Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: The spectrum property rights community meets in DC]
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:16:39 -0400
-------- Original Message --------Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Re: The spectrum property rights community meets in DC
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:22:26 -0700 From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com> [Note: This comment comes from reader Chuck Jackson. DLH]
From: "Charles Jackson" <chuck () jacksons net> Date: May 16, 2004 7:53:24 PM PDT To: <dewayne () warpspeed com>Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] Re: The spectrum property rights community meets in DCDewayne:Let me respond to the two earlier posts (by Reed and Cook) reacting to theManhattan Institute session on Monday, 17 May 04.By way of introduction, just a little background, my PhD is in electricalengineering from MIT. I've written on spectrum policy for more than 20years. I was the principal architect of the New Zealand spectrum rights regime. I've worked for both the FCC and the House Commerce Committee and have advised several foreign governments on spectrum policy. Summing up,I'm not a newbie to these debates.My view is that there is substantial merit to both the commons approach and the property rights approach to spectrum accessthe proper approach dependson the situation. As an analogy consider footwear. There are strongarguments for hiking boots and there are strong arguments for water skisthe proper footwear depends on what you are doing with your feet. I'd hate to try to climb a ladder wearing water skis and I don't think I'll go kayakingwearing hiking boots (let alone water skis). My views on the proper application of the commons approach are available at:<http://www.jacksons.net/working%20papers/ Dynamic%20Sharing%20%202002%20version.pdf> But, if today we had to pick only one the two approaches and use it exclusivelythe property rights approach should win hands down. Gordon Cook wrote:It is difficult for me to look at this junk from the Manhattan Institute without becoming angry. I talked to Hazlett at the wireless show in wash DC last summer. What an experience in attempting to communicate with a man in touch with only his own reality. His contempt for anything related to 802.11 was awesome to behold. With friends like his "think tank" we surely need no further enemies. These property rights folk, in my book, are representative of the doits du segnoirage (forgive me my spelling) that died on the guillotine in the french revolution. But it is his kind of group with its steely hands around the throat of the policy process in Washington, that is beginning to turn the US into what before long will become a technology and economic backwater.I've talked to many economists who believe that the major difference between developed and underdeveloped countries are property rights and the rule of law. Compare North and South Korea or East and West Germany. The thoughtthat anyone can quickly or easily dismiss the application of aproperty-rights-like set of rules for radio spectrum, given its vast successelsewhere, boggles the mind.I have argued many hours with Tom Hazlett regarding the efficient mix of commons and property rights approaches. I think it's fair to characterize his view as "the efficient mix is very close to 0% commons / 100% property."Me, I lean to a 20%/80% mix or something near that.Gordon's view that property rights are incompatible with innovation is justbackwards. Commercial CDMA developed in the US because the cellular licensees had rights that were property-like. They could vary theirtechnology as long as it fit into their property. Those radio licenses that are the most property-like (Cellular/PCS/satellite/some microwave bands)have demonstrated substantial innovation. David Reed wrote:Looks like the property rights crowd are preaching to their choir... A whole meeting just for Commissioner Abernathy! Will anyone in the room have any substantive knowledge of physics ofpropagation or information theory or signal processing techniques? Silly me to think that regulatory policies have to bother with merereality, when one can reason about ideal platonic economic forms instead. :-)There is a good chance that Ray Pickholtz (a former president of the IEEE Com. Soc.) will be attending. I might attend. I think it is fair to say that each of us has a reasonable degree of expertise in the technology andrelated physics. There will probably be others if we don't make it.What mix of knowledge of physics, law, and economics are appropriate fordebating spectrum policy? David seems to imply that physicists andengineers have some special knowledge. However, one might also argue thateconomists and lawyerspeople who have specialized in studying social organization for economic activity and in the social creation andenforcement of rulesmight well be better qualified to consider these issuesthan many engineers.And, if it makes David Reed feel better, Peter Huber, who is introducing the session, once was an engineering professor at MIT. Later in his life he was a law clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He is also a co-author of oneof the most respected texts on communications law. Regards, Chuck Jackson
Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Re: The spectrum property rights community meets in DC] David Farber (May 17)