Crowded debates with low ratings, 30-second T.V. spots and the impracticality of most Americans closely studying a wide range of policy issues before entering the voting booth all lead to campaigns focused on a few key policy issues, to the detriment of many others. The allocation of the wireless spectrum is one of these critical, often forgotten issues.
Spectrum allocation is how our government determines -- usually through expensive auctions, like the upcoming 700 MHz one -- who gets to use various frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. Scanning through campaign Web sites and literature, you're more likely to see references to the "political spectrum" than its electromagnetic counterpart. Still, this issue that is scarcely discussed by presidential candidates has a major impact on all of our lives. The use of spectrum -- which allows us to watch broadcast television and tune in to the radio, use cellular telephones and walkie-talkies, surf the Internet wirelessly and so much more -- is a valuable national resource, and how it's used matters. For instance, some experts believe increasing the percentage of spectrum reserved for unlicensed use could allow for near-ubiquitous, high-speed Internet in cities, something many Americans would likely crave in the face of increasingly restrictive ISPs.
If all of the candidates refuse to discuss a particular issue, like spectrum allocation, then some voters are left in the dark about who to support.
Richard Epstein, the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, doesn't think this is a serious problem.
"I think it's just a mistake to say that the candidates are the only way you influence [issues]. Single-issue people... go to Congress to talk about particular pieces of legislation," he said. "They contact their representatives directly... You can't run a comfortable democracy with individual reflection and consent when you're facing tens of thousands of issues."
Nonetheless, many experts are unhappy with the status quo when it comes to spectrum allocation.
Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, author of "The Future of Ideas," is one of the experts Congress turns to when addressing issues relating to law, policy and technology. He believes America can maintain a broadcast-focused approach to spectrum use -- or try something new, something different.
"Rather than belching out the loudest possible broadcast imagined -- so that billions of people could use the spectrum in one way -- think about radio spectrum being used the way packets flow on the Internet..." he said. "The same thing can be done with spectrum, and that's why the Wi-Fi model is so valuable. Right now, imagine a city that's just run by Wi-Fi or the equivalent [in] spectrum sharing technologies. You could sit on your Internet and open up your Internet radio browser... and tune in to any number of a million different radio stations... Or you could imagine the city being governed the way radio's been governed the last 100 years since you've had broadcasters: turn on your radio and you can get access to three or four local stations. Now, which is better?"
I called or emailed each of the campaigns still in the race -- eight Republicans and six Democrats -- asking about their candidates' stance on spectrum allocation and regulation. I left my number and, days later, had not heard back from any of them. To be fair, things are certainly hectic now with primary season underway and media requests are probably pouring in. But if I had been looking for information about abortion or the War in Iraq, illegal immigration or terrorism, I could have found all I needed listed prominently on the issue pages of each campaign's Web site. A truly interested voter can still find some of the candidates' sparse views on spectrum, but perhaps those running for president should do more to make their positions clear on this and other equally important and equally obscure issues.
Gigi Sohn is founder of Public Knowledge, an interest group that speaks up for citizens' rights in a society where technology has an increasingly prominent role. She believes that the issue of spectrum deserves more attention than it has been getting and that the current policy of leasing huge chunks of spectrum to big corporations for years at a time, while granting them exclusive use of those frequencies, is not the best idea.
"I think the current system is screwed up, because I think exclusive licensing is no longer necessary as a matter of physical scarcity or good public policy," she said.
She claims that new technology could allow certain portions of the spectrum to be shared, allowing broadcasters to continue sending out their signals but also permitting individuals to use those same frequencies simultaneously without causing interference.
"We're not saying a broadcaster cannot operate, we're just saying you have to share," said Sohn.
Lessig also mentioned the increasing ability of devices to share portions of the spectrum.
"Technologies like Wi-Fi demonstrate that you can have unlicensed, or unregulated spectrum, and have devices figuring out how to share the resource..." he said. "Indeed, certain spectrum theorists have begun to suggest that the most efficient way to use the resource of spectrum is not to buy and sell it -- not to turn it into property rights -- but leave it so that unlicensed devices can share it and the devices then begin to figure out how to share it in the most efficient way."
These issues may be addressed in time, by politicians in Washington and by special interest groups like Sohn's Public Knowledge. But maybe today's candidates for president should take a more active role, presenting a clear plan for using this valuable resource in the most efficient way possible. After all, according to Lessig, the status quo hasn't done that well so far.
"For most of the history, probably all of the history of government and its relationship to spectrum, the government has gotten it wrong," he said.