Yesterday, I wrote this item about an article on BBC’s news site relating to WiFi hype in a developing world context.
Simon Woodside commented on my post, noting that Open Spectrum is NOT deregulation as such, but mere RE-regulation.
Simon is of course 100% correct. There is a huge difference between license-free UNregulated spectrum, and the license-free but regulated spectrum that is used by WiFi, and will be used (partly) by WiMAX in the future.
While this is true, it doesn’t change the objective argument that Bill Thompson is trying to make, and which I can’t really decide if I agree with. Namely that there are good examples of successful usage of licensed, regulated Spectrum in the developing world, in Community Radio and especially GSM, while there are still few examples of successful use of UNlicensed, regulated spectrum such as 2.4 GHz.
In fact there are reports of spectrum wars in Africa, where wireless ISP’s using the 2.4GHz spectrum simply boost power to get through other ISP’s signals.
I realize of course that these Amp-wars are caused by a lack of regulation, and not by a lack of license requirements, but in nations that have neither the skills nor the technical asets to control and regulate effectively the difference may be insignificant.
Now, I am a huge supporter of WiFi for the developing world, and have invested a year of my life, and a good deal of money I don’t have into the belief that WiFi and other Open, disruptive technologies can provide opportunities to the developing world that are not currently available. But that only really increases my scpeticism when large corporations suddenly through all their might behind an idea that up until 6 months ago nobody really cared about, with the exception of Simon Woodside, myself and maybe a few hundred other people around the globe.
The scepticism comes from a fear that by pushing this technology too hard, we may be killing it off. Introducing it commercially to countries that don’t have the wherewithall to handle the regulation (which is a more difficult task in unlicensed spectrum, than in licensed spectrum), may result in the unregulated chaos that is NOT what we need for wireless to fullfill it’s potential.
Probably what we need is hardware and software that makes it easier to be a good citizen in the ether, by dynamically handling signal-strength, directionality etc.
Well I think there was a certain amount of America bashing in Bill’s article and that’s partly why I always protest now when people say that Open Spectrum is deregulation. Because if people get this idea that Open Spectrum is this big american capitalism festival to force them to deregulate and then get screwed over like has happened so many times in the past, then they will be opposed to Open Spectrum for a wrong reason. Because I have seen anti-Americanism in response to my ideas about spreading more Open Spectrum.
I think you’re right there’s some uncertainty. Although it’s a lot less certain now than it was 10-15 years ago when it was the “junk band” now there’s portable phones, wi-fi, etc.
Still I don’t see there as being a huge cost to the government I doubt that they are making megabucks off these piddly license fees in 2.4 GHz anyway. And we already know, that places that allow open spectrum Wi-Fi wISPs hae a big increase in internet activity. Surely there must be some research or something.
simon
Simon,
The cost I am talking about is not the cost of lost license-fee’s, but rather the cost of lost telecommunications fee’s as more and more traffic moves away from the government telco, and onto uncontrolled, and largely uncontrollable ISP networks.
Many developing countries get a significant portion of their foreign exchange from ex-pat’s calling their families and friends at home.
And while we agree that cheaper and better communications networks are as a rule always going to be better for a society, that is a medium- to long-term consideration many countries can ill afford, as long as their state-coffers are too empty to provide schooling and health-care to the people.
Well, I don’t know. I don’t really see the telecomm business as being a profitable one long-term any more. I think that governments in Africa that think that they will be able to keep reaping those profits are ill advised. It’s not going to pay for anything.
Given that reality, developing the alternate infrastructure is a no brainer.
How long do you think it will take for the government to reap the economic benefits from Wi-Fi etc.?
simon