Communications Insights: Trends and Cool Stuff

Yesterday, Prof. Tim Wu of Columbia Law School published an Op-Ed in the New York Times on the subject of bandwidth.  In the article, he compares bandwidth to oil in terms of its percentage of the average household’s expenditures and in terms of the cartels which produce it.  He says:

Like energy, bandwidth is an essential economic input. You can’t run an engine without gas, or a cellphone without bandwidth. Both are also resources controlled by a tight group of producers, whether oil companies and Middle Eastern nations or communications companies like AT&T, Comcast and Vodafone. That’s why, as with energy, we need to develop alternative sources of bandwidth.

While Prof. Wu’s might be right in his conclusions, I have to take exception to some of the points he makes along the way, particularly regarding cost of bandwidth.

To begin with, the price of oil is based, to some large measure, on the cost of its production and not necessarily the cost of its consumption.  The cost of production includes the cost to pump the oil out of the ground, refine it, and distribute it.  The cost of consumption would include the societal cost of pollution such as global warming caused by greenhouse gasses.  Here in Europe where a gallon of gasoline exceeds $9, most of which is tax, the retail price may better reflect the cost to society not only production but consumption as well.  The cost of the production of bandwidth includes both network CapEx and OpEx.  The cost of its consumption includes the negative effects of congestion felt by competing would-be users at times of peak use.  It is effectively zero, when use is non-rivalrous.  The price of bandwidth, as well as other resources subject to high negative externalities, should reflect the cost its production and consumption.  This maximizes the benefits which society obtains from the resource.

This is precisely why, contrary to Prof. Wu’s assertions, the FCC is working on such ideas.  FCC: OSP Working Papers #41, #42, and #43, on which I am a proud coauthor/collaborator, look at precisely these issues.  We designed and tested a system which instead of assigning spectrum in static blocks, would co-ordinate use of the spectrum to an efficient optimum.  Beyond the overly simplistic bandwidth dipstick, the FCC work also modeled other dimensions of performance, such as latency, and could be extended to include jitter, reliability, robustness, etc.  Nonetheless, the economic congestion protocols we developed would allocate bandwidth in real-time based on willingness to pay when there is congestion and it would be free otherwise.

To be fair, a business model which relies solely on congestion-based prices for its economic logic would not be sustainable.  Imagine an airline which would allow its passengers to fly for free, unless more passengers show up than there are seats, in which case it will charge all the passengers based on their willingness to pay.  One would expect such an airline to have very small planes, or, more likely, very large seats in its planes.  Without a way to ensure rivalry among its passengers for its capacity (i.e., seats), such an airline would surely go out of business.  Thus, a sustainable price for bandwidth must reflect the cost of both production and consumption of the resource.

Insight: I continue to tout these papers in my blog because they are important, cutting-edge work.  We sought to lay the groundwork for a better system which incorporates the best of the licensed and unlicensed approaches to spectrum access.  This system would be, to use Eli Noam’s words, would be “open, but not necessarily free.” As such, it would maintain sufficiently low barriers to entry, which would make it sufficiently difficult to obtain monopoly rents.  It would be nice if Prof. Wu would put forward some of the available solutions to “alternative supplies of bandwidth” in addition to pointing out the problems.