own rights to emit lowpower radiation).  I can sell them separately or together.

Your focus on enforcement is absolutely spot on.  How do we enforce our property rights in licensed spectrum, and how do we enforce our rights (whatever they may be) in unlicensed (commons) spectrum?  I think the second is harder than the first, but they are both extremely important in determining what is the appropriate regime?  In my paper, I argue that clear property rights, easily observed, could be enforced by civil courts rather than the FCC.  The legal system may not be great, but it's a lot better than the regulatory system, n'est ce pas?

But again, either of these problems and solutions arises in both licensed and unlicensed regimes.  What we need to focus on is making all spectrum abundant and cheap, like real property.  Then it wouldn't be just the big guys that own it.

Prof. Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:57:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Forgot: more on low power (0.00 / 0)

There are several key technology issues that are critical to a commons/unlicensed approach.  I urge caution; let's not get overcome with techno-euphoria

The first is how low powered devices can be leveraged with mesh networks.  The idea of mesh networks has been around a long time (no time here for a tutorial; see Wikipedia), and we can get them to work in the lab and with enough engineers, even in the field.  But they require a high density of devices to make them work well; in a mobile world, density is ever-changing and variable.  Can we depend on it?  Because that is the basic premise to make mesh networks work; they simply will not work without sufficient device density.

The second (not mentioned so far) is the use of high-powered devices that avoid interference by using contention management technologies ("cognitive" or "smart" radios).  While it sounds like this is just a little chip you put in your cool radio, it is actually much more than that, requiring (probably) national networks and central computers to make it work.  It is also a system in which cheating is likely (as it was with CB radio) and difficult to detect.  Again, this is something that works in the lab, but not really in the field.

Earlier in my career, I worked at Bell Labs and I learned to be very skeptical about bench models.  The lesson: if you have it in the field, used by real customers and maintained by real field maintenance personnel, then you have something.  Until then, you have nothing but a story.  Right now, cognitive radio is nothing but a story.  When it shows up in Radio Shack, give me a call.

Prof. Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:17:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Much to chew on here.  Thanks for the follow-up.

---

by: mitchipd @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:10:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Local / Municipal Broadband (0.00 / 0)

Senator Durbin:

I thought I might add two points of reference/history in Illinois that address some of the local attempts to build networks of their own.

1. www.tricitybroadband.com - This site was set up by citizens in favor of a municipally owned and operated fiber to the home utility for the Cities of Batavia, Geneva, & St. Charles, Illinois.  Much of the content surrounds their battles to bring the triple play to their neighbors, the legal problems (home rule vs. non-home rule communities), and the swath of misinformation employed by the incumbent providers - AT&T (SBC at that point) and Comcast.

2. The Illinois Municipal Broadband Communications Association (www.imbca.org) which was formed originally to provide a forum for municipalities with locally owned communications infrastructure to swap stories/help.  More recently, it has taken a role similar to that of which Sascha suggests - the Commons approach - by leasing dark fiber along I-88 to connect the cities of Rock Falls & Rochelle, Illinois to cheaper wholesale internet bandwidth in DeKalb & Oakbrook.

In a perfect world, municipalities, regardless of their size, would be able to take action to serve their communities as they saw fit by a city council vote.

Regards,

Peter I. Collins
President
Illinois Municipal Broadband Communications Association
913 South Sixth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62703

And

Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
22 South First Street
Geneva, Illinois 60134
Phone: 630.232.1743
Email: pcollins@geneva.il.us

---

by: PeterCollins @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 21:39:58 PM UTC

Nice work in Illinois (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for this intelligence, Peter.  I am very glad to hear of the community successes in grasping the broadband bull by the horns.

I'm a little confused by your point on Illinois Municipal Broadband Communications Association.  It sounds like what they are doing is wholesaling, not providing a commons.  Could you fill in the details, please?  This could be very useful to our discussion tonight.

Prof Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 21:45:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IMBCA (0.00 / 0)

The point of the fiber leasing was that in the long run it was cheaper for Rochelle and Rock Falls (far West of Chicago) to provide their own transport to lower priced bandwidth closer to Chicago.  Both cities are ISPs and rather than paying an arm and a leg to Verizon in their neck of the woods, they brought their connectivity much closer to multiple service providers in the close burbs of Chicago.

They have taken proactive steps to end their digital inclusion issues as cities.  The IMBCA provides a point for like minded cities to also join on that path (currently along I-88) and a commons like model to pursue elsewhere in the state.

---

by: PeterCollins @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:03:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Durbin now on (0.00 / 0)

Sorry I was delayed in joining you. I was called to preside over the Senate, but I will join you for as long as my schedule permits tonight.

I enjoyed our exchange Tuesday evening and am ready to hear more from you.  There are a couple of specific things I'd like to hear from you on this evening. 

I'm interested in learning more about what local communities have done to provide universal access.  Is wifi the answer?  And how are communities organizing to develop universal coverage? 

What's the role of states?  Senators Lautenberg and McCain are proposing legislation to preserve the right of states to pursue this kind of coverage.  How does that factor into what communities are trying to do? 

Do you think I should cosponsor that legislation?
 

---

by: Dick Durbin @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 23:42:17 PM UTC

WISP (0.00 / 0)

Wally Bowen has an alternative model he is pursuing called a 'Wireless ISP, or WISP.

Our WISP curently operates in the 900 MHz unlicensed bands.  Our service is managed, secure and can reach out to 20 miles.  Our tech suport is local.  The signal can punch through heavy leafcover, but it cannot penetrate buildings and it requires "near line-of-sight."

Despite high demand for our services, we can only reach a fraction of the market due to the limitations of 900 MHz.

We desperately need access to unlicensed spectrum in the lower frequencies.

Given the industry opposition to municipal wireless, our nonprofit business model appears to be the only viable alternative to the cable/telco duopoly.  If we are to rely on market forces to enforce "net neutrality" -- and bridge the Digital Divide -- broad access to lower-frequency unlicensed spectrum is absolutely essential.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 00:01:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Muni Rights (0.00 / 0)

Senator,

You should absolutely cosponsor the bill, and include similar language in whatever you draft. My favorite model is out in Utah, where there's a group called Utopia.  This is a joint group of cities which have banded together to build a fiber network and offer wholesale access to ISPs, particularly in areas that the local telephone company doesn't want to serve.

Not all municipal projects may work, but the local authorities should be given a chance to pursue what works best for their citizens without interference from incumbents like the phone company or cable company.

---

by: artbrodsky @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:01:40 AM UTC

Hear hear (0.00 / 0)

I would absolutely echo that point.

For some cities, letting the private sector handle it works fine.

For others, a public-private partnership.

Yet others pursue the direct municipal utility approach.

Some push wifi, while others fiber to the home.

But all cities, regardless of size, should be able to pursue what works best for their specific community.

---

by: PeterCollins @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:08:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Big fan of communities providing BB for themselves (0.00 / 0)

I really like the Utah story, especially since it involves fiber.  As I mentioned before, I think WiFi is probably the wrong technology for long term deployment, but fiber would be great.  Verizon and AT&T will complain big time, but this country has a long history of industries with both public and private firms competing in the market.  Local power distribution, for example (strong rural/urban component here), trash collection for another.  In Europe and Asia both public and private entities run highways and collect tolls.  I don't see why communities that want to do this themselves are to be held back.

I also like the recognition that some of these attempts are going to flop.  I would caution the Senator that stories of failures are perhaps even more important than stories of success; only from those stories can we learn what can go wrong and avoid it.

Prof. Gerry Faulhaber

---

by: Gerald Faulhaber @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:05:39 AM UTC