In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Cyren Call Chairman Morgan O’Brien and Frontline Wireless Chairman Janice Obuchowski each had a letter to the editor responding to my March 13th op-ed about first responder communications. I’d like to take up just a few sentences to respond.
O’Brien writes that I “audaciously misrepresent[ed]” Cyren Call’s proposal, but does not point out what that misrepresentation was. So, I can’t answer. Obuchoski, on the other hand, does point out a misstatement about Frontline’s plan. She writes,
[Brito] misstates that the plan would build “an interoperable network over spectrum purchased at auction; but Frontline wants the FCC to restrict that spectrum to public safety use.” Frontline will offer commercial service in the spectrum won at auction and provide public safety with pre-emptible access during emergencies to this commercial spectrum to provide additional capacity during peak periods of crisis when first responders’ communications requirements spike. This spectrum would remain in commercial use at all other times.
The thing is, I have always fully understood that the Frontline proposal would share he spectrum with public safety and commercial users. The error was introduced by a WSJ edit made after the last version of the op-ed that I approved the evening before it was published. (I don’t blame the WSJ; they were probably just editing for length or style.)
A few weeks ago, I was discussing “Campaign Finance Laws in the You Tube Age” and was wondering aloud whether current campaign finance regulations were sustainable in an age of user-generated content and viral videos. The Washington Postponders that same question today in highlighting the impact of clever mock campaign ad mash-ups like this one about “Big Sister” Hillary Clinton, which already has roughly 1.5 million hits:
The Post story notes that “this ad’s reach really blows up any notion that candidates and mainstream media outlets can control the campaign dialogue. Especially online.” That’s exactly right, but they don’t go on to ask the next logical question about how Congress and the FEC are going to deal with the growing flood of online campaign ads and commentary during coming election cycles. Remember, stuff like this can be regulated when aired on traditional television and radio outlets in the days leading up to an election. I just don’t see how current campaign finance regs and the Internet can co-exist in the long run. There’s just no way regulators are going to be able to keep pace with all the activity out there.
I promise to talk about something different soon, but for now let me plug my op-ed in The Wall Street Journal today about first responder communications. You can read it here (no subscription required). The gist:
Offer Cyren Call, Frontline and others the opportunity to bid on spectrum already restricted to public safety use. That would allow firms to build national interoperable networks without affecting how much spectrum will be available for commercial use. At the very least, if spectrum now slated for commercial auction must be used, the government should identify an equal amount of existing public safety spectrum that can be auctioned commercially once the new public safety networks are built.
Whatever path we take, we should ensure that at least two competing networks are built. This works well for wireless services such as cell phones; subscribers to one service have no trouble speaking to subscribers on another while prices are kept low.
A private-sector national network for public safety first responders is not an untested idea. In the U.K., the national network that supports police, fire and over a hundred other public safety services is owned and operated by O2, a private firm. We can do even better, using competition to spur the innovations that monopoly rarely provides.
Tech Policy Weekly from the Technology Liberation Front is a weekly podcast about technology policy from TLF’s learned band of contributors. The shows’s panelists this week are Jerry Brito, Tim Lee, Adam Thierer, and Braden Cox. Topics include,
Top Wikipedia editor “Essjay” is revealed as a fraud
States are pushing age verification mandates for social networking sitesl
Do first responders really need more spectrum?
There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. You can press play on the player below to listen right now, or download the MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the podcast by clicking on the button for your preferred service. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!
Everyone believes that government would be better if there was more transparency – though people’s ideas of “better” can range quite widely. As I’ve noted before, the Internet and other new technologies have a lot to do with making government information more available.
Oh sure, this kind of thing is a little kumbaya, but I’ve been known to hum a few bars of that tune and, again, the benefits of transparency are a matter of (near) pan-ideological agreement. Secrecy is also bad. Let the sun shine in.
Last week I was a guest on a Seattle radio station (KVI 570) program hosted by conservative talk show host Kirby Wilbur. He invited me on to talk about various First Amendment issues including efforts to regulate video games. Like many radio hosts I’ve dealt with in the past, he was very sympathetic to my free speech leanings. But Kirby Wilbur has another good reason to love the First Amendment: It’s the only thing he has to rely on in his fight against our nation’s absolutely absurd campaign finance laws.
Here’s Kirby’s story. Back in 2005, Mr. Wilbur and his KVI colleague John Carlson had the audacity to speak their minds about a ballot initiative pending in their home state of Washington. The ballot initiative was an effort to repeal the state’s recent gas tax increase. Proponents of the tax (mostly municipal government officials) were none too happy to hear people speaking their minds about the issue on a talk radio show. So, they decided to file a lawsuit demanding that the grassroots “No New Gas Tax” organization that had mobilized to fight the tax actually disclose the value of the hosts’ radio advocacy as an “in-kind campaign contribution”! And, amazingly, they got a judge to agree with them!!
Yesterday I filed a public interest comment (PDF) in the FCC’s proceeding to create a national public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. Not coincidentally, so did Frontline Wireless, a new company started by former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and former NTIA Administrator Janice Obuchowski among others. In their filing they propose a new plan to build a national wireless broadband network to be shared by public safety and consumers. This plan comes closer to the commercial provision of public safety communications that I’ve been suggesting, but it’s still a bit off. Below I’ll talk about the plan, but first some background.
As I’ve explained before, the digital TV transition frees up 84 MHz of spectrum. Congress has allocated 24 to public safety and 60 for auction. Morgan O’Brien’s Cyren Call asked the FCC to allocate additional spectrum to public safety for a national network by removing a 30 MHz block of spectrum from auction. The FCC denied the petition saying, quite rightly, that they didn’t have the authority not to auction off the spectrum Congress told them they had to. Cyren Call has since found a sponsor in John McCain who has said he will introduce a bill that would remove the 30 MHz from auction and give it to a “public safety broadband trust.”
The FCC’s current proceeding centers on what to do with the 24 MHz of spectrum that Congress did allocate to public safety. Specifically, the FCC asked for comment on its plan to take 12 MHz of this spectrum and license it to a nonprofit representing the public safety community that would in turn build a national broadband network, charge first responders a fee for service, and lease excess capacity on the network to commercial customers.
Welcome to the first episode of TLF’s new podcast! Tech Policy Weekly from the Technology Liberation Front is a weekly discussion about technology policy from TLF’s learned band of contributors. It features some of the brightest and most provocative minds in the field of technology public policy commenting on the regulation of the internet, media, privacy, intellectual property, and all things tech.
The shows’s panelists this week are Jerry Brito, Tim Lee, Adam Thierer, and PJ Doland. Topics include,
Skype’s petition to the FCC asking for wireless net neutrality rules a la Tim Wu
The antitrust and media implications of the proposed XM-Sirius satellite radio merger
Is a spectrum commons really a third way between regulation and privatization?
There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. Press play on the player to listen right now, download the MP3 file, or subscribe to the podcast by clicking on your preferred service below. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!
I’m sure Leander Kahney of Wired makes a lot of sense when he’s talking about music and copyright protection, but when the topic is schools, he seems completely clueless:
Jobs has also been a longtime advocate of a school voucher system, another ridiculous idea based on the misplaced faith that the mythical free market will fix schools by giving parents choice.
Jobs argues that vouchers will allow parents, the “customers,” to decide where to send their kids to school, and the free market will sort it out. Competition will spur innovation, improve quality and drive bad schools (and bad teachers) out of business. The best schools will thrive.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
Yesterday I filed a public interest comment (
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.