Why we should care about the spectrum debate
PALO ALTO, Calif.--If you are like me your eyes probably glaze over a bit when people start talking about wireless spectrum.
Well, maybe consumers should start paying more attention because the debate over how spectrum is managed will determine how we'll be able to use all types of devices in the future, Tim Wu, Columbia Law School professor, said at a Legal Futures Conference at Stanford University on Saturday.
Specifically, there is a "battle for platform supremacy between two different types of devices"--mobile versus computer, he said. The mobile platform has a centralized, monopoly legacy whereas the computer platform was born in a distributed, open environment.
Internet companies like Google are battling with traditional telecom companies over requiring open access to spectrum, which would allow people to use whatever device they want on that spectrum.
"As (mobile) gains in popularity...the question becomes what the dominant platform will be," Wu said. "There will be one platform to rule them all...Control of spectrum is the bottleneck" that either maintains the telecom monopoly model or brings the openness of the Internet to the wireless world.
Someone in the audience asked panel member Kent Walker, Google general counsel, if Google had won its bid for the 700MHz spectrum and, if so, whether the spectrum will be opened. Walker said Google can't talk about the auction while it is ongoing.
"The direction is toward mobile, and local, and the power line," Walker said. "We do well with the Internet...If it will make the Internet more accessible that's an opportunity for the company and, ultimately, for consumers."
There is also an increasing call for spectrum to be owned by all the citizens, rather than licensed by the government to corporations to operate.
"I'm here to say 'free the spectrum,'" said Kevin Werbach, professor of legal studies and ethics at the Wharton School of Business and former counsel for new technology policy at the Federal Communications Commission.
Under the current system, companies have been allowed to perpetuate the falsehood that spectrum is scarce for economic gain, he said. "The tragedy is we're not using anywhere near the capacity of the wireless spectrum to communicate."
Elinor Mills covers Internet security and privacy. She joined CNET News in 2005 after working as a foreign correspondent for Reuters in Portugal and writing for The Industry Standard, the IDG News Service, and the Associated Press. E-mail Elinor. 
Sincerely,
Robert
The 2.4 GHz band where most of our wireless access points run is far to crowded. The quality of service these devices can provide in crowded metropolitan areas is very reduced because of the amount of potential interference they can receive. Analog signals are by far the most destructive, requiring the router to ignore entire sections of frequency due to the steady state FM signal these devices emit. In addition other digital wireless units have to be able to sense each other because the potential for "wireless collisions" becomes much greater. We need more spectrum space for devices like this! Instead of allotting all of the new just opened up band space that analog TV will vacate, how about opening up some rather large frequency space for wireless access points? These lower frequencies carry much further and would allow reliable access over 400-feet easily with less than 100-milliwatts of power. Right now besides the 2.4 GHz band the 5.4 GHz band is available but as wireless 802.11n becomes more popular, that band will fill up and become plugged too! More frequency space is needed, let us, the people have some of that open analog TV space, not the cellular phone providers please!