Spectrum commons theory

Lore & Background

The spectrum commons theory was developed to open up the spectrum to everyone, allowing users to share it as a commons without prior authorization from higher governance. Proponents believe government allocation of the spectrum is inefficient and that a true commons must minimize both government and private control. The early days of radio communication had no regulations, and everyone could use the spectrum without limitation, but when a particular spectrum was overused it created harmful interference, leading to regulation by the NRA. This period without regulation lasted only a few years but guided the spectrum commons theory.

The most basic characteristic of the theory is unlimited access to spectrum resources, though most modern theorists point out the need for some constraint. A commons by definition is a resource owned or controlled jointly by a group, and for it to be viable someone must control the resource and set orderly sharing rules. Complete open commons, where anyone has access to an unowned resource without limitation, is not considered feasible for spectrum because as a scarce resource it will be subject to tragedy; even with new sharing technologies, a controller is still needed for standards setting and enforcement.

Alternative models include the market-based commons, favored by economists like Ronald Coase who argued that spectrum should be treated like land or labor with its use determined by the pricing system, and the supercommons, which would operate alongside property and commons regimes with universal access as the initial legal rule. Under a supercommons, anyone would be permitted to transmit anywhere, at any time, in any manner, so long as they did not impose an excessive burden on others.

Reader's Guide

The significance of spectrum commons theory lies in its challenge to the longstanding command-and-control process used by regulators like the FCC, which carves out blocks of spectrum and gives away usage rights at no charge based on regulatory proceedings. The theory's proponents argue that this system is inefficient and that opening the spectrum to users would better serve society. However, the theory acknowledges that a completely open commons is not viable due to the scarcity of spectrum and the risk of tragedy, requiring some form of control and rule-setting.

Modern technological examples, such as Propagate Network's Swarm Logic Software, demonstrate how devices can communicate with one another to choose nonconflicting frequencies and adjust power levels to eliminate overlap. If such technology reaches critical mass adoption, it could minimize transaction costs necessary for neighboring uses of commons access spectrum. Collective efforts like the Broadband Access Network Coordination have already emerged to facilitate joint and controlled efforts to limit interference.

The legacy of spectrum commons theory is its influence on the debate about spectrum management, offering an alternative to both government regulation and private property approaches. It has prompted consideration of new sharing technologies and governance models that could allow more open access while still managing interference, though the fundamental approach of traditional spectrum regulation remains essentially unchanged.

Did You Know?

• Economist Ronald Coase argued in the 1950s that the radio spectrum was no scarcer than wood or wheat and proposed private ownership and a market in spectrum.
• The FCC's command-and-control process carves out blocks of spectrum, decides their use, and gives away usage rights at no charge to chosen applicants.