Wireless & Spectrum Policy

When I saw the announcement of Google’s “Internet for Everyone” campaign on their Public Policy Blog, I have to admit, my BS detector started to rise.

“Ubiquitous and open broadband access for every American [should be] a priority in the next administration,” they say.

How about now, Google, and you?

You could have bought the spectrum that you encumbered with “open” rules in the 700 MHz auction, but you didn’t. Now you’re sitting back saying the government should do it for you.

Who would gain from the next administration making broadband “a priority”? Google, of course.

Then I clicked over to the site and saw the evil kid alone at the computer in the living room. Is that a parent drinking wine in the kitchen? Really, I couldn’t help myself.

The campaign “stands for” access, choice, openness, and innovation. What about fair play? Peace? Ending world hunger? A platitude in every pot and a bromide on every CRT.

Really, it’s a bunch of pap that Google will use in Washington, D.C. to insulate itself from competition and drive wealth to its owners. Seeking profit is what compaines like Google are supposed to do – but not using the nation’s public policies.

Update: Julian Sanchez nails it with: “All this may have a whiff of ‘and a pony’ about it . . . .”

Today I’ve filed several articles on BroadbandCensus.com with extensive coverage from the Broadband Policy Summit last Thursday and Friday. You can also see the links to these stories and others on broadband, at the home page of BroadbandCensus.com.

Check back at BroadbandCensus.com on Monday morning, when I’ll be posting material about the Federal Communications Commission’s Friday decision on broadband data issues.

Comcast-BitTorrent, Wireless Net Neutrality Issues Stir Debate at Broadband Policy Summit

June 14 – Critics and proponents of Network Neutrality squaring off on the topic on Friday agreed that recent actions by both cable and wireless providers had had re-vivified the debate about the topic. read more

Ambassador: U.S. Wireless Policies Emulated by Developing Nations

June 13 – America’s wireless policies continue to be emulated by developing nations, Ambassador David Gross, United States coordinator for international communications and information policy, said Friday. read more

Rep. Cliff Sterns Decries Net Neutrality Rules

June 12 – Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., decried the move to impose Network Neutrality on broadband carriers, speaking at a keynote luncheon address at the Broadband Policy Summit IV here. read more

Questions about Broadband Data Swirl at Broadband Policy Summit

June 12 – Questions about the availability and detail of broadband data featured prominently in presentations and in discussions at Thursday’s sessions of Broadband Policy Summit IV. read more

Americans have a love-hate relationship with their cellphones.   Consumers have adopted wireless telephony with a passion — with over 250 million subscriptions at last count.  Many would rather venture out without their pants than without their phones.  Yet,  at the same time,  Americans seem deeply suspicious of the little devices,  perhaps believing that anything this convenient must be harmful.  

The latest case in point:  a video circulating on the net purportedly showing how radiation from cellphones can pop popcorn.   Posted on youtube and circulated endlessly by email, the video has been viewed millions of times.  It appears to to be an amateur recording made in someone’s living room, with a group of friends to put three cellphones in a circle around some popcorn kernels, then call them — making the phones ring and the popcorn pop to much merriment.

The unspoken message:  if these gizmos can explode a kernal of corn, what are they doing to your brain?

The problem though is that the whole thing is a hoax.   A total fabrication.  As it turns out, the radiation from even three cellphones isn’t even enough to warm up corn, never mind pop it.  As one commenter on the video put it:  “A 1 kilowatt microwave takes around one minute to pop its first kernel, and that’s in a closed environment. A cell phone transmitter operates from 0.1 to 1 watt, but this video shows these kernels popping almost immediately.”

And I’m not an electrical engineer, but I suspect that having the phones ring doesn’t change the equation much.

Continue reading →

Goose that lays golden eggsIn a new PFF essay, my colleague Barbara Esbin and I address a recent petition filed by the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) asking the FCC to prohibit exclusive arrangements between wireless handset producers and carriers. The RCA petition claims that large wireless companies have an unfair market advantage by giving their customers exclusive access to certain advanced smart phones, such as the Apple/AT&T iPhone—and that this anticompetitive practice is harmful to rural consumers served by RCA members.

In the piece, we debunk RCA’s arguments premised on a supposed lack of competition in wireless markets. RCA will likely now redouble these arguments by pointing to Verizon’s planned acquisition of Alltel (by far the smallest of the “Big 5” carriers), which was announced the day our piece was published. But even with four large carriers instead of five, the wireless market remains vibrantly competitive—especially as compared to 1992, when the FCC decided that even the two-carrier market was “extremely competitive,” and rejecting arguments that it ban exclusive handset arrangements. Continue reading →

Are you a mobile phone user, FiOS TV subscriber, or DirecTV customer who’s happy with your service and bound by a long-term contract? If so, then brace for higher prices thanks to a multifaceted regulatory assault on voluntary contracts.

On June 12, the FCC will hold a hearing to consider imposing regulations on early termination fees, which are the charges that customers who’ve entered into long-term service agreements must pay if they choose to end service prior to the culmination of their contract term.

The FCC isn’t alone in its push to regulate early termination fees. Bills that would limit wireless contract terms have been drafted in both the Senate (by Sens. Klobuchar and Rockefeller) and in the House (by Rep. Markey). And Verizon, among other carriers, faces a $1 billion class-action lawsuit arguing its early termination fees are illegal.

While the bills pending in Congress focus solely on early termination fees for mobile service, the Washington Post reports that the FCC’s upcoming hearing will encompass early termination fees offered by all kinds of consumer telecom services. In addition to wireless companies, many broadband and video providers including DirecTV, VerizonRCN, and Comcast also offer long-term service plans with cancellation charges levied on customers who end service early.

In late 2007, when the early termination fee debate began heating up, many providers changed their policies to address complaints against wireless contract provisions. Now, AT&T Mobility, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint all prorate early termination fees for wireless subscribers, so users who cancel service in the middle of the contract term don’t have to pay the full $175 early termination fee. The three carriers have also begun allowing customers to change calling plans without affecting their contract end date.

Despite intensifying opposition to early termination fees, these fees are really nothing new. Outside of high-tech services, consumers have long had the choice of signing long-term contracts that involve early cancellation charges. Renters typically sign 12-month apartment leases, and are usually required to pay a breakage fee if they back out of their lease early. Similar contract clauses are often found in fitness center memberships and automobile leases. Are all these incarnations of early termination fees fair game for government regulation, too?

Dictating the terms of telecommunications service contracts runs the risk of depressing investment in network modernization, ultimately harming consumers. At a time when Sprint is building a high-speed wireless network from the ground up, Verizon is laying fiber to millions of homes across the nation, and DirecTV is expanding its fleet of geosynchronous orbital satellites, government-imposed revenue volatility would delay next-generation telecom services that promise faster broadband speeds and more high-def programming.

Continue reading →

Berin Szoka and I just released a short article on the FCC’s proposed follow-up to the failed 700 mhz D Block auction:  a free, nationwide wireless service that would serve public safety users as well as consumers.  It’s attached down below or the PDF can be found here.
_________________________________

What’s Worse Than Rigged Auctions & Internet Censorship?
How About Both in One Package!

a PFF Progress Snapshot
Release 4.12 June 2008

by Adam Thierer and Berin Szoka

The big spectrum policy debate in town these days continues to be the fight about how to redo the botched D block auction. As we all know, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s previous effort to micro-manage that auction failed miserably. Sadly, the follow-up plan isn’t much better, as the Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial today:

You’d think Chairman Martin would have learned from this experience. It’s not the role of regulators to pick winners and losers to achieve their preferred social outcomes. Private competition and the price mechanism can most fairly and efficiently find the best use for scarce spectrum. The FCC’s clumsy attempt at social engineering resulted in a failed auction that has prevented otherwise desirable spectrum from being put to commercial use.

Alas, Mr. Martin has now proposed another wireless auction for a separate piece of spectrum. And this time he wants to require the winner to offer free Internet access that filters out pornography–conditions that obviously would decrease the value of the license and turn off potential bidders. It just so happens that Mr. Martin’s proposed auction seems tailor-made for the business plan put forward by M2Z, another politically connected Silicon Valley start-up looking to enter the wireless broadband telecom market.

Continue reading →

 As Mark Twain might have said if he followed spectrum policy: the reports of the death of central planning in Washington have been greatly exaggerated.  As early as next week, the Federal Communications Commission may vote on a plan mooted by Chairman Kevin Martin to auction off 25 MHz of spectrum to the highest bidder, with a catch:  reportedly, the licensee will have to use the spectrum to offer free broadband service, with a network to be built out on a timetable specified by the FCC, and with content that doesn’t offend the regulators in Washington.

For most of the last century, the FCC was in the business of defining how spectrum would be used – deciding not only who would get it, but what services they would use it for, and under what conditions.  Over the past 20 years, however, the idea of central planning has fallen into disrepute, not only internationally (see Soviet Union) but in Washington.   The idea that five individuals in Washington – no matter how intelligent and well-dressed – could know the proper uses and methods of providing wireless services for millions of people became increasingly hard to defend.  After a disastrous start to the cell phone era – which was delayed by a decade or more do to FCC delays, the central planning model was largely replaced by markets, with licenses assigned by open auction, and (more importantly) uses and business models defined by consumer demand.

By the turn of the 21st century, the FCC’s planning colossus had been effectively toppled, with some of the biggest tugs at the ropes by the Clinton era-FCC.  The rest, as they say, is economic history.   Over the last 20 years, the number of Americans with wireless has grown from two to 255 million, while the devices they use have transmogrified from brick phones to multipurpose units that do everything but the user’s laundry.

 Chairman Martin’s proposal would take a giant leap backward from this marketplace success.  It isn’t the first attempt by the present FCC to try to direct spectrum use.   In auctions earlier this year of former analog television spectrum, the FCC set aside blocks for “open access” uses, and for spectrum to be used in partnership with public safety users.   The auctions were remarkably unsuccessful – with the one block failing to meet its reserve price, and the other fetching far less than similar, unencumbered, spectrum. Continue reading →

Google co-founder Larry Page came to Washington last week to take on the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the lobbying group that represents over-the-air television stations. It’s a whole new adversary for the beleaguered broadcasters, who have been fighting cable and satellite television for years.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering a proposal, by Google and other tech players. It would allow tech companies to build electronic devices that transmit wireless internet signals over the “white spaces,” or the vacant holes in the broadcast television band.

“We have an ambitious goal called pervasive connectivity through ubiquitous broadband networks,” said Page, who is currently co-president of Web search giant Google, and the world’s 43rd richest man, according to Forbes. “To realize that vision, we need to change the way we allocate and manage the nation’s airwaves.”

Basically, Google wants the right to broadcast where the broadcasters aren’t doing so right now. And there are a lot of vacant channels to take advantage of, potentially offering a boon to the broadband-hungry technology industry.
Continue reading →

Pirate Radio

by on May 27, 2008 · 4 comments

I’m doing a piece on the Seasteading Institute, and I’m reading their fascinating summary of past efforts to achieve sovereignty via the oceans. My favorite case so far is the pirate radio wars of the 1960s:

In the 1960’s, a new form of offshore activity emerged. Commercial radio as known in the United States didn’t exist in Europe at the time. With few exceptions, all that was to be heard were staid government stations. Then a ship named Veronica dropped anchor just off the Dutch coast, with a transmitter beaming programing filled with the latest popular music. Advertisers eagerly bought up all the available time at premium rates, and imitators soon followed in the Scandinavian and British markets…At first, there was considerable violence between ships; however, the practice of maintaining 24-hour watches soon reduced that greatly…

The governments of Europe were outraged, and applied the pejorative term “pirates” to the broadcasters, a term with which they weren’t entirely unhappy – due to its romantic connotations. Attempts were made to jam the ships’ transmissions, but the public outcry was too great…International agreements were entered into to ban broadcasting from ships, but the African country of Sierra Leone chose to offer its flag as a flag of convenience rather than subscribe to the treaties…

The British finally knocked their offshore broadcasters off the air by banning advertising on them by firms doing business in the United Kingdom…then the coup de grace was delivered: the opening of popular music stations on land.

I had no idea. It’s a good story, but I also find it striking that European governments managed to prevent the broadcasting of popular music until the 1960s. For all the bitching and moaning about Clear Channel, at least America’s commercial radio model is reasonably responsive to public demand.

Not all muni wi-fi experiments are failing, but some rather important ones seem to be in serious trouble. EarthLink is abandoning the Philadelphia wifi network, which so many people placed great faith in 3 years ago. And MetroFi is selling muni Wi-Fi networks in Portland and other cities. I’ve been reading some stories and commentaries about what’s gone wrong, but I’d be interested in hearing others offer up their thoughts here. Here are a few general explanations that I’ve culled from these reports for you to build on, or just offer your own:

1. Wrong technology: Need to wait for WiMax or something more efficient (scalable) than WiFi.
2. Lack of demand, Part 1: Existing broadband providers are filling whatever need is out there.
3. Lack of demand, Part 2: Just not as many people want broadband as policymakers think.
4. Lack of investment or competence, Part 1: The private contractors didn’t know what they were doing or just didn’t invest the necessary resources.
5. Lack of investment or competence, Part 2: The local government didn’t know what they were doing or just didn’t have the heart in it.
6. Lack of awareness: Municipalities and corporate partners failed to promote the benefits of the systems.
7. Private machinations: It’s a conspiracy by private interests to quash the competition!
8. Wait, they’re not failing: We just need to give them more time to pan out.
9. Others???