What do you think?
Rate this book
The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technology, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone
From the former chief economist of the FCC, a remarkable history of the U.S. government’s regulation of the airwaves
Popular legend has it that before the Federal Radio Commission was established in 1927, the radio spectrum was in chaos, with broadcasting stations blasting powerful signals to drown out rivals. In this fascinating and entertaining history, Thomas Winslow Hazlett, a distinguished scholar in law and economics, debunks the idea that the U.S. government stepped in to impose necessary order. Instead, regulators blocked competition at the behest of incumbent interests and, for nearly a century, have suppressed innovation while quashing out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints.
Hazlett details how spectrum officials produced a “vast wasteland” that they publicly criticized but privately protected. The story twists and turns, as farsighted visionaries—and the march of science—rise to challenge the old regime. Over decades, reforms to liberate the radio spectrum have generated explosive progress, ushering in the “smartphone revolution,” ubiquitous social media, and the amazing wireless world now emerging. Still, the author argues, the battle is not even half won.
Popular legend has it that before the Federal Radio Commission was established in 1927, the radio spectrum was in chaos, with broadcasting stations blasting powerful signals to drown out rivals. In this fascinating and entertaining history, Thomas Winslow Hazlett, a distinguished scholar in law and economics, debunks the idea that the U.S. government stepped in to impose necessary order. Instead, regulators blocked competition at the behest of incumbent interests and, for nearly a century, have suppressed innovation while quashing out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints.
Hazlett details how spectrum officials produced a “vast wasteland” that they publicly criticized but privately protected. The story twists and turns, as farsighted visionaries—and the march of science—rise to challenge the old regime. Over decades, reforms to liberate the radio spectrum have generated explosive progress, ushering in the “smartphone revolution,” ubiquitous social media, and the amazing wireless world now emerging. Still, the author argues, the battle is not even half won.
416 pages, Hardcover
Published May 23, 2017
27 people are currently reading
316 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
January 22, 2019
22 Jan. 2019 - Spent about 2 hours skimming this yesterday. Wonderful!
Great history of the political, entrepreneurial and technological issues of wireless technology development and government interference and control.
Tremendous detail, but also covers the bigger picture very well, on how transformative various inventions have been on our lives and how government has stopped or at least vastly slowed down much progress over the last 90 years or so.
Looking forward to reading the whole book.
Great history of the political, entrepreneurial and technological issues of wireless technology development and government interference and control.
Tremendous detail, but also covers the bigger picture very well, on how transformative various inventions have been on our lives and how government has stopped or at least vastly slowed down much progress over the last 90 years or so.
Looking forward to reading the whole book.
December 5, 2018
In this eye-opening, if somewhat circuitous, book, Thomas Hazlett explains the lamentable history of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and its ceaseless and, yet, often futile, efforts to control the airwaves. Few other books I've read make such a strong case for property rights as against government control as the solution to the problems they describe.
First, Hazlett attacks the myth that the FCC (and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission) was a necessity due to overcrowded airwaves. In fact, the earlier Radio Act of 1912 allowed any broadcasting radio to effectively claim property rights for the local spectrum they used, and these "priority in use" rights were enforced by the courts and only registered by the Commerce Department. It was only when the Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover in 1926 refused to appeal a local court ruling saying that the Department could not enforce the property rights of stations, that temporary chaos resulted, and Hoover and Senator Clarence Dill then created the first Radio Commission in 1927. Immediately the new Commission refused to expand the AM band from its 550 to 1500 kHZ range (when it the Commerce Department had expanded it twice to 1924), it forced some 70 stations out of 164 large stations off the air to limit competition, cut the number of college and non-profit broadcasters by 2/3s, and immediately started censoring "propaganda stations," by limiting them to daytime only operations or refusing to renew their licenses. The censored stations ranged from a Eugene Debs-inspired socialist station in New York to a Chicago Federation of Labor station, to, later, a Father Coughlin right-wing anti-Roosevelt station. Shows on radio and TV were carefully censored for decades for fear of offending the government (the Smothers Brothers comedy show was canceled in 1969 when they mocked the head of the Senate Commerce Committee, which had oversight power over the FCC).
Almost always the FCC worked to protect the major networks and bland conformity against upstarts and original ideas. Edwin Armstrong invented FM radio and began broadcasting in 1936, but in 1944 NBC and CBS convinced the FCC to move the whole FM band over to its current 88 to 108 range, due to farcical concerns about sunspot interference in the old 40 MHZ band, making every FM radio set in the country obsolete. Consumers and producers were scared of investing in FM again for years, and it wasn't until stereo FM broadcasting was allowed in 1960, and new hi-fi radios came along, that the clearly superior FM surpassed AM in popularity, finally, in 1979.
The stories of FCC obstreperousness could be infinitely multiplied. In 1952 the FCC announced its "Sixth Report and Order," which forced every city and region to have its own separate TV station, and limited the number of stations so that only the Big Three networks could survive (the fledgling DuMont network was pushed out of the market, and it was not until Fox in 1984 that a new network emerged). The FCC also from 1962 worked to restrict almost all cable TV, based on the fatuous hope that it was hindering the rise of UHF TV, and it wasn't until a 1977 court decision overturned FCC restrictions that they stopped licensing cable. And although ATT submitted an application for cellular service in 1969, it was not until 1982 that the commission allowed the first cellular licenses, and not until 1994 that they began auctioning them off without power or nature restrictions.
Hazlett more than makes his case that the history of the FCC has been one of technological failures, industry capture, and censorship, which is probably why he agrees with more liberal scholars like Harvard's Lawrence Lessig that the time for abolishing the FCC has come. It has.
First, Hazlett attacks the myth that the FCC (and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission) was a necessity due to overcrowded airwaves. In fact, the earlier Radio Act of 1912 allowed any broadcasting radio to effectively claim property rights for the local spectrum they used, and these "priority in use" rights were enforced by the courts and only registered by the Commerce Department. It was only when the Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover in 1926 refused to appeal a local court ruling saying that the Department could not enforce the property rights of stations, that temporary chaos resulted, and Hoover and Senator Clarence Dill then created the first Radio Commission in 1927. Immediately the new Commission refused to expand the AM band from its 550 to 1500 kHZ range (when it the Commerce Department had expanded it twice to 1924), it forced some 70 stations out of 164 large stations off the air to limit competition, cut the number of college and non-profit broadcasters by 2/3s, and immediately started censoring "propaganda stations," by limiting them to daytime only operations or refusing to renew their licenses. The censored stations ranged from a Eugene Debs-inspired socialist station in New York to a Chicago Federation of Labor station, to, later, a Father Coughlin right-wing anti-Roosevelt station. Shows on radio and TV were carefully censored for decades for fear of offending the government (the Smothers Brothers comedy show was canceled in 1969 when they mocked the head of the Senate Commerce Committee, which had oversight power over the FCC).
Almost always the FCC worked to protect the major networks and bland conformity against upstarts and original ideas. Edwin Armstrong invented FM radio and began broadcasting in 1936, but in 1944 NBC and CBS convinced the FCC to move the whole FM band over to its current 88 to 108 range, due to farcical concerns about sunspot interference in the old 40 MHZ band, making every FM radio set in the country obsolete. Consumers and producers were scared of investing in FM again for years, and it wasn't until stereo FM broadcasting was allowed in 1960, and new hi-fi radios came along, that the clearly superior FM surpassed AM in popularity, finally, in 1979.
The stories of FCC obstreperousness could be infinitely multiplied. In 1952 the FCC announced its "Sixth Report and Order," which forced every city and region to have its own separate TV station, and limited the number of stations so that only the Big Three networks could survive (the fledgling DuMont network was pushed out of the market, and it was not until Fox in 1984 that a new network emerged). The FCC also from 1962 worked to restrict almost all cable TV, based on the fatuous hope that it was hindering the rise of UHF TV, and it wasn't until a 1977 court decision overturned FCC restrictions that they stopped licensing cable. And although ATT submitted an application for cellular service in 1969, it was not until 1982 that the commission allowed the first cellular licenses, and not until 1994 that they began auctioning them off without power or nature restrictions.
Hazlett more than makes his case that the history of the FCC has been one of technological failures, industry capture, and censorship, which is probably why he agrees with more liberal scholars like Harvard's Lawrence Lessig that the time for abolishing the FCC has come. It has.
April 5, 2019
If you’re seriously interested in the history of the FCC and wireless spectrum use—and policy implications for the future*—then I highly recommend this book. Hazlett thoroughly details the history of spectrum regulation and the failures of spectrum allocation by the “public interest” standard: gross misuse of bandwidth, protection of incumbents from competition, violation of free speech, improper benefits to public office holders, and, most egregious, preventing technology from being deployed.
In today’s day and age where wireless technology encompasses much of everything we do, from communication to entertainment, it’s hard to realize that, as late as the 1970s, most television viewers only had access to three channels: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Perhaps more shocking is the fact that cellular technology existed since the late 1940s and wouldn’t start gaining traction until the late 1980s. The FCC’s top-down, technology specific spectrum allocation approach directly caused or greatly contributed to these shortcomings.
Thankfully, things changed. Here Hazlett documents the mounting tide of reform, culminating in the FCC auctioning off liberal licenses that gave flexible-use rights. These rights allowed the license holder to employ their spectrum using whatever technology or business model they thought best and to sell bandwidth on secondary markets; it also meant that spectrum wouldn’t be locked up in business model specific bands, like the FCC created for the TV band and other spectrum wastelands, should the model go bust or the spectrum be more gainfully employed in a different use.
Cellular, mobile data technology was built on these first of their kind, auctioned liberal licenses, and that is not a coincidence. The bidding process helps capture the value of the spectrum by establishing a price for it: each participant must carefully research and come up with a business model for how to use the spectrum and weigh the opportunity costs involved. The traditional FCC regime of command and control, technology specific spectrum allocation has no such mechanism, which is how you get the absurdity of setting aside 60+ channels worth of frequency that can only be used for TV broadcasting, with the end result of only three channels actually being used—for decades.
While great strides have been made in liberalizing spectrum, there’s still a long way to go. Liberal use licenses are new. Spectrum allocated in the past needs to be fixed, to free up wasted bandwidth and get the most out of the resource. Hazlett proposes auctioning overlay licenses, which would vest incumbents, like a TV broadcaster, primary rights while granting secondary rights to the winner. The holder of the secondary rights could then propose to buy the bandwidth of the primary user, creating the price mechanism and establishing the value of the bandwidth in question.
Additionally, despite the obvious success of modern wireless technology, built on new liberal licenses, there are those pushing back against such licenses, spectrum auctions, or both. Hazlett aptly identifies this as the dirigiste backlash, and shows how, in the end, their solutions add up to the same inefficient mechanisms of the old regime. A few regulators and politicians with little to no skin in the game, who failed at their prior attempts of designing spectrum use by whim and writ, will never be able to predict the future development of technology, its uses, or how spectrum should support it. Instead of reverting back to command and control, spectrum should continue to be liberated by building on the now proven market based mechanisms that more accurately capture the value of bandwidth and can employ it in its most efficient use.
*The Political Spectrum doesn’t discuss one of the more common topics of the last few years concerning the FCC, which is net neutrality—even though much of that discussion was and is just political tribalism, with the FCC and relevant parties being consumed by topics of spectrum, primarily around 5G. Despite this, the book, through its history of the FCC’s failures and successes, does give one the ability to imply a suggested framework for approaching potential FCC regulations for internet service providers and how they transfer data to their customers.
In today’s day and age where wireless technology encompasses much of everything we do, from communication to entertainment, it’s hard to realize that, as late as the 1970s, most television viewers only had access to three channels: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Perhaps more shocking is the fact that cellular technology existed since the late 1940s and wouldn’t start gaining traction until the late 1980s. The FCC’s top-down, technology specific spectrum allocation approach directly caused or greatly contributed to these shortcomings.
Thankfully, things changed. Here Hazlett documents the mounting tide of reform, culminating in the FCC auctioning off liberal licenses that gave flexible-use rights. These rights allowed the license holder to employ their spectrum using whatever technology or business model they thought best and to sell bandwidth on secondary markets; it also meant that spectrum wouldn’t be locked up in business model specific bands, like the FCC created for the TV band and other spectrum wastelands, should the model go bust or the spectrum be more gainfully employed in a different use.
Cellular, mobile data technology was built on these first of their kind, auctioned liberal licenses, and that is not a coincidence. The bidding process helps capture the value of the spectrum by establishing a price for it: each participant must carefully research and come up with a business model for how to use the spectrum and weigh the opportunity costs involved. The traditional FCC regime of command and control, technology specific spectrum allocation has no such mechanism, which is how you get the absurdity of setting aside 60+ channels worth of frequency that can only be used for TV broadcasting, with the end result of only three channels actually being used—for decades.
While great strides have been made in liberalizing spectrum, there’s still a long way to go. Liberal use licenses are new. Spectrum allocated in the past needs to be fixed, to free up wasted bandwidth and get the most out of the resource. Hazlett proposes auctioning overlay licenses, which would vest incumbents, like a TV broadcaster, primary rights while granting secondary rights to the winner. The holder of the secondary rights could then propose to buy the bandwidth of the primary user, creating the price mechanism and establishing the value of the bandwidth in question.
Additionally, despite the obvious success of modern wireless technology, built on new liberal licenses, there are those pushing back against such licenses, spectrum auctions, or both. Hazlett aptly identifies this as the dirigiste backlash, and shows how, in the end, their solutions add up to the same inefficient mechanisms of the old regime. A few regulators and politicians with little to no skin in the game, who failed at their prior attempts of designing spectrum use by whim and writ, will never be able to predict the future development of technology, its uses, or how spectrum should support it. Instead of reverting back to command and control, spectrum should continue to be liberated by building on the now proven market based mechanisms that more accurately capture the value of bandwidth and can employ it in its most efficient use.
*The Political Spectrum doesn’t discuss one of the more common topics of the last few years concerning the FCC, which is net neutrality—even though much of that discussion was and is just political tribalism, with the FCC and relevant parties being consumed by topics of spectrum, primarily around 5G. Despite this, the book, through its history of the FCC’s failures and successes, does give one the ability to imply a suggested framework for approaching potential FCC regulations for internet service providers and how they transfer data to their customers.
January 28, 2018
This book is an excellent history of the radio spectrum, supposedly a finite resource, so of course, it must be regulated by the government. But the "wise man" fallacy of regulation kicks in, and it turns out that the FCC has blocked, delayed, and increased the cost of most innovations. No government agency can predict how the spectrum should be used in the future, which business models will succeed, not to mention what will be in the "public interest." It was economist Ronald Coase who had a major influence on implementing the idea that spectrum could be auctioned and the market and price system would be better at allocating this scarce resource. Hazlett gives you all the details, in an engaging and engrossing story/history. It's detailed, but well worth the read. Net Neutrality is another hoax, which would have killed Apple's iPhone in its crib. It's past time the FCC went the way of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the ICC--abolish it! No, it's not a perfect solution, but that's the point: there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. We need to stop comparing the alternative to Utopia--which doesn't exist--but rather to the stifling regulation we have. The market is much better at allocating scarce resources, the evidence is overwhelming. At the end, Hazlett offers some sane policy reforms.
December 30, 2017
If you want a good history of how electromagnetic spectrum has been allocated, i.e. wasted, by the federal government over the decades, read this book. If you want some insight into the recent issue of net “neutrality,” this is it.
It takes a rather dry subject and gets to the real issue of the use of the radio spectrum over the decades, and how politicians of both parties tried to control the use of it. It amazes me that the first mobile phone was developed in 1948. Granted, it took most of a car trunk, but the technology was there. They just couldn’t get frequency allocation until the 1970s.
Not that lone, can be killed in a good weekend.
It takes a rather dry subject and gets to the real issue of the use of the radio spectrum over the decades, and how politicians of both parties tried to control the use of it. It amazes me that the first mobile phone was developed in 1948. Granted, it took most of a car trunk, but the technology was there. They just couldn’t get frequency allocation until the 1970s.
Not that lone, can be killed in a good weekend.
March 4, 2022
I really enjoyed this book but this isn't going to be for everyone. It is a very detailed history of the FCC and its almost comical attempt to regulate wireless technology over the last 90 years. It was really eye-opening. It's pretty dense in parts and can feel like it is covering some of the same ground over and over again but I never got tired of reading how insane and backward some of these efforts were by the FCC to prevent competition in radio, TV, and wireless communication. Fascinating.
April 19, 2018
Four star only because subject matter is relevant to possibly a niche audience.
Otherwise, well researched chronology of telecom regulation in the US. Doesn’t cover too much on the fixed broadband side. Would be interesting to see if there was a refresh - if it were to include some analysis on the online giants. Was absolutely no regulation of them a net plus?
Otherwise, well researched chronology of telecom regulation in the US. Doesn’t cover too much on the fixed broadband side. Would be interesting to see if there was a refresh - if it were to include some analysis on the online giants. Was absolutely no regulation of them a net plus?
August 20, 2018
Great topic.
Too complex writing. Sometimes you need to reread paragraphs several times to understand the message.
Although I learned quite some from this book, I can’t give it more than 3 stars.
I checked the scores given for other books this author has written, and this is around 3.5 (i.e. not so good).
Too complex writing. Sometimes you need to reread paragraphs several times to understand the message.
Although I learned quite some from this book, I can’t give it more than 3 stars.
I checked the scores given for other books this author has written, and this is around 3.5 (i.e. not so good).
July 1, 2018
A fun look at a complex subject, the history of poor government involvement holding back innovation using spectrum for decades. From Cable TV to Mobile phones, huge industries held back by Regulatory Capture and Top Down versus market approaches.
May 16, 2021
[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]
I seem to remember that Thomas Winslow Hazlett used to be a prolific contributor to Reason. He still shows up now and then. But fond memories of well-crafted arguments led me to put this book on the Interlibrary Loan queue. And I was not disappointed: for a scholarly tome published by Yale University Press, his prose is still punchy, and he tackles this topic with appropriate amounts of humor and bite.
And the topic is (roughly) the regulatory mess the US Government has made of the vast radio spectrum. The invention of the technology using electromagnetic waves to send data between transmitters and receivers is barely over a century old. (Thanks, Guglielmo!) But it had the bad fortune to take off just as the modern regulatory state was also taking wing, and people really had a mistaken faith in the benevolent state allocating resources wisely.
The primary villain: Herbert Hoover, who was Silent Cal's Secretary of Commerce. He wangled the Radio Act of 1927, essentially putting the spectrum under control of what would eventually become the FCC. As Hazlett shows, spectrum problems could have been resolved by common law, based on property rights sensibly defined.
But noooo… instead we got oppressive and intrusive state regulation, with all the well-known associated problems: protection of incumbents against upstarts, rent-seeking, corruption, squelching of innovation, censorship, lowest-common-denominator programming, inefficiencies galore.
Hazlett details all that, and the ongoing two-steps-forward-one-or-more-steps-back reform process. A particular hero is Nobelist Ronald Coase who first propoosed free market reforms in a 1959 essay. It was that classic story: "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”.
My only quibble: among all the flinging around of kHz, MHz, and GHz, the book really could have used some simple spectrum maps, showing the colonization of radio space over the past century. Analogous to those maps in US history books showing the westward spread.
Read
May 2, 2017How do we link this to the other books on Goodreads by Thomas W. Hazlett?
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews