Spectrum Wants to Be Free
Never pay for phone, cable, or net access again
By Kevin Werbach for Wired.

In an open spectrum world, wireless transmitters would be as ubiquitous as microprocessors: in televisions, cars, public spaces, handheld devices, everywhere. They would tune themselves to free spectrum and self-assemble into networks. Anyone could become a radio broadcaster reaching millions. Phone calls would rarely need to pass through central networks; they would be handed off and relayed across devices, for free or nearly so. Businesses would track far-flung assets in real time via embedded sensors. Big TV networks and cable operators would lose their hammerlock control over media distribution. Entrepreneurs would develop as yet undreamed of applications that we can't live without. It happens any time open platforms emerge - think eBay and Amazon.com...

When spectrum licensing was established in the early 20th century, radios were primitive, as was the regulatory model used to govern them. To be heard, broadcasters needed an exclusive slice of spectrum. Today, however, digital technologies let many users occupy the same frequency at the same time. As the FCC's Powell points out, "Modern technology has fundamentally changed the nature and extent of spectrum use." Today's devices employ advanced digital signal processing and other techniques, and they're smart enough to coexist without interference.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/view.html

Spectrum Wants to Be Free

Never pay for phone, cable, or net access again

By Kevin Werbach

A revolution is brewing in wireless. In an industry speech in October, FCC chair Michael Powell expressed support for a radical idea called open spectrum that could transform the communications landscape as profoundly as the Internet ever did. If it works, you'll never pay for telephone, cable, or Net access again.

Open spectrum treats the airwaves as a commons, shared by all. It's the brainchild of engineers, activists, and scholars such as wireless gadfly Dewayne Hendricks, former Lotus chief scientist David Reed, and NYU law professor Yochai Benkler. The idea is that smart devices cooperating with one another function more effectively than huge proprietary communications networks. The commons can be created through distinct, unlicensed "parks" or through "underlay" technologies, such as ultrawideband, that are invisible to licensed users in the same band.

In an open spectrum world, wireless transmitters would be as ubiquitous as microprocessors: in televisions, cars, public spaces, handheld devices, everywhere. They would tune themselves to free spectrum and self-assemble into networks. Anyone could become a radio broadcaster reaching millions. Phone calls would rarely need to pass through central networks; they would be handed off and relayed across devices, for free or nearly so. Businesses would track far-flung assets in real time via embedded sensors. Big TV networks and cable operators would lose their hammerlock control over media distribution. Entrepreneurs would develop as yet undreamed of applications that we can't live without. It happens any time open platforms emerge - think eBay and Amazon.com.

The revolution has already started. Wi-Fi, a runaway success, uses a narrow slice of spectrum that is already "open." Wi-Fi is a shot across the bow, much the way the Arpanet served as a proving ground for the commercial Internet. As ever, Moore's law is on the side of the technology upstart. Radio waves resemble ripples on a pond rather than swimmers in a pool - they pass through one another. Distinguishing them can be difficult, but it's not beyond the talents of today's radio engineers.

When spectrum licensing was established in the early 20th century, radios were primitive, as was the regulatory model used to govern them. To be heard, broadcasters needed an exclusive slice of spectrum. Today, however, digital technologies let many users occupy the same frequency at the same time. As the FCC's Powell points out, "Modern technology has fundamentally changed the nature and extent of spectrum use." Today's devices employ advanced digital signal processing and other techniques, and they're smart enough to coexist without interference.

Wi-Fi's success is attracting capital and encouraging research into the open spectrum idea. Last year, over the bitter opposition of entrenched spectrum holders, the FCC granted limited approval for ultrawideband. Within the next year, half of all laptops used at work are expected to have wireless connections. And within four years, Intel hopes to incorporate transmitters into all of its processor chips.

Standing in the way of open spectrum are incumbent licensees, government agencies nervous about interference, and economists entranced by the airwave auction market.

Yet the spectrum auction markets are not free markets. Each buyer gains what is, in effect, a little monopoly - which, in the aggregate, stifles communications progress just as well as one big monopoly.

Governments have long treated the airwaves like real estate to be handed out to favored operators or auctioned for huge sums. And like real estate, spectrum makes people do stupid things. The English auctions for third-generation mobile phone licenses in 2000 left the winners choked with debt. In the US, the battle over bankrupt NextWave's licenses and the hyped transition to digital TV are multibillion-dollar fiascoes.

The problem here is not the market, but the outdated real-estate metaphor. Yet, if spectrum was seen as a commons that could be shared by all, then builders of wireless devices would rush to fill it, unleashing market forces to everyone's benefit. It's already happened with Wi-Fi: A billion-dollar industry emerged overnight with no protection against interference. And Wi-Fi is only the beginning.

Independent analyst Kevin Werbach (kevin@werbach.com) is the former FCC counsel for new technology policy.