4 ms·

Spectrum auctioning is really bad policy. Spectrum is like the road network. Why would we sell it to the highest bidder for them to sell it back to us? Inste

by payne92 10y ago

Spectrum auctioning is really bad policy. Spectrum is like the road network. Why would we sell it to the highest bidder for them to sell it back to us? Instead, spectrum should be public and free, like roads, for those that follow the usage rules.

creaghpatr 10y ago
Would you be willing to 'sit in traffic' for your slot of bandwith, so to speak?
tbihl 10y ago
I understand what you're saying. And it even does play out with US transportation. But absolutely not with roads! One of the main problems with US roads is our failure to price them correctly, causing everyone to demand usage at peak times. In US transportation, this is seen in how we lost the rail right of ways. We sold them off, and we may never get them back. And it'll be a huge problem if we ever come to our senses and pivot back to trains.
malchow 10y ago
Spectrum isn't free because it isn't free. That isn't a tautology, it's a statement of fact: spectrum has a dollar value. In nature. In nature it's got a price. Because men will trade, or pay, or war for it. Therefore, to allocate it efficiently, we should allow it to trade at that value. This is how that spectrum makes the most number of people happy. That may sound like right-wing pablum, but it's a subject that has been well trod by great thinkers for a very, very long time. [1] [1] Coase, to mention just one
- steinystein 10y ago
  Roads aren't free because they aren't free. That isn't a tautology, it's a statement of fact: Roads have a dollar value. In nature. In nature it's got a price. Because men will trade, or pay, or war for it. Therefore, to allocate it efficiently, we should allow it to trade at that value. This is how roads make the most number of people happy. That may sound like right-wing pablum, but it's a subject that has been well trod by great thinkers for a very, very long time. [1] [1] Coase, to mention just one
  - bdonlan 10y ago
    This is increasingly being done with congestion charges and time-dependent road or bridge tolls, but it still remains difficult, from a practical perspective, to maintain a continuous auction of road capacity. Notably, wireless deployments differ from road use in that using a wireless spectrum assignment requires significant deployment time and capital investment, meaning when a frequency range is assigned it's reasonable to expect and allow a single entity to control that range for an extended period. With roads, on the other hand, a single use can be as short as a few minutes, meaning a similar auction would need to re-occur hundreds or thousands of times a day. Further, if wireless spectrum ranges are not pre-assigned, it becomes quite difficult for multiple entities trying to use the same range to coordinate to avoid interference that would render the range useless to both. Roads, on the other hand, can be reasonably shared by multiple users without any coordination ahead of time. Because of these practical difficulties, and the lack of an inherent need for usage assignments, most roads are not tolled or auctioned, and the result is heavy congestion in highly-sought-after routes at peak times.
    - olkid 10y ago
      While I agree with the substance of your comment, let us be clear about the difference between deployment and usage. Entities investing in roadway leases and toll roads align closer to wireless deployments, IMHO. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-15-u.s.-highways_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-15-u.s.-h... Wouldn't driving on a road for a few minutes correlate closer to making a phone call or sending a text? (I can't believe I am perpetuating this analogy :P)
r00fus 10y ago
The existing road network is actually a bad analogy. We spend billions in taxes on cars, gas, etc to pay for road works. Perhaps we could institute a transaction or device tax that would pay for government maintenance of spectrum transmission?

by payne92 10y ago

creaghpatr 10y ago

Would you be willing to 'sit in traffic' for your slot of bandwith, so to speak?

tbihl 10y ago

I understand what you're saying. And it even does play out with US transportation. But absolutely not with roads! One of the main problems with US roads is our failure to price them correctly, causing everyone to demand usage at peak times. In US transportation, this is seen in how we lost the rail right of ways. We sold them off, and we may never get them back. And it'll be a huge problem if we ever come to our senses and pivot back to trains.

malchow 10y ago

Spectrum isn't free because it isn't free. That isn't a tautology, it's a statement of fact: spectrum has a dollar value. In nature. In nature it's got a price. Because men will trade, or pay, or war for it. Therefore, to allocate it efficiently, we should allow it to trade at that value. This is how that spectrum makes the most number of people happy. That may sound like right-wing pablum, but it's a subject that has been well trod by great thinkers for a very, very long time. [1] [1] Coase, to mention just one

steinystein 10y ago
Roads aren't free because they aren't free. That isn't a tautology, it's a statement of fact: Roads have a dollar value. In nature. In nature it's got a price. Because men will trade, or pay, or war for it. Therefore, to allocate it efficiently, we should allow it to trade at that value. This is how roads make the most number of people happy. That may sound like right-wing pablum, but it's a subject that has been well trod by great thinkers for a very, very long time. [1] [1] Coase, to mention just one
- bdonlan 10y ago
  This is increasingly being done with congestion charges and time-dependent road or bridge tolls, but it still remains difficult, from a practical perspective, to maintain a continuous auction of road capacity. Notably, wireless deployments differ from road use in that using a wireless spectrum assignment requires significant deployment time and capital investment, meaning when a frequency range is assigned it's reasonable to expect and allow a single entity to control that range for an extended period. With roads, on the other hand, a single use can be as short as a few minutes, meaning a similar auction would need to re-occur hundreds or thousands of times a day. Further, if wireless spectrum ranges are not pre-assigned, it becomes quite difficult for multiple entities trying to use the same range to coordinate to avoid interference that would render the range useless to both. Roads, on the other hand, can be reasonably shared by multiple users without any coordination ahead of time. Because of these practical difficulties, and the lack of an inherent need for usage assignments, most roads are not tolled or auctioned, and the result is heavy congestion in highly-sought-after routes at peak times.
  - olkid 10y ago
    While I agree with the substance of your comment, let us be clear about the difference between deployment and usage. Entities investing in roadway leases and toll roads align closer to wireless deployments, IMHO. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-15-u.s.-highways_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-15-u.s.-h... Wouldn't driving on a road for a few minutes correlate closer to making a phone call or sending a text? (I can't believe I am perpetuating this analogy :P)

r00fus 10y ago

The existing road network is actually a bad analogy. We spend billions in taxes on cars, gas, etc to pay for road works. Perhaps we could institute a transaction or device tax that would pay for government maintenance of spectrum transmission?