The Bangus Ultimatum

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is going to auction off chunks of the spectrum for wireless broadband networks, with the condition that whoever wins should keep access open – i.e. the public can choose what devices and software they can use to access those networks. It is hoped that freeing up the 700Mhz band for other players will give alternatives to the current cable/dsl duopoly in the States.

Verizon, ever the beacon of free enterprise (and one party in the duopoly), says that this condition is “arbitrary” and “capricious”, and is suing the FCC.

Google, which has earlier announced its intention to join the auction, has responded elegantly:

The nation’s spectrum airwaves are not the birthright of any one company. They are a unique and valuable public resource that belong to all Americans. The FCC’s auction rules are designed to allow U.S. consumers — for the first time — to use their handsets with any network they desire, and download and use the lawful software applications of their choice.

It’s regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.

Spectrum allocation and the rules governing them isn’t front center of most policy discussion here in the Philippines. Stations and telcos are cutting up the spectrum pie, and we’re not sure that it’s being done in a way that serves the public interest the most.

The freedom of association is often summoned and repeated like mantra whenever one begins to talk of regulation concerning fraternities. It’s as if mentioning it alone is enough to end all debate and render these organizations untouchable.

My problem with the whole freedom-of-association routine is that there are at least two meanings of the right, and people conveniently confuse and conflate these meanings to muddy up the debate.

You can view the freedom of association as protecting those acts that are constitutive of “association” – the carving out of exclusive times and spaces, the appropriation of collective signs and names, simply hanging out and communicating. This is actually an aspect of the right to privacy – the right to manage and be autonomous about your relationships. As an aspect of personal liberty, it is not subject to regulation without compelling state interest, so the bar for messing with this one is set pretty high.

And then there’s the public, “expressive” meaning of the freedom of association – shaped by the intersection of the rights to free speech, assembly, and to form unions and organizations not contrary to law.

These two meanings of the right to association serve different ends, and the scope of protection (and the extent of permissible regulation) would have to be read in the context of those ends. How exactly do you “ban” or “abolish” those acts that are constitutive of association in its private aspect?

But association in its public aspect is another thing. It is deeply correlated with values of free speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Values that are not necessarily affected by a selective and narrowly-drawn regulation of fraternities.