I heard Larry Page and Michael Calabrese discuss the importance of the wireless spectrum. The New America Foundation organized the event and clearly shares much of Google’s philosophy here.
I find it useful to think about the spectrum allocation issue in terms of famous “tragedy of the commons” parable. If too many devices try to “graze the spectrum” at the same time, they are all made worse off, because they will interfere with each other. Having well-defined property rights is supposed to prevent the over-grazing. Page would say the spectrum is being underutilized: at any one time, only 3% to 5% of the spectrum is being used. [1]
Give the Devices Some Credit
Page said that the FCC’s current style of licensing (by auction) of large blocks of frequencies is a product of the pre-computer days. (Does anybody remember what that was like?) Devices now, he said, are intelligent enough to share the spectrum more efficiently because they can listen before talking. In economic terms, this means that the spectrum can be allocated more efficiently if the FCC moves away from their antiquated system.
In addition to lost efficiencies, Page argued that regulation of various spectrum bands often stifles innovation. He argued that innovation in engineering and computer science happens when these constraints are freed up. I don’t feel that he convincingly argued this point — and I think that other may have agreed, based on a follow up question — Page only gave an anecdotal example of how WiFi got its start on the unlicensed 2.4 GHz spectrum that is shared with microwave ovens.
Page advocated the opening the so-called TV whitespace. He suggested that there is plenty of room there for low-power devices that behave themselves. He credited the FCC as doing a good job in verifying that consumer devices have low interference.
A Jib and A Jab
While plugging Google Android as an example of openness, Page threw a small jab at Sun Microsystems, saying that Google Android is “real” open source, not Sun-style open source.
A larger punch was thrown at the traditional media broadcasters, who he claimed are holding onto their spectrum for their own purposes, not for the interests of Americans in general. In his view, wireless is popular and important; we need to remove barriers that detract from WiFi innovation.
Self-interest? In business? In DC? No Way. At least Page also admitted that he could be attacked with the same argument, since his position serves the best interests of Google as well! You’ve probably heard the argument — Google benefits from more of almost anything on the Internet — more access, more usage, more documents.
In a sense, Google stands above the fray of some other technology companies (cough, Microsoft) and doesn’t need to lock customers into proprietary standards or operating systems. In fact proprietary standards mean more work for them; they’d rather have a small number of open, interoperable standards.
Proposed Spectrum Solution
I didn’t see this one coming – Page suggested that government could make a lot of money auctioning off (their unused) spectrum every second. He said to do otherwise means leaving money on the table. Page said that government agencies could still maintain priority for certain frequencies, bumping off others when needed.
The idea of shortening the spectrum ownership periods is interesting; take that to its limit and you would have an auction continuously. Pretty cool! It is not completely surprising that Google, a company that specializes in rapid micro-auctions for their very business model, might suggest a similar idea for provisioning the wireless spectrum. In a discussion afterwards, someone I met speculated that if Google’s $4.6B bid had won, they might have put in place that kind of auction.
Criticism of a Continuous Spectrum Auction
This continuous auction is appealing in theory. However, I can’t help but be skeptical in practice; implementation and enforcement would be tricky. Incentives and enforcement matters. It is one thing to hope that devices cooperate to share the spectrum; it is another thing to setup the carrots and sticks.
With multi-year licenses, it seems relatively more feasible for the FCC to keep tabs. With continuously changing licenses, how would enforcement work? Perhaps the FCC just has to set standards for the device manufacturers. But how much control do manufacturers have over their devices? What is to stop a hacked hand-held device from sneaking into some extra spectrum territory so that it gets faster torrents? The consumers would like that, but it wouldn’t be playing fair, would it?
How do you know when a transgression occurs, and how do you find the guilty party?
My tentative position is this: I don’t see how government, or any organization for that matter, can directly police the spectrum on a year-to-year basis, much less on a second-to-second basis. Other approaches would be needed. I like to be open minded and so on, but I don’t really see how to get there from here. Help me out if I’m missing something.
Maybe I’m focusing on the wrong thing? I’d like to learn more about some of the proposals being put forward.
So Many Policy Areas, So Little Time
The wireless spectrum (along with Net Neutrality) is another area where I wish I had more time to dig in and become an expert. It aligns well with my engineering and policy backgrounds. I’d be interested to talk more with people on this issue, get in touch if this is an area of interest for you too.
Notes
[1] I don’t have a citation for you. I’d like to get a clearer explanation of what he means. I would expect that his baseline is the total available regulated spectrum.) That’s a lot of unused (wasted) spectrum.
