Unexpected, But Good: Justice Department Says FCC Should Free Up More Spectrum
from the it's-a-start dept
You don't really expect the Justice Department to be involved in the question of spectrum allocation, but it has suggested that the FCC free up more spectrum for broadband efforts. The reason is that this is coming from the antitrust division of the DoJ, and the hope is that with more spectrum, it can be allocated to upstart competitors which will increase competition in the not very competitive broadband market (and don't believe the telco lobbyists who claim otherwise).Still, if we're talking about freeing up spectrum, shouldn't things go a bit further? We still have a situation where the FCC doesn't just allocate the spectrum, but also decides what it must be used for. We'd be much better off, and have a lot more competition, if companies were free to make use of spectrum in the way they felt could bring the best return -- and that companies who were granted spectrum rights also had the right to then resell those rights. While I'm still hopeful that new technologies will make spectrum scarcity a thing of the past, we still haven't seen enough evidence that the technology really works. So, in the meantime, the better solution is to get more spectrum on the market, and stop putting limitations on how it can be used.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: competition, fcc, justice department, spectrum, wireless
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Eco system.
When someone can own the content, the content distribution, the other channels and buy others and not have to make any investment in real infra structure there is no point in doing anything else and at the same time forbidding communities from building up anything is just silly.
By communities I mean people not representatives from the local government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eco system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Engineers make it work, bureaucrats impede work
It will work when it has to work. It doesn't work now because the spectrum monopolies allow the incumbents to stay lazy, and pervade poorly designed hardware with impunity. As soon as you take away their monopolies, they will have to start innovating again.
These should be required reading when discussing spectrum policy:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/12/spectrum/
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/0 2/internet_policy_deregulating_s.html
http://www.openspectrum.info/
The physical facts dictate that all wireless spectrum is composed of electromagnetic waves of varying frequencies, which is another way of saying they are all different colors. The only confusing aspect is that we can't see most of these colors with the naked eye, and some frequencies have properties that allow them to travel differently through air, liquid, and mass. That doesn't change the fact that they are just colors, subject to the same physical laws that make advanced sensing equipment like eyes and cameras work. Confusing one "signal" for another is the same as confusing a red apple with a nearby red firetruck -- the only limitation is the sensing equipment. The FCC has been in the business of granting color monopolies for almost a century, and keeping the sensing equipment as dumb and blind as possible, and is reluctant to give that job up. Hooray to the Justice Department for giving them a kick!
If you don't think the technology is already far enough along yet, you also need to read this:
http://www.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/bio-electronics-0603.html
"The cochlea can perceive a 100-fold range of frequencies -- in humans, from 100 to 10,000 Hz. Sarpeshkar used the same design principles in the RF cochlea to create a device that can perceive signals at million-fold higher frequencies, which includes radio signals for most commercial wireless applications."
This is a "radio" that can process all frequencies on the entire RF range we use now, simultaneously. You could plug it into a sufficiently powerful computer, and process HDTV, Satellite, HD-Audio/AM/FM, WiFi, and cell phone signals (all #G's) on every network, all at the same time, all in software. This is a chip made in a lab, that can be reproduced in mass just like any other chip.
The barriers are all bureaucratic -- none of them are physical nor technological limits. At this point, they're not even economic limits -- they're just stupid limits, that help no one except lazy monopolists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No right of resell...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How it should be used - not the same as what it should be used for
"How it should be used" includes such things as maximum power levels etc.
"How it should be used" obviously has to be regulated but who uses it and for what really shouldn't be.
As far as possible spectrum should be available "free". Historically spectrum was scarce and hence had to be highly regulated. At the same time governments saw it as a way to make "free money". Actually that is bad. No one created the spectrum and so no one (not even the government) should make money for merely allocating it. (Although a modest fee to cover the costs of policing the allocation would be OK.)
Obviously legacy users need continuing protection for the time being - but that should only be at the legacy (low) end of the spectrum.
Once you move up to higher frequencies the amount of regulation needed should reduce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One of the main reasons for fixing usage for a given frequency range is to assure that others are not affected by interference, incompatible devices, etc. There are certain areas of the spectrum dedicated to "whatever", but those are mostly for things like remote controls, baby monitors, and other devices where no warranties are made as to range and the like.
When you start talking about things like broadband wireless, the range and the power of the signals requires is significant. The more crowded the spectrum, the more issues come up. The end user devices might have to be more powerful, or require larger directional antennas to make them work properly, etc. You also have to look at the implications to other users in neighboring frequencies, as interference is possible.
There is much more to the game than just saying "more bandwidth", because bandwidth is in fact one of the scarcest resources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Agree with Anti-Mike
If you say, "You shouldn't be relying on wireless for mission critical situations", you're a complete idiot. Also, hang up your cell phone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FCC to DOJ
But really, is it about increasing competition or just increasing opportunity for profit? I suspect the latter...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FCC to DOJ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Agree with Mike
BTW, my owning a large amount of AT&T stock is just a coincidence, it doesn't make me biased at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stocks mocks an jocks
[ link to this | view in thread ]