Managing the radio spectrum : framework for reform in developing countries

Bringing management of the radio spectrum closer to markets is long overdue. The radio spectrum is a major component of the infrastructure that underpins the information society. Spectrum management, however, has not kept up with major changes in technology, business practice, and economic policy that have taken place worldwide during the last two decades. For many years traditional government administration of the spectrum worked reasonably well, but more recently it has led to growing technical and economic inefficiencies as well as obstacles to technological innovation. Two alternative approaches to spectrum management are being tried in several countries, one driven by the market (tradable spectrum rights) and another driven by technology innovation (spectrum commons). This paper discusses the basic features, advantages and limitations, scope of application, and requirements for implementation of these three approaches. The paper then discusses how these approaches can be made to work under conditions that typically prevail in developing countries, including weak rule of law, limited markets, and constrained fiscal space. Although spectrum reform strategies for individual countries must be developed case by case, several broadly applicable strategic options are outlined. The paper proposes a phased approach to addressing spectrum reform in a country. It ends by discussing aspects of institutional design, managing the transition, and addressing high-level changes such as the transition to digital television, the path to third-generation mobile services, launching of wireless fixed broadband services, and releasing military spectrum. The paper is extensively annotated and referenced.E-Business,Roads&Highways,Telecommunications Infrastructure,Climate Change,ICT Policy and Strategies

Open or Closed: Balancing Border Policy with Human Rights

Open or Closed: Balancing Border Policy with Human Rights on ResearchGate, the professional network for scientists

Policing the Spectrum Commons

One of the most contested questions in spectrum policy is whether bands of spectrum left as unlicensed will fall victim to the tragedy of the commons. Advocates of increased unlicensed spectrum often downplay what enforcement measures are necessary to minimize interference and to prevent the tragedy of the commons problem. Even imposing spectrum etiquette requirements in addition to the FCC\u27s equipment certification program will fail to address this concern effectively, as the development of such measures - e.g., the requirement that devices listen before they talk - does not ensure that they will be followed. Indeed, if there are incentives for parties to cheat on the rules that prevent tragedy of the commons-type results, some cheaters are likely to emerge and thereby undermine the promise of new and innovative technologies that use unlicensed spectrum. Although the threat posed by cheaters does not undermine completely the commons model of spectrum management, it does underscore that the proponents of that model have focused almost entirely on one half of the issue. To date, these proponents have argued that unlicensed bands can facilitate technological innovation and more efficient uses of spectrum than would a purely private property-like approach. But they have not explained what the FCC should do to prevent deviation from the protocols (or certified equipment) that maximize the effectiveness of shared uses of spectrum. Moreover, tragedy of the commons-type concerns are not merely theoretical ones, as the experience with the citizen\u27s band (CB) radio demonstrated how interference caused by unauthorized uses (such as amplifiers) can undermine a previously popular use of spectrum. In the current environment, technologies like a Wi-Fi Hog, which can take control of and fully exploit a public wi-fi network - or malicious jamming by hackers - pose the same danger. This paper both underscores the need for and develops the analytical framework to guide a new model of spectrum policy for unlicensed bands. In particular, it argues that the FCC should develop a regulatory program that integrates the efforts of end user groups, interested companies, private standard setting bodies, and its own enforcement tools. In one incarnation of this approach, the FCC can ask a private body (such as the IEEE) to report back on its progress in addressing a particular issue - understanding that it may have to pick up where the body left off (either in setting or enforcing the interference mitigation measure). To be sure, we recognize that this spectrum management strategy will require considerable effort to implement, but we believe that a failure to address these issues would be the Achilles\u27 heel of the commons model of spectrum management

Holding the FBI Accountable for Hacking Apple\u27s Software Under the Takings Clause

Smartphones have swiftly replaced most-if not all-conventional methods of sending, receiving, and storing personal information. Letters, address books, calendars, and trips to the bank have been rendered obsolete by tools such as text messaging, digital contacts, iCal, and mobile banking apps. Although these digital alternatives are convenient, they are not immune from attack. Therefore, to remain competitive, technology companies must maintain safe and secure platforms on which users may freely store and share their personal information. Apple Inc., for example, strives to protect its users\u27 intimate information, consequently earning a reputation for prioritizing security. Like a king protecting his castle, Apple has erected a variety of technological and legal barriers to guard its users\u27 data and ward off unwanted intruders from vulnerabilities at a variety of stages. First, to protect user data from unauthorized access, Apple\u27s software authorizes iPhone users to set their own passcode. Next, Apple encrypts its iPhone software, essentially placing adigital padlock on its software to preclude any software alterations, including the user-determined passcode functionality. Lastly, Apple copyrights its encryption padlock, discouraging rogue actors from circumventing its technology and security features in fear of civil or criminal implications. In the spring of 2016, however, the federal government pillaged Apple\u27s digital fortress, overcoming each of these barriers. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, and Apple\u27s security mechanisms precluded access to a shooter\u27s iPhone, which was locked with the user-determined passcode. Nonetheless, the FBI hired professional hackers to alter Apple\u27s software, thereby circumventing Apple\u27s encryption and ignoring Apple\u27s copyrights, to access the iPhone. Although the FBI opened just this one phone, just this one time, its hacking has much broader implications. By altering Apple\u27s software to circumvent its encryption, it smashed Apple\u27s digital padlock, essentially creating a master key capable of opening hundreds of millions of iPhones, jeopardizing users\u27 intimate information. The FBI has devalued Apple\u27s coveted security and risked Apple\u27s reputation. Despite Apple\u27s copyright, Apple has no statutory remedy available; however, the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution affords Apple a simple solution. This Note contributes to the contentious debate about prioritizing individual privacy in the face of increasingly innovative and complex national security threats. It suggests a novel way to deter governmental intrusion by establishing that Apple\u27s copyrights are prroperty under the Fifth Amendment and by characterizing the FBI\u27s investigative conduct in the San Bernardino case as a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Constitutionally requiring the federal government to pay \u27just compensation necessarily compels it to consider in its calculus the economic consequences of circumventing a technology company\u27s encryption, potentially preventing such intrusion in the first place

Wellbeing and reproductive freedoms: assessing progress, setting agendas

Wellbeing, Rights and Reproduction Research Paper II

Drug Legalization: The Importance of Asking the Right Question Symposium on Drug Decriminalization

As a policy analysis, this article\u27s central argument is that that the costs imposed by markets in licit psychoactives are significantly greater than those imposed by drug prohibition