This wrong idea has severe consequences. There is a concern, somewhat legitimate, that limited consumer choice in wireline broadband access to the Internet demands some sort of regulation on Internet access plans and services.

The market solution to this problem is simply to expand consumer choice, and the most straightforward way to do this is through wireless technologys like EVDO and WiMax. But these services depend on reliable wireless channels, and with the radio technologies of today (and the foreseeable future) reliable radio channels depend on “permission” and limited access.

So the very people who complain about a dearth of choices in broadband Internet access argue for a regulatory status quo for wireless that effectively prevents it from ever becoming a useful alternative to wireline access. It’s easy to become a conspiracy nut when you see things like this, but it’s actually a matter of technical ignorance rather than malice (in most cases; some net neutrality freaks actually want the government to own broadband Internet access networks.)

The Internet neutrality access regulators have got the problem upside down: the laws of networking suggest choice is enhanced by the de-regulation of wireline services and the regulation of wireless ones, and it’s all because of interference and scarcity. We can always add bandwidth to a wireline system by adding more cable, but with wireless, once its gone its gone.

They aren’t making any more spectrum, you see.

The first concept is that the manufacturing of physical products such as a car’s fuel pump should be a permissionless market.

The second concept is the use of a resource, such as water, air, and the radio spectrum. In low population/usage situations the use of these resources could be in the form of permissionless market. However, as demand grows there is a need to regulate the use of the resource. The regulation is not simply in terms of the capcity of the resource but also in terms of how the users use that resource. (For example, in terms of usage, radio waves can travel world wide. Two users on the same frequency could easily interfere with each other even though other frequencies are available.) Clearly, I am advocating managing the commons and that these resources should be in the public domain and should be managed by the government for the benefit of the public. Though these resources belong in the public domain, the government – through the auction/lease process – can make some of these resources available for commercial uses. The government (to a degree) must act as a business.

In general I cannot understand the strength of Jerry’s and others’ objection to the substance of rules that would create permissionless market entry into the spectrum market. In my view, reflected in that paper, permissionless market entry is one of the holy grails of an effective market system.

But that’s an ongoing debate,

Tim Wu

The messages on these networks carry addresses, and by convention we don’t look at other people’s addresses. So we can share the medium in an orderly fashion as long as we use the same conventions for access, addressing, and delivery. That’s not “simultaneous” access, it just looks that way.

And the amount of information an analog signal can carry is a function of the size of the slice of spectrum it uses – bandwidth – not the frequency at which it operates. So the key point here is “large” bandwidth, not “high” bandwidth. This is a common misunderstanding.

I don’t really have the original blog blog, just the original activist blog; I started one for a fathers’ rights organization before any other activist group was using the web. As that lead in some sense to Daily Kos, it was apparently quite a serious mistake, one for which I will certainly burn in hell for all eternity.

You guys may very well know each other. His website is http://www.jerrypournelle.com/.

1. DIGITAL: Computers can use simultaneous wireless digital connections to access the internet, and as far as I know the wireless connections operate on the same frequency. Also think of how our computers connect to the interet. Our signal is carried by either a copper wire and/or fiber optic cable. Because the signal is digital (packetized), they don’t interfere. In the old days, phones were analog and each phone required its own copper wire to avoid interference.
   
   

2. ANALOG: This one takes a bit of thought. In an overt sense you are correct, but you miss how the information is carried. Take AM radio for example. With a true analog signal the value of the signal is dependent on the detected voltage. With a digital signal the value of the signal is carried by a digitized bit so the receiver does not actually measure the voltage but translates the value of the bit (packet) back into a sound. Additionally, like an ethernet packet, you can add other values to the bit (packet) so that radio “A” receives one signal while radio “B” receives another signal.
   
   

3.HIGHER FREQUENCIES: You are correct to say that higher frequencies suffer from greater attenuation with distance, however that is NOT a reflection of the amount of data it can carry. It simply means that the data can only be carried a short distance. An example of this are microwave relay sites which are used to “refresh” the high capacity signal. Also look at the evolution of cordless phones and cell phones, they have moved up in radio frequency because of better sound quality. Radio has also evolved from low frequency AM radio to the higer frequency FM radio because of better signal capacity.

Not true, you just get digital interference instead of analog interference. It works the same way – somebody else’s message gets combined with your message and the result is garbage – and it does so because bits are converted to analog before transmission.

Radio waves are always analog, whether they’re carrying a digital payload or not.

higher frequencies tend to be in demand since they can carry more information than the lower frequencies.

Also not true, as higher frequencies suffer more attenuaton with distance.

Cyren Call’s website says the following about its proposal: “The 30 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that is currently allocated for commercial use only and which is scheduled to be auctioned in 2008 is ideally suited for the creation of the nationwide, next-generation network for public safety because of the unique physical properties of the spectrum.” Cyren is currently working to create a trust to oversee the 30MHz and use it for public safety use.

The website is http://www.cyrencall.com. It goes into detail about why the 30 MHz is so ideal for first responders and public safety.

Do you think this plan could work? What are your thoughts? Have you heard any pros or cons with regard to their proposal?

Simply because a piece of property is in the public domain does not mean that the government shouldn’t operate it as a business. The government, like any business, can and should use pricing mechanisms as a means of determining who can use scarce rivalrous resources.

I have a feeling that engineers and economists mean slightly different things when they talk about non-rivalrousness. As I understand it, the proposals for non-rivalrous uses of spectrum involve all devices cooperating with each other in particular ways: sharing the bandwidth by time-slices, forming themselves into a mesh network where devices talk to their neighbors, etc. I don’t think it will ever be true that anybody will be able to transmit anything they like at certain frequencies–getting “non-rivalrous” spectrum uses to work will always require everyone following fairly complex rules.

If that’s true, it means that for the foreseeable future, somebody’s going to have to make the rules. I would rather have a lot of different private companies making those decisions than putting all the decisions in the hands of the FCC’s bureaucracy.

If, on the other hand, the engineers figure out ways to have genuinely non-rivalrous uses of spectrum, such that the new uses don’t interfere at all with the older uses at all, then that’ll be a whole new ballgame. But in that case, all that will need to happen is for the FCC to exempt the new technologies from the traditional spectrum rules. It might still make sense to have a property-based system to govern the older, rivalrous uses of the spectrum. As I understand it, though, those technologies are still on the drawing board. It would be silly to set aside spectrum for uses that don’t exist yet.

Also, as an aside, higher frequencies tend to be in demand since they can carry more information than the lower frequencies. BR>

And, if so, is it worth considering it at this time, or do we just try to unravel the mess we created with property rights that weren’t actually needed at a later date?

Again… I’m not yet convinced that those who claim it are right. However, it does seem like an issue worth thinking about now, rather than later.