For example, in this post, as in my paper, I took pains to avoid the debate about whether spectrum should be privatized or not. That’s a debate that’s be done and done. Instead what I focused on was this: Proponents of a commons suggest that their plan would be a third way that suffers from neither the pitfalls of privatization nor government regulation (you can see my paper for a list of instances this argument has been made). The notion is present in the very title of Lessig’s presentation: “Deregulating Spectrum.” Regardless of whether privatizing spectrum is a good idea or not, if we’re going to consider a commons as an option, we should be very clear about it. What I argue is that a commons regime is just as susceptible to the inefficiencies of government regulation as the current system (please observe that in noting that government regulation is inefficient I am not suggesting that markets are perfectly efficient). If I can establish that, then we can have the old debate about what is more efficient, government regulation or private property, and we can avoid the confusion of a false choice of a “third way” that is neither regulation nor market.

To summarize my argument: Would a commons require government regulation to work? And, if so, won’t it be susceptible to the same corrupting influences for which Lessig criticizes the current system?

Now, I would have been very happy if you had addressed my argument. Instead you wrote that I “assert[ed] that private industry is magically more efficient than government” and you go on a rant about Ford, GM, and HDDVD. You then miss the point of my rhetorical question (i.e. won’t a commons regime be susceptible to the same corrupting influences for which Lessig criticizes the current system?) and instead ask how a private system would be better, which I never suggest (for the reasons I have explained above). You go on to talk about a private industry association replacing the FCC, etc. This is all very maddening. You’re not taking the time to understand what’s being discussed before you shoot out a response.

To say we’re talking past each other is an understatement. As Morrissey says, “This is the last song I will ever sing…”

Where’s my Toyota government option?

Where’s my Toyota government option?

I hope that we can achieve a dialog. Perhaps our use of language is different. It is possible that I may not be following your writing style effectively. I will also admit that I am, in certain respects, promoting my own agenda and that I am reacting somewhat like Richard posted above – “the sky is falling”. For me 1984 is here and now and we live in a government of, by, and for the corporations. But, I think you might be going a bit over-board with “Or better yet, why don’t you study up on how radio is regulated in the U.S. before you try to talk about the issue again.” since I do have some (maybe not as much as you) knowledge of how the spectrum is regulated. By the way, I do agree with your post “WaPo: ‘WiFi Turns Internet Into Hideout for Criminals’”

1. The sky is falling.
2. The Bad Guys are making it fall, and the government is helping them.
3. There is a magic property of the technology what only Larry Lessig appreciates.
4. If you join me in charging the gates, we can free the magic technology from the grip of the Bad Buys and end world hunger.
5. Buy my book.

In this one, Lessig touts these White Spaces that can be made available to the people with simple, light regulation in lieu of auctions. Unfortunately, White Spaces aren’t really as magic as Lessig thinks they are. The FCC has already released UWB to The People, by placing severe transmit power level restrictions in place that limit UWB to essentially 20 feet of useful propagation.

Can we apply this sort of a rule to unused parts of the spectrum? Sure. Can we relax the transmit power restrictions such that somebody could build a wide-area network service out of White Spaces?

It’s doubtful, but an interesting challenge for people who can practice actual engineering.

Point to where in the post above I state that private industry is more efficient than government–magically or otherwise. You continue to argue against what you suppose I will say rather than what I have said, and it’s very annoying.

You may support Lessig’s position, but you have done nothing to defend it from my critique, namely that his plan will be subject to the same inefficiencies that he agrees exist in the current regulatory regime. Why don’t you focus on addressing the ideas I have brought up. Or better yet, why don’t you study up on how radio is regulated in the U.S. before you try to talk about the issue again.

I won’t reiterate my prior posts. Nevertheless, you raise two points which I do not believe that I responded to before. First, is the assertion that private industry is magically more efficient than government. I would advocate that large corporations may be just as inefficient as government. Ford and GM would be examples of large corporation slowly declining into oblivion. Also the introduction of HDDVDs was delayed by eight years because of corporate bickering over standards.

Second, you wrote “Well, how will things be any different when government goes about setting his “minimal rules”. How will things be different with private ownership of the spectrum? I would foresee a private industry association forming that would be functionally equivalent to the current FCC for assuring that one party does not interfere with another’s spectrum usage. I don’t see any benefit to trading one regulatory body for another.