Posts tagged as:

The First Amendment & Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You Wish For

by on December 17, 2009 · 6 comments

Robert Corn-RevereAs I noted here a few days ago, the Federal Communications Commission held a workshop on Tuesday about “Speech, Democratic Engagement, and the Open Internet.”  It was a shockingly one-sided affair with the deck being stacked almost entirely in favor of advocates of Net neutrality regulation. Worse yet, those advocates shamelessly made up spooky stories about a future of “private censorship” that could only be remedied by using the First Amendment as a club to beat private players into submission. The token opposition at this Chicken Little circus was Robert Corn-Revere, a Partner at the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Washington, D.C.   Bob set the record straight–both in terms of baseless accusations that were flying that day as well as the revisionist histories of the First Amendment that were being put forward. I’m happy to report that Bob allowed PFF to reprint his remarks as a new white paper entitled, “The First Amendment, the Internet & Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You Wish For.”

In his essay, Corn-Revere discusses the relationship between the First Amendment and regulatory policy, particularly the treatment of new communications technologies, and he warns that government regulation of broadband networks could “provide the vehicle for advancing new First Amendment theories for media regulation” and online speech and expression more generally.  “It should not be forgotten,” he argues, “that the federal government’s initial impulse was to censor the Internet and to subject it to a far lower level of First Amendment protection. It pursued this agenda for more than a decade but was blocked by a series of First Amendment rulings.”  The Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act are just two notable examples. Luckily, the courts determined that “the open Internet would be at great risk if the government is allowed to exercise such power,” he notes, and they struck down such laws.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Transcript of PFF Event on Broadcast Spectrum Reallocation

by on December 11, 2009 · 4 comments

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 →

SHARE: 4 comments

Is the FCC jumping the gun on broadband and the universal service fund?

by on December 2, 2009 · 0 comments

In a speech yesterday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski pledged to revisit the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service programs for telecommunications as part of the National Broadband Plan: 

 The key points for today are these: USF is a multi-billion dollar annual fund that continues to support yesterday’s communications infrastructure. The goal of universality is as important as ever — and to meet our country’s innovation goals, we need to reorient the fund to support broadband communications. This is a thorny issue, with no shortage of practical and statutory challenges. We need to wring savings out of the system, protect consumers, avoid flashcuts, while ultimately moving USF in the direction it needs to go to support our 21st century platform for innovation. 

The USF program spends approximately $7 billion annually. Most of the money goes to subsidize phone service in “high cost” areas. Eeuww – phone service.  So twentieth century! All of us who have not yet shifted 100% of our personal communications to Facebook and Twitter pay for the universal service fund via surcharges of about 12 percent on our wireless and  wireline phone bills, including VOIP. (Dirty little secret: you also pay for universal telephone service if you use a wireless broadband card, because each card is assigned a phone number.) 

Genachowski’s comment follows some rather interestingly-timed announcements from the FCC’s broadband task force. On November 13, the task force asked for public comment on the role the universal service fund and “intercarrier compensation” (another, more opaque set of transfers from consumers in general to rural phone companies) should play in the national broadband plan. Comments are due December 7. Five days after soliciting comments, on November 18, the FCC announced that the structure of the universal service fund is one of the “critical gaps” in the path to universal broadband.

I doubt the FCC has telepathically determined what the parties will say in the comments they file on December 7, but there’s no need to. The FCC has ground through so many rounds of comments on universal service reform that the problems and potential solutions are well-known. At a conference on universal service about five years ago, I recall one speaker commented, “Everything that can be said about universal service has already been said, but not everyone’s had a chance to say it, so that’s why we still have conferences on it.” About a year ago, the FCC almost used a court-imposed deadline as an opportunity to actually reform universal service and intercarrier compensation, but the commissioners failed to reach consensus.

Here are some major problems with the universal service fund, in no particular order:

  • It subsidizes voice phone service with built-in incentives for inefficiency on the part of providers.
  • It subsidizes wireless voice service without limiting the subsidy to one essential connection per household, so it has effectively created an entitlement to both wired and mobile phone service in rural areas.
  • The FCC does not measure or track the outcomes produced by the subsidies to see what they actually accomplish for the public. (Section 201 of the draft Boucher-Terry USF reform bill would require the FCC to adopt outcome-oriented performance measures.)
  • The contribution mechanism acts like a percentage tax that discourages use of price-sensitive services like long-distance, wireless voice, and wireless broadband.
  • The “death of distance” has slashed long-distance phone charges, which means wireless bears a growing percentage of the burden and the funding mechanism may well be unsustainable.

(For more detail on these issues, read the assortment comments on USF reform by various Mercatus Center colleagues and me here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. BTW, did I mention this issue has been beaten to death?)

So is the FCC jumping the gun, rushing to judgment on universal service before the comments are in?  Heck no. It’s about time.

SHARE: 0 comments

New York and Net Neutrality

by on November 20, 2009 · 6 comments

This morning, the Technology Committee of the New York City Council convened a large hearing on a resolution urging Congress to pass a robust Net Neutrality law. I was supposed to testify, but our narrowband transportation system prevented me from getting to New York. Here, however, is the testimony I prepared. It focuses on investment, innovation, and the impact Net Neutrality would have on both.

“Net Neutrality’s Impact on Internet Innovation” – by Bret Swanson – 11.20.09

SHARE: 6 comments

event: Dec. 1st Debate about Future of Broadcast TV Spectrum

by on November 18, 2009 · 7 comments

As I noted in a recent paper with my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin (“An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector“) an official at the Federal Communications Commission (Blair Levin) recently suggested that it might be possible to craft a grand bargain whereby television broadcasters get cash for some (or all) of their current spectrum if they return it to the FCC for reallocation and auction.  Such a deal could, eventually, open up significant amounts of prime spectrum for next-generation mobile broadband and data services.

Is such a deal feasible and in the best interests of broadcasters?  Is the arrangement necessary to encourage growth in broadband penetration consistent with the goals of the Recovery Act?  Will Congress go along with the deal, or would it be blocked as contrary to “the public interest?” Alternatively, would lawmakers back the deal but seek a significant cut of the auction proceeds, leaving less available for broadcasters?  These and other policy issues will be discussed at “ Let’s Make a Deal:  Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum,” a congressional seminar hosted by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. The event will be held Tuesday, December 1st from 9:00am to 11:00am in the Holeman Lounge, 13th Floor, at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW in Washington, DC.

Panelists confirmed so far for the event include:

  • Blair Levin, Executive Director, Omnibus Broadband Initiative, Federal Communications Commission
  • Coleman Bazelon, Principal, The Brattle Group
  • David Donovan, President, Association for Maximum Service Television
  • Kostas Liopiros, Principal, The Sun Fire Group
  • John K. Hane, Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • and 1 or 2 more to come!

I will be moderating the event.  Those interested in attending can register here.  Should be a spirited debate.

SHARE: 7 comments

Let’s Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum

by on November 10, 2009 · 6 comments

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 →

SHARE: 6 comments

Net Neutrality, Trade-Offs & the “Bandwidth Hog Tax”

by on October 25, 2009 · 8 comments

Joe Tighe, an IT Infrastructure Consultant, has an interesting essay up over at Circle ID.  He takes a hard look at Rep. Ed Markey’s proposed “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009” and makes an argument that many of us here have made ad nauseum — regulation involves trade-offs and unintended consequences:

One of the main problems with the proposed legislation is the lack of recognition of costs to provide internet services. Some applications, such as video are bandwidth hogs and require significantly greater network infrastructure and associated costs to deliver when compared to the network infrastructure costs to deliver email access. Under the proposed legislation, services providers would have to charge the low bandwidth users (casual browsers and email readers) more to offset the higher costs of the video users. One result of the proposed legislation would be less consumer choice and a hidden “bandwidth hog tax”. Today, most service providers offer tiered products and pricing to consumers and businesses to account for the additional costs to deliver bandwidth intensive applications. You pay more if you use more under the tiered pricing model. These are not “discriminatory” practices. Rather, tiered pricing and application prioritization are sound business models delivering reliable, profitable product choices and unburdened internet ecommerce. Consumers and businesses currently have choices. The proposed legislation takes away choice and increases costs to consumers and businesses.

Quite right.  Read the whole essay here.

SHARE: 8 comments

George Ou & Bret Swanson on Berkman Broadband Report

by on October 21, 2009 · 15 comments

Last night here on the TLF, Bret Swanson raised a number of objections with this FCC-commissioned report about international broadband comparisons, which was conducted by some folks at Harvard University’s Berkman Center. Meanwhile, over at the Digital Society blog, George Ou also offers a hard-nosed look at the Berkman broadband report and concludes “The underlying data cited by Berkman study is simply too flawed to be of any use.”  I recommend everyone check out both essays.  It will be interesting to hear how the Berkman folks respond.  Some of these international broadband comparisons are really fishy.  [Here’s a podcast we did on that issue two years ago.]

One quick point… Like Bret, I also found it shocking that–even though the report reads like an ode to forced access regulation–the Berkman folks didn’t spend much time discussing the result of America’s previous open-access regime. “The gaping, jaw-dropping irony of the report,” Bret argues, “was its failure even to mention the chief outcome of America’s previous open-access regime: the telecom/tech crash of 2000-02. We tried this before. And it didn’t work!”  Indeed, America’s regulatory experiment with forced access regulation involved a lot of well intentioned laws and regulation, and too many acronyms to count–CLECs, TELRIC, UNE-P, etc– but it did not result in serious, facilities-based competition.  Instead it offered us the fiction of competition through network-sharing, or what Peter Huber once referred to as building “networks out of paper.” The results were disastrous for investment during that period since regulatory uncertainly led to a lot of stunted innovation.

In sum, sharing is not competing.  You can socialize and commoditize old pipes for awhile and get decent results in the short-term, but you’ll sacrifice long-run investment and innovation if you do.  [For more background, see my recent essay on “The Fiction of Forced Access ‘Competition’ Revisited” and this old Cato piece on “UNE-P and the Future of Telecom “Competition” as well as Jeff Eisenach’s PFF white paper, “Broadband Policy: Does the U.S. Have It Right After All?”]

SHARE: 15 comments

Why Congestion Pricing for the iPhone & Broadband Makes Sense

by on October 7, 2009 · 17 comments

Interesting piece here from Slate’s Farhad Manjoo on why AT&T should dump unlimited data plans and end what he calls the “iPhone all-you-can-eat buffet.”  He notes that: “The typical smartphone customer consumes about 40 to 80 megabytes of wireless capacity a month. The typical iPhone customer uses 400 MB a month. AT&T’s network is getting crushed by that demand.” Because “some iPhone owners are hogging the network” and causing “a slowed-down wireless network,” Manjoo recommends a congestion pricing model as a method of balancing supply and demand:

How would my plan work? I propose charging $10 a month for each 100 MB you upload or download on your phone, with a maximum of $40 per month. In other words, people who use 400 MB or more per month will pay $40 for their plan, or $10 more than they pay now. Everybody else will pay their current rate—or less, as little as $10 a month. To summarize: If you don’t use your iPhone very much, your current monthly rates will go down; if you use it a lot, your rates will increase. (Of course, only your usage of AT&T’s cellular network would count toward your plan; what you do on Wi-Fi wouldn’t matter.) To understand the advantages of tiered pricing, let’s look at AT&T’s current strategy of spending billions to build more network space. Why won’t this work? For the same reason building more roads doesn’t reduce traffic—more capacity increases the attractiveness of driving, which brings a lot more cars to the road, which leads to more gridlock.

Congestion pricing and metering is something I’ve written quite a bit about here in the context of wireline broadband (1, 2, 3), but Manjoo is equally correct that it could be applied for wireless data plans.  It has the added value of taking pressure off lawmakers to impose Net neutrality regulation since pricing of the pipe becomes an effective substitute for most other forms of network management. In other words, price, don’t block bandwidth-hogging customers and applications.  The problem, Manjoo explains: Continue reading →

SHARE: 17 comments

The Chicken Littles of Broadband

by on October 5, 2009 · 20 comments

Is the Internet in clear and present danger?   Yes, say proponents of neutrality regulation of the Internet.  In his speech last month calling for FCC neutrality regulations, Chairman Julius Genachowski stopped short of quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, but did all he could to paint a dire picture of the Internet’s future: “This is not about protecting the Internet against imaginary dangers,” he said.  If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.”

The warning evoked a certain sense of deja vu, and for good reason.  As Link Hoewing over at Verizon pointed out the other day, proponents of neutrality regulation “have been yelling ‘fire’ in the movie theater ever since 1999,” when they decried the trend toward cable firms providing exclusive ISP service on broadband networks, saying that the move would result in “more price increases and fewer choices for consumers and content providers alike.”

The end has been nigh many times since.  In 2003, when a court upheld the FCC’s decision not to regulate broadband as a telecommunications service, Commissioner Michael Copps said “the Internet may be dying,”  glumly predicting that if the Commission continued its free-market policies, “we will look back, shake our heads and wonder whatever happened to that open, dynamic and liberating Internet that once we knew.”  Continue reading →

SHARE: 20 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →