SSRN-id2242623

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2242623
DRAFT
Not For Circulation or Citation
An Exploration into Spectrum Policy Debates on Social Media
TPRC September 2013
Michael Janson1
and William Rand2
I. Introduction
The ever-increasing consumer demand for mobile broadband has increased the
importance of spectrum policy in recent years.3
The allocation of spectrum by the Federal
Communications Commission and the utilization of spectrum by wireless carriers is the
underlying structure of our wireless telecommunications system. Digital activists have
increasingly put this system to political use by utilizing Internet-based organizing and social
media in particular to shape political discourses and outcomes from Occupy Wall Street to the
campaign against the Stop Online Piracy Act.4
As more voices have effectively utilized new
1
Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission. J.D., University of Pennsylvania
Law School; Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania. The statements made herein express only the
opinions of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the authors’ employers,
the Federal Communications Commission, its Commissioners, or its staff.
2
Assistant Professor & Director, Center for Complexity in Business, University of Maryland.
Ph.D., University of Michigan.
3
See FCC, In the Matter of the Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With
Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 11-186, 12,
17 (Mar. 21, 2013) (“16th
Mobile Wireless Competition Report”) (reporting that U.S. mobile data
usage has increased 270 percent from 2010 to 2011, doubling each year from 2009 to 2013, and
stating that “Demand for these services has grown steadily and sharply in recent years and
projections indicate such growth will continue unabated.”); see also, “FCC Spectrum Crunch,”
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/spectrum-crunch (noting that “demand for mobile broadband
service is likely to outstrip spectrum capacity in the near-term.”).
4
See, e.g., Jeffrey S. Juris, “Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: Social media, public space,
and emerging logics of aggregation,” 39 AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST 259-279, 260 (May 2012)
(arguing that social media contributed to “powerful logics of aggregation” in the #Occupy
movements); Zeynep Tufekci & Christopher Wilson, “Social Media and the Decision to
Participate in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square,” 62 J. OF COMM. 363-379, 375

DRAFT
2
information technologies to engage macro political debates, some have called for spectrum
policy itself to be radically democratized and made accessible to the general public.5
Based upon
an initial social media-based data collection on spectrum policy content, this paper assesses
whether spectrum policy is in fact being influenced by a new, broader set of actors; suggests
some new ways of theorizing digital activism; and sketches out some implications for
telecommunications policy going forward.
A wealth of academic scholarship on digital activism has explored the effects of new
forms of digital political engagement.6
Interestingly, there has been little engagement between
scholars working on spectrum policy and scholars working on digital activism. Scholarship on
spectrum policy often utilizes legal or economic analysis to argue for a particular course of
action by the Federal Communication Commission, the nation’s regulator of non-federal
spectrum, and does not assess the potential implications of spectrum policy for digital activism.
(2012) (demonstrating that social media usage correlated with participation in the Tahrir Square
demonstrations).
5
Douglas A. Galbi, REVOLUTIONARY IDEAS FOR RADIO REGULATION 93 (unpublished
manuscript, 2002), http://www.galbithink.org/rirr.pdf (“Radio regulation should no longer be a
field ruled by a reason inaccessible to most persons. Now is the time for radio regulation to
recognize, as most persons do, revolutionary ideas about government, persons, and freedom.”).
6
See, e.g., Nicco Mele, THE END OF BIG: HOW THE INTERNET MAKES DAVID THE NEW GOLIATH
1-2 (2013) (arguing that Internet-based “radical connectivity” is transforming traditional sources
of authority); Manuel Castells, NETWORKS OF OUTRAGE AND HOPE: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE
INTERNET AGE 229 (2012) (“The networked social movements of our time are largely based on
the Internet, a necessary though not sufficient component of their collective action. The digital
social networks based on the Internet and on wireless platforms are decisive tools for mobilizing,
for organizing, for deliberating, for coordinating and for deciding.”); David Karpf, THE MOVEON
EFFECT: THE UNEXPECTED TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN POLITICAL ADVOCACY 3 (2012)
(“[C]hanges in information technology have transformed the organizational layer of American
politics.”); Clay Shirky, HERE COMES EVERYBODY: HOW CHANGE HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE COME
TOGETHER 48 (2008) (arguing that the “collapse of transactions costs” in social interactions and
coordination is “changing the world”); Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Ramona S.
McNeal, DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP: THE INTERNET, SOCIETY AND PARTICIPATION (2008) (finding the
digital citizenship increases political participation by increasing access to relevant information
and providing new forums for political discourse).

DRAFT
3
Scholarship on digital activism tends to take the structure of the telecommunication system as a
given, if it is acknowledged at all. The result is that two distinct bodies of scholarship exist, one
on the structure of the system and one of the effects of that system. Addressing this gap, this
paper seeks to bridge spectrum policy and digital activism debates.
Initially, it is worth noting that contemporary spectrum policy debates involve a broader
set of actors than the regulators and those that are directly regulated, i.e., entities that have
received exclusive licenses from the FCC to use certain frequencies. As such, spectrum policy
advocates today include numerous organizations and individuals that are not directly regulated,
but yet believe firmly that they have a stake in spectrum policy.
For example, the Open Wireless Movement formed in October 2012 “to make the
Internet accessible to everyone.”7
This web-based coalition effort, hosted by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation,8
endorses a policy of “mak[ing] more spectrum available outside” the
control of “companies like AT&T and Verizon.”9
Similar groups are advocating for their
positions on spectrum policy in social media. For example, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust
Division filed an ex parte brief in the FCC’s ongoing Mobile Spectrum Holdings proceeding on
April 11, 2013.10
The next day, Free Press11
endorsed the DOJ’s filing on its blog, arguing that
“the future of mobile competition is dependent on policies that prevent the largest carriers from
monopolizing our nation’s valuable public airwaves.”12
On April 17, the Media Democracy
7
Open Wireless Movement, Join the Open Wireless Movement! (Oct. 31, 2012),
https://openwireless.org/blog/2012/10/join-open-wireless-movement.
8
See, generally, Electronic Frontier Foundation, “About,” https://www.eff.org/about.
9
Spectrum, http://www.savetheinternet.com/spectrum.
10
Antitrust Division, DOJ, Ex Parte Submission, WT No. 12-269 (Apr. 11, 2013).
11
See, generally, Free Press, “About,” http://www.freepress.net/about.
12
Free Press Applauds Department of Justice Letter on Wireless Competition: Antitrust Experts
Tell FCC to Promote Wireless Competition by Preventing Spectrum Concentration (Apr. 12,

DRAFT
4
Fund tweeted “@TheJusticeDept backs limits on wireless companies’ ability to buy large blocks
of spectrum” with an embedded link to a New York Times article about the DOJ’s filing.13
Free
Press retweeted the Media Democracy Fund’s tweet that same day.14
Also on that same day,
Free Press retweeted a tweet by Liberationtech: “US telecoms gobble up wireless spectrum,
leaving consumers stuck with higher bills & mediocre service.” 15
This back and forth on Twitter
suggests that spectrum policy debates are making inroads into social media, but a larger question
is whether these are one-time events or part of a larger debate on spectrum policy occurring on
social media.
It is clear that spectrum advocates are using and engaging with new forms of Internet-
based advocacy instead of solely relying on traditional processes, e.g., filing comments with the
FCC in response to proposed rule makings, but it is less clear if the general public is also
participating in this discussion. However, if this digital advocacy is effective, one possibility is
that new forms of digital and social media advocacy allow for highly technical spectrum policy
debates to engage larger audiences, which in turn encourages further participation from
non-regulated actors. Despite its seemingly abstract and technical nature, spectrum policy is
being debated on Twitter on Facebook around the world and occupying the same space as
commentary about Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga.
This paper utilizes new tools for analyzing social media to understand the scope and
contours of new social media spectrum policy debates happening on social media. Raw Twitter
feed data is collected and analyzed using a variety of computational methods, including event
2013), http://www.savetheinternet.com/press-release/103843/free-press-applauds-department-
justice-letter-wireless-competition.
13
[Cite.]
14
[Cite.]
15
[Cite.]

DRAFT
5
detection, sentiment analysis, informational analysis and trending topic analysis. Visualization
tools are also used to provide insight into the underlying data. These insights and analysis are
then used to chart key events that lead to bursts of online activity; to map the geographic
distribution of contributions, including international debates; and to synthesize recurring themes
and memes. Based upon these empirical results, this paper seeks to engage academic debates
regarding the effect of new social media on policy debates, particularly those regarding highly
technical issues and resource allocation, and the efficacy of digital advocacy.
This paper proceeds as follows. First, we survey digital activism literature to provide a
basic framework and context for analysis. Second, we provide a basic introduction to spectrum
policy debates, highlighting recent and ongoing issues. Third, we explain the methodology for
our current data collection. Fourth, we analyze and explain our initial collection. In conclusion,
we assess the significance of this collection, suggest some new ways of understanding digital
activism, and sketch out possible avenues for further research.
II. Digital Activism
A significant academic literature has developed on digital activism. Most broadly,
scholars are trying to understand how digital activism works and how it is affecting politics and
society. Derivative questions include whether established literatures on social movements and
contested politics apply well to digital activism.
Cyber Optimism vs. Cyber PessimismA.
At a very high level, some have questioned the basic utility of digital activism and
questioned whether online interactions will have any significant effect at all. Malcolm Gladwell
is perhaps the best-known advocate of this perspective. In a 2010 article in the New Yorker

DRAFT
6
entitled “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted,” Gladwell argued that Internet-
based social media was not likely to bring about significant political or social change because it
was based upon “weak ties,” which “seldom lead to high-risk activism.”16
Gladwell contrasted
current digital activism to the lunch counter sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement, which entailed
high personal risk to the participants and which were organized based upon strong, personal ties
among participants.17
In addition, Gladwell argued that online activism lacked the necessary
discipline and organization to challenge power: “[I]f you’re taking on a powerful and organized
establishment you have to be a hierarchy.”18
Because digital activisms tend towards less
hierarchical models, it was bound to make little difference.19
From Gladwell’s perspective, the
relative ease of Internet based organizing means that it is socially cheap, and as such not a means
for building strong ties that can effectively challenge power.20
Beyond being merely ineffective, Gladwell argued that digital activism was likely to
further entrench existing political and social practices:
[Digital activism] shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic
and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and
adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for
that expression to have any impact. The instruments of social media are well
suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural
enemy of the status quo.21
In other words, Gladwell saw the Internet as a distracting technology much like an earlier
generation of critics had seen television: a technology that reinforced existing social and
16
Malcolm Gladwell, Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted, THE NEW YORKER
(Oct. 4, 2010).
17
Id. at __.
18
Id. at __.
19
Id. at __.
20
Gladwell at __.
21
Id. at __.

DRAFT
7
political tendencies rather than challenging them. For this earlier generation of scholars,
television had served as a social lubricant, distracting and entertaining citizens rather than
leading to increased political engagement.22
Others have advanced this case against digital
activism by arguing that the negative effects of Internet based politics go beyond merely
preserving the status quo and instead may produce profoundly negative social and political
outcomes.23
In contrast to these “cyber-pessimists,” there is an abundance of scholars that see digital
activism bringing about positive political and social changes. David Karpf, for instance, has
argued that Internet-based politics is changing the political organizational layer of American
politics, countering the long slide towards demobilization after the 1960s.24
Karpf’s answer to
Gladwell’s critique is that “Digital activism is not a replacement for the Freedom Riders of the
1960s; it is a replacement for the ‘armchair activism’ that arose from the 1970s interest group
explosion.”25
Responding to Gladwell’s critique, Tufekci has argued that the weak ties that are built
online are not mutually exclusive with strong ties offline: digital activism can supplement offline
activism by creating and nourishing relationships.26
Elaborating on this point, Tufecki argues
22
See, e.g., Mark C. Miller, BOXED IN: THE CULTURE OF TV (1988); Neil Postman, AMUSING
OURSELVES TO DEATH: PUBLIC DISCOURSE IN THE AGE OF SHOW BUSINESS (1985); Jerry Mander,
FOUR ARGUMENTS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF TELEVISION (1978).
23
Evgeny Morozov, TO SAVE EVERYTHING, CLICK HERE: THE FOLLY OF TECHNOLOGICAL
SOLUTIONISM (2013); Evgeny Morozov, THE NET DELUSION: THE DARK SIDE OF INTERNET
FREEDOM (2012); Nicholas Carr, THE SHALLOWS: WHAT THE INTERNET IS DOING TO OUR BRAINS
(2011) (exploring the potentially negative cognitive effects of new information technologies).
24
Karpf.
25
Karpf 8.
26
Tufekci, What Gladwell Gets Wrong: The Real Problem is Scale Mismatch (Plus, Weak and
Strong Ties are Complementary and Supportive), (Sept. 27, 2010),
http://technosociology.org/?p=178.

DRAFT
8
against what she calls “digital dualism-the idea that online and offline worlds are somehow
separate entities, one ‘virtual’ and the other ‘real.’”27
From Tufecki’s perspective, online and
offline interactions are complementary and supportive. Joyce makes a similar point in arguing
for moving beyond static predictions about digital activism that line up with “optimistic” or
“pessimistic” positions.28
As Joyce sees it, the “effect of digital technology on activism is not
determined only by the affordances of the technology itself, but also by the actions of human
beings.”29
Another strain of research on digital activism has responded to critics by arguing that
assessment of digital activism requires new tools for analysis. Distinguishing digital from
“analog” activism, these scholars argue that digital activism is different to such a degree that it
requires a rethinking of how social movement theory, for example, applies in this context.30
Joyce argues that the reduced costs of coordination “make centralization less necessary and
resource requirements lower.”31
Accordingly, theories of contestation that value organizational
power and discipline have less applicability to digital politics.
Assessing Digital ActivismB.
In a recent paper, Yochai Benkler and a number of collaborators attempt to assess the role
that digital activism played in the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act
27
Tufecki, “Breaking Bread, Breaking Digital Dualism,” Technosociology (Feb. 8, 2012).
28
Mary Joyce, “Beyond cyber-optimism and cyber-pessimism,” Pragati (Apr. 26, 2013).
29
Id.
30
Mary Joyce, Time to Adapt: Analog Theory Meets Digital Activism (Mar. 20, 2013),
http://www.meta-activism.org/2013/03/time-to-adapt-analog-theory-meets-digital-activism/
31
Id.

DRAFT
9
(PIPA).32
These two bills ignited a firestorm of digital protest. Based upon analysis of online
text and links as well as informal interviews, the paper found that “the networked public sphere
enabled a dynamic and diverse discourse that involved both individual and organizational
participants and offered substantive discussion of complex issues contributing to affirmative
political action.”33
Although the paper’s results are limited to one case study, the evidence
suggests that the “networked political sphere” may offer a viable “option in public contestation,”
empowering previously marginalized actors and expanding the breadth of political
participation.34
III. Spectrum Policy
This section provides a brief background for the ongoing debates about spectrum
allocation, from the initial allocation of spectrum for wireless services to the contemporary
debates.
Spectrum Allocation for Wireless ServicesA.
The Communications Act of 1934 created the Federal Communications Commission. 35
The newly created Commission was given authority over electromagnetic spectrum allocations
for the burgeoning radio industry.36
The initial licensing of spectrum for Cellular spectrum
occurred in 1982, with an initial allocation of 40 MHz for mobile wireless services.37
Two 20
MHz blocks in the 800 MHz frequency band were licensed, with one block going to the
32
Yochai Benkler, Hal Roberts, Rob Faris, Alicia Solow-Niederman, Bruce Etling, SOCIAL
MOBILIZATION AND THE NETWORKED PUBLIC SPHERE: MAPPING THE SOPA-PIPA DEBATE (July
2013).
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.
36
Id.
37
16th
Mobile Competition Report at 261.

DRAFT
10
incumbent wireline provider and one block going to another entity in order to create a
competitive marketplace for wireless services.38
In the 1990s, the Commission moved to
allocate additional spectrum to foster competition in the wireless marketplace and established the
Broadband Personal Communication Service (PCS) in the 1850 MHz to 1990 MHz frequency
band.39
In 1997, the Commission auctioned 30 MHz of spectrum from 2305-2320 MHz and
2345-2360 MHz for the Wireless Communications Serivces (WCS).40
In 2002, the Commission
worked with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration NTIA) to license
90 MHz of spectrum as Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-
2155 MHz bands. In 2004, the Commission granted licensees greater flexibility in the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS), thus fostering
development of wireless services in these bands.41
In connection with the transition to digital
television broadcasting, the Commission reclaimed, repurposed, and auctioned in the 700 MHz
band for mobile wireless services.42
Unlicensed SpectrumB.
Alongside the development of wireless applications on licensed spectrum bands, the
Commission allocated spectrum for unlicensed applications. The Commission opened up the
38
Id. The initial allocation of 40 MHz was expanded to 50 MHz, with 25 MHz going to each
block. Compare id. at 261 n.1, “The Commission divided the 40 megahertz of spectrum into
two, 20 megahertz channel blocks, awarding one to a local incumbent wireline carrier and
another to a different entity to promote competition,” with id. at 262, “The Commission
designated 50 megahertz of spectrum in the 800 MHz frequency band for the two competing
cellular systems in each market (25 megahertz for each system).”
39
Id. at 262.
40
Id. at 272.
41
Id. at 270.
42
Id. at 265-66.

DRAFT
11
Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) bands for unlicensed use. Wi-Fi is the most
commercially successful application of unlicensed spectrum. Operating on two bands, Wi-Fi is a
wireless local area network (WLAN) utilizing the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers’ (IEEE) standard 802.11. In the United States, Wi-Fi is typically on the 2.4 GHz and
5 GHz bands.
Contemporary Spectrum Policy DebatesC.
The growth in wireless applications has led a number of commentators to claim that a
“spectrum crisis” is looming in which the demand for wireless services will far outstrip available
spectrum.43
In response to this perceived shortage, the FCC’s National Broadband Plan called
for freeing up an additional 500 MHz of spectrum for wireless applications.44
President Obama
responded to this call by ordering the Secretary of Commerce to work through the NTIA to
collaborate with the FCC to free up 500 MHz spectrum within 10 years.45
There are currently a number of ongoing proceedings involving basic questions of
spectrum policy. The incentive auctions proceeding, which will set the rules for the double-sided
auction of 600 MHz spectrum, is a particularly high profile ongoing proceeding.46
As of
43
See, e.g., W. David Gardner, “FCC Chair Cites ‘Spectrum Crisis,’” INFORMATIONWEEK (Oct.
7, 2009) (reporting that FCC Chairman Genachowski said America is a facing a “looming
spectrum crisis”).
44
FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (“The FCC should make 500
megahertz newly available for broadband use within the next 10 years, of which 300 megahertz
between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz should be made newly available for mobile use within five
years.”).
45
Presidential Memorandum: Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution (June 28, 2010),
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-unleashing-
wireless-broadband-revolution.
46
In the Matter of Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through
Incentive Auctions, WT Docket No. 12-268 (Oct. 2, 2012).

DRAFT
12
September 2013, the Incentive Auctions proceeding docket had almost 800 entries.47
A second
ongoing proceeding is the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NRPM, which revisits the Commission’s
policies on initial licensing and secondary market transactions.48
Both of these proceedings have
been widely covered in the trade and mainstream press.
If digital activism was interfacing well with these contemporary debates about how to
free up an additional 500 MHz of spetrum, we should expect to see significant discussions about
the underlying spectrum policy decisions on social media.
IV. Data Collection
To assess whether spectrum policy is being debated in social media, the following data
collection was initiated. Data was collected from Twitter, a large, online social media micro-
blogging website using the Streaming Applications Programming Interface (API) provided by
Twitter. The Streaming API enables the collection of tweets (individual Twitter messages) that
match particular keywords. To interface with the API, we used the open-source tool, TwEater,
which collects the data from the Streaming API and stores it directly in a Comma-separated
Value (CSV) file or a MySQL database for easy analysis.
For this collection, we started the collection on Friday, August 2nd, 2013, and will
present analysis through Monday, September 9th, 2013 for the purposes of this paper. During
this time, we collected all of the tweets related to 40 different keywords, which are detailed in
Table 1.
47
See FCC, Electronic Comment Filing System,
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=12-268.
48
In the Matter of Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings, WT Docket No. 12-269 (Sept.
28, 2012).

DRAFT
13
Table 1: Terms Used for Twitter collection
1. 5 GHz
2. 600 MHz
3. 700 MHz
4. AWS spectrum
5. Band plan
6. Cellular spectrum
7. Community wi-fi
8. Community wifi
9. Digital dividend
10. Duplex gap
11. FCC
12. Federal Communications Commission
13. Free wi-fi
14. Free wifi
15. Genachowski
16. Guard bands
17. Incentive auctions
18. Interoperability
19. Open wi-fi
20. Open wifi
21. Open wireless movement
22. Open wireless
23. Shared spectrum
24. SMR spectrum
25. Spectrum auctions
26. Super wi-fi
27. White space
28. Super wifi

DRAFT
14
Table 1: Terms Used for Twitter collection
29. Spectrum commons
30. Mobile spectrum holdings
31. Broadband PCS spectrum
32. BRS spectrum
33. EBS spectrum
34. WCS spectrum
35. Broadband Personal Communications Service spectrum
36. Specialized Mobile Radio Service spectrum
37. Advanced Wireless Service spectrum
38. Broadband Radio Service spectrum
39. Educational Broadband Service
40. Wireless Communications Service spectrum
V. Analysis of Data
Of these terms, only 27 generated any tweets during the data collection period. They are
the first 27 terms listed in Table 1. One of the terms, “white space” and “interoperability” had to
be removed because it generated too many false positives. Specifically most of the tweets
associated with this keyword were not about white space and interoperability in spectrum but
about various other uses of the word “white space” and “interoperability.” This left 25 terms
with content. These 26 terms generated 334,578 tweets.
The distribution of the number of tweets associated with each of these words is listed in
Table 2.
Table 2: Occurrences of Tweets Associated with Each Keyword
free wifi 238786

DRAFT
15
Table 2: Occurrences of Tweets Associated with Each Keyword
fcc 81745
free wi-fi 20209
5 ghz 4537
open wifi 2537
600 mhz 392
open wi-fi 354
federal communications commission 231
super wi-fi 133
spectrum auctions 88
band plan 80
genachowski 80
open wireless 69
digital dividend 64
community wifi 51
shared spectrum 40
aws spectrum 22
700 mhz band 9
community wi-fi 9
open wireless movement 9
incentive auctions 8
cellular spectrum 6
guard bands 5
duplex gap 1
smr spectrum 1

DRAFT
16
As the results show, most of the conversation centered on the topic of free / open wifi in
various forms, with additional discussions about the FCC and 5 GHz. Examples of the tweets in
these topics include:
 free wifi / free wi-fi / open wi-fi / open wifi: “Justin gave the wifi password to the
Beliebers waiting outside the hotel, I mean FREE WIFI FROM JUSTIN BIEBER.”
 fcc: “RT @treach: The FCC nominees are in... Expect a POTS/PSTN sunset date of 2020
or before announced by year end. http://t.co/ktEnY2EeL2”
 5 ghz: “Ready for the 5 GHz Shift and bake wireless into your network?
@arubanetworks have the aspirin #11ac http://t.co/IElBHHdYv”
Looking over the tweets in general indicates that most of the debate on Twitter seems to
center around consumer demands for spectrum and responses to consumer demand via the
provision of products that meet consumer needs. However, very little of this debate seems to be
about particular spectrum-related issues; instead it is simply about the demand and need for these
products. In fact, there is very little debate of any technical nature instead it seems to be mainly
around desire for more spectrum access with little discussion about particular issues.
To investigate this further, we also looked at the top producers of content on these
various topics. The top creators of content for the top five keywords listed above are listed in
Table 3.
Table 3. Top Producers of Content.
Keyword Username
Free wifi greengeekass
FCC yonet2005_work
Free wi-fi greengeekass

DRAFT
17
5 GHz harerris
Open wifi PC_Computers
Though some of these are groups organized around free wifi and topics along these lines,
none of the conversation involves heavy participation by users who are traditionally thought of
as being part of the spectrum debate. For each of these top five users we examined there
biographies online and discovered that: (1) greengeekass, is an association in Italy that seeks to
promote the idea and concept of free wifi everywhere, (2) yonet2005_work appears to be an
aggregator of content around telecommunications policy, (3) harreris and PC_Computers are
users that aggregate deals on consumer electronic products.
In general, the data so far seems to indicate that though users are actively discussing
topics of interest with respect to spectrum on Twitter, the conversations appear to be at a much
shallower level, than the conversations that were engaged in during the SOPA / PIPA debates
studied by Benkler.49
The question then becomes why this conversation is so different. One
hypothesis is that without a rallying cry or something to focus the use of social media around
there simply is no interest in developing in-depth discussions of these topics. This could mean
that though “clicktivism” can work in some cases, like anything it still requires effort on the
point of the advocates to rally those clicks behind a particular topic or ideal. Alternatively, it
may be that although a number of public interest groups are involved in the rulemakings with the
Commission, no public interest group has invested sufficient resources to build a digital
campaign around spectrum policy issues. Currently, it does not appear that there are major
49
Benkler.

DRAFT
18
spectrum policy debates happening in this space, but that also means that there is very little
competition for someone who wants to enter this fray and steer the conversation.
VI. Conclusion
There are also several potential implications of this research for scholars of digital
activism. First, the granularity of this research project interfaces with digital activism
scholarship on political and civic participation. Our initial results suggest that spectrum policy
debates are only translating at very general levels into social media. Although the Internet may
radically reduce the transaction costs of information sharing and online political mobilizing,
technical policy discussions may require different approaches if the goal is connect an informed
citizenry with the policy process in a meaningful way. This may be particularly true when the
policy debate concerns the structure of a system, which is often taken for granted or obscured
from view. In cases such as such, digital campaigns may require more guidance from interested
parties with requisite expertise and resources. Echoing Tufekci, it may be that spectrum policy
debates are not bridging interested parties with weak ties and industry experts with strong ties
between them. As such, there is not a virtuous cycle of broader participation in these debates.
Second, digital activism research rarely integrates the structure of the
telecommunications system as a variable into analysis of social and political events. As noted
above, scholarship on digital activism usually takes the structure of the telecommunications
system as given, if it is acknowledged at all. The result can be curious readings of social
movements and political events that do not necessarily track well with the telecommunications
system in place. For instance, many scholars heralded the Egyptian revolution of 2011 as an

DRAFT
19
example in which Twitter and Facebook played prominent, if not decisive political roles.50
At
the time of the revolution, social media adoption rates in Egypt were quite low, suggesting that
social media mobilization for the revolution within Egypt may have been relatively less
significant than what was perceived by those outside Egypt.51
Indeed, the most salient effect of
social media in the Egyptian revolution may have been on the ability of activists to get their
messages outside of Egypt and generate positive non-Egyptian press coverage. One possible
avenue of development of scholarship on digital activism is to factor the structure of the system,
including adoption rates, into predictive models and historical case studies to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of digital activism’s possibilities and effects.
Third, studies such as this can suggest new ways of theorizing digital activism in general.
In Joyce’s argument, “digital” activism is used as a contrast to “analog” activism to denote that
the organizing is occurring online, rather than in person or by telephone. Although this contrast
is useful, the heuristic of digital versus analog can be expanded. To begin with, analog forms of
sound transmission utilize dedicated channels or connections that open and close with the
beginning and termination of the transmission. In the mobile phone context, first through third
generation (1G, 2G, 3G) mobile telephony all utilized separate, dedicated channels for two-way
audio transmissions. Data carried on these networks was transmitted in a separate channel. In
the context of voice recordings, four and eight track cassettes all utilized the same basic concept:
dedicated tracks for particular components of the sound, which would then be mixed at varying
volume levels to produce the composite recording.
50
See Tufekci & Wilson.
51
Andrea Kavanaugh, et al, Between a Rock and a Cell Phone: Communication and Information
Technology Use During the 2011 Egyptian Uprising, PROC. OF THE 9TH
INT’L ISCRAM CONF.
(Apr. 2012) (finding that the Egyptian Facebook and Twitter adoption rates in 2010 and 2011
were 5.5% and .15%, respectively).

DRAFT
20
Extending the analogy to social movements, one could say that analog social movement
theory looked to specific, identifiable groups for political mobilization, whether it was a
disenfranchised racial minority, an oppressed gender, or an exploited class. This way of thinking
came from the simple logic that individual political mobilization would stem, in large part, from
having a personal stake in the outcome. That is, workers would strike for better pay, women
would protest for equal rights, etc. Theorists of digital activism do not privilege a particular
group in the same way: there is no dedicated channel of protest or political mobilization because
the cost to participation is so low. When the cost of participation approaches zero, e.g., clicking
“Like” on Facebook, solidarity with one’s peers becomes less essential to collection action.
Anyone with an interest can help the cause, and because the cost of doing so is so low, they very
well might even if they do not have a large stake in the outcome.
As our initial data collection suggests, the users providing the most spectrum policy
related content do not appear to have a generalizable connection to the debate, e.g., a regulated
policy or a public interest group. The most prolific generators of content may only have an
interest in the debate, and as such may not be driven by a particular robust sense of self-interest.
In other words, this data collection suggests that the underrepresentation of regulated entities and
established public interest groups may stem from collective action dynamics when the cost of
action approaches zero. A new, digital theory of political activity may be better able to explain
the relative prominence of the users we identified generating the most content in this space.
Extending the digital analogy and analogizing some aspects of TCP/IP, 52
we can sketch
out an additional aspect digital activism. Because the cost of engagement approaches zero, the
52
TCP/IP was adopted in the 1980s as the protocol for a number of government and corporate
entities that initiated what became the Internet. For our purposes, there are two aspects of

DRAFT
21
population of potential participants is almost unlimited. Thus, no particular group is essential to
political mobilization. As theorists of digital activism have noted, Internet based organizing does
not require the same degree of central coordination. If operating as a true end-to-end network, a
digital political campaign would require no central coordination at all. And because the
transmission costs are so low and the volume of inputs is so high, digital activism entails what
we could analogize to packet loss: some forms of political mobilization will not even register.
The relative futility of some action, however, may not discourage continued action because no
particular group is essential, losses or setbacks are not internalized through a central coordinator,
and action is so cheap that futility is not a deterrent to a continued course of conduct.
There are also several potential implications from this research for telecommunications
policy. First, telecommunications policy debates may increasingly have to respond to demands
not just between competing licensed providers, but also between licensed providers and
disaggregated users demanding more space for unlicensed applications. The emergence of new
actors in spectrum policy debates suggests that an important dynamic is the one not between
vested providers and potential new entrants – the typical scenario for antitrust analysis – but
between an industry dependent on exclusive use as a whole, including potential new entrants,
and those entities that seek to expand unlicensed applications. That is, the primary conflict is not
between competing providers of similar services (horizontal competition), or between firms
seeking efficiencies through vertical integration potentially opposed by regulators as
anticompetitive, but between vested interests in exclusive use of spectrum and those interests that
TCP/IP that are relevant to theorizing digital activism. First, TCP/IP incorporates an end-to-end
principle in network design. Simply put, an end-to-end network is one in which the complicated
functions are done at the ends of the network. An end-to-end network is not centrally
coordinated or managed. Second, TCP/IP expects packet loss. That is, some pieces of
information will be lost in transmission.

DRAFT
22
want more space for mutual, unlicensed use. The question is how to analyze this kind of
inter-industry competition for the public interest.
Second, this initial collection suggests that consumer demand is orientated towards more
access to broadband at lower cost, if not entirely free. From the initial data set, it appears as
though consumers are not tuned in to the particular frequencies or policies that may affect
spectrum allocations, network management issues, or the possibility of a spectrum crisis. This
data suggest that consumers want more broadband and they want to pay less for it. One possible
explanation is that unlike in the SOPA/PIPA debates, issues that remain at the agency level may
not receive as much digital attention, particularly given that rulemaking process. Unlike a bill in
Congress that can be targeted for defeat, a rulemaking process may present different challenges
for online mobilization.
In order to gain more perspective on these topics and generate additional hypotheses, this
this is an ongoing data collection that is being modified as we identify more accurate ways of
investigating the presence of spectrum policy debates in social media. In future work, we plan to
examine the topics of discussion that people engage in using computational linguistics methods,
and to explore the sentiment of the tweets. This will help us determine if in fact these
discussions are on topic or not, and explore whether people seem to be positively or negatively
engaged with these terms. We also hope to examine the time series of these data, looking at how
the usage of these terms varies in time.
###

SSRN-id2242623

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to SSRN-id2242623

SSRN-id2242623