As high tech begins to permeate every part of our lives, all indications point to the fact that it will come up against many of the basic principles and beliefs upon which we base our society. The most recent example happened only this week, when the FCC announced its rules for auctioning off the 700MHz spectrum. The upcoming auction, as well as the debate over whether the government should require that any 700M As high tech begins to permeate every part of our lives, all indications point to the fact that it will come up against many of the basic principles and beliefs upon which we base our society. The most recent example happened only this week, when the FCC announced its rules for auctioning off the 700MHz spectrum. The upcoming auction, as well as the debate over whether the government should require that any 700MHz spectrum purchaser provide open Web and Internet access through this spectrum to subscribers of competing networks, highlights the eternal debate over the public good versus the right of private enterprise to be unfettered by regulations. Those on the corporate side will say the recent FCC decision “to require so-called open access” and to prohibit “those companies from blocking or slowing wireless and Web content from competitors” is anticompetitive. The ruling, claim the opponents, takes away a company’s biggest weapon against its competitors: product differentiation. Consumer groups, on the other hand, say the airwaves and the spectrum that runs through it belong to the public, and the public — not private enterprise — should be the beneficiary of its development. We’ve seen the same argument from both camps many times before. It is typically put forth by the pharmaceutical industry. Here the argument focuses on the the public’s right to less expensive generic drugs. The major drug manufacturers claim if they cannot charge a high price or if the government requires that they relinquish their patent to allow competitors to create a generic version of the drug, they will be unable to continue the costly research required to create new cures for diseases. Of course, the outstanding argument comes from the mid-20th century, when Dr. Jonas Salk refused to patent and make a profit from the polio vaccine. But this isn’t about a crippling disease — it is about wireless devices and communications. In the case of wireless technology and this latest challenge, I don’t believe there is an easy answer. But I think it is a good idea to frame the discussion around what is really at stake so that we can gain a deeper understanding of the issues that face us. Technology Industry