What were the rate terms and conditions for WiFi, and what would have happened if those channels were auctioned?
and then David Isenberg chimed in:
Wi-Fi isn’t, wasn’t auctioned. It isn’t owned by any company any carrier, yet I think that everybody in this room, most people in this room, and perhaps yourself, would agree that Wi-Fi is the most innovative section of the spectrum. So there’s no market. Why isn’t that the model instead of auctions?
This was on account of Kneuer talking up the auction of spectrum in the 700 MHz range. People in the audience cheered Doc for asking the question. What does that say about the audience?
On its face, it’s not a sensible question. The apparent belief among the SuperNova crowd is that WiFi is more or less equivalent to high-power 700 MHz, so it can be handled by the regulators the same way. What they’re missing, of course, is that unlicensed WiFi doesn’t need to be auctioned because its low power and large channel count (in the 11a range) permit multiple parties to use it without interfering with each other. And these characteristics limit propagation to 300-1000 feet for most applications.
Would anybody build a region-wide network with towers on every block? Clearly not, so WiFi is a non-starter when it comes to providing competition to wireline broadband providers. If 700 MHz were regulated like WiFi, with low power and no license to operate, it would also be a non-starter in the last mile broadband business.
Humorously, the folks who argue for unlicensed wireless also complain about the lack of competition in broadband.
If they had their way, they wouldn’t have their way.
In related news, the FTC says net neutrality is not necessary:
The Federal Trade Commission today dealt a serious blow to “Net Neutrality” proponents as it issued a report dismissive of claims that the government needs to get involved in preserving the fairness of networks in the United States.
The half-life of political Kool-Aid is apparently about twelve months.