Should the nation’s airwaves be treated like an exclusive gated community — or a vast, publicly owned park? Congress supposedly answered that question with the Radio Act of 1912, which followed the sinking of the Titanic and set aside a slice of interference-free radio frequencies for distress calls.

So began the carving up of the ethereal real estate known as the electromagnetic spectrum, and nowadays most any commercial use requires a license for rights to specific frequencies. The gated-community approach has remained operative through most every technological advance, from television to mobile phones to satellites.

But today, the public commons approach is getting another look. Super-smart devices can operate on multiple frequencies, seeking out unused radio bands while avoiding airwaves already in use. Simple forms of this technology are already used in cordless phones and wireless broadband transmitters known as “Wi-Fi,” which use small slices of unlicensed spectrum. But more complex forms, known as “contention-based” and “cognitive” radio, are coming to market.

A battle between the two models is under way at the Federal Communications Commission, which is about to decide whether to dedicate a valuable chunk of soon-to-be-available frequencies for completely unlicensed use. The ruling could pave the way for a vast expansion of Wi-Fi, and point to a new direction in how radio spectrum is managed. But the question is whether there’s any price to be paid — not just in the event that the technology doesn’t work, but also on the chance that an open system may actually stifle wireless broadband investment and innovation.

The FCC, whose main job is still to police against radio interference, must essentially decide whether to delegate that task to each user’s device, which would operate without those old frequency walls, or keep it at the network level, with those old-style carriers who still depend on the security that comes with owning their own license.

The decision, expected some time this year, pits software and microchip makers against broadcasters and wireless network vendors. Not surprisingly, Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp., along with public interest groups such as the Media Access Project, are the main proponents. Microsoft and Intel envision entire communities with Wi-Fi — all running on Windows PCs with Intel’s chips, of course.

Broadcasters see nothing but trouble with this idea. Untested spectrum-sensing techniques, they say, can’t ensure against TV interference. But they’re not the only skeptics of the unlicensed approach.

Another is Qualcomm Corp., which has invented much of the technology being used to roll out mobile broadband networks. Qualcomm has interference concerns as well, but it also argues that unlicensed broadband will “undermine the value” of licensed spectrum for which wireless carriers paid billions in recent auctions.

Thomas W. Hazlett, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, doesn’t like the trend toward unlicensed spectrum, either. It’s not that he doubts that the technology can overcome interference. Rather, he thinks network operators and equipment makers won’t invest in high-quality broadband wireless networks and devices unless there is some direct ownership of the frequencies.

Hazlett would rather use these airwaves to address a chronic shortage of spectrum for big wireless carriers. He points to South Korea, where 10 million of the 32 million mobile subscribers watch video, listen to music, surf the Web and make phone calls on broadband phones. The country’s three wireless carriers hold double the spectrum that U.S. carriers have, he said, and while ownership of the airwaves is limited, there is plenty of third-party competition.

Meanwhile, back in the states, the wireless market has consolidated from six to four national carriers — a trend Hazlett attributes to inadequate spectrum allocation by the FCC. “I keep waiting for regulators to get embarrassed by this,” he says.

Whether licensed or not, these new frequencies are the FCC’s best chance to solve the spectrum shortage for wireless broadband. But it may be a while before they’re available: They currently belong to local TV stations, which are supposed to relinquish them as they migrate to other frequencies in order to offer digital programming. The stations will have to turn the frequencies over once 85 percent of households get digital TV — which will probably happen between 2009 and 2011, broadcasting experts say. (Joe L. Barton, R-Texas, the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, wants an earlier cut-over date. But broadcasters are a powerful group and can probably bottle that idea up in the Senate.)

Until then, the FCC will scrape together blocs of frequencies where it can and decide, case by case, whether to turn them into licensed property for dedicated networks or virtual public land for free-ranging devices.

Reminds me of the Internet’s early days, when many predicted that all the intelligence in data networks would gradually move down to the individual computer, or device. It hasn’t happened yet: Networks and devices depend on each other pretty much equally.

The FCC now must decide whether wireless will go that way as well.

Mike Mills is CQ’s executive editor for electronic publishing. Next week’s CQ Roundtable: Courts & the Law, by Kenneth Jost.