From: "Charles Jackson" <chuck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 16, 2004 7:53:24 PM PDT
To: <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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