free the air
The Economist (that magazine that called for a 14 year copyright term) has a great piece about spectrum. The piece nicely carries this "Commons vs. Property" debate one step further. As Yochai Benkler is increasingly pushing the point, the problem with the "commons" metaphor is that it itself is a "property" metaphor -- just a form of "property" where everyone has a right to access.
But that, Benkler argues, is misleading. The question we should be asking is not which form of property makes sense -- private or commons -- but instead a much more libertarian question: Do we need any "regulation of the spectrum" at all? Or put better: Given today's technology, is there any reason to believe that the market operating on its own, without any substantial form of regulation, won't figure out how best to develop devices that radiate? Can't we depend upon the market to solve whatever coordination problems there are?
I've already tagged Benkler "perhaps the best communications theorist of our generation." I shouldn't have said "perhaps."
Comments (4)
Information society might become a new feudalism where Intellectual Property Rights are awarded to new feudal lords like Microsoft, Universal or Sony.
You are right in making a progressive statement that something has to be made to prevent this.
But I don't think the metaphor of a common is a good banner.
Commons was the remnants under feudalism of a pre-feudal clan society. They permitted small peasants to have a slightly better life under the feudal warlord than if they had to survive on the meagre by-products of their slavery for the noble. Early capitalism evolved when most of those commons where taken by force by the gentry. Impoverished peasants became journeymen or women and eventually labour force in early industry.
The word therefore gives me the impression of demanding that the common citizen has to get some air, to respire, to not suffocate. It is inherently defensive in character: leave us this at least.
I think we have to find a more offensive metaphor.
Regulation of the spectrum is necessary and fully free-air model cannot work, in my opinion. The FCC's hybrid approach is probably the most reasonable, given the nature of the markets involved. While Wi-fi's use of the 2.4 GHz range without licensing seems to work because each Wi-fi user is like a ship using the ocean (each user is very small and effects a very limited area), regulation must remain for broadcasters who can blanket an entire area with its jamming signal. No regulation or licensing in this area means that the first to market with the ability to build the biggest tower and most powerful antenna wins.
You think Clear Channel is bad now....
I am willing to listen, but for a market to succeed, there must be market forces driving in different directions that can be balanced. Where is the market force against spectrum interference. If Verizon wants to use a range of frequencies, what is to prevent AT&T from jamming the same range of frequencies to block Verizon signals? If a small radio station picks a frequency for their broadcasts what is the market pressure they can use if a larger radio station decides they wish to take over the frequency? The technological solution of spread spectrum is not a universal panacea. Electronic frequency pollution, like water or air pollution is a real problem and market forces against them are only marginally effective, when there is no direct financial incentive against them.
I'm interested in Benkler's argument that the commons metaphor is problematic because it is another form of property. Is there an article you can suggest (or another resource) where he has developed this idea?