ASPEN, Colo.-With the ashes of recently deceased gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson still raining down from the sky, the Progress and Freedom Foundation brought its gonzo deregulation motto to the mountains of Colorado for its annual Aspen Summit.
This year’s event centered on the place for property and commons in building a “digital-ownership society” with several debates centered around how or if the government should regulate wireless spectrum policy and issues surrounding “net neutrality.”
The idea of commons vs. property led to a healthy debate among panelists on a roundtable discussion centered on spectrum reform. While panelists generally agreed that there was a place for both common spectrum availability in the form of unlicensed spectrum and licensed spectrum used by private entities, panel members were split between academia and business on how the two models should be implemented.
Thomas Sugrue, T-Mobile USA Inc.’s vice president of government affairs, noted that while the carrier made extensive use of both licensed and unlicensed spectrum, there should remain a delineation between both models.
“Local area networks using unlicensed spectrum appear to be working well, but in wide area networks I don’t think unlicensed spectrum would work,” Sugrue said.
Michael Gallagher, Commerce Department assistant secretary and director of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, concurred with Sugrue, noting that all models could be accommodated.
“I don’t think it’s an all-or-nothing debate,” Gallagher said. “Wi-Fi is proof that the commons model works. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to turn carrier spectrum into commons. Carriers squeeze every erlang out of their spectrum and are using it very efficiently.”
Others thought that an unlicensed commons model for spectrum was a better idea because it would be more open to innovation, and smart devices could handle interference issues. Kevin Werbach, professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School, said he thought the government should pursue a commons model for spectrum whenever possible.
Government was taken to task over spectrum allocation policies that give many departments with free spectrum that some feel could be better utilized by public companies. Lawrence White, economic professor at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University, said that government agencies, including the Department of Defense, were more than capable of participating in the spectrum market instead of having spectrum allocated for free by the federal government.
“They can pay for their spectrum,” White said. “They pay for the weapons they use and should pay for spectrum.”
Gallagher defended the government’s policies, noting that the Federal Communications Commission planned to auction 90 megahertz of spectrum next year that today is used by the Defense Department, but added that the government would not likely push for more concessions.
“The Department of Defense is open to discussions, but in this world I am not willing to take away their spectrum. It’s not a road I want to go down,” Gallagher said.
Recent FCC changes to net neutrality conditions were hotly debated during a panel featuring broadband service providers Verizon Communications Inc. and SBC Communications Inc., the cable TV industry and voice over Internet protocol service provider Vonage Holdings Corp.
Vonage’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Citron voiced concerns that without express rules forbidding broadband providers from limiting access to their networks, consumer access to legally offered VoIP services that might compete against host carrier services could be stymied.
Citron referred to since-resolved issues Vonage had with regional telecom provider Madison River Communications and continues to have with Craig McCaw’s Clearwire Corp., which is preventing its wireless broadband customers from using Vonage’s service on its network. Clearwire’s customer-service agreement prevents users from accessing data-heavy applications like Vonage’s VoIP offering because they could clog its wireless network and may compete against future Clearwire plans to launch voice capabilities.
Citron’s fellow panel members noted that the FCC dealt expediently with the Madison River problem and that tougher rules were unnecessary. Panel members added that they should be allowed to have some control over what is put on their networks and are able to receive a fair return on their deployment investments.
While most panel members seemed unconcerned in the short-term about competing wireless broadband service, SBC’s President Forrest Miller cited Sprint Nextel Corp.’s robust spectrum holdings in the 2.5 GHz band as posing a bigger threat to traditional broadband service providers than other wired solutions, including broadband over power lines.
