The More Open Spectrum (WiFi) Succeeds ...

The curiouser and curiouser it gets.

And the more FUD [Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt] is put forward by incumbent vested interests. Recently, at the World Internet Institute's Digital Cities Convention, the FCC's Alan Scrime suggested that WiFi, not being a "guaranteed service", was not good enough for municipalities. He warned that WiFi is not "robust" and using it might expose municipalities to "lawsuits". To this FUD we can add the usual charges that WiFi is not secure enough, suffers from unacceptable interference, doesn't scale, and so forth.

Perhaps Scrime's real problem is actually the unintended, unanticipated, and disruptive success of Part 15 less regulated spectrum. It tends to show that The FCC's pre-radar, pre-Shannon, pre-transistor, pre-solid state computer, pre-internet etc approach to spectrum management, ie a 1930s world view, is actually no longer appropriate. Its substantial inefficiencies and badly inflated value chain are counter to everything a believer in markets would value: efficiency and flat value chains with the least friction. In fact, the FCC itself has known this since the first Spread Spectrum NOI in 1981 [Gen. Docket Number: 81-413].

Could it be that the FCC is a bureaucracy fighting for its life, trying to justify a reason for its ongoing existence? Could it be that the FCC's regulated entities, with last century's spectrum licenses, are just as terrified by the success of Open Spectrum as it threatens their business models? Could it be that a bureaucracy and its clients are aligned trying to invent the future while looking longingly at the 20th century in the rear view mirror? Shouldn't they instead be looking for ways to provide every citizen everywhere with 7x24 access to the greatest capacity for bit transport at the least cost? I suggest this would contribute to making America more competitive in the 21st century.

Consider that the supply of bits is infinite: Each computer can create as many as it wants, whenever, for free. Consider that the more we communicate, the more transactions there are, and thus the larger the markets and the greater the business growth for all. Now consider that retail bit transport costs 24 cents per Mbps in Hong Kong, but 50X more, $12.00, in the US. This price differential is not something that helps make us more competitive.

If we really want to harvest the benefits of vigorous innovation and sustainable economic growth, powered by ubiquitous, always on, Big Bandwidth; if we really want to compete successfully on a global scale, then perhaps we ought to be working to reduce the barriers to business growth and innovation. A first step to take would be to move reform the FCC by implementing what the FCC itself said was feasible in 1981. An important second step would be to work to achieve stand alone bit transport at less than $1.00 per Mbps/month.

Looking back, we can see the numerous benefits we have clearly enjoyed as communications has moved from foot, to boat, to telegraph, to radio, to telephone, to internet. The history of communications clearly shows that lowering the costs and increasing access stimulates both economic and innovation activities.

Looking back, we can see that the flow of water powered the early US economy. Looking forward, we can anticipate that the flow of bits will power the US economy going forward.

What we need today is a powerful flow of bits enabling a lot more communications and creative content from a lot more people, not less from fewer.

Posted by Jock Gill at October 15, 2005 10:39 AM | TrackBack