Social trends that are everywhere can usually be effectively described in just a few words.
"Choice" is the dominant theme in how markets for content are developing now and for many years since the internet has entered our everyday lives. Since I first began writing about this a few years ago I've noticed how many other writers characterize it as a "control" issue. That's fair. It is also very revealing. If you are writing about control (in this sense), chances are, you connected to the side losing it. If you're gaining it? Well, it can be confusing with regard to the frequency of changes. From a macro perspective, it is a process that is being guided by socially shared values and not businesses telling us what our values are, because more often, businesses offer us reflections of shared values that are lagging indications of what really matters.
In today's Washington Post, Julius Genechowski, the current FCC chairman opines about the importance of spectrum allocation going towards the exploding mobile internet revolution we are witnessing. If you are not new to this blog then you might think I would celebrate this letter of his but, I find myself responding with considerable concern while also welcoming his editorial. Here's why:
Many times in these pages I have urged the further development of spectrum based allocation for wi-fi and wi-max platforms to allow Americans more ubiquitous digital access, all across the US. It is obviously needed as his editorial clearly today states. It is also essential, however, that in this process we balance the competing interests reflected by our government agency. "Balance the interests" What does this mean?
Mr. Genechowski argues in a very generic manner how some unneeded spectrum allocated to TV companies might be sold off to build new wireless opportunities. Here's the problem: Spectrum is not real estate or real property. Spectrum is highly unique. It is a precious and very limited resource owned by all of The People. The notion that present users of spectrum must somehow be compensated for giving it up after enjoying the benefit from it for many years (and are often no longer making active or productive use of it on behalf of all Americans) is somehow owing to an outdated set of values that are supported by businesses lobbying our government. Think about it this way: How did we ever get to where our government needed to tell us how some businesses that fail must be saved with our money for our own good. I know this argumentation has been overused lately but, these two arguments are from the very same family of thinking and are part of a social era that is now ending because shared values we collectively hold are now changing.
Spectrum belongs to all Americans, and should not be sold forever to businesses with the highest bid. It is a national resource that cannot be recreated or washed away. It does not need to be insured against damage. Spectrum is a conduit between all the people and it is an essential social resource. I admit it is a form of property and therefore any taking might be argued that compensation is due. The chairman's letter this AM suggests how a lot of it is being wasted right now.....mostly because there are large unused segments of the old broadcasting allocations. In many cases these broadcasting assets have declined by 75% in value in the last decade. However, each by itself is not made valuable just because there is another use for the spectrum. In almost all cases, large chunks of broadcasting frequencies would need to be bundled to have enough to build local wireless platforms for digital access. So, public need is running smack into the same brand of defiance as many dot com stock owners has as they rode their shares to zero value. Unused broadcast licenses are not stores of value that the public can tolerate as mobile digital demand grows exponentially.
Part of the conditions we impose on the future use of spectrum should involve be some kind of test of value being delivered in exchange for its continued use. Tucking it away so it might appreciate should not be an option...nor should largely unused transmissions be allowed to justify holding onto this scarce resource.
If America's electromagnetic spectrum is to be allocated properly and in the national best interest, it must be leased on a conditional basis that favors the interests of citizenry over the interests of businesses, who have considerable influence with our lawmakers in Washington. If the public use of a company's spectrum allocation is a tiny fraction of what it once was, the right of the people to reclaim their national resource should be available and enforced. This is especially true if alternative channels of distribution (for the signal) are available now and were not previously when the spectrum was allocated in exchange for nominal fees.
Choice is the true American social priority in this leg of the information era trend. It is about all of us being able to get the information we need where, when, and however (modality) you need it. Matters of profitability must, in this specific case, be exceeded by the nationally urgent need to expand our digital infrastructure. Profitability can only ever be considered second to the nation's need to communicate efficiently and effectively. We have entered a brave new era of new technologies that allow us to share exponentially growing numbers and layers of ideas, and Choice is how we will make the highest and best use of spectrum.
I am not a lawyer but there must be a clear differentiation in the future between the higher priority nature of public spectrum based services and what title to spectrum rights actually conveys. What I am suggesting here will cause considerable litigation so the priority now should be to unwind parts of our spectrum that can be easily reallocated because it is unused and less valuable to current holders in the small bits as it has been parceled out over the decades. The other parts will eventually come back to the nation's inventory as the era of trading little pieces of localized spectrum becomes even less valued as current consumer modality use shifts to wireless from broadcast technology. Is eminent domain a potential pathway? I think so. The ability to hold and use spectrum should be highly conditional on the specifics of use and presently, in these small distinct chunks, it is less valuable than if we gathered it up again and deployed it for modern uses.
Reallocating spectrum Mr. Chairman, is a great idea but how it gets done is critical to the fulfillment of Choice for all Americans. If, as a reader, you choose to focus on the aspect of control, then you are likely exposed to a business interests concerned about declining value of existing spectrum rights. The value of some ideas and property goes up and down with social mood over time. This is an important part of how social trends develop and eventually dissipate. How did those pieces of spectrum become so valuable? ...and just why it is that they have lost so much value so quickly in recent years? The first 80 years of broadcast was the true beginning of the growth phase of the information age. We are now about to accelerate yet again if we allow it to happen. It has been a remarkable decade+. Now, it is time for all Americans to take it to the next level by acknowledging our changing shared values. What really matters most? Choice matters most because it will make us all better at what we do. Control will shift as true Choice develops from here onward but, the payoff will be a more productive workforce and society over time. Control is business concern. New, smarter businesses will always replace old ones to serve all Americans. Businesses are the servants of a nation, not the directors of social values.
Mr. Chairman: Spectrum can and should be allocated to serve growing social needs but permanent allocations do not fit with the changing world we are experiencing. Leasing, or "Pay as you go" is a concept that should and will grow more valued over time. Please reclaim unused and underutilized spectrum and then lease it out conditionally. This will do more for us in the long run than more deficit spending will do next year.
...Of the people, by the people, for the people.
This is obviously a forward looking set of ideas. How far forward depends upon whether we choose to embrace the past or look forward to what is possible.
If you dare venture into the world of the technical this paper suggests that more efficient use of existing digital networks probably holds much of what we need in future spectrum use. I offer this not as an alternative to my suggestions in this post but as an addendum because it is just too difficult to predict with any accuracy how much connectivity will be required in tens years time (in major markets of the US)on current growth trajectories. This paper describes most existing Wifi networks as inefficient. I can only imagine how they would view the potential use of broadcasting signals.
