April 17, 2003

EFF comments on FCC Unlicensed Spectrum Proposal

Cory Doctorow, Outreach Coordinator of the EFF (other hats too) has written a great comment to the FCC regarding its proposed rule changes that would open up more spectrum for unlicensed use.  It is a very counter-intuitive proposal for people who grew up with the idea of incentives through licenses and monopolies, but the wild success of technologies like WiFi, 900MHz phones, 2.4Ghz baby monitors and the like show that by taking a less restrictive approach and by enforcing minimal standards (devices must be licensed, maximum power levels, devices must accept interference, etc) tremendously cool technologies to solve radio problems (smart radios, spread spectrum, etc) reduce the limitations and companies spring up to capitalize on them.  The FCC has a unique opportunity to continue the revitalization in the decentralized telecom world, build new businesses and technologies, and engage American creativity in open technologies. 

The FCC is looking to open up spectrum in two interesting bands - the 3.6GHz band and below the 900MHz band (in the VHF TV bands). The more interesting band IMHO is the TV bands, because of the potential for use in wireless broadband uses. The lower the frequency, the less aggregate bandwith is possible, but the greater the penetrating power. And for wireless internet connectivity, directed beams of unlicensed transmitters in these lower bands could more effectively penetrate foliage and into structures. This is very good news for most customers who are stuck with the copper in the ground laid a hundred years ago by Ma Bell for "broadband".

Cory also makes the argument that spectrum policy is also a free speech issue - increasing the amount of unlicensed spectrum makes it easier for people (and devices) to communicate. While I agree with the priciple, I'm not so sure that it applies well to the question at hand, unless you take the position that the government's current licensing policy stifles free speech, and I'm not sure that it does.

Even with minor quibbles, though, the policy proposal is still sound, and will help to expand the possibilities in one of the few places of blue-sky innovation left in today's times. Posted by dsifry at April 17, 2003 2:13 PM | TrackBack | View blog reactions
Comments

"unless you take the position that the government's current licensing policy stifles free speech, and I'm not sure that it does."

Co-incidentally I'm reading both the decision of the FCC (Monday) to allow further consolidation of media ownership in the US, and Ithiel de Sola Pool's "Technologies Of Freedom," a remarkably prescient work from 1983, "on free speech in an electronic age."

It is Sola Pool's contention that the First Amendment has never been applied with the same vigor to the electronic media as it has to the press and public address.

The reasons vary (telegraphy originally seen as a "business machine" rather than a medium of public discourse and it's association with railways giving it a "common carrier" flavor), in the case of broadcast frequencies, it was the limitations of recievers in that era that led to the belief the 89 broadcast channels were a physical limit.

They were at the time, but progress was inhibited by enshrining this "soft limit" in regulation.

Regulation is much less amenable to innovation than technology, and the decision to regulate was made despite clear indications that the spectrum would grow to support many more "speakers."

Perhaps such regulation would have happened to the press had an argument been possible that paper was limited. It isn't and more and more we are discovering that spectrum isn't either. You have no doubt read David Reed's opinion on the matter (http://reed.com)

If there is no "scarcity" then there is no justification for "the public good" of having the Government select operators for broadcast "speech."

It has always seemed ironic that in the home of the brave and the land of the free, with a First Amendment that prohibits Congress from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech," possesses an "independent" commission to control "communication."

It would have been good to see a quid pro quo on the consolidation decision, to whit, the FCC permitting "micro-broadcasters" to ensure "local coverage."

Perhaps your best bet for continuing diversity of views is the Internet and wireless connection, hopefully meshing around the control of companies that supply both carriage and content (eg. Cable).

Hopefully the arguments from Bob Frankston (http://www.satn.org/about/separateconnectivity.htm) & Lawrence Lessig (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_19/b3782610.htm), on separating carriage from content (as we do on the roads and highways) will lead to a new regulatory regime.

Supporting the call for more "spectrum commons" is not a bad first step though.

Posted by: Hamish MacEwan at June 2, 2003 10:43 PM