Open Does Not Mean Communal

from the kill-this-myth dept

I hesitate to post anything that involves Scott Cleland, a telecom “analyst” who has a bit of a reputation for, well, perhaps stretching the truth in order to make a point that supports the big telcos who pay him to be a public advocate. However, with InfoWorld positioning him as a legitimate critic of the FCC’s open spectrum rules and hearing him make statements like: “Everybody throws the word ‘open’ around and says open is wonderful. But ‘open’ means communal. It means not owned,” it seems a response is necessary. This is an old trick used by those who can’t actually come up with a reason why “open” systems are bad. So they fall back on the false claim that open means communist, and that’s bad.

There are just a few problems with this statement, with the big one being that it’s completely wrong. First of all, “open” hardly means communal or communist. In fact, it often means exactly the opposite. It means creating a platform or a standard on which multiple parties can compete, as capitalists, rather than locking people out via a government-granted monopoly. Also, the smear that “open means not owned,” is used to suggest that open systems are somehow antithetical to property rights. Again, this is hogwash. First of all, when discussing spectrum, we’re never talking about property that is owned anyway — merely a bit of the air that is licensed. Spectrum is, by it’s very nature, the property of everyone. That’s not a “communist” idea — it’s a factual one. The various spectrum auctions aren’t about owning property, they’re about getting a license from the FCC to be able to do something with the spectrum that is already around us.

What Cleland is really arguing for is the idea that it’s better to have government-granted monopolies limited to a few big providers (mostly the ones who back his firm), rather than a more level playing field that creates real competition in a real market. For him to suggest that an “open” system is somehow less capitalistic than one that involves a gov’t agency granting monopoly rights is simply laughable.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Open Does Not Mean Communal”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Derek Kerton (profile) says:


Hey Cleland!

If you think “open means not owned,” then you’re dead wrong. Before it’s even licensed, the spectrum floating around our heads IS OWNED. It’s owned by the citizens of the USA (or whatever country you happen to live in, for our readers outside the USA.)

Your arguments, applied to a Parks System, would say that having public parks in cities, states, and nationally means that that land is NOT OWNED!!! Yikes. The National Parks Service is communist! Time to shut down all the parks and lease the land to a friend of free enterprise like Exxon Mobil or Asplundh. The free market will put the land to appropriate use.

On the other hand, if you’re right, then Parks are communist, and then at least one could get health care in Yosemite.

Anonymous Coward says:

Unless something has changed, “open” here means that whoever gets the spectrum in question can’t require subscribers to use specific devices as a condition of service. Some carriers have detailed rules listing what features are not permissible (anything that acts as a substitute for the carrier’s service, such as installing ringtones or getting your camera-phone pics out without sending them over the air). I fail to see how allowing manufacturers to sell products that consumers want is “communism”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“I fail to see how allowing manufacturers to sell products that consumers want is “communism”.

That’s because you don’t have your head up your ass, or according to Cleland are a pinko commie.

Sometimes I hate the press. They never seem to try to find the truth in things any more. They just want their paycheck and damn the consequences.

IanM says:

Re: Re:

Well Matt, how about this for a method of sharing the airwaves – the transmitting device listens on the chosen frequency until nothing is heard and then starts transmitting. As soon as it detects that what it’s sending and what it’s hearing are different, it stops, waits a random amount of time, and then tries again.

Won’t work? Well, tell that to everyone in the world who uses Ethernet.

Of course, it can be improved for radio – you can also switch frequencies slightly to avoid other radio traffic.

Note – not my idea – I got it from ‘The Future of Ideas’ by Lawrence Lessig

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...