If you think media ownership and indecency to be the far-reaching issues the FCC is currently dealing with, think again. The prospect of treating the electro-magnetic spectrum as a commons or public good, instead of property “owned” by certain entities has HUGE implications to many industries – media, telecom, consumer electronics, tech…Two recent essays, one by the Economist and one by Clay Shirky, illuminate this issue in great depth, and are highly recommended reading -- Economist Article & Clay Shirky Essay. Basically, the FCC has been licensing use of the spectrum since its birth in 1934, based on the technology and understanding of physics that was in place at the time. Namely that only one signal could be transmitted on 1 frequency in a given location. To allow anything else would mean interference that consumers would experience (ever tune into a radio and get 2 stations at the same frequency?). Anyway, times have changed and there are now technologies out there that are smart enough to pick out certain signals being transmitted at the same frequency as others (like being able to hear a conversation at a cocktail party). And these technologies are getting better. The first successful application of this approach is in Wi-Fi. The 2.4 Ghz band is an unlicensed one meaning anyone can make use of it. As a result, you have cordless phones, baby monitors and Wi-Fi transmitters operating, and co-operating (for the most part), at this frequency. Unfortunately, it’s not really the good stuff. The frequency is too high to penetrate long distances and go through a lot of walls, and is a very small slice of the spectrum anyway, and thus it limits the potential of Wi-Fi. Now that the technology is there to pick out signals, one could theoretically transmit at lower frequencies, the same frequencies occupied by broadcast TV & radio (true wireless broadband anyone?). Not only that, it turns out a lot of spectrum today licensed to broadcasters goes unused or is needlessly wasted, making for opportunities to let broadcasters keep their frequency while also allowing other technologies to use lower frequencies. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the FCC envisions a future where it’s more of a traffic cop and less a real estate agent. Broadcasters and cell phone companies (who’ve sunk billions of dollars in 3G licenses) will oppose any change of licensing regime (remember they own the beachfront “property”), or allowing others to broadcast at their frequency ranges. They will fight tooth and nail to keep the oligopoly that the current licensing regime has established. There is a long-running struggle between low power FM broadcasters and the NAB about just this sort of thing. I can picture their lobbyists salivating already….