Why invest in a new radio technology requiring nonroutine FCC approval with “no light at the end of the tunnel” when there are plenty of less regulated on radio technologies to invest in.

Other countries with a “state capitalism” system for spectrum policy, though, are investing government funds in new radio technology to the disadvantage of the US economy.

Whether you believe Comm. Rosenworcel’s claim of a $130B GDP contribution from unlicensed spectrum, it is clear that the aftermath of Docket 81-413 creating the unlicensed ISM bands with few restrictions has had a great impact. ALL THE SPECTRUM INCUMBENTS OF THAT ERA OPPOSED THAT RULEMAKING!

The Reagan FCC under Chmn. Fowler went ahead anyway. The rest is history.

But when FCC spectrum policy productivity is as low as it has been for the past 15 years, only ideas endorsed by major incumbents get attention.

Note that while drones are a major issue all over the tech community, FCC has done virtually nothing on drones and commissioners don’t even discuss the issue! Most drones are used primarily for downloading video and that takes a lot of bandwidth. Why is FCC silent?

A WTB middle manager with some responsibility for drones told me that the de facto political Bureau top management is preoccupied with cellular issues!

If anything, I think the biggest lesson of the internet age is that we must avoid technology-specific norms, as these will be outdated the moment they are adopted. Tech as such is no longer a separate industry, and has implications for every aspect of human endeavor. It is a fool’s errand to regulate specific tech applications. Instead, we need to focus on achieving norms that propel beneficial results regardless of the modality of the particular pursuit. This will not be easy as parties have grown accustomed to negotiating specific obligations in a known universe in order to achieve certainty. The future of policymaking may therefore be in embracing uncertainty–not celebrating disruption merely because it is disruptive, and not regulating new forms of conduct merely due to their novelty. As you know from prior correspondence, I don’t think it is useful to talk about tech pessimists and optimists. Let’s all be realists, and as you intimate in your piece, avoid the kind of absolutism that buries the nuance that is required to drive thoughtful and lasting policies. Details can be circumvented through obsolescence, forum-shopping (arbitrage) or lack of adequate procedures for compliance. Agreed goals, while difficult to reach, don’t admit of such easy circumvention.

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to this critical space. Even though I don’t always agree with you, I always find your writing to be important and thought-provoking…and we need more, not less, of that.