Spectrum Reform Not Advancing Fast Enough, Critics Charge
ASPEN, Colo. -- Spectrum reform is discussed the wrong way -- it’s not that property rights and a commons concept are polar opposites, but “we have this figment of our imagination that there’s this thing called spectrum.” said U. Pa. business professor Kevin Werbach at the Progress & Freedom Foundation seminar here. Spectrum doesn’t really exist, he said, but devices that transmit and receive data by untangling messages from one another do: “What we're allocating is set of property rights around devices, and a commons position is a more market oriented position.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
A system similar to other property rights regimes, like commerce, is what Werbach favors. When he buys a hammer at Home Depot, the cashier doesn’t tell him he only can use a certain kind of nail or he can’t use the hammer around some people because it encroaches on their space. He said what can’t remain is the status quo, which he called a “Soviet-era allocation mechanism that is the worst of all worlds.”
Real estate is a better metaphor for spectrum, N.Y.U. economics professor Lawrence White said. But NTIA Dir. Michael Gallagher said both regimes have a role, since stakeholders are dealing with a resource abundant, renewable and available. Access to the entity is what’s limited, he said.
The element of spectrum most overlooked by academics and lawyers is the important and intensive govt. use of the space, speakers said. The Defense and Transportation Depts. have huge demands for spectrum, ranging from homeland security to air traffic control, Gallagher said, and it’s crucial they have that resource available. White snapped back, arguing that Defense buys airplanes, gunpowder and land for building military bases -- and those resources aren’t given to them for free. “They can pay for their spectrum also,” White said: “That’s the way we'll figure out whether spectrum is being used effectively or not.”
White gave govt. a “C-minus” for its spectrum reform efforts thus far, noting “we've got spectrum auctions and we've got nothing else.” Werbach agreed that “we haven’t taken it far enough in terms of moving away from this command and control mechanism.” Policymakers should plan years out, not the immediate term, he said. Gallagher gave the govt. an “A,” saying great strides have been made in recent years, with more initiatives en route.