SPECTRUM ‘COMMONS’ SHOULD BE CREATED, LAW PROFESSOR SAYS
Far from encouraging innovation, broadband deregulation is “dangerous step” toward rebalkanization, Stanford Law School Prof. Lawrence Lessig said Fri. Internet’s creators embraced philosophy of “stupid networks, smart applications” that permitted Internet to develop as end-users chose, he said at Center for Digital Democracy panel on forecasting broadband’s future. That architectural principle of neutrality not only has important competition consequences, he said, but it lets innovators know their inventions will succeed based on what users -- not network operators -- think should succeed.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
There’s no guarantee neutral network model will survive in future, Lessig said. New architectures may structure new networks in ways that abolish neutrality platform, he said. Telephone companies couldn’t stop Internet from being transmitted via their lines because phone system mimics Internet’s neutrality, he said. However, he said, cable is modified version of network that lets operators exercise control over what passes through lines. It’s important to think about that issue now, Lessig said, because FCC Chmn. Powell thinks broadband will flourish when it’s no longer regulated. Lessig disagreed, arguing that in context of broadband cable, U.S. must preserve its intuition that innovation thrives when technology platform is neutral. Unregulated infrastructure will lead to balkanization of Internet and loss of innovation, he said.
Future of wireless Internet is uncertain, Lessig said. However, he said, “commons” must be set aside in spectrum that can be used free and shared. Existing system of spectrum allocation is “fundamentally flawed,” he said, because FCC has allowed powerful special interests to convince the agency to stifle innovation. U.S. should experiment with how much spectrum should be set aside in “commons” for sharing and how much should be allocated according to property rights, he said.
Neutral infrastructure platform is “essential in this world,” former FTC Chmn. Robert Pitofsky said. Innovation won’t happen unless private sector is rewarded for its efforts, he said. Antitrust laws must determine how to keep open access without stifling innovation. While some have argued that antitrust has no application to market as fast- moving as Internet, Pitofsky disagreed. Antitrust regulations are relevant to Internet, he said, but not in their old-fashioned incarnations. Laws must be revamped, he said, to prevent incumbent manufacturers from cutting off consumers’ access to new markets and the essential role of antitrust in Internet is to “keep it open.”
Problem with spectrum allocation isn’t that it’s broken but that it works exactly way it was designed to work, said American Enterprise Institute’s Thomas Hazlett. Regulators continue to protect incumbent interests, he said, and FCC consistently has killed off radio and TV station competition. Progress in public policy has come slowly, he said: Cable has provided viewers “vast choiceland” but regulators still haven’t given up their attempts to stifle spectrum allocation. FCC’s “continuing mismanagement” of TV bandwidth is impressive, Hazlett said, and it will take act of Congress to reallocate TV spectrum to something consumers want. Consensus of economists, Hazlett said, is that rules for spectrum use must be “dramatically relaxed.”