bad idea to auction ALL spectrum (Score 2)

Look at the small percentage of spectrum that has been classified as "unlicensed" and not auctioned off for exclusive use by a big corporation. Look at what has resulted - WiFi, Bluetooth, DECT cordless phones, and wireless ISPs (WISPs) which are the only source of high speed Internet in many rural areas. Does anyone really think the FCC has erred on the side of reserving too much unlicensed spectrum, or that it has not been put to good use?

Unfortunately, the proposed legislation would require all future spectrum allocations to be auctioned to the highest bidder. There seems to be the belief that some white knight like Google will come forward and pay billions for spectrum and then set it free for public use and innovation. Or that companies like Intel and Microsoft and Google and Cisco are getting a free ride by using this "free" spectrum. In reality, we the public are getting the benefit. It is our spectrum, and sure we can sell off most of it to big cellcos like AT&T and Verizon and Clearwire to help pay off the national debt, but we need to keep a small portion public.

If anyone is thinking that little rural WISPs operating on a shoestring are going to all chip in a few dollars to keep a little spectrum unlicensed, and collectively will outbid the big cellos, that just isn't going to happen.

One argument I see is, we already have WiFi and Bluetooth and DECT, why do we need any more unlicensed spectrum? Same as what drives the cellcos. We need more public spectrum for higher speeds and more users, and we need spectrum below 1 GHz to penetrate trees and buildings. Otherwise, some people in less populated areas will never get high speed Internet. Some in industry and the media want to call services based on TV whitespace spectrum "Super WiFi", and while this may be a cool sounding name, it doesn't help anyone understand what it will do or why it is needed. Currently the only unlicensed spectrum below 1 GHz that can be used for hardcore non-line-of-sight transmission is 900 MHz, specifically 902-928 MHz. That 26 MHz isn't enough to provide high speed service to more than a handful of subscribers, and there is so much interference from stuff like smartgrid and adjacent paging bands that 900 MHz isn't very useful. The freeing up of TV whitespace spectrum is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a little more spectrum that can go through trees and buildings. AT&T and Verizon can have their exclusive use licensed spectrum in the 700 MHz band, but the public needs to save a little for nonexclusive, noncorporate use.

A second argument I see being made, is that companies that make devices using WiFi and other unlicensed bands are making tons of money and should be paying for use of the spectrum. But there is a chicken and egg problem here. Look at your cellphone. AT&T and Verizon buy 700 MHz spectrum, put up LTE towers, and have phones designed for them. But will there be LTE roaming? Apparently not. The phone and spectrum are for exclusive use on their network. Would that model of innovation work for everything? No. Look instead at your 802.11n wireless router, laptop, tablet, or even your proprietary cellphone which connects to WiFi hotspots. All that equipment is interoperable, in fact it works internationally. The spectrum and the technical standards were defined in an open, non-exclusive manner, and as a result thousands of companies innovated and brought products and services to market that benefit us all immensely.

A third argument is that certainly a white knight moneybags corporation will come forward and bid against the big cellcos to keep some spectrum unlicensed. Or some collective group will do so. Is this like selling naming rights to a stadium? I guess it could happen. Like the consortium that bid on the Nortel patents to keep them from going to a patent troll. But it seems more likely that the high bid will always be from a bidder that wants exclusive use. This is a very dangerous game. it is like selling off Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon or the Washington DC Mall, counting on some rich bidder coming forward with the high bid, only to turn the resource back over to the public. So the people get the money but they get to keep the public resource as well.

Since 1993 when spectrum auctions started, most spectrum has in fact been auctioned to the high bidder. The FCC has set aside very little for license exempt use, that spectrum has been put to very good use, and we have all benefitted. There is no reason to pass legislation requiring every last bit of spectrum be sold to the high bidder.

I understand the Treasury needs money. I understand that Congress is pissed off at the FCC. But on the narrow topic of setting aside unlicensed spectrum, the FCC has done good, if anything they have been too stingy in setting aside unlicensed spectrum. You have probably figured out that I run a WISP, so go ahead and say I'm biased and trying to get a free handout.

But we all use unlicensed spectrum every day. Even the big telcos and cellcos use WiFi hotspots to offload their celltowers. The existing spectrum is pretty much used up, and high frequencies like 2.4 and 5.8 GHz can't get to all the places we need fixed wireless. If we pass legislation that absolutely no spectrum, zero, can be allocated by any method other than auctioning it to the highest bidder, aren't we cutting off all future improvement and innovation except what the cellphone companies choose to provide? In a few years, certainly by the time our kids are grown, won't the current WiFi technology be antiquated, won't it look like 8 track players and CB radio and Pong games?

Go ahead and say the bulk of spectrum will be auctioned off to raise money. But let's keep a little bit as a public resource, and see what kind of innovation it brings.