Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai today announced plans to expand the role of economic analysis at the FCC in a speech at the Hudson Institute. This is an eminently sensible idea that other regulatory agencies (both independent and executive branch) could learn from.

Pai first made the case that when the FCC listened to its economists in the past, it unlocked billions of dollars of value for consumers. The most prominent example was the switch from hearings to auctions in order to allocate spectrum licenses. He perceptively noted that the biggest effect of auctions was the massive improvement in consumer welfare, not just the more than $100 billion raised for the Treasury. Other examples of the FCC using the best ideas of its economists include:

• Use of reverse auctions to allocate universal service funds to reduce costs.
• Incentive auctions that reward broadcasters for transferring licenses to other uses – an idea initially proposed in a 2002 working paper by Evan Kwerel and John Williams at the FCC.
• The move from rate of return to price cap regulation for long distance carriers.

More recently, Pai argued, the FCC has failed to use economics effectively. He identified four key problems:

1. Economics is not systematically employed in policy decisions and often employed late in the process. The FCC has no guiding principles for conduct and use of economic analysis.
2. Economists work in silos. They are divided up among bureaus. Economists should be able to work together on a wide variety of issues, as they do in the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Economics, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s economic analysis unit, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis.
3. Benefit-cost analysis is not conducted well or often, and the FCC does not take Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis (which assesses effects of regulations on small entities) seriously. The FCC should use Office of Management and Budget guidance as its guide to doing good analysis, but OMB’s 2016 draft report on the benefits and costs of federal regulations shows that the FCC has estimated neither benefits nor costs of any of its major regulations issued in the past 10 years. Yet executive orders from multiple administrations demonstrate that “Serious cost-benefit analysis is a bipartisan tradition.”
4. Poor use of data. The FCC probably collects a lot of data that’s unnecessary, at a paperwork cost of $800 million per year, not including opportunity costs of the private sector. But even useful data are not utilized well. For example, a few years ago the FCC stopped trying to determine whether the wireless market is effectively competitive even though it collects lots of data on the wireless market.

To remedy these problems, Pai announced an initiative to establish an Office of Economics and Data that would house the FCC’s economists and data analysts. An internal working group will be established to collect input within the FCC and from the public. He hopes to have the new office up and running by the end of the year. The purpose of this change is to give economists early input into the rulemaking process, better manage the FCC’s data resources, and conduct strategic research to help find solutions to “the next set of difficult issues.”

Can this initiative significantly improve the quality and use of economic analysis at the FCC?

There’s evidence that independent regulatory agencies are capable of making some decent improvements in their economic analysis when they are sufficiently motivated to do so. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authorizing statue contains language that requires benefit-cost analysis of regulations when the commission seeks to determine whether they are in the public interest. Between 2005 and 2011, the SEC lost several major court cases due to inadequate economic analysis.

In 2012, the commission’s general counsel and chief economist issued new economic analysis guidance that pledged to assess regulations according to the principal criteria identified in executive orders, guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, and independent research. In a recent study, I found that the economic analysis accompanying a sample of major SEC regulations issued after this guidance was measurably better than the analysis accompanying regulations issued prior to the new guidance. The SEC improved on all five aspects of economic analysis it identified as critical: assessment of the need for the regulation, assessment of the baseline outcomes that will likely occur in the absence of new regulation, identification of alternatives, and assessment of the benefits and costs of alternatives.

Unlike the SEC, the FCC faces no statutory benefit-cost analysis requirement for its regulations. Unlike the executive branch agencies, the FCC is under no executive order requiring economic analysis of regulations. Unlike the Federal Trade Commission in the early 1980s, the FCC faces little congressional pressure for abolition.

But Congress is considering legislation that would require all regulatory agencies to conduct economic analysis of major regulations and subject that analysis to limited judicial review. Proponents of executive branch regulatory review have always contended that the president has legal authority to extend the executive orders on regulatory impact analysis to cover independent agencies, and perhaps President Trump is audacious enough to try this. Thus, it appears Chairman Pai is trying to get the FCC out ahead of the curve.

The FCC appears to be dragging the TV industry, which is increasingly app- and Internet-based, into years of rulemakings, unnecessary standards development and oversight, and drawn-out lawsuits. The FCC hasn’t made a final decision but the general outline is pretty clear. T he FCC wants to use a 20 year-old piece of corporate welfare, calculated to help a now-dead electronics retailer, as authority to regulate today’s TV apps and their licensing terms. Perhaps they’ll succeed in expanding their authority over set top boxes and TV apps. But as TV is being revolutionized by the Internet the legacy providers are trying to stay ahead of the new players (Netflix, Amazon, Layer 3), regulating TV apps and boxes will likely impede the competitive process and distract the FCC from more pressing matters, like spectrum and infrastructure.

In the 1996 Telecom Act, a provision was added about set top boxes sold by cable and satellite companies. In the FCC’s words, Section 629 charges the FCC “to assure the commercial availability of devices that consumers use to access multichannel video programming.”  The law adds that such devices, boxes, and equipment must be from “manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor.” In English: Congress wants to ensure that consumers can gain access to TV programming via devices sold by parties other than cable and satellite TV companies.

The FCC’s major effort to effect this this law did not end well. To create a market for “non-affiliated equipment,” the FCC created rules in 1998 that established the CableCARD technology, a module designed to the FCC’s specifications that could be inserted into “nonaffiliated” set top boxes.

CableCARD was developed and released to consumers, but after years of complex lawsuits and technology dead ends, cable technology had advanced and few consumers demanded CableCARD devices. The results reveal the limits of lawmaker-designed “competition.” In 2010, 14 years after passage of the law and all those years of agency resources, fewer than 1% of pay-TV customers had “unaffiliated” set top boxes.

It’s a strangely specific statute with no analogues for other technology devices. Why was this law created? Multichannel News reporting in 1998, representative of other reports at the time, has some clues.

[Rep.] Bliley, whose district includes the headquarters of electronics retailer Circuit City, sponsored the provision that requires the FCC to adopt rules to promote the retail sale of cable set-top boxes and navigation devices. 

So it it was a small addition to the Act, presumably added at the behest of Circuit City, so that electronics retailers and device companies could sell more consumer devices.

The good news is that by the law’s straightforward terms and intent, mission: accomplished. Despite CableCARD’s failure, electronics retailers today are selling devices that give consumers access to TV programming. That’s because, increasingly, TV providers are letting their apps do much of the work that set top boxes do. Today, many consumers can watch TV programming by installing a provider’s streaming TV app on their device of their choice, manufactured and sold by dozens of companies, like Samsung, Apple, and Google, and retailers. Unfortunately, Circuit City shuttered its last stores in 2009 and wasn’t around to benefit.

But the new FCC proposal says, no, mission: not accomplished. There’s some interpretative gymnastics to reach this conclusion. The FCC says “devices” and “equipment” should be interpreted broadly in order to capture apps made by pay-TV providers. Yet, while “devices and equipment” is broad enough to capture software like apps, it is not broad enough to capture actual devices and equipment, like smartphones, smart TVs, tablets, computers, and Chromecasts that consumers use to access pay-TV programming.

This strained reading of statutory language will create a regulatory mess out of the evolving pay-TV industry, that already has labyrinthine regulations.

But if you look at the history of FCC regulation, and TV regulation in particular, it’s pretty unexceptional. Advocates for FCC regulation have long seen a competitive and vibrant TV marketplace as a threat to the agency’s authority.

As former FCC chairman Newton Minow warned in his 1995 book, Abandoned in the Wasteland, the FCC would lose its ability to regulate TV if it didn’t find new justifications:

A television system with hundreds or thousands of channels—especially channels that people pay to watch—not only destroys the notion of channel scarcity upon which the public-trustee theory rests but simultaneously breathes life and logic into the libertarian model.

Minow advocated, therefore, that the FCC needed to find alternative reasons to retain some control of the TV industry, including affordability, social inclusiveness, education of youth, and elimination of violence. Special interests have manufactured a crisis in TV–“monopoly control” [sic] of set top boxes by TV distributors. As Scott Wallsten and others have suggested, bundling a set top box with a TV subscription is likely not a competitive problem and the FCC’s remedies are unlikely to work. 

The FCC’s blinkered view of the TV industry is necessary because the US TV and media marketplace is blossoming. Consumers have never had more access to programming on more devices. More than 100 standalone streaming video-on-demand products launched in 2015 alone. T he major TV providers are going where consumers are and launching their own streaming apps. The market won’t develop perfectly to the Commissioners’ liking and there will be hiccups, but competition is vigorous, output and quality are high, and consumers are benefiting.

The FCC decision to devote its highly-educated agency staff and resources (which will balloon when challenged in court or during the app specification proceedings) to an arcane consumer issue with such cynical origins is a lamentable waste of agency resources.

This an agency that for decades has done a hundred things poorly. In an increasingly competitive telecom and media marketplace, it should instead do a handful of things well. (Commissioner Pai has proposed useful infrastructure reforms and Commissioner Rosenworcel has an interesting proposal, that I’ve written about, to deploy federal spectrum into commercial markets). Let’s hope the agency leadership reassesses the necessity the this proceeding before dragging the TV industry into another wild goose chase.

Related research: This week Mercatus released a paper by MA Economics Fellow Joe Kane and me about the FCC’s reinvention as a social and cultural regulator: “The FCC and Quasi–Common Carriage A Case Study of Agency Survival.”

For decades Congress has gradually deregulated communications and media. This poses a significant threat to the FCC’s jurisdiction because it is the primary regulator of communications and media. The current FCC, exhibiting alarming mission creep, has started importing its legacy regulations to the online world, like Title II common carrier regulations for Internet providers. The FCC’s recent proposal to “open up” TV set top boxes is consistent with the FCC’s reinvention as the US Internet regulator, and now the White House has supported that push.

There are a lot of issues with the set top box proposal but I’ll highlight a few. I really don’t even like referring to it as “the set top box proposal” because the proposal is really aimed at the future of TV–video viewing via apps and connected devices. STBs are a sideshow and mostly just provide the FCC a statutory hook to regulate TV apps. Even that “hook” is dubious–the FCC arbitrarily classifies apps and software as “navigation devices” but concludes that actual TV devices like Chromecast, Roku, smartphones, and tablets aren’t navigation devices. And, despite what activists say, this isn’t about “cable” either but all TV distributors (“MVPDs”) like satellite and telephone companies and Google Fiber, most of whom are small TV players.

First, the entire push for the proposal is based on the baseless notion that “charging monthly STB fees reveals that cable companies are abusing their market power.” I say baseless because cable companies have lost 14 million TV subscribers since 2002 to phone and satellite companies’ TV offerings (Verizon FiOS TV, Dish, Google Fiber, etc.), which suggests cable doesn’t have market power to charge anticompetitive prices. This is bolstered by the fact that the rates cable companies charge are consistent with what their smaller phone and satellite competitors charge for STBs. In fact, the STB monthly rates cable companies charge are pretty much identical to what municipal-owned and -operated TV stations charge. Even competing STB companies like TiVo charge monthly fees.

Second, as I’ve written, the FCC’s plans simply won’t work. The FCC tried “opening up” cable boxes for years with CableCard. That debacle resulted in ten years of regulations and FCC-directed standards and had only a marginal effect on the STB market. At conclusion, under 5% of the STB market went to “competitive” STB makers like TiVo. This latest plan has an even smaller chance of success because the FCC is not simply regulating cable boxes, but also boxes from satellite TV and IPTV distributors and their apps. The FCC is telling these hundreds of companies using dozens of technologies, codecs, and standards to develop interoperable standards so that other companies can retransmit the TV programming the MVPDs have bundled. It’s impractical and likely to fail, as Larry Downes noted in Recode, which is why the FCC provides few details about how this will work.

Third, what little progress the FCC does make in forcing MVPDs to make their TV programming accessible to competitors’ video apps and devices will tend to make broadband and TV less competitive. What the FCC is trying to do is force, say, Comcast’s TV programming to be available to certain application makers who want to retransmit that programming. So whatever streams to the Comcast Xfinity app will need to also work on competing apps if a competitor wants to re-bundle that programming.

The problem is that TV packages are how these companies compete and FCC rules will hinder that competitive process. TV distributors, including Netflix, purchase rights for sports and other programming to steal subscribers away from competitors. For instance, DirecTV attracts many customers solely because they have NFL Sunday Ticket and Amazon and Netflix original programming is a huge draw to their video services. TV programming and bundling that programming drives the competitive process. The Google Fiber folks likewise found out the importance of TV programming to compete. They planned originally to offer only broadband but came to find out there was little market for a broadband-only provider. Most people want TV packaged with broadband and Google was compelled by market forces to go out and purchase TV programming to attract customers. (On the other hand, some cable companies like Cable One are getting out of the TV game because programmers have significant leverage.)

Even non-MVPDs like mobile carriers and tech companies, including Twitter, Yahoo, and Facebook, are using TV programming to compete and they are investing big into video programming. Verizon Wireless has exclusive NFL programming, T-Mobile recently gave its subscribers a year of streaming access to most baseball games via a MLB.TV deal, and AT&T is giving mobile subscribers access to DirecTV programming. The point is, companies compete by experimenting with different service and program bundles. By forcing programming onto competing applications, devices, and platforms, the FCC short-circuits these competitive dynamics.

Fourth, speaking of purchasing rights, there is misinformation spreading about what TV access consumers are entitled to. For instance, there’s a recent Public Knowledge post that simply distorts the economics and law of TV licensing. Notably, the post says the FCC’s proposal “makes it easier for subscribers to control their own experience when accessing the programming that they…have paid for and to which they have lawful access.” This is simply false. Just because Walking Dead has been licensed for viewing on your television does not mean it’s lawful (or beneficial) for a TV competitor to take that same programming and send it to you via their own app.

Copyright holders re-sell the same programming to different distributors, sometimes several times over. Programmers have exclusive licensing deals with various distributors and device makers, so just because your cable contract allows you to watch it on your TV does not mean you have lawful access anywhere. For instance, the NFL has licensed Thursday Night NFL games to CBS and NBC for broadcast TV viewing, to the NFL Network for cable TV viewing, to Verizon Wireless for smartphone viewing, and to Twitter for computer viewing. Same programming, four different distribution technologies and five different companies. When programming can be easily repurposed, as the FCC would like, that upends entire business models of hundreds of media companies and distributors.

Further, it injects the FCC into copyright licensing issues. Put aside for the moment the debates, that the Public Knowledge post touches on, whether copyright holders are too restrictive. Whatever your views, reforming program licensing should come from Congress and the courts–not the FCC through this convoluted proposal. In fact, change via the courts is what Public Knowledge implicitly endorses. It was the courts–not the FCC–that made VCRs, DVRs, and DVR cloud storage legal in the face of copyright holder opposition. When the FCC last got involved in intervening in TV rights assignments in the 1960s and 1970s, the agency created broadcast retransmission rights, which have plagued communications and copyright law with complexity and lawsuits to this day.

Quite simply, the FCC is coercing companies to make their contracted-for TV content available to others who didn’t contract for it. This proposal will create a mess in television when implemented. It’s an unnecessary intervention into a marketplace–video programming–that is working. We are in what many media critics regard as the Golden Age of Television. That’s because there are so many TV distributors competing for programming. It’s a sellers’ market. The supposed problems here–high STB prices and copyright restrictiveness–are problems for competition agencies and the courts, respectively, not the FCC. The FCC wants to fix what’s not broken and start regulating apps and online video. It does nothing to improve the television market and simply makes more tech and media companies dependent on the FCC’s good graces for competitive survival.

At the same time FilmOn, an Aereo look-alike, is seeking a compulsory license to broadcast TV content, free market advocates in Congress and officials at the Copyright Office are trying to remove this compulsory license. A compulsory license to copyrighted content gives parties like FilmOn the use of copyrighted material at a regulated rate without the consent of the copyright holder. There may be sensible objections to repealing the TV compulsory license, but transaction costs–the ostensible inability to acquire the numerous permissions to retransmit TV content–should not be one of them.

Economists can devise situations where transaction costs are immense and compulsory licenses are needed for a well-functioning market. Today, as when the compulsory license was created, the conventional wisdom is that TV compulsory licenses are still needed to prevent market failure.

In the 1970s, cable companies were capturing broadcast channels and retransmitting it to their subscribers for free because, per the Supreme Court, cable was a passive transmitter and didn’t need copyright permission. In 1976, to correct this perceived unfairness, Congress amended the Copyright Act and said this cable retransmission did necessitate copyright authorization. To make it easier on cable systems (most of which were small, local operations), the law created a compulsory license to broadcast TV content like NBC, ABC, and CBS programming.

The compulsory license primarily does two things: it provides cable operators local TV content royalty-free and provides non-local (“distant”) content (imagine a DC cable company importing a WGN broadcast from Chicago) at regulated rates.

As the House report says:

The Committee recognizes…that it would be impractical and unduly burdensome to require every cable system to negotiate with every copyright owner whose work was retransmitted by a cable system.

The Copyright Office, early on, opposed the compulsory license and has called for the repeal of the compulsory license to broadcast TV content since 1981. As the Register of Copyrights said at a 2000 congressional hearing,

A compulsory license is not only a derogation of a copyright owner’s exclusive rights, but it also prevents the marketplace from deciding the fair value of copyrighted works through government-set price controls.

But when the issue of repeal comes up, many parties cite “significant transaction costs” as a problem with conventional, direct licensing. GAO echoed these objections in an April 2015 report,

we have previously found that obtaining the copyright holders’ permission for all this content would be challenging. Each television program may have multiple copyright holders, and rebroadcasting an entire day of content may require obtaining permission from hundreds of copyright holders. The transaction costs of doing so make this impractical for cable operators.

That sounds sensible but we have powerful contradictory evidence: for decades, hundreds of TV channels requiring the bundling of thousands of copyright licenses are distributed seamlessly and completely outside of the compulsory license regime.

So it’s a mystery to me why analysts still talk about the difficulty in acquiring copyright permission from hundreds or thousands of rights holders. TV distributors outside of the compulsory license scheme do these complex content acquisition deals routinely. Hundreds of non-broadcast channels–like ESPN, CNN, Bravo, HGTV, MTV, and Fox News–are distributed to tens of millions of households via private contractual agreements and without regulated compulsory licenses. TBS, uniquely, in the late 1990s went from a broadcast channel, subject to a compulsory license, to a cable channel distributed via direct licensing with no apparent ill effects. Analysts raising the transactions costs for keeping compulsory licenses, to my knowledge, never explain why the market failure they predict is absent for these hundreds of cable and satellite channels.

Further, while cable and satellite companies don’t need to negotiate broadcast TV copyrights because of the compulsory license, the FCC’s retransmission consent process, part of the 1992 Cable Act, requires these companies to negotiate payment to retransmit broadcast signals–signals that contain the underlying copyrighted content. This process, though bizarre and artificial, is essentially the same negotiation cable and satellite companies would need to enter into in a world without compulsory license.

Finally, online programming from distributors like Hulu, Netflix, and (potentially) Apple TV operate entirely outside of the retrans-compulsory copyright system and undermine the transaction costs objection. Netflix, for instance, doesn’t negotiate with every individual right holder like GAO and Congress imply is necessary in a non-compulsory license regime. Content aggregators and intermediaries, not regulation, streamline the rights acquisition process without the need for a compulsory license. The ostensibly burdensome transaction costs don’t stop Netflix from licensing over 10,000 titles worth around $9 billion.

Certainly, converting from compulsory licensing to direct licensing has issues. Changing legal regimes can be costly and there is a need to prevent anticompetitive withholding of content. Understandably, many cable and satellite distributors oppose repeal of compulsory licenses if the complex FCC system of retransmission consent and must carry are maintained. I tend to agree. Nevertheless, it’s time to strike the transaction cost argument from the policy discussion. The predicted market failure is overcome by market forces.

For more background on TV regulation, see Adam Thierer and Brent Skorup, Video Marketplace Regulation: A Primer on the History of Television Regulation and Current Legislative Proposals (Mercatus working paper).

Congress is considering reforming television laws and solicited comment from the public last month. On Friday, I submitted a letter encouraging the reform effort. I attached the paper Adam and I wrote last year about the current state of video regulations and the need for eliminating the complex rules for television providers.

As I say in the letter, excerpted below, pay TV (cable, satellite, and telco-provided) is quite competitive, as this chart of pay TV market share illustrates. In addition to pay TV there is broadcast, Netflix, Sling, and other providers. Consumers have many choices and the old industrial policy for mass media encourages rent-seeking and prevents markets from evolving.

Dear Chairman Upton and Chairman Walden:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s December 2014 questions on video regulation.

…The labyrinthine communications and copyright laws governing video distribution are now distorting the market and therefore should be made rational. Congress should avoid favoring some distributors at the expense of free competition. Instead, policy should encourage new entrants and consumer choice.

The focus of the committee’s white paper on how to “foster” various television distributors, while understandable, was nonetheless misguided. Such an inquiry will likely lead to harmful rules that favor some companies and programmers over others, based on political whims. Congress and the FCC should get out of “fostering” the video distribution markets completely. A light-touch regulatory approach will prevent the damaging effects of lobbying for privilege and will ensure the primacy of consumer choice.

Some of the white paper’s questions may actually lead policy astray. Question 4, for instance, asks how we should “balance consumer welfare and the rights of content creators” in video markets. Congress should not pursue this line of inquiry too far. Just consider an analogous question: how do we balance consumer welfare and the interests of content creators in literature and written content? The answer is plain: we don’t. It’s bizarre to even contemplate.

Congress does not currently regulate the distribution markets of literature and written news and entertainment. Congress simply gives content producers copyright protection, which is generally applicable. The content gets aggregated and distributed on various platforms through private ordering via contract. Congress does not, as in video, attempt to keep competitive parity between competing distributors of written material: the Internet, paperback publishers, magazine publishers, books on tape, newsstands, and the like. Likewise, Congress should forego any attempt at “balancing” in video content markets. Instead, eliminate top-down communications laws in favor of generally applicable copyright laws, antitrust laws, and consumer protection laws.

As our paper shows, the video distribution marketplace has changed drastically. From the 1950s to the 1990s, cable was essentially consumers’ only option for pay TV. Those days are long gone, and consumers now have several television distributors and substitutes to choose from. From close to 100 percent market share of the pay TV market in the early 1990s, cable now has about 50 percent of the market. Consumers can choose popular alternatives like satellite- and telco-provided television as well as smaller players like wireless carriers, online video distributors (such as Netflix and Sling), wireless Internet service providers (WISPs), and multichannel video and data distribution service (MVDDS or “wireless cable”). As many consumers find Internet over-the-top television adequate, and pay TV an unnecessary expense, “free” broadcast television is also finding new life as a distributor.

The New York Times reported this month that “[t]elevision executives said they could not remember a time when the competition for breakthrough concepts and creative talent was fiercer” (“Aiming to Break Out in a Crowded TV Landscape,” January 11, 2015). As media critics will attest, we are living in the golden age of television. Content is abundant and Congress should quietly exit the “fostering competition” game. Whether this competition in television markets came about because of FCC policy or in spite of it (likely both), the future of television looks bright, and the old classifications no longer apply. In fact, the old “silo” classifications stand in the way of new business models and consumer choice.

Therefore, Congress should (1) merge the FCC’s responsibilities with the Federal Trade Commission or (2) abolish the FCC’s authority over video markets entirely and rely on antitrust agencies and consumer protection laws in television markets. New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark, and other countries have merged competition and telecommunications regulators. Agency merger streamlines competition analyses and prevents duplicative oversight.

Finally, instead of fostering favored distribution channels, Congress’ efforts are better spent on reforms that make it easier for new entrants to build distribution infrastructure. Such reforms increase jobs, increase competition, expand consumer choice, and lower consumer prices.

Thank you for initiating the discussion about updating the Communications Act. Reform can give America’s innovative telecommunications and mass-media sectors a predictable and technology neutral legal framework. When Congress replaces industrial planning in video with market forces, consumers will be the primary beneficiaries.

Sincerely,

Brent Skorup Research Fellow, Technology Policy Program Mercatus Center at George Mason University

President Obama recently announced his wish for the FCC to preempt state laws that make building public broadband networks harder. Per the White House, nineteen states “have held back broadband access . . . and economic opportunity” by having onerous restrictions on municipal broadband projects.

Much of the White House announcement misrepresents the situation. Most of these so-called state restrictions on public broadband are reasonable considering the substantial financial risk public networks pose to taxpayers. Minnesota and Colorado, for instance, require approval from local voters before spending money on a public network. Nevada’s “restriction” is essentially that public broadband is only permitted in the neediest, most rural parts of the state. Some states don’t allow utilities to provide broadband because utilities have a nasty habit of raising, say, everyone’s electricity bills because the money-losing utility broadband network fails to live up to revenue expectations. And so on.

The US government has spent billions on broadband, and much of it goes to public broadband networks. The activists’ response to the carriers, who obviously complain about this “competition,” is essentially, “maybe now you’ll upgrade and compete harder.”

Public networks are unwise and costly. Every dollar diverted to some money-losing public network is one less to use on worthy societal needs. There are serious problems with publicly-funded retail broadband networks. A few come to mind:

1. The economic benefits of municipal broadband are dubious. A recent Mercatus economics paper by researcher Brian Deignan showed disappointing results for municipal broadband. The paper uses 23 years of BLS data from 80 cities that have deployed broadband and analyzes municipal broadband’s effect on 1) quantity of businesses; 2) employee wages; and 3) employment. Ultimately, the data suggest municipal broadband has almost zero effect on the private sector.

On the plus side, municipal broadband is associated with a 3 percent increase in the number of business establishments in a city. However, there is a small, negative effect on employee wages. There is no effect on private employment but the existence of a public broadband network is associated with a 6 percent increase in local government employment. The substantial taxpayer risk for such modest economic benefits leads many states to reasonably conclude these projects aren’t worth the trouble.

2. There are serious federalism problems with the FCC preempting state laws. Matthew Berry, FCC Commissioner Pai’s chief of staff, explains the legal risks. Cities are creatures of state law and states have substantial powers to regulate what cities do. In some circumstances, Congress can preempt state laws, but as the Supreme Court has held, for an agency to preempt state laws, Congress must provide a clear statement that the FCC is authorized to preempt. Absent a clear statement from Congress, it’s unlikely the FCC could constitutionally preempt state laws regulating municipal broadband.

3. Broadband networks are hard work. Tearing up streets, attaching to poles, and wiring homes, condos, apartments is expensive and time-consuming. It costs thousands of dollars per home passed and the take-up rates are uncertain. Truck-rolls for routine maintenance and customer service cost hundreds of dollars per pop. Additionally, broadband network design is growing increasingly complex as several services converge to IP networks. Interconnection requires complex commercial agreements. Further, carriers are starting to offer additional services using software-defined networks and network function virtualization. I’m skeptical that city managers can stay cutting-edge years into the future. The costs for failed networks will fall to taxpayers.

4. City governments are just not very good at supplying triple play services, as the Phoenix Center and others have pointed out. People want phone, Internet, and television in one bill (and video-on-demand service). Cities will often find that there is a lack of interest in a broadband connection that doesn’t also provide traditional television as well. Google Fiber (not a public network, obviously) initially intended to offer only broadband service. However, they quickly found out that potential subscribers wanted their broadband and video bundled together into one contract. The Google Fiber team had to scramble to put together TV packages consumers are accustomed to. If the very competent planners at Google Fiber weren’t aware of this consumer habit, the city planners in Moose Lake and Peoria budgeting for municipal broadband may miss it, too. Further, city administrators are not particularly good at negotiating competitive video bundles (municipal cable revealed this) because of their small size and lack of expertise.

5. A municipal network can chase away commercial network expansion and investment. This, of course, is the main complaint of the cable and telco players. If there is a marginal town an ISP is considering serving or upgrading, the presence of a “public competitor” makes the decision easy. Competing against a network with ready access to taxpayer money is senseless.

6. When cities build networks where ISPs already are serving the public, ISPs do not take it laying down, either. ISPs use their considerable size and industry expertise to their advantage, like adding must-have channels to basic cable packages. The economics are particularly difficult for a city entering the market. Broadband networks have high up-front costs but fairly low marginal costs. This makes price reductions by incumbents very attractive in order to limit customer defections to the entrant. Dropping the price or raising the speeds in neighborhoods where the city builds and frustrating city customer acquisition is a common practice. You can look back at the late 1990s when municipal cable was briefly popular. Cities often hemorrhaged tax dollars when faced with hard-ball tactics and their penetration rates never reached the optimistic projections.

There are other complications that turn public broadband into expensive boondoggles. People often say in surveys they would pay more for ultra-fast broadband but when actually offered it, many refuse to pay higher prices for higher speeds, particularly when the TV channels offered in the bundle are paltry compared to the “slower” existing providers. When cities do lose money, and they often do, a utility-run broadband network will often cross-subsidize the failing broadband service. Electric utility customers’ dollars are, say, then diverted to maintaining broadband. Further, private carriers can drag lawsuits out to prevent city networks. And your run-of-the-mill city contractor corruption and embezzlement are also possibilities.

I can imagine circumstances where municipal broadband makes sense. However, the President and the FCC are doing the public a disservice by promoting widespread publicly-funded broadband in violation of state laws. This political priority, combined with the probable Title II order next month, signals an inauspicious start to 2015.

Congressional debates about STELA reauthorization have resurrected the notion that TV stations “must provide a free service” because they “are using public spectrum.” This notion, which is rooted in 1930s government policy, has long been used to justify the imposition of unique “public interest” regulations on TV stations. But outdated policy decisions don’t dictate future rights in perpetuity, and policymakers abandoned the “public spectrum” rationale long ago.

All wireless services use the public spectrum, yet none of them are required to provide a free commercial service except broadcasters. Satellite television operators, mobile service providers, wireless Internet service providers, and countless other commercial spectrum users are free to charge subscription fees for their services.

There is nothing intrinsic in the particular frequencies used by broadcasters that justifies their discriminatory treatment. Mobile services use spectrum once allocated to broadcast television, but aren’t treated like broadcasters.

The fact that broadcast licenses were once issued without holding an auction is similarly irrelevant.  All spectrum licenses were granted for free before the mid-1990s. For example, cable and satellite television operators received spectrum licenses for free, but are not required to offer their video services for free.

If the idea is to prevent companies who were granted free licenses from receiving a “windfall”, it’s too late. As Jeffrey A. Eisenach has demonstrated, “the vast majority of current television broadcast licensees [92%] have paid for their licenses through station transactions.”

The irrelevance of the free spectrum argument is particularly obvious when considering the differential treatment of broadcast and satellite spectrum. Spectrum licenses for broadcast TV stations are now subject to competitive bidding at auction while satellite television licenses are not. If either service should be required to provide a free service on the basis of spectrum policy, it should be  satellite television.

Although TV stations were loaned an extra channel during the DTV transition, the DTV transition is over. Those channels have been returned and were auctioned for approximately $19 billion in 2008. There is no reason to hold TV stations accountable in perpetuity for a temporary loan.

Even if there were, the loan was  not free. Though TV stations did not pay lease fees for the use of those channels, they nevertheless paid a heavy price. TV stations were required to invest substantial sums in HDTV technology and to broadcast signals in that format long before it was profitable. The FCC required “rapid construction of digital facilities by network-affiliated stations in the top markets, in order to expose a significant number of households, as early as possible, to the benefits of DTV.” TV stations were thus forced to “bear the risks of introducing digital television” for the benefit of consumers, television manufacturers, MVPDs, and other digital media.

The FCC did not impose comparable “loss leader” requirements on MVPDs. They are free to wait until consumer demand for digital and HDTV content justifies upgrading their systems — and they are still lagging TV stations by a significant margin. According to the FCC, only about half of the collective footprints of the top eight cable MVPDs had been transitioned to all-digital channels at the end of 2012. By comparison, the DTV transition was completed in 2009.

There simply is no satisfactory rationale for requiring broadcasters to provide a free service based on their use of spectrum or the details of past spectrum licensing decisions. If the applicability of a free service requirement turned on such issues, cable and satellite television subscribers wouldn’t be paying subscription fees.

Shortly after Tom Wheeler assumed the Chairmanship at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), he summed up his regulatory philosophy as “competition, competition, competition.” Promoting competition has been the norm in communications policy since Congress adopted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in order to “promote competition and reduce regulation.” The 1996 Act has largely succeeded in achieving competition in communications markets with one glaring exception: broadcast television. In stark contrast to the pro-competitive approach that is applied in other market segments, Congress and the FCC have consistently supported policies that artificially limit the ability of TV stations to compete or innovate in the communications marketplace.

Radio broadcasting was not subject to regulatory oversight initially. In the unregulated era, the business model for over-the-air broadcasting was “still very much an open question.” Various methods for financing radio stations were proposed or attempted, including taxes on the sale of devices, private endowments, municipal or state financing, public donations, and subscriptions. “We are today so accustomed to the dominant role of the advertiser in broadcasting that we tend to forget that, initially, the idea of advertising on the air was not even contemplated and met with widespread indignation when it was first tried.”

Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934 thus provided the FCC with broad authority to authorize over-the-air subscription television service (STV). When the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this provision, it held that “subscription television is entirely consistent with [the] goals” of the Act. Analog STV services did not become widespread in the marketplace, however, due in part to regulatory limitations imposed on such services by the FCC. As a result, advertising dominated television revenue in the analog era.

The digital television (DTV) transition offered a new opportunity for TV stations to provide STV services in competition with MVPDs. The FCC had initially hoped that “multicasting” and other new capabilities provided by digital technologies would “help ensure robust competition in the video market that will bring more choices at less cost to American consumers.”

Despite the agency’s initial optimism, regulatory restrictions once again crushed the potential for TV stations to compete in other segments of the communications marketplace. When broadcasters proposed offering digital STV services with multiple broadcast and cable channels in order to compete with MVPDs, Congress held a hearing to condemn the innovation. Chairmen from both House and Senate committees threatened retribution against broadcasters if they pursued subscription television services — “There will be a quid pro quo.” Broadcasters responded to these Congressional threats by abandoning their plans to compete with MVPDs.

It’s hard to miss the irony in the 1996 Act’s approach to the DTV transition. Though the Act’s stated purposes are to “promote competition and reduce regulation, it imposed additional regulatory requirements on television stations that have stymied their ability to innovate and compete. The 1996 Act broadcasting provision requires that the FCC impose limits on subscription television services “so as to avoid derogation of any advanced television services, including high definition television broadcasts, that the Commission may require using such frequencies,” and prohibits TV stations from being deemed an MVPD. The FCC’s rules require TV stations to “transmit at least one over-the-air video programming signal at no direct charge to viewers” because “free, over-the-air television is a public good, like a public park, and might not exist otherwise.

These and other draconian legislative and regulatory limitations have forced TV stations to follow the analog television business model into the 21st Century while the rest of the communications industry innovated at a furious pace. As a result of this government-mandated broadcast business model, TV stations must rely on advertising and retransmission consent revenue for their survival.

Though the “public interest” status of TV stations may once have been considered a government benefit, it is rapidly becoming a curse. Congress and the FCC have both relied on the broadcast public interest shibboleth to impose unique and highly burdensome regulatory obligations on TV stations that are inapplicable to their competitors in the advertising and other potential markets. This disparity in regulatory treatment has increased dramatically under the current administration — to the point that is threatening the viability of broadcast television.

Here are just three examples of the ways in which the current administration has widened the regulatory chasm between TV stations and their rivals:

• In 2012, the FCC required only TV stations to post “political file” documents online, including the rates charged by TV stations for political advertising; MVPDs are not required to post this information online. This regulatory disparity gives political ad buyers and incentive to advertise on cable rather than broadcast channels and forces TV stations to disclose sensitive pricing information more widely than their competitors.
• This year the FCC prohibited joint sales agreements for television stations only; MVPDs and online content distributors are not subject to any such limitations on their advertising sales. This prohibition gives MVPDs and online advertising platforms a substantial competitive advantage in the market for advertising sales.
• This year the FCC also prohibited bundled programming sales by broadcasters only; cable networks are not subject to any limitations on the sale of programming in bundles. This disparity gives broadcast networks an incentive to avoid limitations on their programming sales by selling exclusively to MVPDs (i.e., becoming cable networks).

The FCC has not made any attempt to justify the differential treatment — because there is no rational justification for arbitrary and capricious decision-making.

Sadly, the STELA process in the Senate is threatening to make things worse. Some legislative proposals would eliminate retransmission consent and other provisions that provide the regulatory ballast for broadcast television’s government mandated business model  without eliminating the mandate. This approach would put a quick end to the administration’s “death by a thousand cuts” strategy with one killing blow. The administration must be laughing itself silly. When TV channels in smaller and rural markets go dark, this administration will be gone — and it will be up to Congress to explain the final TV transition.

Today is a big day in Congress for the cable and satellite (MVPDs) war on broadcast television stations. The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the compulsory licenses for broadcast television programming in the Copyright Act, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee is voting on a bill to reauthorize “STELA” (the compulsory copyright license for the retransmission of distant broadcast signals by satellite operators). The STELA license is set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress reauthorizes it, and MVPDs see the potential for Congressional action as an opportunity for broadcast television to meet its Waterloo. They desire a decisive end to the compulsory copyright licenses, the retransmission consent provision in the Communications Act, and the FCC’s broadcast exclusivity rules — which would also be the end of local television stations.

The MVPD industry’s ostensible motivations for going to war are retransmission consent fees and television “blackouts”, but the  real motive is advertising revenue.

The compulsory copyright licenses prevent MVPDs from inserting their own ads into broadcast programming streams, and the retransmission consent provision and broadcast exclusivity agreements prevent them from negotiating directly with the broadcast networks for a portion of their available advertising time. If these provisions were eliminated, MVPDs could negotiate directly with broadcast networks for access to their television programming and appropriate TV station advertising revenue for themselves.

The real motivation is in the numbers. According to the FCC’s most recent media competition report, MVPDs paid a total of approximately $2.4 billion in retransmission consent fees in 2012. (See 15th Report, Table 19) In comparison, TV stations generated approximately $21.3 billion in advertising that year. Which is more believable: (1) That paying $2.4 billion in retransmission consent fees is “just not sustainable” for an MVPD industry that generated nearly $149 billion from video services in 2011 (See 15th Report, Table 9), or (2) That MVPDs want to appropriate $21.3 billion in additional advertising revenue by cutting out the “TV station middleman” and negotiating directly for television programming and advertising time with national broadcast networks? (Hint: The answer is behind door number 2.)

What do compulsory copyright licenses, retransmission consent, and broadcast exclusivity agreements have to do with video advertising revenue?

• The compulsory copyright licenses prohibit MVPDs substituting their own advertisements for TV station ads: Retransmission of a broadcast television signal by an MVPD is “actionable as an act of infringement” if the content of the signal, including “any commercial advertising,” is “in any way willfully altered by the cable system through changes, deletions, or additions” (see 17 U.S.C. § 111(c)(3), 119(a)(5), and 122(e));
• The retransmission consent provision prohibits MVPDs from negotiating directly with television broadcast networks for access to their programming or a share of their available advertising time: An MVPD cannot retransmit a local commercial broadcast television signal without the “express authority of the originating station” (see 47 U.S.C. § 325(b)(1)(A)); and
• Broadcast exclusivity agreements (also known as non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity agreements) prevent MVPDs from circumventing the retransmission consent provision by negotiating for nationwide retransmission consent with one network-affiliated own-and-operated TV station. (If an MVPD were able to retransmit the TV signals from only one television market nationwide, MVPDs could, in effect, negotiate with broadcast networks directly, because broadcast programming networks own and operate their own TV stations in some markets.)

The effect of the compulsory copyright licenses, retransmission consent provision, and broadcast exclusivity agreements is to prevent MVPDs from realizing any of the approximately $20 billion in advertising revenue generating by broadcast television programming every year.

Why did Congress want to prevent MVPDs from realizing any advertising revenue from broadcast television programming?

Congress protected the advertising revenue of local TV stations because TV stations are legally prohibited from realizing any subscription revenue for their primary programming signal. (See 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)) Congress chose to balance the burden of the broadcast business model mandate with the benefits of protecting their advertising revenue. The law forces TV stations to rely primarily on advertising revenue to generate profits, but the law also protects their ability to generate advertising revenue. Conversely, the law allows MVPDs to generate both subscription revenue and advertising revenue for their own programming, but prohibits them from poaching advertising revenue from broadcast programming.

MVPDs want to upset the balance by repealing the regulations that make free over-the-air television possible  without repealing the regulations that require TV stations to provide free over-the-air programming. Eliminating only the regulations that benefit broadcasters while retaining their regulatory burdens is not a free market approach — it is a video marketplace firing squad aimed squarely at the heart of TV stations.

Adopting the MVPD version of video regulation reform would not kill broadcast programming networks. They always have the options of becoming cable networks and selling their programming and advertising time directly to MVPDs or distributing their content themselves directly over the Internet.

The casualty of this so-called “reform” effort would be local TV stations, who are required by law to rely on advertising and retransmission consent fees for their survival. Policymakers should recognize that killing local TV stations for their advertising revenue is the ultimate goal of current video reform efforts before adopting piecemeal changes to the law. If policymakers intend to kill TV stations, they should not attribute the resulting execution to the “friendly fire” of unintended consequences. They should recognize the legitimate consumer and investment-backed expectations created by the current statutory framework and consider appropriate transition mechanisms after a comprehensive review.

Adam and I recently published a Mercatus research paper titled Video Marketplace Regulation: A Primer on the History of Television Regulation And Current Legislative Proposals, now available on SSRN. I presented the paper at a Silicon Flatirons academic conference last week.

We wrote the paper for a policy audience and students who want succinct information and history about the complex world of television regulation. Television programming is delivered to consumers in several ways, including via cable, satellite, broadcast, IPTV (like Verizon FiOS), and, increasingly, over-the-top broadband services (like Netflix and Amazon Instant Video). Despite their obvious similarities–transmitting movies and shows to a screen–each distribution platform is regulated differently.

The television industry is in the news frequently because of problems exacerbated by the disparate regulatory treatment. The Time Warner Cable-CBS dispute last fall (and TWC’s ensuing loss of customers), the Aereo lawsuit, and the Comcast-TWC proposed merger were each caused at least indirectly by some of the ill-conceived and antiquated TV regulations we describe. Further, TV regulation is a “thicket of regulations,” as the Copyright Office has said, which benefits industry insiders at the expense of most everyone else.

We contend that overregulation of television resulted primarily because past FCCs, and Congress to a lesser extent, wanted to promote several social objectives through a nationwide system of local broadcasters:

1) Localism 2) Universal Service 3) Free (that is, ad-based) television; and 4) Competition

These objectives can’t be accomplished simultaneously without substantial regulatory mandates. Further, these social goals may even contradict each other in some respects.

For decades, public policies constrained TV competitors to accomplish those goals. We recommend instead a reliance on markets and consumer choice through comprehensive reform of television laws, including repeal of compulsory copyright laws, must-carry, retransmission consent, and media concentration rules.

At the very least, our historical review of TV regulations provides an illustrative case study of how regulations accumulate haphazardly over time, demand additional “correction,” and damage dynamic industries. Congress and the FCC focused on attaining particular competitive outcomes through industrial policy, unfortunately. Our paper provides support for market-based competition and regulations that put consumer choice at the forefront.

Aereo’s antenna system is frequently characterized perjoratively as a Rube Goldberg contraption, including in the Supreme Court oral arguments. Funny enough, Preston Padden, a veteran television executive, has characterized the legal system producing over-the-air broadcast television–Aereo’s chief legal opponents–precisely the same way. It’s also ironic that Aereo is in a fight for its life over alleged copyright violations since communications law diminishes the import of copyright law and makes copyright almost incomprehensible. Larry Downes calls the legal arguments for and against Aereo a “tangled mess.” David Post at the Volokh Conspiracy likewise concluded the situation is “pretty bizarre, when you think about it” after briefly exploring how copyright law interacts with communications law.

I agree, but Post actually understates how distorted the copyright law becomes when TV programs pass through a broadcaster’s towers, as opposed to a cable company’s headend. In particular, a broadcaster, which is mostly a passive transmitter of TV programs, gains more control over the programs than the copyright owners. It’s nearly impossible to separate the communications law distortions from the copyright issues, but the Aereo issue could be solved relatively painlessly by the FCC. It’s unfortunate copyright and television law intertwine like this because a ruling adverse to Aereo could potentially–and unnecessarily–upend copyright law.

This week I’ve seen many commentators, even Supreme Court justices, mischaracterize the state of television law when discussing the Aereo case. This is a very complex area and below is my attempt to lay out some of the deeper legal issues driving trends in the television industry that gave rise to the Aereo dispute. Crucially, the law is even more complex than most people realize, which benefits industry insiders and prevents sensible reforms.

The FCC, and Congress to a lesser extent, has gone to great lengths to protect broadcasters from competition from other television distributors, as the Copyright Office has said. There is nothing magical about free broadcast television. It’s simply another distribution platform that competes with several other TV platforms, including cable, satellite, IPTV (like AT&T U-Verse), and, increasingly, over-the-top streaming (like Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video).

Hundreds of channels and thousands of copyrighted programs are distributed by these non-broadcast distributors (mostly) through marketplace negotiations.

Strange things happen to copyrights when programs are delivered via the circuitous route 1) through a broadcast tower and 2) to a cable/satellite operator. Namely, copyright owners, by law, lose direct control over their intellectual property when local broadcasters transmit it. At that point, regulators, not copyright holders, determine the nature of bargaining and the prices paid.

Distribution of non-local broadcast programming

Right away, an oddity arises. Copyright treatment of local broadcasts differs from distant (non-local) broadcasts. Cable and satellite companies have never paid copyright royalties for signals from a local broadcast. (This is one reason the broadcast lawyer denied that Aereo is a cable company during Supreme Court oral arguments–Aereo merely transmits local broadcast signals.) But if a cable or satellite company retransmits signals from a non-local (“distant”) broadcaster, the company pays the Copyright Office for a copyright license. However, this license is not bargained for with the copyright holder; it is a compulsory license. Programmers are compelled to license their program and in return receive the price set by the panel of Copyright Office officials.

The Copyright Office has asked Congress for over 30 years to eliminate the compulsory license system for distant broadcasts. There are few major distant broadcasters carried by cable companies but the most popular is WGN, a Chicago broadcaster that is carried on many cable systems across the country. The programmers complain they’re underpaid and the Copyright Office has the impossible task of deciding a fair price for a compulsory copyright license. Alleged underpayment is partly why TBS, in 1998, converted from a distant broadcast network to a pure cable network, where TBS could bargain with cable and satellite companies directly.

Distribution of local broadcast programming

Yet things get even stranger when you examine how local broadcasts are treated. Copyright is, as best as I can tell, a nullity when a program is broadcast by a local broadcaster and then retransmitted by a cable company. Until 1992, no payments passed from cable companies to either the broadcaster or copyright holder of broadcast programs. Congress made the retransmission of locally-broadcasted programs royalty-free. Cable companies captured the free over-the-air signals and sold those channels along with cable channels to subscribers.

Why would broadcasters and programmers stand for this? They tolerated this for decades because the FCC requires broadcasts to be “free”–that is, funded by ads. Local broadcasters and programmers benefited from cable distribution because cable TV reaches more viewers that broadcasters can’t reach.

Then in 1992, as cable TV grew, Congress decided to rebalance the competitive scales. Congress created a new property right that ensured local broadcasters got paid by cable companies–the retransmission right. Congress did not require a copyright royalty payment. So cable (and later satellite) still didn’t pay copyright royalties for local broadcasts. The “retransmission right” is held by, not the copyright owner, but the owner of the broadcast tower. This is a bizarre situation where, as the Copyright Office says, Congress accords a “licensee of copyrighted works (broadcasters) greater proprietary rights than the owner of copyright.”

Welcome to the bizarro world of broadcast television that Aereo finds itself. On the bright side, perhaps the very public outcry over Aereo means the laws that permitted Aereo’s regulatory arbitrage will be scrutinized and rationalized. In the short term, I’m hoping the Supreme Court, as Downes mentions, punts the case to a lower court for more fact-finding. Aereo is a communications law case disguised as a copyright case. These issues really need to be before the FCC for a determination about what is a “cable operator” and an “MVPD.” A finding that Aereo is either one would end this copyright dispute.

After yesterday’s FCC meeting, it appears that Chairman Wheeler has a finely tuned microscope trained on broadcasters and a proportionately large blind spot for the cable television industry.

Yesterday’s FCC meeting was unabashedly pro-cable and anti-broadcaster. The agency decided to prohibit television broadcasters from engaging in the same industry behavior as cable, satellite, and telco television distributors and programmers. The resulting disparity in regulatory treatment highlights the inherent dangers in addressing regulatory reform piecemeal rather than comprehensively as contemplated by the #CommActUpdate. Congress should lead the FCC by example and adopt a “clean” approach to STELA reauthorization that avoids the agency’s regulatory mistakes.

The FCC meeting offered a study in the way policymakers pick winners and losers in the marketplace without acknowledging unfair regulatory treatment. It’s a three-step process.

• First, the policymaker obfuscates similarities among issues by referring to substantively similar economic activity across multiple industry segments using different terminology.
• Second, it artificially narrows the issues by limiting any regulatory inquiry to the disfavored industry segment only.
• Third, it adopts disparate regulations applicable to the disfavored industry segment only while claiming the unfair regulatory treatment benefits consumers.

The broadcast items adopted by the FCC yesterday hit all three points.

“Broadcast JSAs”

The FCC adopted an order prohibiting two broadcast television stations from agreeing to jointly sell more than 15% of their advertising time using the three-step process described above.

• First, the FCC referred to these agreements as “JSA’s” or “joint sales agreements”.
• Second, the FCC prohibited these agreements only among broadcast television stations even though the largest cable, satellite, and telco video distributors sell their advertising time through a single entity.
• Third, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said all the agency was “doing [yesterday was] leveling the negotiating table” for negotiations involving the largely unrelated issue of “retransmission consent”, even though the largest cable, satellite, and telco video distributors all sell their advertising through a single entity.

If the FCC had  acknowledged that cable, satellite, and telcos jointly sell their advertising, and had the FCC included them in its inquiry as well, Chairman Wheeler could not have kept a straight face while asserting that all the agency was doing was leveling the playing field. Hence the power of obfuscatory terminology and artificially narrowed issues.

“Broadcast Exclusivity Agreements”

The FCC also issued a further notice yesterday seeking comment on broadcast “non-duplication exclusivity agreements” and “syndicated exclusivity agreements.” These agreements, which are collectively referred to as “broadcast exclusivity agreements”, are a form of territorial exclusivity: They provide a local television station with the exclusive right to transmit broadcast network or syndicated programming in the station’s local market only.

Unlike cable, satellite, and telco television distributors, broadcast television stations are  prohibited by law from entering into exclusive programming agreements with other television distributors in the same market: The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) prohibits television stations from entering into exclusive retransmission consent agreements — i.e., a television station must make its programming available to all other television distributors in the same market. Cable, satellite, and telco distributors are legally permitted to enter into exclusive programming agreements on a nationwide basis — e.g., DIRECTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket.

If the FCC is concerned by the limited form of territorial exclusivity permitted for broadcasters, it should be even more concerned about the broader exclusivity agreements that have always been permitted for cable, satellite, and telco television distributors. But the FCC nevertheless used the three-step process for picking winners and losers to limit its consideration of exclusive programming agreements to broadcasters  only.

• First, the FCC uses unique terminology to refer to “broadcast” exclusivity agreements (i.e., “non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity”), which obfuscates the fact that these agreements are a limited form of exclusive programming agreements.
• Second, the FCC is seeking comment on exclusive programming agreements between broadcast television stations and programmers only even though satellite and other video programming distributors have entered into exclusive programming agreements.
• Third, it appears the pretext for limiting the scope of the FCC’s inquiry to broadcasters will again be “leveling the playing field” between broadcasters and other television distributors — to benefit consumers, of course.

“Joint Retransmission Consent Negotiations”

Finally, the FCC prohibited a television broadcast station ranked among the top four stations (as measured by audience share) from negotiating “retransmission consent” jointly with another top four station in the same market if the stations are not commonly owned. The FCC reasoned that “the threat of losing programming of two more top four stations at the same time gives the stations undue bargaining leverage in negotiations with [cable, satellite, and telco television distributors].”

As an economic matter, “retransmission consent” is essentially a substitute for the free market copyright negotiations that could occur absent the “compulsory copyright license” in the 1976 Copyright Act and an earlier Supreme Court decision interpreting the term “public performance”. In the absence of retransmission consent, compensation for the use of programming provided by broadcast television stations and programming networks would be limited to the artificially low amounts provided by the compulsory copyright license.

To the extent retransmission consent is merely another form of program licensing, it is indistinguishable from negotiations between cable, satellite and telco distributors and cable programming networks — which typically involve the sale of  bundled channels. If bundling two television channels together “gives the stations undue bargaining leverage” in retransmission consent negotiations, why doesn’t a cable network’s bundling of multiple channels together for sale to a cable, satellite, or telco provider give the cable network “undue bargaining leverage” in its licensing negotiations? The FCC avoided this difficultly using the old one, two, three approach.

• First, the FCC used the unique term “retransmission consent” to refer to the sale of programming rights by broadcasters.
• Second, the FCC instituted a proceeding seeking comment only on “retransmission consent” rather than all programming negotiations.
• Third, the FCC found that lowering retransmission consent costs could lower the prices consumers pay to cable, satellite, and telco television distributors — to remind us that it’s all about consumers, not competitors.

If it were really about lowering prices for consumers, the FCC would also have considered whether prohibiting channel bundling by cable programming networks would lower consumer prices too. For reasons left unexplained, cable programmers are permitted to bundle as many channels as possible in their licensing negotiations.

“Clean STELA”

After yesterday’s FCC meeting, it appears that Chairman Wheeler has a finely tuned microscope trained on broadcasters and a proportionately large blind spot for the cable television industry. To be sure, the disparate results of yesterday’s FCC meeting could be unintentional. But, even so, they highlight the inherent dangers in any piecemeal approach to industry regulation. That’s why Congress should adopt a “clean” approach to STELA reauthorization and reject the demands of special interests for additional piecemeal legislative changes. Consumers would be better served by a more comprehensive effort to update video regulations.

Some recent tech news provides insight into the trajectory of broadband and television markets. These stories also indicate a poor prognosis for a net neutrality. Political and ISP opposition to new rules aside (which is substantial), even net neutrality proponents point out that “neutrality” is difficult to define and even harder to implement. Now that the line between “Internet video” and “television” delivered via Internet Protocol (IP) is increasingly blurring, net neutrality goals are suffering from mission creep.

First, there was the announcement that Netflix, like many large content companies, was entering into a paid peering agreement with Comcast, prompting a complaint from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings who argued that ISPs have too much leverage in negotiating these interconnection deals.

Second, Comcast and Apple discussed a possible partnership whereby Comcast customers would receive prioritized access to Apple’s new video service. Apple’s TV offering would be a “managed service” exempt from net neutrality obligations.

Interconnection and managed services are generally not considered net neutrality issues. They are not “loopholes.” They were expressly exempted from the FCC’s 2010 (now-defunct) rules. However, net neutrality proponents are attempting to bring interconnection and managed services to the FCC’s attention as the FCC crafts new net neutrality rules. Net neutrality proponents have an uphill battle already, and the following trends won’t help.

1. Interconnection becomes less about traffic burden and more about leverage.

The ostensible reason that content companies like Netflix (or third parties like Cogent) pay ISPs for interconnection is because video content unloads a substantial amount of traffic onto ISPs’ last-mile networks.

Someone has to pay for network upgrades to handle the traffic. Typically, the parties seem to abide by the equity principle that whoever is sending the traffic–in this case, Netflix–should bear the costs via paid peering. That way, the increased expense is incurred by Netflix who can spread costs across its subscribers. If ISPs incurred the expense of upgrades, they’d have to spread costs over its subscriber base, but many of their subscribers are not Netflix users.

That principle doesn’t seem to hold for WatchESPN, which is owned by Disney. WatchESPN is an online service that provides live streams of ESPN television programming, like ESPN2 and ESPNU, to personal computers and also includes ESPN3, an online-only livestream of non-marquee sports. If a company has leverage in other markets, like Disney does in TV programming markets, I suspect ISPs can’t or won’t charge for interconnection. These interconnection deals are non-public but Disney probably doesn’t pay ISPs for transmitting WatchESPN traffic onto ISPs’ last-mile networks. The existence of a list of ESPN’s “Participating Providers” indicates that ISPs actually have to pay ESPN for the privilege of carrying WatchESPN content.

Netflix is different from WatchESPN in significant ways (it has substantially more traffic, for one). However, it is a popular service and seems to be flexing its leverage muscle with its Open Connect program, which provided higher-quality videos to participating ISPs. It’s plausible that someday video sources like Netflix will gain leverage, especially as broadband competition increases, and ISPs will have to pay content companies for traffic, rather than the reverse. When competitive leverage is the issue, antitrust agencies, not the FCC, have the appropriate tools to police business practices.

2. The rise of managed services in video.

Managed services include services ISPs provide to customers like VoIP and video-on-demand (VOD). They are on data streams that receive priority for guaranteed quality assurance since customers won’t tolerate a jittery phone call or movie stream. Crucially, managed services are carried on the same physical broadband network but are on separate data streams that don’t interfere with a customer’s Internet service.

The Apple-Comcast deal, if it comes to fruition, would be the first major video offering provided as a managed service. (Comcast has experimented with managed services affiliated with Xbox and TiVo.) Verizon is also a potential influential player since it just bought an Intel streaming TV service. Future plans are uncertain but Verizon might launch a TV product that it could sell outside of the FiOS footprint with a bundle of cable channels, live television, and live sports.

Net neutrality proponents decry managed services as exploiting a loophole in the net neutrality rules but it’s hardly a loophole. The FCC views managed services as a social good that ISPs should invest in. The FCC’s net neutrality advisory committee last August released a report and concluded that managed services provide “considerable” benefits to consumers. The report went on to articulate principles that resemble a safe harbor for ISPs contemplating managed services. Given this consensus view, I see no reason why the FCC would threaten managed services with new rules.

3. Uncertainty about what is “the Internet” and what is “television.”

Managed services and other developments are blurring the line between the Internet and television, which makes “neutrality” on the Internet harder to define and implement. We see similar tensions in phone service. Residential voice service is already largely carried via IP. According to FCC data, 2014 will likely be the year that more people subscribe to VoIP service than plain-old-telephone service. The IP Transition reveals the legal and practical tensions when technology advances make the FCC’s regulatory silos–“phone” and “Internet”–anachronistic.

Those same technology changes and legal ambiguity are carrying over into television. TV is also increasingly carried via IP and it’s unclear where “TV” ends and “Internet video” begins. This distinction matters because television is regulated heavily while Internet video is barely regulated at all. On one end of the spectrum you have video-on-demand from a cable operator. VOD is carried over a cable operator’s broadband lines but fits under the FCC’s cable service rules. On the other end of the spectrum you have Netflix and YouTube. Netflix and YouTube are online-only video services delivered via broadband but are definitely outside of cable rules.

In the gray zone between “TV” and “Internet video” lies several services and physical networks that are not entirely in either category. These services include WatchESPN and ESPN3, which are owned by a cable network and are included in traditional television negotiations but delivered via a broadband connection.

IPTV, also, is not entirely TV nor Internet video. AT&T’s UVerse, Verizon’s FiOS, and Google Fiber’s television product are pure or hybrid IPTV networks that “look” like cable or satellite TV to consumers but are not. AT&T, Verizon, and Google voluntarily assent to many, but not all, cable regulations even though their service occupies a legally ambiguous area.

Finally, on the horizon, are managed video and gaming services and “virtual MSOs” like Apple’s or Verizon’s video products. These are probably outside of traditional cable rules–like program access rules and broadcast carriage mandates–but there is still regulatory uncertainty.

Broadband and video markets are in a unique state of flux. New business models are slowly emerging and firms are attempting to figure out each other’s leverage. However, as phone and video move out of their traditional regulatory categories and converge with broadband services, companies face substantial regulatory compliance risks. In such an environment, more than ever, the FCC should proceed cautiously and give certainty to firms. In any case, I’m optimistic that experts’ predictions will be borne out: ex ante net neutrality rules are looking increasingly rigid and inappropriate for this ever-changing market environment.

Related Posts

1. Yes, Net Neutrality is a Dead Man Walking. We Already Have a Fast Lane.
2. Who Won the Net Neutrality Case?
3. If You’re Reliant on the Internet, You Loathe Net Neutrality.

Most conservatives and many prominent thinkers on the left agree that the Communications Act should be updated based on the insight provided by the wireless and Internet protocol revolutions. The fundamental problem with the current legislation is its disparate treatment of competitive communications services. A comprehensive legislative update offers an opportunity to adopt a technologically neutral, consumer focused approach to communications regulation that would maximize competition, investment and innovation.

Though the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must continue implementing the existing Act while Congress deliberates legislative changes, the agency should avoid creating  new regulatory disparities on its own. Yet that is where the agency appears to be heading at its meeting next Monday.

A recent ex parte filing indicates that the FCC is proposing to deem joint retransmission consent negotiations by two of the top four Free-TV stations in a market a per se violation of the FCC’s good-faith negotiation standard and adopt a rebuttable presumption that joint negotiations by non-top four station combinations constitute a failure to negotiate in good faith.” The intent of this proposal is to prohibit broadcasters from using a single negotiator during retransmission consent negotiations with Pay-TV distributors.

This prohibition would apply in  all TV markets, no matter how small, including markets that lack effective competition in the Pay-TV segment. In small markets without effective competition, this rule would result in the absurd requirement that marginal TV stations with no economies of scale negotiate alone with a cable operator who possesses market power.

In contrast, cable operators in these markets would remain free to engage in joint negotiations to purchase their programming. The Department of Justice has issued a press release “clear[ing] the way for cable television joint purchasing” of national cable network programming through a single entity. The Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded that allowing nearly 1,000 cable operators to jointly negotiate programming prices would not facilitate retail price collusion because cable operators typically do not compete with each other in the sale of programming to consumers.

Joint retransmission consent negotiations don’t facilitate retail price collusion either. Free-TV distributors don’t compete with each other for the sale of their programming to consumers — they provide their broadcast signals to consumers for  free over the air. Pay-TV operators complain that joint agreements among TV stations are nevertheless responsible for retail price increases in the Pay-TV segment, but have not presented evidence supporting that assertion. Pay-TV’s retail prices have increased at a steady clip for years irrespective of retransmission consent prices.

To the extent Pay-TV distributors complain that joint agreements increase TV station leverage in retransmission consent negotiations, there is no evidence of harm to competition. The retransmission consent rules  prohibit TV stations from entering into exclusive retransmission consent agreements with any Pay-TV distributor — even though Pay-TV distributors are allowed to enter into such agreements for cable programming — and the FCC has determined that Pay- and Free-TV distributors do not compete directly for viewers. The absence of any potential for competitive harm is especially compelling in markets that lack effective competition in the Pay-TV segment, because the monopoly cable operator in such markets is the de facto single negotiator for Pay-TV distributors.

It is even more surprising that the FCC is proposing to prohibit joint sales agreements among Free-TV distributors. This recent development apparently stems from a DOJ Filing in the FCC’s incomplete media ownership proceeding.

A fundamental flaw exists in the DOJ Filing’s analysis: It failed to consider whether the relevant product market for video advertising includes other forms of video distribution, e.g., cable and online video programming distribution. Instead, the DOJ relied on precedent that considers the sale of advertising in  non-video media only.

Similarly, the Department has repeatedly concluded that the purchase of broadcast television spot advertising constitutes a relevant antitrust product market because advertisers view spot advertising on broadcast television stations as sufficiently distinct from advertising on other media (such as radio and newspaper). (DOJ Filing at p.8)

The DOJ’s conclusions regarding joint sales agreements are clearly based on its incomplete analysis of the relevant product market.

Therefore, vigorous rivalry between multiple independently controlled broadcast stations in each local radio and television market ensures that businesses, charities, and advocacy groups can reach their desired audiences at competitive rates. (Id. at pp. 8-9, emphasis added)

The DOJ’s failure to consider the availability of advertising opportunities provided by cable and online video programming renders its analysis unreliable.

Moreover, the FCC’s proposed rules would result in another video market double standard. Cable, satellite, and telco video programming distributors, including DIRECTV, AT&T U-verse, and Verizon FIOS, have entered into a joint agreement to sell advertising through a  single entity, NCC Media (owned by Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox Media). NCC Media’s Essential Guide to planning and buying video advertising says that cable programming has surpassed 70% of all viewing to ad-supported television homes in Prime and Total Day, and 80% of Weekend daytime viewing. According to NCC, “This viewer migration to cable [programming] is one of the best reasons to shift your brand’s media allocation from local broadcast to Spot Cable,” especially with the advent of NCC’s new consolidated advertising platform. (Essential Guide at p. 8) The Essential Guide also states:

• “It’s harder than ever to buy the GRP’s [gross rating points] you need in local broadcast in prime and local news.” (Id. at p. 16)
• “[There is] declining viewership on broadcast with limited inventory creating a shortage of rating points in prime, local news and other dayparts.” (Id. at p. 17)
• “The erosion of local broadcast news is accelerating.” (Id. at p. 18)
• “Thus, actual local broadcast TV reach is at or below the cume figures for wired cable in most markets.” (Id. at p. 19)

This Essential Guide clearly indicates that cable programming is part of the relevant video advertising product market and that there is intense competition between Pay- and Free-TV distributors for advertising dollars.  So why is the FCC proposing to restrict joint marketing agreements among Free-TV distributors in local markets when virtually the entire Pay-TV industry is jointly marketing all of their advertising spots nationwide?

The FCC should refrain from adopting new restrictions on local broadcasters until it can answer questions like this one. Though it is appropriate for the FCC to prevent anticompetitive practices, adopting disparate regulatory obligations that distort competition in the same product market is not good for competition  or consumers. Consumer interests would be better served if the FCC decided to address video competition issues more broadly — or there might not be any Free-TV competition to worry about.

My response to Free State Foundation’s blog post, “Understanding the Un-Free Market for Retrans Consent Is the First Step for Reforming It”

The Free State Foundation (FSF) questioned my most recent blog post at RedState, which noted that the American Television Alliance’s (ATVA) arguments supporting FCC price regulation of broadcast television content are inconsistent with the arguments its largest members make against government intervention proposed by net neutrality supporters. FSF claimed that my post created a “false equivalency” between efforts to modify an existing regulatory regime and efforts to impose new regulations in a previously free market.

FSF’s “false equivalence” theory is a red herring that is apparently intended to distract from the substantive issues I raised. The validity of the economic arguments related to two-sided markets discussed in my blog doesn’t depend on the regulatory status of the two-sided markets those arguments address. The notion that the existence of regulation in the video marketplace gives ATVA a free pass to say anything it wants without heed for intellectual consistency is absurd.

I suspect FSF knows this. Its blog post does not dispute that ATVA’s arguments at the FCC are inconsistent with the arguments its largest members make against net neutrality; in fact, FSF failed to address the ATVA petition at all. Though the FSF blog was ostensibly prompted by my post at RedState, FSF decided to “leave the merits of ATVA’s various proposals to others” (except me, apparently).

FSF’s decision to avoid the merits of ATVA’s arguments at the FCC (the subject of my blog post), begs the question: What was the FSF blog actually about? It appears FSF wrote the blog to (1) reiterate its previous (and misleading) analyses of the video programing market, and (2) argue that the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act “represents the proper direction” for reforming it.

To be clear, I haven’t previously addressed either issue. But, in the spirit of collegial dialogue initiated by FSF, I discuss them briefly in this blog.

Retransmission Consent

FSF is right that, “In a truly free marketplace, private parties have the liberty to pursue [or not pursue] commercial deals with whomever they choose.” I also agree that the market for video programming is not a “truly free marketplace,” and that the rules governing retransmission consent “restrict private bargaining.” But, FSF’s one-sided characterization of retransmission consent as granting “special rights” to broadcasters only is flatly misleading.

FSF highlights how local broadcasters benefit from (1) “must carry” rules and (2) non-duplication and syndication agreements.

The must carry rules require for-pay video distributors (e.g., cable operators) to carry the programming of broadcasters who elect mandatory program carriage while prohibiting distributors from charging such broadcasters for that carriage. Although I agree with FSF that the must carry rules are particularly intrusive, they are also irrelevant to retransmission consent negotiations. Once a broadcaster elects to engage in retransmission consent negotiations for carriage, it cannot take advantage of must carry for three years. Even if it could, the existence of must carry wouldn’t provide the broadcaster any pricing advantage in negotiations with for-pay video distributors, whose goal is to carry the programming at the lowest possible cost (which must carry sets at zero).

FSF correctly notes that non-duplication and syndication agreements limit the ability of for-pay video distributors (e.g., cable operators) to bargain with non-local broadcasters for new and syndicated broadcast programming, respectively. But FSF sidesteps the fact that these limitations are created in the free market by private contractual arrangements between broadcast stations and the providers of network or syndicated programming, not the government. The FCC’s non-duplication and syndication “rules do not create these rights but rather provide a means for the parties to exclusive contracts to enforce them through the Commission rather than the courts.”

Finally, FSF fails to mention, either in its blog post or its scholarly papers, that the retransmission consent rules limit the ability of broadcasters to choose with whom they bargain by prohibiting broadcasters from entering into exclusive program carriage agreements with for-pay video distributors – a limitation on bargaining that does not apply to programming owned by for-pay video distributors. Unlike non-duplication and syndication, this exclusivity prohibition is not grounded in private contractual arrangements.

FSF does not address whether the potential negotiating advantages conferred on broadcasters by FCC enforcement of network non-duplication and syndication agreements is more valuable in retransmission consent negotiations than the potential disadvantages imposed by the prohibition on exclusive program carriage agreements. To the extent the value of exclusive carriage agreements (the opportunity cost of the retransmission consent regime for broadcasters) outweighs the value of network non-duplication and syndication enforcement (the benefit to broadcasters), for-pay video distributors benefit more from the retransmission consent regime than broadcasters.

Next Generation TV Act

To be sure, even if for-pay video distributors benefit more from retransmission consent than broadcasters, retransmission consent negotiations do not occur in a “truly free market.” I agree with FSF that, “The ultimate goal should be to eliminate regulatory intrusion in this space – and to thereby eliminate occasions for debate over whether this or that particular modification to the old regulations will tip the scales in favor of one class of competitors over another.” Unfortunately, the modifications proposed by the Next Generation TV Act (the Bill) would not eliminate such debates.

FSF describes the Bill as a “comprehensive free market reform.” It would indeed eliminate FCC enforcement of network non-duplication and syndication agreements (and compulsory copyright licenses—an issue that merits additional discussion), but it is far from comprehensive.

First, the Bill doesn’t eliminate must carry for non-profit (e.g., religious and educational) broadcasters – the broadcasters most likely to elect mandatory carriage. Retaining such protections for religious and educational broadcasters is certainly reasonable when viewed from a political perspective; however, it falls short of being a free market approach to video regulation generally.

More importantly, the Bill wouldn’t eliminate any of the underlying reasons for which broadcasters enter into non-duplication and syndication agreements. Broadcasters negotiate exclusive distribution rights in local markets because government regulations require broadcasters to provide their programming for free. As a result of this government mandate, broadcasters rely on local advertising revenue to generate profit. If for-pay video distributors could retransmit duplicative programming (syndicated or otherwise) from non-local broadcasters (e.g., because the local broadcaster had not negotiated exclusive distribution rights), the local broadcaster would lose a substantial portion (if not all) of its advertising revenue. In a “truly free market,” the local broadcaster could respond to the potential loss of advertising revenue by charging subscription fees for its over-the-air video programming delivery or repurposing its spectrum for an alternative use. But broadcasters today don’t operate in a truly free market, and the government generally won’t allow them to pursue other business models.

Although the Bill aims toward a more vibrant free market, my primary concern is that it would leave in place the intrusive business model restrictions on broadcasters while eliminating rules that help make the government-mandated business model work. Perhaps FSF would agree that, if the goal is to “eliminate regulatory intrusions in this space,” the Bill should also eliminate government restrictions on broadcast business models and spectrum use. Anything less is better described as “picking winners and losers,” not “comprehensive free market reform.”

The decision to forgo distribution is referred to as a “blackout” in the cable context and “blocking” in the Internet context, but the economic considerations affecting such negotiations are substantially the same.

The American Television Alliance (ATVA), a coalition comprised primarily of cable and satellite TV operators, is using the playbook of net neutrality proponents in abid to convince the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate prices for broadcast television content. The goal of ATVA’s cable and satellite members is to increase their profit margins by convincing the government to artificially lower the cost of programming they resell to consumers. I suspect the goal of ATVA’s non-profit members, e.g., Public Knowledge and New America Foundation, is to solidify the FCC’s flawed rationale for adopting net neutrality rules in 2010, which imposed restrictions on market arrangements between Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Internet content providers without finding a market failure.

Many of ATVA’s cable members are also ISPs that have routinely argued against the imposition of net neutrality regulations in the market for Internet services. By supporting ATVA, these same companies appear to have abandoned the intellectual foundation for opposition to net neutrality. Are they now signaling their intent to embrace net neutrality regulation of the Internet?

An analysis of the similarities between the cable and Internet services markets illuminates this apparent inconsistency. Both cable and Internet services exhibit the characteristics of two-sided markets, and the economic relationships among the participants in both of these markets are substantially similar. All else being equal, consumers prefer distribution platforms (i.e., cable or ISP networks) that provide access to more rather than less content, and content providers prefer distribution on platforms with more rather than less users. As a result, either side of the market has the potential to behave anticompetitively, but only if it has substantial market power relative to the other. Recent economic literature demonstrates that, in the absence of market failure, permitting full pricing flexibility on both sides of two-sided communications markets maximizes consumer welfare by increasing investment in both network infrastructure and content.

Prominent ATVA members who are also ISPs recognized as much in their fight against net neutrality at the FCC. In its comments opposing net neutrality, Time Warner Cable argued that the “critical gap in the [FCC]‘s selective proposal to regulate broadband Internet access service providers is the absence of any assertion that they possess  market power—without which, it is unclear that even manifestly harmful discrimination would warrant regulatory intervention.” (Time Warner Cable Comments at 27 (emphasis in original)) Yet, the ATVA petition, filed by Time Warner Cable at the FCC, fails to provide any economic analysis or cite any precedent finding that broadcasters exercise market power warranting government intervention in retransmission consent negotiations.

The core of ATVA’s argument is a straightforward attack on the ordinary functioning of any two-sided market –  the same attack on the previously unregulated Internet made by net neutrality proponents. ATVA argues that, when a cable operator asks a broadcaster for consent to retransmit broadcast content (which is known as “retransmission consent”), the cable operator must either agree to pay the broadcasters or forgo distribution of that broadcaster’s content. Net neutrality advocates similarly argue that, if an Internet content provider were required to pay an ISP for Internet content distribution, the Internet content provider would either have to agree to pay the ISP or forgo distribution of its content. The decision to forgo distribution is referred to as a “blackout” in the cable context and “blocking” in the Internet context, but the economic considerations affecting such negotiations are substantially the same.

ATVA’s attack on retransmission consent agreements suffers from the same infirmity as the net neutrality attack on ISPs: It is a “solution in search of a problem.” As Time Warner Cable noted in its comments on net neutrality:

“Consumers have to come to expect that they can access the content and services they want, when they want. Service providers almost invariably meet those expectations, and in those isolated instances when they have not, the marketplace has exerted the discipline necessary to rectify matters.” (Time Warner Cable Comments at 18)

Those who believe in free markets should exhibit the same trust in the marketplace when addressing the issue of “black outs” for video content as they do when addressing the issue of “blocking” Internet content. Broadcasters have no greater incentive to “black out” cable viewers (and potentially lose advertising revenue) than ISPs have to “block” Internet content (and potentially lose subscription revenue).

Of course, ATVA doesn’t complain about blackouts,  per se. Every blackout to date has been resolved by the marketplace without restrictive FCC rules, and even if they weren’t, consumers could still access broadcast programming over the air free of charge. ATVA’s real complaint is that broadcasters are demanding “excessive” retransmission consent fees due to the popularity of their programming – an allegation that is uncomfortably similar to the “gatekeeper” theory the FCC relied on in its net neutrality order. There, the FCC concluded that an ISP could “force” edge providers to pay “inefficiently high fees” because that ISP is “typically” an Internet content provider’s “only option” for reaching a particular end user. Both theories reflect a desire to intervene in the ordinary pricing mechanisms of two-sided markets without engaging in a thorough market power analysis. They also ignore the fact that, in a two-sided market, charging for content distribution “may well have important pro-competitive effects.” (Time Warner Cable Comments at 31)

The apparent inconsistency of ATVA members who support regulation of retransmission consent agreements while opposing net neutrality is not a new or surprising phenomenon in Washington. It is essential, however, for those who believe in liberty to recognize the danger that ATVA’s theory represents to free market principles: An ATVA win on retransmission consent would continue the expansion of FCC authority unbounded by rigorous analysis that began with the net neutrality order. With a rewrite of the Communications Act on the horizon, free market advocates cannot afford to lose this battle. If we do, we risk losing the war before it even begins.

Last week, the House held a hearing about the so-called IP Transition. The IP Transition refers to the telephone industry practice of carrying all wire-based consumer services–voice, Internet, and television–via faster, better fiber networks and not on the traditional copper wires that had fewer capabilities. Most consumers have not and will not notice the change. The completed IP Transition, however, has enormous implications for how the FCC regulates. As one telecom watcher said, “What’s at stake? Everything in telecom policy.”

For 100 years or so, phone service has had a special place in regulatory law given its importance in connecting the public. Phone service was almost exclusively over copper wires, a service affectionately called “plain old telephone service” (POTS). AT&T became the government-approved POTS national monopolist in 1913 (which ended with the AT&T antitrust breakup in the 1980s). The deal was: AT&T got to be a protected monopolist while the government got to require AT&T provide various public benefits. The most significant of these is universal service–AT&T had to serve virtually every US household and charge reasonable rates even to remote (that is, expensive) customers.

To create more phone competitors to the Baby Bells–the phone companies spun off from the AT&T break-up in the 1980s–the Congress passed the 1996 Telecom Act and the FCC put burdens on the Baby Bells to allow new phone companies to lease the Baby Bells’ AT&T-created copper wires at regulated rates. The market changed in ways never envisioned in the 1990s however. Today, phone companies face competition–not from the new phone companies leasing the old monopoly infrastructure but from entirely different technologies. You can receive voice service from your cable company (“digital voice”), your “phone” company (POTS), your wireless company, and even Internet-based providers like Vonage and Skype. Increasingly, households are leaving POTS behind in favor of voice service from cable or wireless providers. Yet POTS providers–like Verizon and AT&T (which also offer wireless service)–must abide by monopoly-era regulations that their cable and wireless competitors–Comcast, Sprint, and others–don’t have to abide by.

Understanding the significance of the IP Transition requires (unfortunately) knowing a little bit about Title I and Title II of the Communications Act. “Telecommunications services,” which are the phone companies with copper networks, are heavily regulated by the FCC under Title II. On the other hand, “information services,” which includes Internet service, are lightly regulated under Title I. This division made some sense in the 1990s. It is increasingly under stress now because burdened “telecommunications” companies like AT&T and Verizon are offering “information services” like Internet via DSL, FiOS, and U-Verse. Conversely, lightly-regulated “information services” companies like Comcast, Charter, and Time-Warner Cable are entering the regulated telephone market but face few of the regulatory burdens.

Which brings us to the IP Transition. As Title II phone companies replace their copper wires with fiber and deploy broadband networks to compete with cable companies, their customers’ phone service is being carried via IP packets. Functionally, these new networks act like a heavily-regulated Title II service since they carry voice, but they also act like the Title I broadband networks that cable providers built. So should these new fiber networks be burdened like Title II services or deregulated like Title I services? Or is it possible to achieve some middle ground using existing law? Those are the questions before the FCC and policymakers. Billions of dollars of investment will be accelerated or slowed and many firms will live or die depending on how the FCC and Congress act. Stay tuned.

CBS and Time Warner Cable have been embroiled in a heated contractual battle over the past week that has resulted in viewers in some major markets losing access to CBS programming. When disputes like these go nuclear and signal blackouts occur, it is inevitable that some folks will call for policy interventions since nobody likes it when the content they love goes dark.

While some policy responses are warranted in this matter, policymakers should proceed with caution. Heated contractual negotiations are a normal part of any capitalist marketplace. We shouldn’t expect lawmakers to intervene to speed up negotiations or set content prices because that would disrupt the normal allocation of programming by placing a regulatory thumb too heavily on one side of the scale. This is why I am somewhat sympathetic to CBS in this fight. In an age when content creators struggle to protect their copyrighted content and get compensation for it, the last thing we need is government intervention that undermines the few distribution schemes that actually work well.

On the other hand, Time Warner Cable deserves sympathy here, too, since CBS currently enjoys some preexisting regulatory benefits. As I noted in this 2012 Forbes oped, “Toward a True Free Market in Television Programming,” many layers of red tape still encumber America’s video marketplace and prevent a truly free market in video programming from developing. The battle here revolves around the “retransmission consent” rules that were put in place as part of the Cable Act of 1992 and govern how video distributors carry signals from TV broadcasters, which includes CBS.

But those “retrans” rules are not the only part of the regulatory mess here. There are many related federal rules that tip the scales toward broadcasters and content creators, such as the requirement that video distributors carry broadcast signals even if they don’t want to (“must carry”); rules that prohibit distributors from striking deals with broadcasters outside their local communities (“network non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity” rules); regs specifying where broadcast channels appear on the cable channel lineup; and prohibitions against carrying sporting events on cable when the local stadium doesn’t sell all its seats on game day (“sports blackout rule”).

As they say on TV.. ” But Wait, There’s More!” Working in the favor of video distributors are the compulsory licensing requirements of the Copyright Act of 1976, which essentially forced a “duty to deal” upon broadcasters. Broadcasters have to let cable operators and other video distributors retransmit local stations, though the system at least ensures they get compensated for it. As I noted in my old Forbes essay, along with must carry rules, “Compulsory licensing is the original sin of video marketplace regulation. We could have avoided most of the regulatory mess of the past quarter century if Congress had simply left these rights and contractual negotiations alone. Once Congress forced broadcasters to share their programming, however, marketplace manipulation was off and rolling.”

Of course, the more primal and problematic intervention came decades before in the 1920s and ’30s when the government decided to nationalize spectrum management. Once mandates instead of markets where chosen as the primary allocation agent, America was off and running with a grand experiment in spectrum central planning. We’re still living with the results today. The very fact that spectrum is licensed and can only be used and sold for very narrow purposes as detailed in meticulous FCC regulations is a sign of just how far-removed we are from a pure free market here.

The question now is, what are we going to do about this fine mess? And is there any chance we can get it done?

The problem in this debate is that there are multiple layers of interventions that have built up over the years and created constituencies that are wedded to their preservation. Broadcasters, networks, independent content creators, big cable companies, small cable companies, satellite companies, sports leagues, and viewing consumers themselves — they all have conflicting interests and a stake in how this debate turns out. In his 2012 Mercatus Center working paper, “Consumer Welfare and TV Program Regulation,” media economist Bruce M. Owen noted that “What distinguishes TV programs from other mass media content, including both traditional print and new online media, is the extreme eagerness of Washington to engage in efforts to prevent markets from working freely, often in response to interest group pressures and opportunities for political advantage and with almost complete indifference to the welfare of consumers.”

As a result, if you talk to almost anyone involved in this debate, they will all insist that only their very specific reforms are the ones that can or should be implemented. Consequently, comprehensive reform will be challenging precisely because of all the conflicting interests and layers of law and regulation that must be eradicated.

But at least there is a blueprint for how to get the job done right. Many times here before I have written about “The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act,” which was floated last session by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) and then-Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC). It proposed wiping off the books all the archaic rules outlined above. Alas, the bill never went anywhere in the last Congress and now that Sen. DeMint has left to lead the Heritage Foundation, there is no supporter in the Senate this session. Instead, we have some lawmakers floating bad ideas like S.912, the “Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013,” which just proposes more regulatory gaming of an already over-gamed system.

We instead need policy reforms like the old DeMint-Scalise bill that clean up the regulatory mess of the past. But there just isn’t much appetite for such a house-cleaning. Most parties affected by these rules want very specific outcomes and deregulation won’t give them any such guarantees. After all, there will still be blackouts after deregulation. And the cost of some content may continue to go up in response to demand. And there will still be fights over sports programming. And there’s no certainty that all local broadcasters or small video distributors will survive. And so on, and so on.

But it is also true that a deregulatory environment is more likely to lead to even more experimentation and innovation with new business models, technologies, and methods of content creation and delivery. We already see much innovation in this marketplace despite all the red tape that exists. Just look at what’s been going on recent years with alternative video delivery platforms, including: Netflix, Hulu, XBox Live, Vudu, Roku, Redbox, Boxee, Amazon, Apple TV, Aereo, Google Chromecast, and so on. And don’t forget the strides that the old broadcast and cable giants have made here, too. CBS is actually a pretty good model for how content can be re-purposed online in creative ways on a firm’s own digital platform. Likewise, cable companies like Time Warner Cable are slowly but surely adapting to consumers’ demand for video to be delivered to multiple devices.

Of course, there there will always be hiccups along the road to video nirvana. Some regulatory activists seemingly expect that all content can be delivered effortless and cheaply to consumers without giving a thought in the world to just how complicated it is to get that content financed and distributed in the first place. Great content and great delivery platforms don’t just happen by magic or the good intentions of activists or policymakers. Those platforms happen because new markets and monetization mechanisms develop to facilitate them. If we cut back the regulatory deadwood in our modern information marketplace, we’d likely get even more experimentation and innovation that would likely produce all new ways of financing, creating, and delivering content to consumers. But we’ll never know unless we are willing to embrace change and kill all those old regulatory weeds that continue to grow in our information garden.

Alas, if Congress can’t muster the courage to do that, then lawmakers ought to at least consider asking the broadcasters to return all that juicy spectrum they are sitting on. After all, the current retrans racket gives the broadcasters an increasingly lucrative revenue stream when they deliver content on cable and satellite systems (in addition to the advertising revenues they already receive). No good reason exists to give them preferential treatment relative to any other cable channel out there today. Don’t forget, there are all sorts of garden-variety cable carriage disputes that happen outside the regulated retrans system today. (Remember last year’s big spats between AMC vs. Dish and Viacom vs. DirecTV?) There are no special rules that either side can rely on in those instances. So why should special rules be applied to other content companies simply because some of their properties are broadcast channels? Answer: they shouldn’t.

But if no other reforms occur and if companies like CBS still want to be more like a cable mega-channel — albeit, a very handsomely compensated cable channel — then by all means go for it. In the meantime, however, they can return all that spectrum for re-auction for some better purpose. In fact, back early 2009, CBS Corp. President and CEO Les Moonves told an investor conference that moving all CBS network programming to cable and satellite platforms would be “a very interesting proposition.” I agree! But, absent other reforms, it might be time to make that “interesting proposition” a mandatory one.

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new paper by Brent Skorup and me entitled, “A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector.” In this 73-page working paper, which we hope to place in a law review or political science journal shortly, we document the evolution of government-granted privileges, or “cronyism,” in the information and communications technology marketplace and in the media-producing sectors. Specifically, we offer detailed histories of rent-seeking and regulatory capture in: the early history of the telephony and spectrum licensing in the United States; local cable TV franchising; the universal service system; the digital TV transition in the 1990s; and modern video marketplace regulation (i.e., must-carry and retransmission consent rules, among others.

Our paper also shows how cronyism is slowly creeping into new high-technology sectors.We document how Internet companies and other high-tech giants are among the fastest-growing lobbying shops in Washington these days. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lobbying spending by information technology sectors has almost doubled since the turn of the century, from roughly $200 million in 2000 to $390 million in 2012.  The computing and Internet sector has been responsible for most of that growth in recent years. Worse yet, we document how many of these high-tech firms are increasingly seeking and receiving government favors, mostly in the form of targeted tax breaks or incentives.

We argue that the creeping cronyism could have two major negative ramifications. First, it could dull entrepreneurialism and competition in this highly innovative sector since time and resources spent on influencing politicians and capturing regulators cannot be spent competing and innovating in the marketplace. Cronyism will also negatively impact consumer welfare by denying consumers more and better products and services. Additionally, consumers might end up paying higher prices or higher taxes due to government privileges for industry.

Second, cronyism also raises the specter of greater government control of the Internet and of the digital economy. When policymakers dispense favors, they usually expect something in return. They also become accustomed to having greater informal powers over the sector receiving favors, and contribute to DC’s infamous “revolving door” problem.

High-tech America’s recent embrace of Washington could take it down the familiar path followed by the agriculture, telecommunications, and automotive sectors (among many others), with government becoming both protector and punisher of industry. Today’s dynamic tech industries will increasingly come under the “Mother, may I?” permission-based regulatory regime that encumbered the older information technology sectors.

Finally, this paper offers strategies for stalling and diminishing the cronyism already taking root in the high-tech sector. We suggest several targeted reforms to limit or undo cronyism. Generally speaking, however, we note that, as economist David R. Henderson argued in an earlier Mercatus Center report, “There is only one way to end, or at least to reduce, the amount of cronyism, and that is to reduce government power.”

The paper can be downloaded from the Mercatus website, SSRN, or Scribd. The Scribd version is embedded down below. (Also, here’s some coverage of the paper over at the Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” from our old colleague Tim Lee. Here’s more coverage from Bloomberg Businessweek and the San Francisco Chronicle. And here’s a U.S. News oped that Brent and I wrote condensing our paper into just 600 words. Finally, a short 3-minute video of me discussing the problem of tech cronyism is also embedded below.)

A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector [Thierer and Skorup – July 2013] by Adam Thierer

Gina Keating, author of Netflixed: The Epic Battle for America’s Eyeballs, discusses the startup of Netflix and their competition with Blockbuster.

Keating begins with the history of the company and their innovative improvements to the movie rental experience. She discusses their use of new technology and marketing strategies in DVD rental, which inspired Blockbuster to adapt to the changing market.

Keating goes on to describe Netflix’s transition to internet streaming and Blockbuster’s attempts to retain their market share.

Download

Related Links

• Netflixed: The Epic Battle for America’s Eyeballs, Keating
• Gina Keating’s New Book about the Rise of Netflix, Babayan
• ‘Netflixed,’ Book by Gina Keating, Describes CEO Reed Hastings As a Nasty Boss’ Liedtke

I plan to write more about broadband competition and the impact of Google Fiber but in the meantime, there is a New York Times article on the subject that I’ll briefly address.

The author, Eduardo Porter, misdiagnoses why tiered pricing in broadband exists, giving readers the impression that only monopolies price discriminate:

That means that in most American neighborhoods, consumers are stuck with a broadband monopoly. And monopolies don’t strive to offer the best, cheapest service. Rather, they use speed as a tool to discriminate by price — coaxing consumers who are willing to pay for high-speed broadband into more costly and profitable tiers.

Consumer advocacy groups regularly–and wrongly–equate price discrimination with monopoly. Price discrimination–where firms price different customers different prices because of their willingness to pay–tells us nothing about the existence of monopoly (and little about market power). Firms lacking monopoly–in industries like airlines, clothing retail, movie theaters, and restaurants–use price discrimination. No one alleges monopoly in these industries, so I don’t know why the author makes this connection between monopoly and price discrimination. Had Porter thought about it, this paragraph makes little sense since even in the urban areas that have 2 or 3 high-speed broadband providers you still see tiered pricing. This should be a tip-off that tiered pricing does not arise from monopoly.

Porter makes another error, which I think just signals the sloppy reporting in this piece:

The preferred strategy seems to involve more cooperation than competition. In 2011, Verizon tried to cobble together agreements with the nation’s major cable firms to jointly market each others’ services — offering itself as the wireless complement to cable’s wireline plans. It was foiled only because the Justice Department slapped the deals down as anticompetitive.

As Gigi Sohn (who generally agrees with the author) points out on Twitter, this is not right either.

Great @nytimes piece on why US #broadband is mediocre: nytimes.com/2013/05/08/bus…Correction: DoJ did *not* block Verizon-cable spectrum deal

— Gigi Sohn (@gigibsohn) May 8, 2013

The agreements to jointly market others’ products were not in any meaningful sense “foiled.” Those agreements were approved with conditions, namely, that Verizon couldn’t market a cable company’s service where FiOS is available.

I don’t think these are minor nitpicks. The fact is, journalists and advocates regularly employ loose definitions of “monopoly,” often intentionally in order to increase the urgency to further some political end. And the portion about the Verizon deal gives readers the distinct impression that Verizon was doing something colluding and nefarious that was stopped by the DOJ, and that’s just not true.

As noted here last week, as part of their Marginal Revolution University online courses, Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok have been rolling out several classes on “Economics of the Media.” I think TLF readers will be interested in checking out their lessons on “Bundling” and “Cable TV Regulation” since these are topics we have frequently discussed here over the years. I’ve embedded those two presentations below, but please go the MRU site and watch all the videos in their media economics course when you get a chance. They are excellent.

Christopher S. Yoo, the John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the new book, The Dynamic Internet: How Technology, Users, and Businesses are Transforming the Network, explains that the Internet that we knew in its early days—one with a client-server approach, with a small number of expert users, and a limited set of applications and business cases—has radically changed, and so it may be that the architecture underlying the internet may as well.

According to Yoo, the internet we use today barely resembles the original Defense Department and academic network from which it emerged. The applications that dominated the early Internet—e-mail and web browsing—have been joined by new applications such as video and cloud computing, which place much greater demands on the network. Wireless broadband and fiber optics have emerged as important alternatives to transmission services provided via legacy telephone and cable television systems, and mobile devices are replacing personal computers as the dominant means for accessing the Internet. At the same time, the networks comprising the Internet are interconnecting through a wider variety of locations and economic terms than ever before.

These changes are placing pressure on the Internet’s architecture to evolve in response, Yoo says. The Internet is becoming less standardized, more subject to formal governance, and more reliant on intelligence located in the core of the network. At the same time, Internet pricing is becoming more complex, intermediaries are playing increasingly important roles, and the maturation of the industry is causing the nature of competition to change. Moreover, the total convergence of all forms of communications into a single network predicted by many observers may turn out to be something of a myth. Policymakers, Yoo says, should allow room for this natural evolution of the network to take place.

Download

Related Links

• The Dynamic Internet: How Technology, Users, and Businesses are Transforming the Network, Yoo
• The Changing Patterns of Internet Usage, Yoo
• Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion, Yoo
• Cloud Computing: Architectural and Policy Implications, Yoo

Matt Yglesias today responded with a post of his own to a NYT article about sports channels and cable pricing by Brian Stelter that Yglesias believed had “bad analysis.” I’m here to defend Stelter a little bit because I think Yglesias was too harsh and that Yglesias erred in his own post about the nature of cable bundling. Yglesias’ posts on cable bundling are good, and especially valuable because his Slate and ThinkProgress audiences are not the most receptive to economic justifications for perceived unfair corporate pricing schemes. In part due to him I suspect, you rarely hear econ and business bloggers calling for a la carte pricing of cable channels.

And Yglesias is certainly right that you can’t really complain about the price of your cable package, which includes the few channels you watch plus the sports channels you don’t watch, because you obviously value the channels more than the price you pay per month, even if the sports are a “waste.” He falters when he says

So since those channels are worth $60 to you, even if unbundling happens your cable provider is going to find a way to charge you approximately $60 for them. Because at the end of the day, you’re paying your cable provider for access to the channels you do watch—not for access to the channels you don’t watch. The channels you don’t watch are just there. If the channels you do watch are worth $60 to you, then $60 is what you’ll pay for them.

It would be an amazing price discrimination scheme if it were true cable operators can figure out how to charge each subscriber the approximate price the subscriber values his favorite channels. Cable companies don’t currently have that ability. Even a la carte distributors, like Amazon Prime with their video offerings, don’t charge you exactly what you value TV shows and movies at. The efficiency of bundling cable channels arises not because cable companies are pricing everyone their reservation price, as Yglesias suggests. Bundling is efficient because in a high fixed-cost industry, like cable, cable channel bundles provide cost savings that outweigh the costs of providing “wasted” channels consumers don’t watch.

I think the main point of Stelter’s article is right and Yglesias is incorrect. It’s conceivable that most customers would actually see sustained lower cable prices if sports channels were someday offered as premium channels, like Showtime and HBO. If Stelter is faulted for anything, it’s that he mentioned the phrase “a la carte,” since it seems like his sources only alluded to a partial breakup of the current bundle–making sports a premium offering–not a wholesale a la carte offering. Stelter quoted a former DOJ antitrust lawyer and anonymous cable executives who say that increasing sports channel prices may make the cable bundle so pricey that cable operators will be forced to break up the bundle, and I see no reason to question their assessments.

I’ll attempt to illustrate what the cable executives are trying to avoid. Bundling components like cable channels lowers costs for providers. If you imagine an a la carte world, it’s plain the costs escalate. Instead of everyone picking from a menu of 3 or 4 bundles from a cable provider, every single subscriber household would have a different customized selection. Cable companies would have to ensure everyone is receiving their requested channels, frequently make corrections and updates, and incur other costs.

Not to mention, a la carte would eliminate many channels currently in existence because there is a cross-subsidy business model in place that makes low-demand channels available in the first place. (A la carte would especially harm religious, African-American, and other niche programming. Currently, these niche content creators have to market their channels only to a few cable and satellite companies for carriage. With a la carte, they would have to engage in nationwide and expensive marketing campaigns to all their likely customers, which is why these smaller firms typically oppose a la carte.) A la carte, then, is costly to both cable and content providers. Offering only a few bundles eliminates many costs.

However, when the price of the bundle increases with more expensive sports programming, as the Stelter piece describes, you lose customers because the bundle has become too expensive. Eventually, it becomes more cost-effective to spin off some sports channels as premium channels, charge those sports customers more, and offer a lower-priced package to everyone else and gain customers. And I suspect sports viewers have relatively inelastic demand (nothing ruins my fall weekend like a Bears black-out on the East Coast), so the losses from a sports unbundling could be minimal.

If there’s a lesson, it’s that this all goes back to Coase and his tautological but helpful theory of the firm. We know where efficient firm boundaries are based on where firm boundaries are. That is, the current cable packages could be disintegrated if it’s too costly to maintain them. In a dynamic market like cable, it may one day be efficient to break up the current bundle, charge everyone less, and make some sports channels premium channels.

Ryan Radia recently posted an impassioned and eminently reasonable defense of copyright with which I generally agree, especially since he acknowledges that “our Copyright Act abounds with excesses and deficiencies[.]” However, Ryan does this in the context of defending broadcaster rights against internet retransmitters, such as ivi and Aereo, and I have a bone to pick with that. He writes,

[Copyright] is why broadcasters may give their content away for free to anybody near a metropolitan area who has an antenna and converter box, while simultaneously preventing third parties like ivi from distributing the same exact content (whether free of charge or for a fee). At first, this may seem absurd, but consider how many websites freely distribute their content on the terms they see fit. That’s why I can read all the Techdirt articles I desire, but only on Techdirt’s website. If copyright protection excluded content distributed freely to the general public, creators of popular ad-supported content would soon find others reproducing their content with fewer ads.

I think what Ryan is missing is that copyright is not why broadcasters give away their content for free over the air. The real reason is that they are required to do so as a condition of their broadcast license. In exchange for free access to one of the main inputs of their business–spectrum–broadcasters agree to make their signal available freely to the public. Also, the fact that TV stations broadcast to metro areas (and not regionally or nationally) is not the product of technical limitations or business calculus, but because the FCC decided to only offer metro-sized licenses in the name of “localism.” That’s not a system I like, but it’s the system we have.

So, if what the public gets for giving broadcasters free spectrum is the right to put up an antenna and grab the signals without charge, why does it matter how they do it? To me a service like Aereo is just an antenna with a very long cable to one’s home, just like the Supreme Court found about CATV systems in Fortnightly. What broadcasters are looking to do is double-dip. They want free spectrum, but then they also want to use copyright to limit how the public can access their over-the-air signals. To address Ryan’s analogy from above, Techdirt is not like a broadcaster because it isn’t getting anything from the government in exchange for a “public interest” obligation.

Ideally, of course, spectrum would be privatized. In that world I think we’d see little if any ad-supported broadcast TV because there are much better uses for the spectrum. If there was any broadcast TV, it would be national or regional as there is hardly any market for local content. And the signal would likely be encrypted and pay-per-view, not free over-the-air. In such a world the copyright system Ryan favors makes sense, but that’s not the world we live in. As long as the broadcasters are getting free goodies like spectrum and must-carry, their copyright claims ring hollow.

To summarize, on August 22, the FCC found it was appropriate to re-impose monopoly price cap regulations developed over twenty years ago because the FCC lacked “reliable” evidence that cable operators are competing in the special access market. On August 23, the very next day, the FCC found cable companies are “well-positioned” to compete in the special access market and are “increasingly successful” competing in that market. . . . It is impossible to reconcile these inconsistent findings.

Last week, the FCC issued two significant orders. Late Wednesday evening, the FCC issued an order suspending its pricing flexibility rules for special access services (“Special Access Order”), and on Thursday afternoon, it issued an order approving multiple transactions between Verizon Wireless and several cable companies (Comcast, Time Warner, Bright House Networks, and Cox) as well as mobile providers T-Mobile and Leap (“Verizon-Cable Order”).

The FCC addressed special access competition in both orders. One would assume two FCC findings regarding special access issued within a single 24-hour period would be consistent with one another, but that would be assuming too much. The findings in these two orders relied on evidence submitted by the same companies to reach contradictory conclusions.

August 22 Special Access Order. In its August 22 order, the FCC found that its pricing flexibility rules were harming consumers and hindering investment in facilities-based competition. To address this concern, the FCC suspended its pricing flexibility rules, which means that price-cap carriers (e.g., Verizon and AT&T) are presumed to be monopolists who are required to offer special access services at FCC regulated rates, while their competitors (e.g., Time Warner) can offer special access services at market rates.

Sprint and Time Warner were two of the most vociferous advocates for suspension of pricing flexibility. Both companies submitted numerous filings in the special access proceeding over a number of years, and the FCC cites their filings over 40 times in the Special Access Order. Neither company has the interests of consumers at heart. Sprint benefits from suspension of pricing flexibility by obtaining special access services at regulated rates when they are lower than market rates, and Time Warner benefits from suspension by gaining a competitive advantage in the special access market when it can undercut the regulated rates of price-cap carriers.

The FCC had no need to address the benefits of its ruling to either Sprint or Time Warner, however, because the FCC didn’t rely on data regarding special access services for wireless backhaul or the provision of special access on a competitive basis by cable operators. Instead, the FCC based its suspension finding solely on outdated data regarding the presence of special access competition collocated in price-cap carrier wire centers in a handful of geographic areas. As Commissioner Pai noted in his dissent, carriers are most likely to collocate if they intend to use the price-cap carrier’s last-mile facilities for retail services offered directly to consumers. Wireless carriers who rely on special access for mobile backhaul don’t offer retail services using price-cap carrier’s last mile facilities and often rely on cable operators or fixed wireless to meet their backhaul needs. Cable operators typically do not rely on the last-mile facilities of price-cap carriers to provide retail services either, and they don’t need to collocate their facilities in price-cap wire centers when they provide competitive special access services on a wholesale basis to wireless carriers for backhaul.

The FCC recognized these realities when it first adopted its pricing flexibility rules in 1999. The FCC always understood “collocation may underestimate the extent of competitive facilities within a wire center because it fails to account for the presence of competitors that do not use collocation and have wholly bypassed [price-cap carrier] facilities.” Since 1999, special access that bypasses price-cap facilities has increased dramatically. For example, Clearwire has since built an entirely new wireless broadband network that relies almost exclusively on self-provisioned, fixed wireless backhaul. The FCC nevertheless rejected evidence of such competition in its Special Access Order because the FCC lacks “reliable data on the extent or location of this [non-collocated] competition.”

August 23 Verizon-Cable Order. In the Verizon transactions proceeding, several commenters – including Sprint – argued that the commercial agreements between Verizon and the cable companies may lead the cable companies to engage in anticompetitive conduct in their provision of backhaul services to mobile wireless operators. Sprint argued that in many markets, its only sources for backhaul are Verizon and the cable company operating in that market. Sprint argued that Verizon’s commercial agreements with the cable operators would create an “effective monopoly,” which would harm “competition.” Implicit in this argument is Sprint’s belief that there is, at worst, a competitive duopoly in the special access market, not a monopoly. Yet, in the special access proceeding, Sprint convinced the FCC to re-impose monopoly price regulation on Verizon while leaving Verizon’s cable competitors completely unregulated.

In the Verizon-Cable Order, the FCC relied on pricing evidence submitted by Sprint to reject its arguments that a lack of competition in the special access market would raise consumer prices. The FCC found that “even a significant increase in [wireless] backhaul costs is unlikely to have a material impact on [wireless] subscriber rates. In other words, even if Verizon were able to raise the price of its special access services for backhaul unilaterally, consumers would not be harmed.

The FCC also found that cable operators are playing a very “successful” role in the special access market based on “evidence” from online analyst reports the FCC considered reliable.

“We find that, even if the Cable Companies had the ability to foreclose access to their backhaul service or charge significantly higher prices to Verizon Wireless’s competitors (thereby imposing a competitively significant cost on Verizon Wireless’s competitors), they would not have an incentive to do so. We find that such an action would reduce their own revenue and carry a very significant cost to the Cable Companies, given the large and growing nature of the backhaul services market and the evidence that Cable Companies are both well-positioned to compete in that market and increasingly successful when they do so. We conclude that any incentives the Commercial Agreements might create to favor Verizon Wireless or exclude its rivals in the provision of backhaul services are outweighed by the clear incentives against such behavior.”

To summarize, on August 22, the FCC found it was appropriate to re-impose monopoly price cap regulations developed over twenty years ago because the FCC lacked “reliable” evidence that cable operators are competing in the special access market. On August 23, the very next day, the FCC found cable companies are “well-positioned” to compete in the special access market and are “increasingly successful” competing in that market. The FCC found that cable companies had strong incentives to compete in the special access market, and would suffer “very significant cost[s]” if they were to forgo such competition. Finally, and most importantly, the FCC found that “even a significant increase” in the cost of wireless backhaul would be unlikely to harm consumers.

It is impossible to reconcile these inconsistent findings. Chairman Genachowski pledged the FCC would be a “fact-based, data-driven agency.” Yet, during a hot summer week in August when Congress was out of session, the FCC’s facts and data changed on a daily basis as required to support the FCC’s preferred policy outcome. That’s a data-driven approach of sorts – cherry-picking data to arrive at a predetermined outcome that picks winners and losers rather than protects consumers.

Google’s first lesson for building affordable, one Gbps fiber networks with private capital is crystal clear: If government wants private companies to build ultra high-speed networks, it should start by waiving regulations, fees, and bureaucracy.

Executive Summary

For three years now the Obama Administration and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have been pushing for national broadband connectivity as a way to strengthen our economy, spur innovation, and create new jobs across the country. They know that America requires more private investment to achieve their vision. But, despite their good intentions, their policies haven’t encouraged substantial private investment in communications infrastructure. That’s why the launch of Google Fiber is so critical to policymakers who are seeking to promote investment in next generation networks.

The Google Fiber deployment offers policymakers a rare opportunity to examine policies that successfully spurred new investment in America’s broadband infrastructure. Google’s intent was to “learn how to bring faster and better broadband access to more people.” Over the two years it planned, developed, and built its ultra high-speed fiber network, Google learned a number of valuable lessons for broadband deployment – lessons that policymakers can apply across America to meet our national broadband goals.

To my surprise, however, the policy response to the Google Fiber launch has been tepid. After reviewing Google’s deployment plans, I expected to hear the usual chorus of Rage Against the ISP from Public Knowledge, Free Press, and others from the left-of-center, so-called “public interest” community (PIC) who seek regulation of the Internet as a public utility. Instead, they responded to the launch with deafening silence.

Maybe they were stunned into silence. Google’s deployment is a  real-world rejection of the public interest community’s regulatory agenda more powerful than any hypothetical. Google is building fiber in Kansas City because its officials were willing to waive regulatory barriers to entry that have discouraged broadband deployments in other cities. Google’s first lesson for building affordable, one Gbps fiber networks with private capital is crystal clear: If government wants private companies to build ultra high-speed networks, it should start by waiving regulations, fees, and bureaucracy .

That’s the policy template that worked for the residents of Kansas City. It could work for the rest of America too, but only if all broadband providers receive the same treatment. When private companies compete on a level playing field, consumers always win. When government regulations mandate a particular business model or favor a particular competitor, bureaucracy is the only winner – everyone else loses.

Maybe the silence of PIC advocates indicates they’ve had a change of heart. Although PIC has violently opposed the efforts of other broadband providers to eliminate similar regulatory barriers in the past, perhaps the success of Google Fiber has persuaded them that deregulatory policies fairly applied to all competitors are essential to meeting our nation’s shared goal of national broadband connectivity.

Google’s deployment certainly indicates the PIC would benefit from a change in their approach to policy.  The Google Fiber business model contradicts virtually every element of the PIC’s current regulatory agenda .

• PIC says restrictive regulations don’t discourage new investment. Google says it passed over proposals by cities in California due to restrictive regulations.
• PIC says the government should limit the delivery of “specialized” IP-based video services by network operators. Google says specialized video services support fiber deployment.
• PIC says that the provision of subsidized devices by network operators harms innovation and term contracts harm consumers. Google says bundling its own, vertically integrated computing devices with its fiber network services in exchange for a two-year contract commitment is part of the “Full Google Experience.”
• PIC says the “open access” model is “easy” and viable even in competitive markets. Google says it abandoned its commitment to open access because it doesn’t think anyone else can deliver service as well as it can.
• PIC says the “end-to-end” regulatory model, which severs all business relationships between “core” network infrastructure and “edge” elements of the network, promotes innovation and investment. Google says we should explore alternatives to the “end-to-end” model, including vertical integration among network operators and edge providers.

Every level of our government could benefit from a change in its policy approach as well. If we are serious about achieving affordable, ultra high-speed broadband connectivity for every American, we must question the traditional assumptions underlying our legacy regulatory approach.  Google Fiber demonstrates that the problem isn’t deregulation, a lack of competition, or an unwillingness to invest in American infrastructure. It’s the imposition of burdensome bureaucracy, unnecessary costs, and political favoritism at all levels of government . Eliminating these regulatory barriers would drive investment in America’s infrastructure, spur innovation, create jobs, and grow the economy while helping to meet President Obama’s goal of connecting every American to broadband. Google has shown the way. Is government willing to let other competitors in the marketplace follow the same path?

Introduction

The story begins two years ago, when Google announced its plans to build experimental, ultra high-speed broadband networks and operate them on an “open access” basis. Over 1,100 communities asked Google to build a network in their area, including several “desperate cities” willing to change their names and even swim with sharks. Google ultimately chose Kansas City as its broadband mecca.

So far, people in this prosperous city on the plains are embracing Google Fiber with enthusiasm. A little over a week after Google offered designated areas an opportunity to request service, 46 neighborhoods had qualified. Analysts estimate Google has already achieved approximately 4 percent market penetration. Google’s bet on an all-IP, fiber network appears poised for early success in Kansas City, which is something every tech geek should be pleased to see.

Like most new enterprises, it’s unclear whether Google Fiber will enjoy financial success in the long term. Many analysts are skeptical that Google’s business model can be replicated on a larger scale. Others believe it will deliver a “knock-out punch” to existing cable and telecom operators. Though I have my doubts, I’m content to let the market determine Google Fiber’s financial fate.

I’m more intrigued by the public policy implications of the Google Fiber business plan. Am I the only one who is baffled by the unusual response to Google’s announcement? After reviewing Google Fiber’s terms of service, I expected to hear the usual chorus of Rage Against the ISP from Public Knowledge, Free Press, and other PIC advocates who believe the Internet should be a public utility. I also expected the technology press would be critical of several elements of Google’s service. I was surprised on both counts.

Many in the tech press are offering gushing praise for Google’s new service. BGR says Google Fiber is a “ridiculously awesome value” for “lucky” Kansas City residents. CNET suggests that the Google Fiber business model offers the “rest of the broadband industry” a template for successful deployment of one Gbps networks: “Google is showing the cable companies and telecommunications providers how a broadband network should be built.”

The notion that other ISPs should mimic Google Fiber may explain why PIC advocates have been so deafeningly silent on the Kansas City deployment. The PIC narrative says that “the evil folks at cable companies and telecoms” are sabotaging fiber deployment in order to maintain their legacy businesses. Google doesn’t have a legacy network business, and its informal corporate motto is “don’t be evil.” So, according to the PIC narrative, Google’s business model shouldn’t look anything like those implemented by existing ISPs.

It turns out that Google’s business model validates a host of existing industry practices that PIC advocates seek to outlaw or regulate, and demonstrates that existing regulations are the biggest factor inhibiting the deployment of all-IP fiber networks by other service providers. Ironically, to the extent Google’s business model does differ significantly from those typical of other ISPs, it relies on an industry structure – vertical integration – PIC advocates vociferously oppose. As the following analysis of the “lessons learned” from Google Fiber demonstrates in detail, Google’s model contradicts virtually every element of the PIC regulatory agenda.

First Lesson Learned: Deregulation promotes private investment

The first lesson Google learned from its fiber project:  If government wants private companies to build ultra high-speed networks, it should start by waiving regulations, fees, and bureaucracy.

It’s no accident that Google chose to deploy its broadband network in a city subject to deregulatory statewide video franchising laws (in Kansas and Missouri). (Federal law prohibits the provision of video programming services without a “franchise”.)

Franchises were historically granted by local county or municipal governments who gave virtual monopolies to cable providers in exchange for “universal service” commitments (i.e., commitments to build the cable network to every neighborhood irrespective of cost or demand). Although federal law has prohibited monopoly video franchises since 1992, when potential new entrants asked permission to build competitive cable networks, local franchising authorities often stonewalled their applications or demanded unreasonable concessions. When new entrants challenged the legality of these tactics, PIC advocates derided the potential competitors for attempting to enter the market.

In 2006, the FCC adopted an order prohibiting local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for video service. The FCC found that many local franchising regulations were “unreasonable barriers to entry” in the video market and were “discourage[ing] investment in the fiber-based infrastructure necessary for the provision of advanced broadband services.” The unreasonable regulations included excessive build-out mandates, the inclusion of non-video revenue in franchise “fees” (including advertising fees), and demands unrelated to the provision of video service. The FCC has since reported that 20 states have enacted statewide video franchising laws to streamline the delivery of video service.

PIC advocates opposed this deregulatory decision when it was made and continue to oppose it. When the FCC announced its decision, Harold Feld, then Senior Vice President of the Media Access Project, said preempting local franchise regulation would “deprive the public of the best way to guarantee that cable providers and competitors meet the needs of their local communities.” When states began implementing the decision through statewide franchising laws, Sascha Meinrath, Director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, attacked such legislation for providing build-out waivers even when developments are “inaccessible using reasonable technical solutions.” Despite evidence of significant competitive entry in the video market since the FCC preempted unreasonable local franchising regulations, many PIC advocates still believe deregulation has had no positive impact.

This brief history of video franchising isn’t merely academic. Absent deregulation of local franchising in Kansas City, Google Fiber’s business model wouldn’t have been possible. When Time Warner Cable became the principal video service provider in the Kansas City market decades ago, its franchise required that it build its network to virtually every neighborhood, including areas that pose geographic challenges and neighborhoods where residents are less likely to subscribe. A monopolist can fund (i.e., cross-subsidize) uneconomic construction by raising prices in other neighborhoods. In a competitive market, however, cross-subsidization mandates typically inhibit entry. For example, New York City delayed Verizon’s FiOS deployment for nearly a year while the city negotiated a requirement that Verizon build its network in all five boroughs of the city.

In Kansas City, Google doesn’t have a build-out requirement. It will offer service only to neighborhoods that demonstrate their potential to cover the costs of construction. Google divided Kansas City into a number of small neighborhoods and then cherry picked the areas where it would be willing to offer service. It then set preregistration goals for these neighborhoods based on their size, density, and ease of construction. Eligible neighborhoods have six weeks to meet their preregistration goals. If they don’t, Google won’t construct its network in that area. In neighborhoods that are more expensive to build,Google says it wants to make sure that enough residents want its service before committing capital to network construction. There is “no need to dispatch crews and rip up asphalt in pursuit of a handful of potential customers when Google can laser in on the most eager concentrations of subscribers.”

Although it wasn’t required to obtain a municipal franchise, Google received stunning regulatory concessions and incentives from local governments, including free access to virtually everything the city owns or controls: rights of way, central office space, power, interconnections with anchor institutions, marketing and direct mail, and office space for Google employees. City officials also expedited the permitting process and assigned staff specifically to help Google. One county even offered to allow Google to hang its wires on parts of utility poles – for free – that are usually off-limits to communications companies.

The key element for Google was that Kansas City officials promised to stay out of the way. When Google’s vice president of access services, Milo Medin, was asked why Google chose Kansas City for its fiber deployment, he said, “We wanted to find a location where we could build quickly and efficiently.” In his testimony before Congress last year, Medin emphasized that “regulations – at the federal, state, and local levels – can be central factors in company decisions on investment and innovation.” Based on his experience with Google Fiber, he concluded that government regulation “often results in unreasonable fees, anti-investment terms and conditions, and long and unpredictable build-out timeframes” that “increase the cost and slow the pace of broadband network investment and deployment.”

Second Lesson Learned: Specialized Video Services Support Fiber Deployment

The second lesson Google learned from its fiber project:  Specialized video services help support the costs of fiber deployment.

In its order preempting unreasonable local franchise regulations, the FCC found that broadband deployment and video entry are “inextricably linked,” because broadband providers require the revenue from video services to offset the costs of fiber deployment. The FCC affirmed this finding in its 2010 net neutrality order, which exempted “specialized services”, including Internet Protocol-based video offerings, from net neutrality regulations. The FCC recognized that specialized video services “may drive additional private investment in broadband networks and provide end users valued services” that support the open Internet.

The Google Fiber business model indicates the FCC was right – specialized video services do help support the costs of fiber deployment. When it initially announced its fiber project, Google did not intend to offer specialized video services at all. Little more than a year ago, Google remained focused only on Internet connectivity and still had no plans to provide video services; though it said it wanted to “hear from Kansas City residents what additional services they would find most valuable.” By the time it launched the project, Google had decided to center its highest subscription rate on a new, specialized video service (Google Fiber TV) that Google says is “designed for how you watch today and how you’ll watch tomorrow.” It appears that, after listening to Kansas City residents, Google learned that many consumers want their ISP to offer specialized video services.

PIC advocates generally oppose any form of specialized service based on IP, especially video services. Less than a week after Google launched its own, IP-based video service, Public Knowledge filed a petition at the FCC arguing that Comcast’s specialized Xfinity video service is discriminatory and illegal. Although the petition is based on conditions imposed on the Comcast/NBC-Universal merger, Public Knowledge says the service may violate the FCC’s net neutrality rules as well.

Third Lesson Learned: Equipment Subsidies Offer Benefits to Consumers

The third lesson Google learned from its fiber project:  Equipment subsidies coupled with term contracts offer benefits to consumers.

The Google Fiber business model also embraces the standard communications industry practice of offering consumers subsidized equipment in exchange for term contracts. Consumers who opt for “The Full Google Experience” will get four devices, including a set-top box, a network box, a storage box, and a new tablet for use as a “remote control”, subject to a two-year contract.

Bundling branded set-top boxes and other devices is standard practice in the video industry, but Google’s approach is new in at least one respect: The tablet is a Google Nexus 7 running Google’s Android OS, a powerful computing device that is capable of far more than controlling a television set. Google is also offering the option of buying a “Chromebook” laptop for as little as $299 – slightly less than the amount of the “construction fee” Google is waiving for premium customers. By bundling its own, vertically integrated computing devices with its premium service, Google can leverage its fiber network to gain market share from the makers of other devices, software, and operating systems, including Apple and Microsoft.

Though I think it’s a savvy move that could have a long-lasting impact on the communications marketplace, I’m surprised that the PIC has said nothing about this new wrinkle on device bundling. On March 30, 2012, Public Knowledge released a paper asserting that subsidized video devices harm innovation. The paper says innovation suffers because it’s easier to attach devices provided by the video service provider, and most consumers “just find it simpler to settle for whatever device their cable company offers.” It also contends that the subsidized device model is unusual, and notes “no one rents their computer from their ISP.” I suppose that’s still true. Google isn’t renting the Nexus 7 – it’s giving it away (and subsidizing the Chromebook by waiving the construction fee).

Fourth Lesson Learned: Open Access Isn’t Viable in Competitive Markets

The fourth lesson Google learned from its fiber project:  Open access isn’t a viable business model in competitive markets.

When Google originally announced its intention to build its fiber network and operate it on an “open access” basis, Susan Crawford said we would “learn how easy it is” to allow competitive access to fiber networks and how little such networks cost. What we actually learned from Google Fiber is that “open access” isn’t a viable business model in a competitive market. Once Google analyzed how fiber networks are financed, built, and operated, it abandoned its earlier commitment to open access and decided not to allow other ISPs on its network. According to Google Fiber project manager Kevin Lo, “We don’t think anybody else can deliver a gig the way we can.” Translation: Open access doesn’t make financial sense in a competitive environment.

It’s still possible that Google could open its network to other ISPs in the future, but I suspect that in short term, Google’s reversal will dampen, if not extinguish, the PIC dream of open access networks in competitive markets.

Fifth Lesson Learned: Vertical Integration Offers an Alternative to the End-to-End Principle

The fifth lesson Google learned from its fiber project:  Vertical integration among “edge” and “infrastructure” providers offers an alternative to the “end-to-end” principle.

The elements of Google Fiber’s business model discussed so far affirm existing industry practice (and free market regulatory theory). In one respect, however, the Google model differs significantly from industry practice. Google is offering free Internet service, albeit limited to 5 Mbps, for seven years to customers who pay the “construction fee.” That speed is just fast enough to support Google’s primary advertising business, including the delivery of video advertisements, but just slow enough to avoid cannibalizing Google Fiber’s premium Internet and video services.

Even so, some analysts predict Google will lose money on its free service. So why would Google offer it?  Because Google’s “core advertising business is so powerful, dominant and profitable that it can subsidize almost everything else the company does, using Free to get customers in new markets.” Chris Anderson, the author of “FREE: The Future of a Radical Price,” has asked whether that’s fair when Google’s competitors don’t have a similar golden goose. Google’s response: “If a company chooses to use its profits from one product to help provide another product to consumers at low cost, that’s generally a good thing” (in the absence of tying arrangements).

On its own, Google’s willingness to subsidize broadband access to promote its advertising services might be unremarkable. But, when combined with its provision of a “free” Nexus 7 table and a subsidized Chromebook, it suggests that Google is willing to explore alternatives to the pure end-to-end Internet religion (practiced by PIC advocates and tech evangelists) in favor of a vertically integrated approach. The end-to-end purist believes core network infrastructure should be economically severed from the “edge” of the network, i.e., that Internet access should be offered entirely separately from the services, devices, applications that use network infrastructure. Strict adherence to this principle would prohibit the subsidization of network architecture by profits derived from services (e.g., specialized video and advertising), devices, and applications. Google was thought to be an end-to-end purist, but, assuming that were once true, it appears the company’s views have shifted.

What if large Internet “edge” companies – Google, Apple, and Microsoft – were vertically integrated with the large infrastructure providers – Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T? If the government allowed that to happen, it’s possible that the enormous profits generated by the edge companies (Apple is one of the most valuable companies in the world) would be used to rapidly drive ultra high-speed network deployment rather than fill cash coffers in offshore banks. Google is sitting on $43 billion overseas. Apple has more than $81 billion and Microsoft has $54 billion. By comparison, Verizon currently has about $10 billion in cash, which is less than one quarter of Google’s overseas holdings.

The reality of the Internet economy is that the “edge” generates more revenue than the “core”. In 2011,Comcast produced $8.7 billion in revenue from the sale of high-speed Internet access service. Google produced $37.9 billion in revenue, 96 percent of which was derived from advertising services.

While Google and other edge companies are content to let massive profits sit overseas, America’s network owners are reinvesting their capital in America. AT&T and Verizon ranked first and second, respectively, among U.S.-based companies by their U.S. capital spending in 2011, with Comcast coming in eighth. Google and Apple were ranked 24th and 25th, respectively, with approximately $2 billion in U.S. capital spending each. In 2011, AT&T alone invested ten times that much capital ($20.1 billion) in America. If companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T had access to edge company capital, it could create a new broadband boom.

I’m not sure the edge companies are interested in a vertical integration model, and I’m reasonably certain the current administration wouldn’t allow it. But, now that Google has dipped its toes in the water, it might be a discussion worth having.

On Forbes today, I have a long article on the progress being made to build gigabit Internet testbeds in the U.S., particularly by Gig.U.

Gig.U is a consortium of research universities and their surrounding communities created a year ago by Blair Levin, an Aspen Institute Fellow and, recently, the principal architect of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.  Its goal is to work with private companies to build ultra high-speed broadband networks with sustainable business models .

Gig.U, along with Google Fiber’s Kansas City project and the White House’s recently-announced US Ignite project, spring from similar origins and have similar goals.  Their general belief is that by building ultra high-speed broadband in selected communities, consumers, developers, network operators and investors will get a clear sense of the true value of Internet speeds that are 100 times as fast as those available today through high-speed cable-based networks.  And then go build a lot more of them.

Google Fiber, for example, announced last week that it would be offering fully-symmetrical 1 Gbps connections in Kansas City, perhaps as soon as next year.  (By comparison, my home broadband service from Xfinity is 10 Mbps download and considerably slower going up.)

US Ignite is encouraging public-private partnerships to build demonstration applications that could take advantage of next generation networks and near-universal adoption.  It is also looking at the most obvious regulatory impediments at the federal level that make fiber deployments unnecessarily complicated, painfully slow, and unduly expensive.

I think these projects are encouraging signs of native entrepreneurship focused on solving a worrisome problem:  the U.S. is nearing a dangerous stalemate in its communications infrastructure.  We have the technology and scale necessary to replace much of our legacy wireline phone networks with native IP broadband.  Right now, ultra high-speed broadband is technically possible by running fiber to the home.  Indeed, Verizon’s FiOS network currently delivers 300 Mbps broadband and is available to some 15 million homes.

But the kinds of visionary applications in smart grid, classroom-free education, advanced telemedicine, high-definition video, mobile backhaul and true teleworking that would make full use of a fiber network don’t really exist yet.  Consumers (and many businesses) aren’t demanding these speeds, and Wall Street isn’t especially interested in building ahead of demand.  There’s already plenty of dark fiber deployed, the legacy of earlier speculation that so far hasn’t paid off.

So the hope is that by deploying fiber to showcase communities and encouraging the development of demonstration applications, entrepreneurs and investors will get inspired to build next generation networks.

Let’s hope they’re right.

What interests me personally about the projects, however, is what they expose about regulatory disincentives that unnecessarily and perhaps fatally retard private investment in next-generation infrastructure.  In the Forbes piece, I note almost a dozen examples from the Google Fiber development agreement where Kansas City voluntarily waived permits, fees, and plodding processes that would otherwise delay the project.  As well, in several key areas the city actually commits to cooperate and collaborate with Google Fiber to expedite and promote the project.

As Levin notes, Kansas City isn’t offering any funding or general tax breaks to Google Fiber.  But the regulatory concessions, which implicitly acknowledge the heavy burden imposed on those who want to deploy new privately-funded infrastructure (many of them the legacy of the early days of cable TV deployments), may still be enough to “change the math,” as Levin puts it, making otherwise unprofitable investments justifiable after all.

Just removing some of the regulatory debris, in other words, might itself be enough to break the stalemate that makes building next generation IP networks unprofitable today.

The regulatory cost puts a heavy thumb on the side of the scale that discourages investment.  Indeed, as fellow Forbes contributor Elise Ackerman pointed out last week, Google has explicitly said that part of what made Kansas City attractive was the lack of excessive infrastructure regulation, and the willingness and ability of the city to waive or otherwise expedite the requirements that were on the books.(Despite the city’s promises to bend over backwards for the project, she notes, there have still been expensive regulatory delays that promoted no public values.)

Particularly painful to me was testimony by Google Vice President Milo Medin, who explained why none of the California-based proposals ever had a real chance.  “Many fine California city proposals for the Google Fiber project were ultimately passed over,” he told Congress, “in part because of the regulatory complexity here brought about by [the California Environmental Quality Act] and other rules. Other states have equivalent processes in place to protect the environment without causing such harm to business processes, and therefore create incentives for new services to be deployed there instead.”

Ouch.

This is a crucial insight.  Our next-generation communications infrastructure will surely come, when it does come, from private investment.  The National Broadband Plan estimated it would take $350 billion to get 100 Mbps Internet to 100 million Americans through a combination of fiber, cable, satellite and high-speed mobile networks.  Mindful of reality, however, the plan didn’t even bother to consider the possibility of full or even significant taxpayer funding to reach that goal.

Of course, nationwide fiber and mobile deployments by network operators including Verizon and AT&T can’t rely on gimmicks like Google Fiber’s hugely successful competition, where 1,100 communities applied to become a test site.  Nor can they, like Gig.U, cherry-pick research university towns, which have the most attractive demographics and density to start with.  Nor can they simply call themselves start-ups and negotiate the kind of freedom from regulation that Google and Gig.U’s membership can.

Large-scale network operators need to build, if not everywhere, than to an awful lot of somewheres.  That’s a political reality of their size and operating model, as well as the multi-layer regulatory environment in which they must operate.  And it’s a necessity of meeting the ambitious goal of near-universal high-speed broadband access, and of many of the applications that would use it.

Unlike South Korea, we aren’t geographically-small, with a largely urban population living in just a few cities.  We don’t have a largely- nationalized and taxpayer-subsidized communications infrastructure.   On a per-person basis, deploying broadband in the U.S. is much harder, complicated and more expensive than it is in many competing nations in the global economy.

Under the current regulatory and economic climate, large-scale fiber deployment has all but stopped for now.  Given the long lead-time for new construction, we need to find ways to restart it.

So everyone who agrees that universal broadband is a critical element in U.S. competitiveness in the next decade or so ought to look closely at the lessons, intended or otherwise, of the various testbed projects.  They are exposing in painful detail a dangerous and useless legacy of multi-level regulation and bureaucratic inefficiency that makes essential private infrastructure investment economically impossible.

Don’t get me wrong.  The demonstration projects and testbeds are great.  Google Fiber, Gig.U, and US Ignite are all valuable efforts.  But if we want to overcome our “strategic bandwidth deficit,” we’ll need something more fundamental than high-profile projects and demonstration applications.  Most of all, we need a serious housecleaning of legacy regulation at the federal, state, and local level.

Regulatory reform might not be as sexy as gigabit Internet demonstrations, but the latter ultimately won’t make much difference without the former.  Time to break out the heavy demolition equipment—for both.

Writing over at the conservative Big Government blog (part of the Breitbart.com network of blogs), someone who goes by the pseudonym “Capitol Connection” has posted an editorial about the debate over retransmission consent reform that is full of misinformation and misguided policy prescriptions, at least if you believe is truly limited government. The piece is entitled, “Big Cable Would Prefer if You Paid Their Bills,” and the problems are almost immediately evident from that headline alone.  First, what is a supposedly small government-oriented blog doing using a silly label like “Big Cable” to describe a vigorously competitive sector of our capitalist economy? Using terms like “Big Cable” is a silly lefty tactic. Second, no one in the cable industry is proposing anyone “pay their bills” except for the customers who enjoy their services. Isn’t a fee for service part of capitalism?

Anyway, that’s just the problem with the title of the essay. Sadly, the rest of the piece is filled with even more erroneous information and arguments about the retransmission consent regulatory process as well as the bill that aims to reform that process, “The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act” (H.R. 3675 and S. 2008). That bill, which is sponsored by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), represents a comprehensive attempt to deregulate America’s heavily regulated video marketplace. In a recent Forbes oped, I argued that the DeMint-Scalise effort would take us “Toward a True Free Market in Television Programming” by eliminating a litany of archaic media regulations that should have never been on the books to begin with. The measure would:

• eliminate: “retransmission consent” regulations (rules governing contractual negotiations for content);
• end “must carry” mandates (the requirement that video distributors carry broadcast signals even if they don’t want to);
• repeal “network non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity” regulations (rules that prohibit distributors from striking deals with broadcasters outside their local communities);
• end various media ownership regulations; and
• end the compulsory licensing requirements of the Copyright Act of 1976, which essentially forced a “duty to deal” upon content owners to the benefit of video distributors.

This represents genuine and much-needed deregulation of a market that has been encumbered with far too much top-down control and micro-management by the FCC over the past several decades. To be clear, none of these rules apply to any other segment of our modern information economy. Every day of the week, deals are cut between content creators and distributors in many other segments of the media industry without these rules encumbering the process. The DeMint-Scalise bill is an attempt to get big government out of the way and let these deals be cut in a truly free market without regulators putting their thumb on the scale in one direction or the other.

Thus, it came as a bit of a shock to me to see a blog that rails against and is self-titled Big Government suggesting that we should retain a form of big government regulation! Indeed, the author gets the intent of the DeMint-Scalise bill exactly backward. The author says the The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act:

would strip broadcasters of their ability to negotiate in the free marketplace. Some cable operators, it turns out, would love to provide Americans with the quality content American broadcast companies churn out. They just don’t happen to want to pay for it.

The author of the piece also says that cable industry representatives:

are lobbying in Washington for key provisions in legislation that would that would allow the Federal government to intervene in what is otherwise a sound, private sector marketplace that benefits consumers each and every day. And they’re doing so under the guise of “deregulation.”

This is all utter poppycock. While I am sure that the cable industry would love to get all that content free of charge, that’s not what the DeMint-Scalise bill would do. It doesn’t end free-market contracting; it bolsters it. Again, the bill would get the government out of the business of setting rules for how these deals get cut and instead allow these big boys to come to the bargaining table and hammer out these deals on their own.  That is called deregulation and true capitalism!

The author of the misguided Big Government editorial seems to be resting their case on a letter that the American Conservative Union (ACU) sent to members of Congress in late March. I addressed the claims found in that letter in this essay and pointed out that ACU had almost everything exactly backward. Both the ACU letter and the Big Government essay just keep erroneously assuming that the end of the regulatory retrans process means that “broadcasters [will] be forced to simply give away their signals and content.” Again, nothing could be further from the truth. As I noted in my response to the ACU letter:

nothing in this bill forces content creators or broadcasters to deal their content to other distributors. And nothing in the bill gives those other video distributors the right to freely distribute content without the permission of its owners. In sum, the bill does not repeal copyright law — it only repeals the compulsory licensing rules that force content owners to deal their programming against their consent on government regulated terms.  That means copyright is actually strengthened under this bill and that content owners have more bargaining power than they do today. Thus, the ACU is horribly mistaken in asserting that the DeMint-Scalise bill would “allow an uncompensated use of broadcast signals and content.” The exact opposite is the case.

Finally, if nothing else convinces the folks at the Big Government blog and the ACU of the error in their thinking, consider this: The preservation of the current retransmission consent regime and all its corresponding regulations means the preservation and growth of the Federal Communications Commission as a federal regulatory agency overseeing the information economy. Is that a truly free market-oriented position? Do we need federal bureaucrats overseeing free market contractual negotiations in this or any other sector? Because that’s what the law allows today. By contrast, the DeMint-Scalise bill offers us the chance to finally get real deregulation rolling and get FCC downsizing back on track. You will never get a smaller FCC by advocating the retention of regulation.

Thus, I think it’s pretty clear which approach is the most liberty-enhancing. I hope, therefore, that the ACU and the folks at the Big Government blog will reconsider their position.

Frederick Jackson Turner (1861-1932)

On Fierce Mobile IT, I’ve posted a detailed analysis of the NTIA’s recent report on government spectrum holdings in the 1755-1850 MHz. range and the possibility of freeing up some or all of it for mobile broadband users.

The report follows from a 2010 White House directive issued shortly after the FCC’s National Broadband Plan was published, in which the FCC raised the alarm of an imminent “spectrum crunch” for mobile users.

By the FCC’s estimates, mobile broadband will need an additional 300 MHz. of spectrum by 2015 and 500 MHz. by 2020, in order to satisfy increases in demand that have only amped up since the report was issued.  So far, only a small amount of additional spectrum has been allocated.  Increasingly, the FCC appears rudderless in efforts to supply the rest, and to do so in time.

It’s not entirely their fault.  At the core of the problem, the FCC is simply not constituted to resolve this increasingly urgent crisis.  That’s because, as I write in the article, the management of radio frequencies has entered new and unchartered territory.

For the first time since the FCC and its predecessor agencies began licensing spectrum nearly 100 years ago, there is no unassigned spectrum available, or at least none of which current technology can make effective use.

The spectrum frontier is now closed.  But the FCC, as created by Congress, is an agency that only functions at all on the frontier.

So it’s worth remembering what happened a hundred years earlier, when a young historian named Frederick Jackson Turner showed up at the 1893 annual meeting of the American Historical Association to present his paper on “The Significance of the Frontier in American History.”

The meeting took place that year on the grounds of the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago.  The weather was unspeakably hot, and Turner’s talk was poorly attended.  (The President of the AHA, Henry Adams, was in attendance but appears not to have heard Turner’s talk or ever to have read the paper—he was meditating in the Hall of Turbines, as he wrote in his autobiography, “The Education of Henry Adams,” having a nervous breakdown.)   But the paper has had an outsized and long-lasting impact, launching the field of western or frontier history.

Turner’s thesis was simple and unassailable.  Citing census data that showed there was no longer a recognizable line of American territory beyond which there was no settlement, Turner declared that by 1890 the frontier had “closed.”  The era of seemingly endless supplies of readily-available cheap land, dispensed for free or for nominal cost by the federal government, had come to an end.

For Turner, the history of the west was the history of the American experience.  And the defining feature of American life—shaping its laws, customs, culture and economy–had disappeared.  A new phase, with new rules, was beginning.

The FCC Only Functions, When it Functions at All, on the Frontier

Our problem, at least, is equally easy to describe.  The FCC, as created by Congress, is an agency that only functions, when it functions at all, on the frontier.

All the talk of “spectrum crunch” boils down to a simple but devastating fact:  it’s no longer possible to add capacity to existing mobile networks by assigning them unused ranges of radio frequencies.  While technology continues to expand the definition of “usable” frequencies, demand for mobile broadband is increasing faster than our ability to create new supply.

We need more spectrum.  And the only way to put more spectrum to use for the insatiable demands of mobile consumers is to reallocate spectrum that has already been licensed to someone else.

In the American west, reallocation of land was easy.  Land grants were given with full legal title, and holders were under no lasting obligation to use their land for any specific purpose or in any particular way.

The various acts of Congress that authorized the grants were intended to foster important social values—populating the frontier, developing agriculture, compensating freed slaves, building the railroads.  But those intentions were never translated into the kind of limited estates that plagued modern Europe after the feudal age came to an end.  (For a good example of the mischief a conditional estate can cause hundreds of years later, watch “Downton Abbey.”  Watch it even if you don’t want to see an example of inflexible estate law.)

Speculators sold to farmers, farmers to ranchers, ranchers to railroads and miners and oil drillers, and from there to developers of towns and other permanent settlements.  The market established the transfer price, and the government stood behind the change of title and its enforcement, where necessary.  Which was rarely.

So the closing of the western frontier, while it changed the nature of settlement in the American west, never threatened to bring future development to a screeching halt.

Reallocation Options are Few and Far Between

Unfortunately, spectrum licensing has never followed a property model, even though one was first proposed by Ronald Coase as early as 1959.  Under the FCC’s command-and-control model, spectrum assignments have historically been made to foster new technologies or new applications the FCC deems to be of good potential to advance national interests.  Spectrum has been licensed, usually at no or nominal cost to the licensor, for particular uses, with special conditions (often unrelated) attached.

In theory, of course, the FCC could begin revoking the licenses of public and private users who aren’t using the spectrum they already have, or who aren’t using it effectively or, to use the legal term of art, “in the public interest.”  Legally and politically, however, revoking (or even refusing to renew) licenses is a non-starter.

Consequently, the most disastrous side-effect of the “public interest” approach to licensing has been that when old technologies grow obsolete, there is no efficient way to reclaim the spectrum for new or more valuable uses.  The FCC must by law approve any transfer of an existing license on the secondary market, slowing the process at best and creating an opportunity to introduce new criteria and new conditions for the transfer at worst.

Even when the agency approves a transfer, the limitations on use and the existing conditions of the original licensor apply in full force to the new user.  That means that specific ranges of spectrum more-or-less arbitrarily set aside for a particular application remains forever set aside for that application, unless and until the FCC undertakes a rulemaking to reassign it.

That also takes time and effort, and offers the chance for new regulatory mischief.  (Only since 1999, the FCC has had the power, under limited circumstances, to grant flexible use licenses.  The power cannot be applied retroactively to existing licenses.)

With the spectrum frontier closed, mobile broadband providers must find additional capacity from existing license holders.  But because of the use restrictions and conditions, the universe of potential acquisition targets immediately and drastically shrinks to those making similar use of their licenses–that is, to current competitors.

So it’s no surprise that since 2005, as mobile use has exploded with the advent of 2G, 3G, and now 4G networks, the FCC has been called upon to approve over a dozen significant transfers within the mobile industry, including Sprint/Nextel, Verizon/Alltel, and Sprint Nextel/Clearwire.  Indeed, expanding capacity through merger seemed to be the agency’s preferred solution, and the one that required the least amount of time and effort.

But with the rejection last year of AT&T’s proposed merger with T-Mobile USA, the FCC has signaled that it no longer sees such transactions as a preferred or perhaps even potential avenue for acquiring additional capacity.  At least not for AT&T–and perhaps as well for Verizon, which is currently fighting to acquire unused spectrum held by a consortium of cable providers.

What other avenues are left?  With the approval of “voluntary incentive auction” legislation earlier this year, the FCC can now begin the process of gently coercing over-the-air television broadcasters to give up some or all of their licensed capacity in exchange for a share of the proceeds of any auctions the agency conducts to repurpose that spectrum for mobile broadband.

(Broadcast television seems the obvious place to start freeing up spectrum.  With the transition to digital TV, every station was given a 6 MHz. allocation in the 700 MHz. range.  But over-the-air viewership has collapsed to as few as 10% of homes in favor of cable and fiber systems, which today reach nearly every home in the country and offer far greater selection and services.  Many local broadcasters remain in business largely through the regulatory arbitrage of the FCC’s retransmission consent and must-carry rules.)

Those auctions will likely take years to complete, however, and the agency and Congress have already fallen out over how and how much the agency can “shape” the outcomes of these future auctions by disqualifying bidders who the agency feels already have too high a concentration of existing licenses.

And it’s far from clear that the broadcasters will be in any hurry to sign up, or that enough of them will to make the auctions worthwhile.  Participation is, at least so far, entirely voluntary.  Just getting Congress to agree to give the FCC even limited new auction authority took years.

There’s also the possibility of reassigning other kinds of spectrum to mobile use—increasing the pool of usable spectrum allocated to mobile, in other words.  That option, however, has also failed to produce results.  For example, the FCC initially gave start-up LightSquared a waiver that would allow it to repurpose unused spectrum allocated for satellite use for a new satellite and terrestrial-based LTE network.

But after concerns were raised by the Department of Defense and the GPS device industry about possible interference, the waiver was revoked and the company now stands on the brink of bankruptcy.  (Allegations of political favoritism in the granting of the waiver are holding up the nominations of two FCC commissioners.)

So when Dish Networks recently asked for a similar waiver, the agency traded speed and flexibility for the relative safety of  full process.  The FCC has now published a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to evaluate the request.  If the rulemaking is approved, Dish will be able to repurpose satellite spectrum for a terrestrial mobile broadband network (possibly a wholesale network, rather than a new competitor).  That, of course, will take time.  And given enough time, anything can and will happen.

Finally, there’s the potential to free up unused or underutilized spectrum currently licensed to the federal government, one of the largest holders of usable spectrum and a notoriously poor manager of this valuable resource.

That was the subject of the NTIA’s recent report, which seemed to suggest that the high-priority 1755-1850 MHz. range (internationally targeted for mobile users) could be cleared of government users within ten years—some in five years, and in some cases, with possible sharing of public and private use during a transitional phase.

But as I point out in the article, the details behind that encouraging headline suggest rather that some if not all of the twenty agencies who currently hold some 1,300 assignments in this band are in no hurry to vacate it.  Having paid nothing for their allocations and with no option to get future auction proceeds earmarked to their agency, the feds have little incentive to do so.  (NTIA can’t make them do much of anything.)  The offer to share may in fact be a stalling tactic to ensure they never actually have to vacate the frequencies.

What’s Left?  Perhaps Nothing, at Least as Far as the FCC is Concerned

The color-coded map of current assignments is so complicated it can’t actually be read at all except on very large screens.  There are currently some 50,000 active licenses.  The agency still doesn’t even have a working inventory of them.  This is the legacy of the FCC’s command-and-control approach to spectrum allocation over nearly 100 years.

Almost everyone agrees that even with advances in hardware and software that make spectrum usage and sharing more efficient, large quantities of additional spectrum must be allocated soon if we want to keep the mobile ecosystem healthy and the mobile revolution in full and glorious swing.

With the closing of the spectrum frontier, the easy solutions have all been extinguished.  And the century-long licensing regime, which tolerated tremendous inefficiency and waste when spectrum was cheap, has left the FCC, the NTIA, the mobile industry and consumers dangerously hamstrung in finding alternative methods to meet demand.  Existing spectrum, by and large, can’t be repurposed even when everyone involved wants to do so and where the market would easily catalyze mutually-beneficial transactions.

Given the law as it stands and the FCC’s current policy choices, carriers can’t get spectrum from outside the mobile industry, nor can they get it from their competitors.  They can’t get it from the government, and may not be allowed to participate in future auctions of spectrum agonizingly pried loose from broadcasters who aren’t using what they have cost-effectively—assuming those auctions ever take place.  They also can’t put up more towers and antennae to make better use of what they have, thanks to the foot-dragging and NIMBY policies of local zoning authorities.

And even when network operators do get more usable spectrum, it comes burdened with inflexible use limits and unrelated conditions that attach like barnacles at every stage of the process—from assignment to auction to transfer—and which require regular reporting, oversight, and supervision by the FCC.

A New Approach to Spectrum Management–Following an Old Model that Worked

The frontier system for spectrum management is hopelessly and dangerously broken.  It cannot be repaired.  For the mobile broadband economy to continue its remarkable development (one bright spot throughout the sour economy), Congress and the FCC must transition quickly to a new model that makes sense in a world without a spectrum frontier.

That model would look much more like the 19th century system of federal land management than the FCC’s legacy command-and-control system.  The new approach would start by taking the FCC out of the middle of every transaction, and leave to the market to determine the best and highest use of our limited range of usable frequencies.  It would treat licenses as transferable property, just like federal land grants in the 18 ^th and 19^th centuries.

It would leave to the market—with the legal system as backup—to work out problems of interference, just as the common law courts have stood as backup for land disputes.

And it would deal with any genuine problems of over-concentration (that is, those that cause demonstrable harm to consumers) through modern principles of antitrust applied by the Department of Justice, not the squishy and undefined “public interest” non-standard of the FCC.  It would correct problems once it was clear the market had failed to do so, not short-circuit the market at the first hint of theoretical trouble.  (Hello, net neutrality rules.)

That’s the system, according to Frederick Jackson Turner, that formed American culture and values, shaped American law and provided the fuel to create the engine of capitalism.

For starters.