Many of the FCC’s existing functions could be farmed out, Jamison wrote in the blog post. Subsidies for phone and Internet service could be handled by state governments, while the Federal Trade Commission could handle consumer complaints and take action against abuses by companies. There are some details that were not addressed in the blog post due to time constraints, Jamison said Tuesday, such as the possible need for new state-level powers to address broadband monopolies.
The story refers to Mark Jamison, an adviser to President-elect Trump.
I think it would be a great idea to reconstitute the FCC for the 21st century. Recall my essay, Sidestep the FCC and the FDA. There, I argue for replacing the FCC’s spectrum licensing system (which Jamison would retain) with an arbitration board to deal with disputes among spectrum users.
Unlike the FCC, the arbitration board would presume that any spectrum could be used for any purpose. The board would set ground rules for users to deal with one another to resolve potential conflicts. These ground rules might specify which user has priority until an agreement can be reached. The ground rules might set expectations for how negotiations ought to be conducted and resolved. If parties are unable to resolve disputes, then the board would rule on that specific dispute.
My thinking reflects a view of spectrum that I encountered over 15 years ago, which says that there really is no such thing as “interference” if you have the right hardware, software, and protocols in place.
I still don’t understand how thousands of TV channels come over 2 wire coax.
Coaxial cable has one center conductor as well as shielding.
I’ll oversimplify by pretending analog video over cable doesn’t exist anymore. Your typical CATV system out in the real world has over 4.4gbit/s of downstream throughput available for various purposes. Today, usually most of this is used for digital TV channels. Channels take up varying amounts of that available throughput, but today, 3-5mbps would be typical for one SD video channel and 12-18mbps is typical for one HD channel.
Re-introducing analog signals, which do still exist in most places: subtract about 38.8mbps of available throughput for each analog channel.
Warning: All the above is a huge oversimplification, and leaves out way more than it tells. Hope that helps.
I actually feel pretty sure that Andrew was asking this question with tongue-in-cheek.
I wish.
To Arnold’s point, it boggles my mind (YMMV) how much info can already be piped through a single wire. So, can we indefinitely keep cramming down the bandwidth per info, and do current pricing structures retard that?
(re-reminder: everything I said above, as well as the below, is a drastic oversimplification and leaves out way more than it explains)
Not indefinitely. For the near future, there will be a trend of much more efficient use of the throughput capacity of coax without radical changes in the underlying transmission technology. For instance: I implied above that over 4.4gbps of downstream throughput capacity is available, but nearly all of this is used by broadcast channels that you aren’t currently watching, and some of it is even consumed by IP traffic that’s not destined for you. Arguably, that’s inefficient, and by the continuation of certain trends that are already well in progress, that efficiency will improve.
Further down the road, major changes in the underlying transmission technology will also rise, which will increase the 4.4gbps number I keep claiming. I’m not sure what number I’d want to put on it, but it’s ballpark correct to say we’re eventually heading for around 10gbps split between upstream and downstream somehow. There is a lot of investment involved in actually making that happen, though. But in most locations, it doesn’t involve replacing huge chunks of copper infrastructure and doesn’t involve building a completely new end-to-end infrastructure in its place (like fiber-to-the-home) so construction costs may be minimal in most cases.
So, it is a limited resource at current limits and at hypothetical limits and theoretical demand levels. But there is a lot of improvement available between here and there.
Didn’t Coase suggest this in 1959?
This is remotely possible for large relatively isolated markets (and the lower the frequency the more isolation necessary) and not at all for dense congested markets which is why spectrum is assigned by treaty. Without a common authority and framework there is little resolution of these issues. This is much like all standardization, from weights and measures to currencies to law. These can be worked around, but the costs are high and law does less to restrict than codify, supporting greater investment by lowering risk.
Spectrum doesn’t have to be managed the way the FCC does it. Consider how international shortwave has been allocated for decades:
“HFCC is a non-governmental, non-profit association, and a sector member of the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva in the category of international and regional organisations. It manages, and co-ordinates global databases of international shortwave broadcasting in keeping with International Radio Regulations of the ITU. The HFCC provides representation, tools and services to its members for the resolution or minimisation of instances of mutual interference among shortwave transmissions. Organises regular conferences prior to the start-dates of seasonal broadcasting schedules that coincide with the dates of clock-time changes for the summer and winter periods.” http://hfcc.org/about/HFCC-IBD_Basic_Information.phtml
My dad went to these conferences many times. It was pretty amazing that state and private broadcasters, often with very different ideologies, could voluntarily allocate spectrum-time among themselves.
And, with modern spread-spectrum and frequency hopping radios, interference is almost abstracted away. My guess is that if the FCC opened up the old TV bands that are empty in rural areas to a first-to-transmit allocation, rural broadband would improve rapidly.
FCC also has a lot of emergency-related responsibilities and authorities. Those could be transferred to FEMA.
“My thinking reflects a view of spectrum that I encountered over 15 years ago, which says that there really is no such thing as “interference” if you have the right hardware, software, and protocols in place.”
Yes, and ensuring the ‘if’ is met is what regulators should be for, with the actual use of the frequencies determined by the market wherever possible. Not sure why this needs the FCC to be replaced though. Performing this function at national level is much more efficient than doing it locally, given that the relevant markets, companies and technologies are national, if not international.