An analysis of regulatory frameworks for wireless communications, societal concerns and risk: the case of radio frequency (RF) allocation and licensing.

This thesis analyses how and why culture and geography influence the allocation and licensing of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum in different nations. Based on a broad study of 235 countries, an inter-disciplinary approach is used to explore regulatory frameworks and attitudes toward risk. In addition, detailed case studies of the UK, France, the US and Ecuador provide deeper insights into the main contrasting regulatory styles. Three alternative sociological theories are used to analyse and explain the results for both the in-depth and broad brush studies. The Cultural Theory of Mary Douglas and co-workers is first used to categorise countries in terms of perceptual filters. The empirical findings indicate some countries to be apparently exceptional in their behaviour. The theory of Bounded Rationality is used to investigate and explain these apparent irrationalities. Finally, Rational Field Theory shows how beliefs and values guide administrations in their RF regulation. A number of key factors are found to dominate and patterns emerge. The European RF harmonisation is unique. Following European unification, wireless regulation is divided into two major camps (the EU and the US), which differ in their risk concerns, approach to top-down mandated standards, allocation of RF spectrum to licence-exempt bands and type approval process. The adoption of cellular and TV standards around the world reflects geopolitical and colonial influence. The language of a country is a significant indicator of its analogue TV standard. Interestingly, the longitude of a country to a fair extent defines RF allocation: Africa and West Asia follow Europe, whereas the Americas approximate the US. RF regulation and risk tolerability differ between tropical and non-tropical climates. The collectivised/centralised versus the individualised/market-based rationalities result in different regulatory frameworks and contrasting societal and risk concerns. The success of the top-down European GSM and the bottom-up Wi-Fi standards reveal how the central- planning and market-based approaches have thrived. Attitudes to RF human hazards and spurious emissions levels reveal that the US, Canada and Japan are more tolerant of these risks than Europe. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and USA encourage technological innovation. A practical benefit of this study is that it will give regulators more freedom to choose a rational RF licensing protocol, by better understanding the possibly self-imposed boundaries of cultural and geographical factors which are currently shaping allocation. Academically, there is utility in undertaking a cultural and geographic analysis of a topic that is mostly the domain of engineering, economic and legal analysts.

[1]  David J. Ball,et al.  Ships in the night and the quest for safety , 2000 .

[2]  T. Brennan,et al.  New Rules: Regulation, Markets, and the Quality of American Health Care , 1995 .

[3]  Jonathan B. Wiener,et al.  Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe , 2002 .

[4]  C. Starr,et al.  Philosophical Basis for Risk Analysis , 1976 .

[5]  C. Jung.  The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious , 1968 .

[6]  Alfred E. Kahn,et al.  Lessons from Deregulation: Telecommunications and Airlines after the Crunch , 2003 .

[7]  V. Smith.  An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior , 1962, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  Paul H. Rubin.  Why Is the Common Law Efficient? , 1977, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[9]  Adam Burgess,et al.  Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precaution , 2003 .

[10]  Richard Collins.  Liberalizing the European Media. Politics, Regulation and the Public Sphere, , 2000 .

[11]  S. Rayner,et al.  Human choice and climate change , 1998 .

[12]  S. Pinker.  The Language Instinct , 1994 .

[13]  A. Licht,et al.  Culture Rules: The Foundations of the Rule of Law and Other Norms of Governance , 2006 .

[14]  Max Henrion,et al.  Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis , 1990 .

[15]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The role of risk perception for risk management , 1998 .

[16]  A. Burgess.  The making of the risk-centred society and the limits of social risk research , 2006 .

[17]  Rhonda J. Crane.  The Politics of International Standards: France and the Color TV War , 1979 .

[18]  P. Legrand.  Against a European Civil Code , 1997 .

[19]  Colonial Origins , 2009, The Search for Security in the Pacific 1901-1914.

[20]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science , 1985, American Political Science Review.

[21]  Daya Kishan Thussu,et al.  Electronic empires : global media and local resistance , 1998 .

[22]  R. Zimmermann.  Roman Law, Contemporary Law, European Law: The Civilian Tradition Today , 2001 .

[23]  C. Hood,et al.  The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes , 2001 .

[24]  Herbert A Simon,et al.  The understanding process: Problem isomorphs , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  V. Smith.  Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics , 2003 .

[26]  John Orbell,et al.  The Minimal Contributing Set as a Solution to Public Goods Problems , 1983, American Political Science Review.

[27]  Robin M. Grier.  The Effect of Religion on Economic Development: A Cross National Study of 63 Former Colonies , 1997 .

[28]  E. Rosa.  Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk , 1998 .

[29]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[30]  Eunkook M. Suh,et al.  National differences in subjective well-being. , 1999 .

[31]  Priscilla M. Regan,et al.  Risk Versus Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment, John D. Graham and Jonathan Baert Wiener, Editors. 1995. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 320 pages. ISBN: 0-674-77304-7. $39.95 , 1997 .