If the FCC had adopted the eligibility restrictions proposed by PISC in 2007, the United States would not have achieved the LTE leadership touted by current FCC Chairman Genachowski.
I was pleased to see FCC Chairman Genachowski praise the market-based policies of his predecessors in his remarks at Vox last week. He noted that the United States is currently leading the world in next generation mobile wireless services with 69 percent of the world’s LTE subscribers, which he attributes to “smart government policies.” He didn’t mention, however, that the “smart government policies” that led to America’s renewed mobile leadership were based on market principles adopted by the previous FCC. Continue reading →
Beyond the fact that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided to release the executive summary of its long awaited National Broadband Plan via a PDF of a scanned printed copy, there are other reasons to be concerned about the agency’s ability to centrally plan one of the most important, fast-moving sectors of our economy. In this video clip, I discussed some of my general reservations with the idea of a gargantuan government industrial policy for the broadband sector, and in this essay I noted how, from what we’ve see of the plan thus far [Executive Summary], the FCC appears to be engaged in some creative accounting techniques to fund the scheme.
Not everything in The Plan troubles me, however, and I hope to touch on some of the more sensible elements in a future post. But, as I was reading through it, I flagged 5 regulatory hot potatoes in the plan that threaten to derail the entire thing. In this regard, the parallels between the National Broadband Plan and the debate over health care “reform” are really quite striking. Indeed, it appears the Administration has once again settled upon a “go for broke” (potentially quite literally!) strategy. In both cases, they appear hell-bent and trying to do it all in the form of One Big Plan. Now, I won’t lie to you; such everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink public policy gambits make me nervous based simply on the sheer scale of the undertaking. When Washington tries to regulate massive chunks of the economy using bloated bills and bureaucracies inside the Beltway, it troubles me greatly. But even if the sound of Big Government on Steroids doesn’t raise your blood pressure, one would hope that the prospect of political gridlock and litigation hell would force advocates to scale back their ambitions a tad bit. After all, what good is a plan that can never pass or be implemented?
That’s why I was rather surprised to see these 5 regulatory initiatives teed up in the National Broadband Plan:
(1) Return of the Forced Access Regulatory Nightmare? The Plan says the FCC will, “Undertake a comprehensive review of wholesale competition rules to help ensure competition in fixed and mobile broadband services.” As my friend Randy May of the Free State Foundation notes: Continue reading →
After working my way through the Executive Summary of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Plan, there are a number of things I find troubling that I will get to in a subsequent post. But here’s the thing about “The Plan” that I found most surprising — even audacious — in its arrogance: The FCC wants us to believe the whole scheme is costless. The agency bases this astonishing claim on the following assumptions:
Given the plan’s goal of freeing 500 megahertz of spectrum, future wireless auctions mean the overall plan will be revenue neutral, if not revenue positive. The vast majority of recommendations do not require new government funding; rather, they seek to drive improvements in the government efficiency, streamline processes and encourage private activity to promote consumer welfare and national priorities. The funding requests relate to public safety, deployment to unserved areas and adoption efforts. If the spectrum auction recommendations are implemented, the plan is likely to offset the potential costs.
Let me translate: ”
Pay no attention to all the bills we are racking up, because spectrum revenues shall set us free!”
Perhaps that logic works in the reality-free zone we call the Beltway, but back in the real world this simply doesn’t add up. Regardless of how well-intentioned any of these goals and proposals may be, it should be equally clear that there is no free lunch, even with spectrum auction proceeds fueling the high-tech gravy train. The proposals and programs the FCC sets forth will impose serious economic costs that shouldn’t be so casually dismissed, especially using the weak reasoning that “improvements in the government efficiency” will magically manifest themselves thanks to massive new government intervention in the field. (If you think you’ve heard this one before, you have. See: The current health care debate.)
Moreover, if everything really does hang on the promise of spectrum auction revenues covering the broadband spending binge, well, bad news: The agency is
never going to bring in enough to cover what they’ve proposed here. The reason is simple: Most of the spectrum they want to grab is currently occupied by someone else! Continue reading →
Details are starting to trickle out about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Plan, which is due out tomorrow. Someone just posted the Executive Summary here. I haven’t had a chance to go through it all yet, but I’m looking forward to learning more about what the agency’s plans are on this front.
On Friday (again, before seeing any details), I offered some fairly mushy comments about the idea of national “plan” to the gang over at the excellent new site, FiveQsOnTech.com. The site has a great format: Five questions on technology and policy asked and answered (usually on tape) by technology policy wonks. I’m honored to be among the first couple of experts featured on the site, along with Markham Erickson of the Open Internet Coalition and Rob Atkinson of ITIF.
In the first 3 minutes of this second of the two videos I appear in, I offered some thoughts about “The Plan”:
http://www.youtube.com/v/sBRL2RfdMk4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
PFF has just released the transcript of an excellent panel discussion I moderated last week entitled, “Let’s Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum.” As I’ve mentioned here before, one of the hottest issues in DC right now is the question of broadcast TV spectrum reallocation. Blair Levin, who serves as the Executive Director of the Omnibus Broadband Initiative at the Federal Communications Commission, recently raised the possibility of reallocating a portion of broadcast television spectrum for alternative purposes, namely, mobile broadband. Such a “cash-for-spectrum” swap would give mobile broadband providers to spectrum they need to roll out next generation wireless broadband networks while making sure broadcaster receive compensation for any spectrum they hand over. The FCC just recently released a public notice on “Data Sought on Users of Spectrum,” (NBP Public Notice # 26) that looks into the matter. “This inquiry,” the agency says,” takes into account the value that the United States puts on free, over-the-air television, while also exploring market-based mechanisms for television broadcasters to contribute to the broadband effort any spectrum in excess of that which they need to meet their public interest obligations and remain financially viable.” Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee is set to hold a hearing on the issue next Tuesday.
PFF’s panel discussion on this issue featured an all-star cast of characters, including opening remarks by Blair Levin, and a terrific discussion ensued. [You can hear the full audio from the event here.] Down below I have highlighted some of the major points each speaker made during the discussion and also embedded the complete transcript in a Scribd reader. Also, just a reminder that my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin and I authored a short paper on this issue recently: “An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector.”
Continue reading →
Along with my colleague Barbara Esbin, the Director of PFF’s Center for Communications and Competition Policy, I have just released a new paper on discussing the possibility of reallocating a portion of broadcast television spectrum for alternative purposes, namely, mobile broadband. As I discussed here before, Blair Levin, the Executive Director of the FCC’s Omnibus Broadband Initiative, has been suggesting that it might be possible to craft a grand bargain whereby broadcasters get cash for some (or all) of their current spectrum allocations if they return spectrum to the FCC for reallocation and re-auction, likely to mobile broadband services.
In our paper, “An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector,” [PDF] Barbara and I argue that:
the benefits of such a deal could be enormous for wireless broadband providers, developers of digital technologies, and consumers. Expanding the pool of spectrum available for next-generation wireless broadband offerings will ensure that innovative new networks, devices, and services are made available to the public on a timely basis. Ultimately, that will mean more high-speed choices for consumers, especially those in rural areas harder to reach with high-speed wireline networks. Finally, more generally, anything that moves us in the direction of a freer market in spectrum is a good thing.
But fairness to broadcasters lies at the heart of this spectrum reallocation plan. If a deal can’t be structured that broadcasters would find acceptable, they should not be forced to come to the table. When we speak of an offer they can’t refuse, we mean one so attractive that no rational businessperson or investor would pass it up. It is essential broadcasters be willing partners in the deal, and be full participants in the process of shaping its contours.
Read the entire thing here, or below the fold as a Scribd document. Continue reading →
Potentially huge FCC development here, and one they actually has some sense to it. According to Kim McAvoy over at TV News Check.com:
FCC broadband czar Blair Levin earlier this month met with leading TV broadcasters in Washington to discuss the nation’s urgent need for more spectrum for wireless broadband access to the Internet and the possibility of broadcasters’ relinquishing most of their spectrum to help meet that demand. According to sources familiar with the Oct. 8 meeting with the board of the Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV), Levin suggested broadcasters might want to consider returning their spectrum in exchange for a share in the billions of dollars that would come from the auction of the spectrum to the wireless industry.
Broadcasting would retain just enough spectrum so that each station could provide a lifeline standard-definition service to the millions of TV viewers who still rely on over-the-air reception. Broadcasters could no longer offer over-the-air HD and second channels and mobile video would be off the table, but they could continue to provide a single channel of TV to every home in their markets as they do today — in full-blown HD via cable and satellite carriage and SD via the over-the-air lifeline service.
Wow, this is a very big deal, folks, since we are talking about a mother lode of prime spectrum that could be put to any variety of excellent alternative uses. The problem is, broadcasters will—rightly, in my opinion—protest that they have occupied that spectrum for a long, long time and they have something akin to a property right in their allocations. Of course, paying them to relocate might be a very sensible way to get them off that spectrum voluntarily. But the question is whether they should be
forced off of it and whether that is even legal. No doubt, any attempt to force them off would be held up in court for many years because of inevitable legal challenges.
There is another solution: Just give the broadcasters a full, unencumbered property right in their spectrum and let them sell it or use it however they wish. Some will protest that it’s not “fair” and that the broadcasters should never be given a property right in something they did not pay for to begin with. Yet, at some point we have to stop the endless search for what I have referred to as a “spectrum reparations policy” and just get on with life.
I think everyone can now agree that the old command-and-control regulatory regime for “zoning” spectrum has retarded innovation. Imagine if we told Apple back in the 1980s that, because they started in the PC business, they could never leave the PC business and offer other innovations. That would have been nuts! We’d never have the iPhone today. But that’s U.S. spectrum policy for broadcasting in a nutshell. As a broadcaster, it is
illegal for you to repurpose your spectrum for alternative uses. Stated different, spectrum innovation is a crime. How pathetic.
It’s time to change the rules and move forward. I applaud Blair Levin and the FCC for offering at least one solution, but if it doesn’t work, we should try the other: property rights and flexible use rights in spectrum. And here are 4 or 5 other ways to get the job done.
Yesterday I testified before the Maryland General Assembly to oppose HB 114. It’s a bad bill for consumers and online companies, and another iteration of the continuing war that traditional retailers have waged against e-commerce for the past few years. Last year NetChoice testified before Congress to oppose legislation that would would give retailers the power to force online marketplaces to interrogate their own customers about how they obtained items listed for sale.
HB 114 would require Maryland businesses and residents selling cosmetics, medicines, baby food and infant formula via an Internet auctions to notify the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene at least seven days prior to the auction. The bill applies only to sales using Internet auctions, not fixed-price format, and not newspaper classified ads. That right there makes you wonder.
The bill has been introduced under the theory of product safety. Safeway, Target, and the state retailers association all trumped up the dangers of selling baby food and infant formula online without citing any sort of actual harm. Or at least harm that is disproportionate to what exists at the physical store retail level.
There was also a lot of desperate hyperbole. A representative from Mars supermarkets (a Maryland chain) asserted that Internet auctions fund heroin addiction! Yes, testifying before state legislatures can be fun!
When you have bill proponents demonizing the Internet, it’s easy to see that the bill is about
competition prevention. Namely, to prevent Internet auction sites from benefiting Maryland consumers and helping businesses compete with traditional retailers in the sale of food and drug items.
Getting back to the window dressing of public health, Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.