Re: The spectrum property rights community meets in DC]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

-------- 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 DC
>
> Dewayne:
>
> Let me respond to the two earlier posts (by Reed and Cook) reacting to  
> the
> Manhattan Institute session on Monday, 17 May 04.
>
> By way of introduction, just a little background, my PhD is in  
> electrical
> engineering from MIT.  I've written on spectrum policy for more than 20
> years.  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  
> depends
> on the situation.  As an analogy consider footwear.  There are strong
> arguments 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  
> kayaking
> wearing 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%20versi
> on.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  
> thought
> that anyone can quickly or easily dismiss the application of a
> property-rights-like set of rules for radio spectrum, given its vast  
> success
> elsewhere, 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  
> just
> backwards.  Commercial CDMA developed in the US because the cellular
> licensees had rights that were property-like.  They could vary their
> technology 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 of
> > propagation or information theory or signal processing techniques?  
> > Silly me to think that regulatory policies have to bother with mere
> > reality, 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  
> and
> related physics.  There will probably be others if we don't make it.
>
> What mix of knowledge of physics, law, and economics are appropriate  
> for
> debating spectrum policy?  David seems to imply that physicists and
> engineers have some special knowledge.  However, one might also argue  
> that
> economists and lawyerspeople who have specialized in studying social
> organization for economic activity and in the social creation and
> enforcement of rulesmight well be better qualified to consider these  
> issues
> than 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 one
> of 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/