Discourse magazine recently published my essay on what “Industrial Policy Advocates Should Learn from Don Lavoie.” With industrial policy enjoying a major revival in the the U.S. — with several major federal proposals are pending or already set to go into effect — I argue that Lavoie’s work is worth revisiting, especially as this weekend was the 20th anniversary of his untimely passing. Jump over to Discourse to read the entire thing.

But one thing I wanted to just briefly highlight here is the useful tool Lavoie created that helped us think about the “planning spectrum,” or the range of different industrial policy planning motivations and proposals. On one axis, he plotted “futurist” versus “preservationist” advocates and proposals, with the futurists wanting to invest in new skills and technologies, while the preservationists seek to prop up existing sectors. On the other axis, he contrasted “left-wing or pro-labor” and “right-wing or pro-business” advocates and proposals.

Lavoie used this tool to help highlight the remarkable intellectual schizophrenia among industrial policy planners, who all claimed to have the One Big Plan to save the economy. The problem was, Lavoie noted, all their plans differed greatly. For example, he did a deep dive into the work of Robert Reich and Felix Rohatyn, who were both outspoken industrial policy advocates during the 80s. Reich as affiliated with the Harvard School of Government at that time, and Rohatyn was a well-known Wall Street financier. The industrial policy proposals set forth by Reich and Rohatyn received enormous media and academic attention at the time, yet no one except Lavoie seriously explored the many ways in which their proposals differed so fundamentally. Rohatyn was slotted on the lower right quadrant because of his desire to prop up old sectors and ensure the health of various private businesses. Reich fell into the upper quadrant of being more of futurist in his desire to have the government promote newer skills, sectors, and technologies.

After identifying the many inconsistencies among these planners and their proposed schemes, Lavoie pointed out that these differences raised some obvious questions: Whose plan are we supposed to follow when proposed plans conflict? And how much stock should we place in the wisdom of industrial policy when the leading advocates cannot even agree on what sectors and technologies are worth preserving or promoting? It was a simply but powerful insight that should led us to calling into question anyone who tries to pretend that they have all the answers when it comes to industrial policy planning. And, as I argue in my new essay, this insight helps us identify the continuing intellectual schizophrenia among industrial policy planners and schemes today. If you jump over to my longer piece, you’ll see my breakdown of all this, but it’s plotted here:

In the end, I conclude that:

The limitations of industrial policy exist regardless of the policymaker’s intentions. There are no “good guys” versus “bad guys” when it comes to industrial policy efforts; there are just many people with many different technocratic plans, all of which are constrained by limited knowledge and resources.

Moreover, Lavoie most important piece of relevant advice is the simple adage that, if you find yourself in a hole, it is wise to stop digging. Constantly doubling down on planning efforts is not going to help governments escape the problems created by their earlier interventions. Unfortunately, this is exactly what many industrial policy advocates do: They insist that America already has an industrial policy, but that it lacks the sort of conscious design or coherent form or direction they desire. But that is the typical sort of hubris and folly we’ve always heard from planners. They always think there’s a proverbial “better path” out there and want us to imagine that they can lead us down it with wiser planning that avoids all the problems of all those past failed planning efforts.

As Lavoie taught us long ago, we’d be wise to reject their various schemes and recommendations. “In light of the inherent deficiencies of central planning, it might be argued that the U.S. should instead try to reduce current government interference with the competitive process to the absolute minimum consistent with other political goals,” he concluded. It remains wise advice for today’s policymakers.

Additional Reading:

• Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Does the US Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for AI & High-Tech?” Presentation for IHS Papers Workshop: Does America Need a New Industrial Policy?, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “Government Planning and Spending Won’t Replicate Silicon Valley,” Discourse, August 18, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “To Promote Tech Hubs Across the Country, Governments Should Focus on Improving the General Business Environment,” Discourse, September 9, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “‘Japan Inc.’ and Other Tales of Industrial Policy Apocalypse,” Discourse, June 28, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy as ‘Casino Economics‘,” The Hill, July 12, 2021.
• Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Should the U.S. Copy China’s Industrial Policy?” Discourse, March 11, 2021.
• Connor Haaland & Adam Thierer, “Can European-Style Industrial Policies Create Tech Supremacy?” Discourse, February 11, 2021.
• Matthew D. Mitchell and Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy is a Very Old, New Idea,” Discourse, April 6, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “On Defining ‘Industrial Policy,’” Technology Liberation Front, September 3, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Skeptical Takes on Expansive Industrial Policy Efforts,” Technology Liberation Front, ongoing series.

An interesting divide has opened up in recent months among right-of-center groups about what the FCC should do with the “C Band.” A few weeks ago, the FCC requested public comment on how to proceed with the band.

The C Band is 500 MHz of spectrum that the FCC, like regulators around the globe, dedicated for satellite use years ago and gave to satellite companies to share among each other. Satellite operators typically use it to transmit cable programming to a regional cable network operations center, where it is bundled and relayed to cable subscribers. However, the C Band would work terrifically if repurposed for 5G and cellular services. As Joe Kane explained in a white paper, the FCC and telecom companies are exploring various ways of accomplishing that.

Free-market groups disagree. Should the FCC prioritize:

The quick deployment of new wireless services? Or:

Deficit reduction and limiting FCC-granted windfalls?

This is a complex question since we’re dealing with the allocation of public property. Both sides, in my view, have a defensible free-market position. There are other non-trivial C Band issues like interference protection and the FCC’s authority to act here, but I’ll address the ideological split on the right.

The case for secondary markets

The full 500 MHz of “clean” C Band in the US would be worth tens of billions to cellular companies. However, the current satellite users don’t want to part with all of it and a group of satellite companies using the spectrum estimate they could sell 200 MHz to cellular carriers if the FCC would liberalize its rules to allow flexible uses (like 5G), not merely satellite services. The satellite providers would then be able to sell much of their spectrum on the secondary market (probably to cellular providers) at a nice premium.

Prof. Dan Lyons and Roslyn Layton wrote in support of the secondary market plan on the AEI blog and at Forbes, respectively. Joe Kane also favors the approach. As they say, the benefit of secondary market sales is that it will likely lead a significant and fast repurposing of the C Band for mobile use. The consumer benefits of “upzoned” spectrum are large and with every year of inaction, billions of dollars of consumer welfare evaporate. Hazlett and Munoz estimate that spectrum reallocated from a restricted use to flexible use generates annual consumer benefits in the same order of magnitude as auction value of the spectrum.

I’d add that there’s a history of the FCC upzoning spectrum (SMR spectrum in 2004, EBS spectrum in 2004, AWS-4 in 2011, WCS spectrum in 2012). The FCC is considering doing this with some government spectrum that Ligado or others could repurpose for mobile broadband. In these cases, the FCC upzoned spectrum so that it can be used for higher-valued uses, not legacy uses required by previous FCCs. The circumstances and technologies vary, but some of these bands were repurposed quickly for better uses by cellular providers and are used for 4G LTE today by tens of millions of Americans.

The case for FCC auction

Liberalizing spectrum quickly gets spectrum to higher-valued uses but does raise the complaint that the existing users are gaining an unfair windfall. I’m not sure when the C Band was allocated for satellite but many legacy assignments of spectrum were given to industries for free.

When the FCC upzones spectrum, it typically increases the value of the band. The “secondary market” plan is akin to the government giving away a parcel of public land to a developer to be used for a gas station, then deciding years later to upzone the land so that condo or office buildings can be built on it. It’s a better use for the land, but the gas station operator gains a big windfall when the property value increases. Not only is there a windfall, the government captures no revenue from the increase in the value of public property.

Free-market groups like Americans for Tax Reform, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and Citizens Against Government Waste favor the FCC reclaiming the spectrum from satellite providers, perhaps via incentive auction, and collecting government revenue by re-selling it. If the FCC went the incentive auction route, the FCC would purchase the “satellite spectrum” (ie a low price) from the current C Band users, upzone it, and re-sell that spectrum as “mobile spectrum” (ie a high price) in an open auction. The FCC and the Treasury pocket the difference, probably several billion dollars here.

The FCC has only done one incentive auction, the 600 MHz auction. There, the FCC purchased “TV spectrum” from broadcasters and re-sold it to wireless carriers.

The benefit of this is deficit reduction and there’s more perceived fairness since there’s no big, FCC-granted windfall to legacy users. The downside is that it’s a slower, more complicated process since the FCC is deeply involved in the spectrum transfer. Arguably, however, the FCC should be deeply involved and interested in government revenue since spectrum is public property.

My view

A few years ago I would have definitely favored speed and the secondary market plan. I still lean towards that approach but I’m a little more on the fence after reading Richard Epstein’s work and others’ about the “public trust doctrine.” This is a traditional governance principle that requires public actors to receive fair value when disposing of public property. It prevents public institutions from giving discounted public property to friends and cronies. Clearly, cronyism isn’t the case here and FCC can’t undo what FCCs did generations ago in giving away spectrum. I think the need for speedy deployment trumps the windfall issue here, but it’s a closer call for me than in the past.

One proposal that hasn’t been contemplated with the C Band but might have merit is an overlay auction with a deadline. With such an auction, the FCC gives incumbent users a deadline to vacate a band (say, 5 years). The FCC then auctions flexible-use licenses in the band. The FCC receives the auction revenues and the winning bidders are allowed to deploy services immediately in the “white spaces” unoccupied by the incumbents. The winning bidders are allowed to pay the incumbents to move out before the deadline.

With an overlay auction, you get fairly rapid deployment–at least in the white spaces–and the government gains revenue from the auction. This type of auction was used to deploy cellular (PCS) in the 1990s and cellular (AWS-1) in the 2000s. However, incumbents dislike it because the deadline devalues their existing spectrum holdings.

I think overlay auctions should be considered in more spectrum proceedings because they avoid the serious windfall problems while also allowing rapid deployment of new services. That doesn’t seem in the cards, however, and secondary markets seems like the next best option.

By Brent Skorup and Michael Kotrous

In 1999, the FCC completed one of its last spectrum “beauty contests.” A sizable segment of spectrum was set aside for free for the US Department of Transportation (DOT) and DOT-selected device companies to develop DSRC, a communications standard for wireless automotive communications, like vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I). The government’s grand plans for DSRC never materialized and in the intervening 20 years, new tech—like lidar, radar, and cellular systems—advanced and now does most of what regulators planned for DSRC.

Too often, however, government technology plans linger, kept alive by interest groups that rely on the new regulatory privilege, even when the market moves on. At the eleventh hour of the Obama administration, NHTSA proposed mandating DSRC devices in all new vehicles, an unprecedented move that Brent and other free-market groups opposed in public interest comment filings.  As Brent wrote last year ,

In the fast-moving connected car marketplace, there is no reason to force products with reliability problems [like DSRC] on consumers. Any government-designed technology that is “so good it must be mandated” warrants extreme skepticism….

Further,

Rather than compel automakers to add costly DSRC systems to cars, NHTSA should consider a certification or emblem system for vehicle-to-vehicle safety technologies, similar to its five-star crash safety ratings. Light-touch regulatory treatment would empower consumer choice and allow time for connected car innovations to develop.

Fortunately, the Trump administration put the brakes on the mandate , which would have added cost and complexity to cars for uncertain and unlikely benefits.

However, some regulators and companies are trying to revive the DSRC device industry while NHTSA’s proposed DSRC mandate is on life support. Marc Scribner at CEI uncovered a sneaky attempt to create DSRC technology sales via an EPA proceeding. The stalking horse DSRC boosters have chosen is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations—specifically the EPA’s off-cycle program. EPA and NHTSA jointly manage these regulations. That program rewards manufacturers who adopt new technologies that reduce a vehicle’s emissions in ways not captured by conventional measures like highway fuel economy.

Under the proposed rules , auto makers that install V2V or V2I capabilities can receive credit for having reduced emissions. The EPA proposal doesn’t say “DSRC” but it singles out only one technology standard that would be favored in this scheme: a standard underlying DSRC . 

This proposal comes as a bit of surprise for those who have followed auto technology; we’re aware of no studies showing DSRC improves emissions. (DSRC’s primary use-case today is collision warnings to the driver.) But the EPA proposes a helpful end-around that problem: simply waiving the requirement that manufacturers provide data showing a reduction in harmful emissions. Instead of requiring emissions data, the EPA proposes a much lower bar, that auto makers show that these devices merely “have some connection to overall environmental benefits.” Unless the agency applies credits in a tech-neutral way and requires more rigor in the final rules, which is highly unlikely, this looks like a backdoor subsidy to DSRC via gaming of emission reduction regulations.

Hopefully EPA regulators will discover the ruse and drop the proposal. It was a pleasant surprise last week when a DOT spokesman committed that the agency favored a tech-neutral approach for this “talking car” band. But after 20 years,  this 75 MHz of spectrum gifted to DSRC device makers should be repurposed by the FCC for flexible-use. Fortunately, the FCC has started thinking about alternative uses for the DSRC spectrum. In 2015 Commissioners O’Rielly and Rosenworcel said the agency should consider flexible-use alternatives to this DSRC-only band.

The FCC would be wise to follow through and push even farther. Until the gifted spectrum that powers DSRC is reallocated to flexible use, interest groups will continue to pull any regulatory lever it has to subsidize or mandate adoption of talking-car technology. If DSRC is the best V2V technology available, device makers should win market share by convincing auto companies, not by convincing regulators.

In the waning days of the Obama administration, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) proposed to mandate a government-designed “talking cars” technology–so-called DSRC devices–on all new cars. Fortunately, in part because of opposition from free-market advocates, the Trump administration paused the proposed mandate. The FCC had set aside spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for DSRC technologies in 1999 but it’s been largely unused since then and these new developments raise the question: What to do with that 75 MHz of fairly “clean” spectrum? Hopefully the FCC will take the opportunity to liberalize the use of the DSRC band so it can be put to better uses.

Background

Since the mid-1990s, the USDOT and auto device suppliers have needed the FCC’s assistance–via free spectrum–to jumpstart the USDOT’s vehicle-to-vehicle technology plans. The DSRC disappointment provides an illustration of what the FCC (and other agencies) should not do. DSRC was one of the FCC’s last major “beauty contests,” which is where the agency dispenses valuable spectrum for free on the condition it be used for certain, narrow uses–in this case, only USDOT-approved wireless systems for transportation. The grand plans for DSRC haven’t lived up to its expectations (USDOT officials in 2004 were predicting commercialization as early as 2005) and the device mandate in 2016–now paused–was a Hail Mary attempt to compel widespread adoption of the technology.

Last year, I submitted public interest comments to the USDOT opposing the proposed DSRC mandate as premature, anticompetitive, and unsafe (researchers found, for instance, that “the system will be able to reliably predict collisions only about 35% of the time”). I noted that, a fter nearly 20 years of work on DSRC, the USDOT and their hand-selected vendors had made little progress and were being leapfrogged by competing systems, like automatic emergency brakes,  to say nothing of self-driving cars. The FCC has noticed the fallow DSRC spectrum and Commissioners O’Rielly and Rosenworcel proposed in 2015 to allow other, non-DSRC wireless technologies, like WiFi, into the band.

The FCC’s Role

These DSRC devices use spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band. The FCC set aside  radio spectrum in the band for DSRC applications in 1999 based on a scant 19 comments and reply comments from outside parties. 

Despite the typical flowery language in the 1999 Order, FCC commissioners and Wireless Bureau staff must have had an inkling this was not a good idea. After decades of beauty contests, it was clear the spectrum set-asides were inefficient and anticonsumer, and in 1993 Congress gave the FCC authority to auction spectrum to the highest bidder. The FCC also moved towards “flexible-use” licenses in the 1990s, thus replacing top-down technology choices with market-driven ones. The DSRC set-aside broke from those practices, likely because DSRC in 1999 had powerful backers that the FCC simply couldn’t ignore: the USDOT, device vendors, automakers, and some members of Congress.

The FCC then codified the first DSRC standards in 2003. However, innovation at the speed of government, it turns out, isn’t very speedy at all. The fast-moving connected car industry simply moved ahead without waiting for DSRC technology to catch up.  (Government-selected vendors making devices according to 15-year old government-prescribed technical standards on spectrum allocated by the government in 1999 in a fast-moving technology sector. What could go wrong?)

A Second Chance

So if the DSRC plans didn’t pan out, what should be done with that spectrum? Hopefully the FCC will liberalize the band and, possibly, combine it with the adjacent bands.

The gold standard for maximizing the use of spectrum is flexible-use, licensed spectrum, so the best option is probably liberalizing the DSRC spectrum, combining it with the adjacent higher band (5.925 GHz to 6.425 GHz) and auctioning it. In November 2017, the FCC asked about freeing this latter band for flexible, licensed use.  

The other (probably more popular) option is liberalizing the DSRC band and making it available for free, that is, unlicensed use. Giving away spectrum for free often leads to misallocation but this option is better than keeping it dedicated for DSRC technology. Unlicensed is for flexible uses and allows for many consumer technologies like WiFi, Bluetooth, and unlicensed LTE devices.

Further, because of global technical standards, unlicensed devices in the DSRC band make far more sense, it seems to me, in 5.9 GHz than in the CBRS band* (3.6 GHz), which many countries are using for licensed services like LTE. The FCC is currently trying to simplify the rules in the CBRS band to encourage investment in licensed services, and perhaps that’s a compromise the FCC will reach with those who want more unlicensed spectrum: make 3.6 GHz more accommodating for licensed, flexible uses but in return open the DSRC band to unlicensed devices.

Either way, the FCC has an opportunity to liberalize the use of the DSRC band. Grand plans for DSRC didn’t work out and hopefully the FCC can repurpose that spectrum for flexible uses, either licensed or unlicensed.

*Technically, the GAA devices in the CBRS band are non-exclusive licenses, but the rules intentionally resemble an unlicensed framework.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the White House is crafting a plan for $1 trillion in infrastructure investment. I was intrigued to learn that President Trump “inquired about the possibility of auctioning the broadcast spectrum to wireless carriers” to help fund the programs. Spectrum sales are the rare win-win-win: they stimulate infrastructure investment (cell towers, fiber networks, devices), provide new wireless services and lower prices to consumers, and generate billions in revenue for the federal government.

Broadcast TV spectrum is good place to look for revenue but the White House should also look at federal agencies, who possess about ten times what broadcasters hold.

Large portions of spectrum are underused or misallocated because of decades of command-and-control policies. Auctioning spectrum for flexible uses, on the other hand, is a free-market policy that is often lucrative for the federal government. Since 1993, when Congress authorized spectrum auctions, wireless carriers and tech companies have spent somewhere around $120 billion for about 430 MHz of flexible-use spectrum, and the lion’s share of revenue was deposited in the US Treasury.

A few weeks ago, the FCC completed the $19 billion sale of broadcast TV spectrum, the so-called incentive auction. Despite underwhelming many telecom experts, this was the third largest US spectrum auction ever in terms of revenue and will transfer a respectable 70 MHz from restricted (broadcast TV) use to flexible use.

The remaining broadcast TV spectrum that President Trump is interested in totals about 210 MHz. But even more spectrum is under the President’s nose.

As Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology pointed out in 2012, federal agencies possess around 2,000 MHz of “beachfront” (sub-3.7 GHz) spectrum. I charted various spectrum uses in a December 2016 Mercatus policy brief.

This government spectrum is very valuable if portions can be cleared of federal users. Federal spectrum was part of the frequencies the FCC auctioned in 2006 and 2015, and the slivers of federal spectrum (around 70 MHz of the federal total) sold for around $27 billion combined.

The Department of Commerce has been analyzing which federal spectrum bands could be used commercially and the Mobile Now Act, a pending bill in Congress, proposes more sales of federal spectrum. These policies have moved slowly (and the vague language about unlicensed spectrum in the Mobile Now bill has problems) but the Trump administration has a chance to expedite spectrum reallocation processes and sell more federal spectrum to commercial users.

The proposed Mobile Now Act signals that spectrum policy is being prioritized by Congress and there’s some useful reforms in the bill. However, the bill encourages unlicensed spectrum allocations in ways that I believe will create major problems down the road.

Congress and the FCC need to proceed much more carefully before allocating more unlicensed spectrum. The FCC’s 2008 decision, for instance, to allow unlicensed devices in the “TV white spaces” has been disappointing. As some economists recently noted, “[s]imply stated, the FCC’s TV white space policy to date has been a flop.” Unlicensed spectrum policy is also generating costly fights (see WiFi v. LTE-U, Bluetooth v. TLPS, LightSquared v. GPS) as device makers and carriers lobby about who gains regulatory protection and how to divide this valuable resource that the FCC parcels out for free.

The unlicensed spectrum provisions in the Mobile Now Act may force the FCC to referee innumerable fights over who has access to unlicensed spectrum. Section 18 of the Mobile Now bill encourages unlicensed spectrum. It says the FCC must

make available on an unlicensed basis radio frequency bands sufficient to meet demand for unlicensed wireless broadband operations if doing so is…reasonable…and…in the public interest.

Note that we have language about supply and demand here. But unlicensed spectrum is free to all users using an approved device (that is, nearly everyone in the US). Quantity demanded will always outstrip quantity supplied when a valuable asset (like spectrum or real estate) is handed out when price = 0. By removing a valuable asset from the price system, large allocation distortions are likely.

Any policy originating from Congress or the FCC to satisfy “demand” for unlicensed spectrum biases the agency towards parceling out an excessive amount of unlicensed spectrum. 

The problems from unlicensed spectrum allocation could be mitigated if the FCC decided, as part of a “public interest” conclusion, to estimate the opportunity cost of any unlicensed spectrum allocated.  That way, the government will have a rough idea of the market value of unlicensed spectrum being given away. There have been several auctions and there is an active secondary market for spectrum so estimates are achievable, and the UK has required the calculation of the opportunity cost of spectrum for over a decade.

With these estimates, it will be more difficult but still possible for the FCC to defend giving away spectrum for free. Economist Coleman Bazelon, for instance, estimates that the incremental value of a nationwide megahertz of licensed spectrum is more than 10x the equivalent unlicensed spectrum allocation. Significantly, unlike licensed spectrum, allocations of unlicensed bands are largely irreversible.

People can quibble with the estimates but it is unclear that unlicensed use is the best use of additional spectrum. In any case, hopefully the FCC will attempt to bring some economic rigor to public interest determinations.

Is the incentive auction a disappointment? For consumers, this auction is not a disappointment. At least–not yet.

Scott Wallsten at the Technology Policy Institute has a good rundown. My thoughts below:

By my count, this was the eighth major auction of commercial, flexible-use spectrum since auctions were authorized in 1993. On the most important question–how much spectrum was repurposed from restricted uses to flexible, licensed uses?–this auction stacks up pretty well.

At 70 MHz, this was the third largest auction in terms of total spectrum repurposed, trailing the mid-1990s PCS auction (120 MHz) and 2006 AWS-1 auction (90 MHz).

On the next most important question–how quickly will new services be deployed?–the verdict is still out. Historically, repurposing spectrum like this typically takes six to twelve years. Depending on how you classify it, this proceeding commenced in 2010 (when the FCC proposed the incentive auction) or 2012 (when Congress authorized the auction). With the auction over, broadcasters have over three years to clear out of the spectrum but some believe it will take longer. Right now, it looks like the process will take seven to eleven years total–not great but pretty typical. 

Some people are disappointed, however, with this auction, particularly some in the broadcasting industry and in the FCC or Congress, who expected higher auction revenues.

High revenue gets nice headlines but is far less important than the amount of spectrum repurposed. It’s an underreported story but close to 290 MHz of spectrum, nearly 45% of all liberalized, licensed spectrum, was de-zoned by the FCC, not auctioned. De-zoning spectrum generates zero auction revenue for the government but consumers see substantial benefits from this de-zoning, even if the government does not directly benefit. I recently wrote a policy brief about the benefits of de-zoning spectrum.

In any case, in terms of revenue, this auction was not a failure. At around $17 billion, it’s third out of eight, trailing the 2008 700 MHz band auction (about $21 billion in 2015 dollars) and the massive haul from the 2015 AWS-3 auction (about $42 billion).

At close, broadcasters will receive $10 billion for the 70 MHz of available licensed spectrum. Some broadcasters consider it a failure, just as a home seller is disappointed when her home sells below list price. The broadcasters initially requested $86 billion for 100 MHz of available spectrum. When the carriers’ bids didn’t match that price, some broadcasters pulled out and the remaining broadcasters lowered their price.

Were there better ways of repurposing broadcast spectrum? Broadcasters have a point that the complexity of the auction might have reduced buyer and seller participation (which means lower bids and fewer deals). As Wallsten notes, an overlay auction (like AWS-1) or simply de-zoning the spectrum might have been better (faster) alternatives. But it goes too far deem this auction a failure (at least until we know how long the broadcaster repack takes).

Those of us with deep reservations about the push for ever more unlicensed spectrum are having many of our fears realized with the new resistance to novel technologies using unlicensed spectrum. By law unlicensed spectrum users have no rights to their spectrum; unlicensed spectrum is a managed commons. In practice, however, existing users frequently act as if they own their spectrum and they can exclude others. By entertaining these complaints, the FCC simply encourages NIMBYism in unlicensed spectrum.

The general idea behind unlicensed spectrum is that by providing a free spectrum commons to any device maker who complies with certain simple rules (namely, Part 15’s low power operation requirement), device makers will develop wireless services that would never have developed if the device makers had to shell out millions for licensed spectrum. For decades, unlicensed spectrum has stimulated development and sale of millions of consumer devices, including cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, wifi access points, RC cars, and microwave ovens.

Now, however, many device makers are getting nervous about new entrants. For instance, Globalstar is developing a technology, TLPS, based on wifi standards that will use some unlicensed spectrum at 2.4 GHz and mobile carriers would like to market an unlicensed spectrum technology, LTE-U, based on 4G LTE standards that will use spectrum at 5 GHz.

This resistance from various groups and spectrum incumbents, who fear interference in “their” spectrum if these new technologies catch on, was foreseeable, which makes these intractable conflicts even more regrettable. As Prof. Tom Hazlett wrote in a 2001 essay, long before today’s conflicts, when it comes to unlicensed devices, “economic success spells its own demise.” Hazlett noted, “Where an unlicensed firm successfully innovates, open access guarantees imitation. This not only results in competition…but may degrade wireless emissions — perhaps severely.”

On the other hand, the many technical filings about potential interference to existing unlicensed devices are red herrings. Prospective device makers in these unlicensed bands have no duty to protect existing users. Part 15 rules say that unlicensed users like wifi and Bluetooth “shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment” and that “interference must be accepted.” These rules, however, put the FCC in a self-created double bind: the agency provides no interference protection to existing users but its open access policy makes interference conflicts likely.

There is a concerted effort, then, by some wireless industry associations, tech journalists, and tech-focused nonprofits to ignore the Part 15 rules and suggest that open access no longer applies. In particular, there are suggestions that LTE-U must or should comply with wifi-like listen-before-talk mechanisms before using the unlicensed commons. Chris Lewis at Public Knowledge insinuated as much in a blog post on the issue. He states the correct but legally irrelevant fact that early versions of LTE-U don’t use listen-before-talk protocols and then adds a confusing non sequitur, “This is in violation of basic Wi-Fi standards.”

The notion that LTE-U or any other new technology must employ the wifi industry’s preference, listen-before-talk, is wrong. There are tens of millions of Part 15 devices that don’t use listen-before-talk, including cordless phones, garage door openers, Bluetooth devices, and RC toys. There are different sharing etiquettes and the FCC has generally been hands-off regarding what etiquette device makers should use since, first, the strict Part 15 power limits mitigate most problems and second, interference is typically reciprocal and parties have an incentive to coordinate.

Interestingly, the FCC has required some unlicensed devices to employ listen-before-talk protocols in the unlicensed PCS band. Never heard of it? The band is a wireless graveyard. Aside from a few cordless telephones, it’s had very little use, in part because the FCC required a complex listen-before-talk etiquette that raises the cost of producing equipment. In light of this failed experiment, the FCC probably has little appetite (or aptitude) for predicting via technology mandates which sharing etiquette will most benefit consumers.

Further, unlicensed spectrum incumbents show a selective sensitivity to interference considering their unlicensed devices face interference daily. It’s impossible to approximate the severity and regularity of everyday interference but focusing on potential interference from new services like LTE-U or TLPS, which use spectrum sharing etiquettes, and ignoring the effects of, say, poorly configured or legacy wifi access points or microwave ovens in the 2.4 GHz band is akin to complaining about hearing your next-door neighbor’s TV volume when there’s a rock concert playing in your front yard. Microwave ovens are powerful emitters, typically around 400 to 800 watts compared to a 1-watt wifi device. While microwave ovens are built to shield most emissions from escaping, none are perfect and they are a frequent source of wireless interference in households and offices around the country. Relatedly, in apartments, condos, or dormitories with unmanaged wifi systems, interference occurs regularly.

The FCC sends very mixed signals regarding unlicensed policy. It formally provides no interference protection to unlicensed users but frequently solicits comment about possible harms to these existing users. No wonder, then, that some Wall Street investors have strenuously opposed Globalstar’s multi-year attempt to get approval for its TLPS technology to provide wifi-like Internet access. Why would a hedge fund take an interest in the intricacies of Part 15 rules? Recent tech reporting is suggestive.

Bloomberg BNA reported that one intervenor who has filed comments against Globalstar’s TLPS application “runs a hedge fund [and has] said he is short-selling Globalstar’s stock, so he has been very active in the Globalstar TLPS FCC proceeding.” The New York Times similarly reports on another frequent filer in the TLPS proceeding, “a little-known activist investor [who] has declared war on the multibillion-dollar satellite communications company Globalstar, contending that it is worthless.” Existing device makers likewise may see a competitive threat from new devices that provide similar services, as Hazlett notes, and pile on in these proceedings.

Singling out a company with important business before a regulatory agency is not unheard of but the FCC only encourages financial gamesmanship by requesting that parties weigh in on interference potential for users that formally aren’t entitled to interference protection. Is this how the spectrum commons dies?

The most effective tactic to use when the FCC is likely to do something you dislike is to induce regulatory delays. The public interest groups can see much of this and their responses have been relatively muted relative to the commercial interests. I suspect many are deeply uncomfortable with what is occurring because it undermines the idea of a commons and the intent of the Part 15 rules. Nevertheless, they favor the status quo because wifi works pretty well and consumers have reliance interests. Knowing that the Part 15 rules don’t help them, they typically resort to asking for more studies about interference potential. It sounds like an innocuous request but anyone following telecom policy knows that “more study” from the FCC is the kiss of death because it simply gives time for opponents to agitate for reinforcements (like powerful members of Congress) and to scare off investment.

Congress, by the way, foresaw this risk–pressure groups compelling the FCC to kill entrants with delay–and in 1983 added the little-known Section 7 of the Communications Act, which requires the FCC to approve new technologies within a year. By requesting parties weigh in on interference potential and delaying indefinitely Part 15 approvals for TLPS and LTE-U (assuming they show they comply with Part 15) the FCC violates the spirit of the law. The agency has a statutory duty to companies with new technologies to make a decision quickly, but these lengthy unlicensed proceedings send a chilling message to the tech industry (so much so the IEEE asked then-Chairman Genachowski for Section 7 guidance in 2011).

The FCC knows spectrum NIMBYism is a big, developing problem. The unlicensed incumbents are agitating more and more as new technologies encroach on “their” spectrum. It should be enough for the FCC to respond that these unlicensed device makers knew the tradeoff going in–you can avoid expensive licensure and use spectrum freely but you cannot object when interfered with. Firms that want interference protection and higher QoS are free to spend millions or billions of dollars on licensed spectrum. Increasingly, however, by largely remaining silent and delaying approvals, the FCC gets bogged down in proceedings and undermines the purpose of unlicensed spectrum–encourage innovators to experiment with new wireless technologies. If the delays in approving TLPS and foreseeable delays for LTE-U are any indication, the FCC is quietly slipping towards de facto beauty contests, the infamous practice of picking technology winners and losers.

The most pressing challenge in wireless telecommunications policy is transferring spectrum from inefficient legacy operators like federal agencies to the commercial sector for consumer use.

Reflecting high consumer demand for more wireless services, in early 2015 the FCC completed an auction for a small slice of prime spectrum–currently occupied by federal agencies and other non-federal incumbents–that grossed over $40 billion for the US Treasury. Increasing demand for mobile services such as Web browsing, streaming video, the Internet of Things, and gaming requires even more spectrum. Inaction means higher smartphone bills, more dropped calls, and stuttering downloads.

My latest research for the Mercatus Center, “Sweeten the Deal: Transfer of Federal Spectrum through Overlay Licenses,” was published recently and recommends the use of overlay licenses to transfer federal spectrum into commercial use. Purchasing an overlay license is like acquiring real property that contains a few tenants with unexpired leases. While those tenants have a superior possessory right to use the property, a high enough cash payment or trade will persuade them to vacate the property. The same dynamic applies for spectrum.

Overlay licenses have been used to reassign non-federal spectrum but never federal spectrum. The paper presents new evidence from a 2006 spectrum auction (AWS-1) that suggests that billions of dollars of underused federal spectrum could be deployed more quickly than other policy alternatives. Crucially, overlay licenses allow agencies to receive payment for spectrum sales and this reordering of spectrum rights would benefit taxpayers and wireless broadband users.

Policymakers are interested in spectrum policy because spectrum availability improves broadband access and generates substantial government revenues. Further, conservative estimates place the consumer surplus losses from misallocation of spectrum at hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Therefore, policymakers should favor reform proposals, like overlay licenses, that show promise in repurposing federal spectrum relatively quickly. The paper compares two policy proposals for spectrum reform: regulation-intensive dynamic spectrum sharing and market-oriented overlay licenses.

Regulation-Intensive Approach. A 2012 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report promotes complex spectrum-sharing technologies to enable consumer use of fallow federal spectrum in order to avoid clearing agencies from their spectrum.

• According to the PCAST report, widespread dynamic spectrum sharing would take decades to implement. The proposal relies on precise government planning and complex device requirements to enable intensive use of federal spectrum. However, the sharing technologies contemplated are in early development and will not be in routine deployment for many years. Social welfare losses mount quickly in the interim.
• Despite recognizing that agencies have no incentive to improve efficient use of their spectrum, this proposal does little to encourage efficient government use of spectrum. Dynamic spectrum sharing techniques allow wasteful legacy systems to operate indefinitely, and PCAST recommends against clearing inefficient federal users.
• Implementation of the PCAST proposal would likely degenerate into regulatory failure. Previous attempts at spectrum sharing between different wireless systems, like the TV White Spaces allocation that PCAST lauds, frequently resulted in rent seeking, severe deployment delays, and relatively few consumer benefits.

Market-Based Approach. A superior reform proposal is to auction off overlay licenses to certain federal spectrum bands. These winning overlay licensees can put unused federal spectrum into service rapidly. For the remaining spectrum that agencies are using, the winning licensee can pay the agency to vacate the bands or upgrade to more efficient systems. Agency resistance may be mitigated because agencies can negotiate compensation for selling rights to their spectrum.

• The FCC has conducted overlay auctions in the past and they represent an “off-the-shelf” tool to reorder spectrum rights. In previous overlay auctions, the process was effective and winning bidders compensated existing users like state public safety agencies and public utilities to vacate their valuable spectrum.
• Overlay license auctions and clearing deadlines transfer spectrum into the market and to its highest-valued uses. For example, in as few as two years after the 2006 AWS-1 auction, existing users and federal agencies vacated their spectrum, allowing carriers to invest billions of dollars into networks and deploy mobile broadband in cities like San Francisco and New York.
• A combination of clearing federal agencies from their spectrum and using overlays to clear nonfederal users has freed about 210 MHz of prime spectrum for mobile broadband use, supplying over one third of spectrum held by mobile carriers today.

Government agencies sit on wireless spectrum worth hundreds of billions of dollars rent-free. This federal spectrum is often unused or underutilized and the misallocation of this valuable resource is socially costly. My paper proposes that Congress permit agencies to sell some of their spectrum to private parties after an overlay auction. No other reform proposal has enabled widespread consumer use and economic investment as rapidly as have overlay auctions combined with clearing deadlines. Overlays and clearing deadlines in the recent past have permitted commercial deployment of cutting-edge wireless technologies in encumbered spectrum within a few years.

Related Research Reclaiming Federal Spectrum: Proposals and Recommendations

The FCC is being dragged–reluctantly, it appears–into disputes that resemble the infamous beauty contests of bygone years, where the agency takes on the impossible task of deciding which wireless services deliver more benefits to the public. Two novel technologies used for wireless broadband–TLPS and LTE-U–reveal the growing tensions in unlicensed spectrum. The two technologies are different and pose slightly different regulatory issues but each is an attempt to bring wireless Internet to consumers. Their advocates believe these technologies will provide better service than existing wifi technology and will also improve wifi performance. Their major similarity is that others, namely wifi advocates, object that the unlicensed bands are already too crowded and these new technologies will cause interference to existing users.

The LTE-U issue is new and developing. The TLPS proceeding, on the other hand, has been pending for a few years and there are warning signs the FCC may enter into beauty contests–choosing which technologies are entitled to free spectrum–once again.

What are FCC beauty contests and why does the FCC want to avoid them? From the 1930s to the 1990s (aside from a few short-lived spectrum lotteries), the FCC handed out valuable spectrum licenses for free to applicants who showed they would benefit the public with their planned services. TV broadcasters, taxicab dispatchers, satellite communications companies, medical facilities, and others lobbied to claim their stake when new spectrum became available.

These time-consuming proceedings became known as beauty contests, reflecting the subjective nature of giving away an input often worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to “deserving” applicants. The inefficiency, delay, and predictable corruption of beauty contests were widely criticized, but it wasn’t until the 1990s that Congress permitted auctioning spectrum. Allowing markets to allocate spectrum greatly improved the chances spectrum would go to the firms that had financial incentives to put it to good use, rather than the firms that had the most persuasive insiders.

But not all spectrum is auctioned today. Decades ago the FCC realized that short-range, innovative new services could be deployed without expensive and time-consuming licensing. The agency decided to authorize low-power devices in certain bands of spectrum. Essentially, any device maker could freely deploy technologies in these bands as long as they complied with a few basic FCC rules, the Part 15 rules. The FCC left technology choices to the device makers, who share the spectrum with other–sometimes interference-prone–device makers and users. While wifi technology is the most popular and most economically significant user of unlicensed spectrum, there are many other technologies coexisting in unlicensed bands. Today, hardware companies make dozens of short-range technologies like toy RC cars, wireless speakers, Bluetooth earpieces, baby monitors, garage door openers, cordless phones, and wifi routers.

Unlicensed spectrum has downsides for device makers, however. As the FCC said in a recent proceeding, “As a general condition of operation, Part 15 devices … must accept any interference that may be received from [licensed users] or other Part 15 devices.” Operators like AT&T, Sprint, and Dish pay millions or billions of dollars for their licensed spectrum at auction. In return, however, they can exclude other wireless operators from using their spectrum assignments. In contrast, using free unlicensed spectrum means you have no protection from interference from other unlicensed and licensed users. This is intended to create an environment of permissionless innovation, where wireless entrants can be free to try new services.

In theory, this means unlicensed users cannot object when other unlicensed users deploy new technologies. In practice, however, now that unlicensed spectrum is occupied by services like Bluetooth and wifi-delivered Internet, new entrants often modify their technology to be “good neighbors.” The potential for interference also motivates established players to prevent entrants like TLPS and LTE-U from using the bands.

Richard Bennett has a good explanation of the LTE-U engineering issues before the FCC. TLPS has slightly different issues. After a few years of testing, TLPS may be approved soon, but not without a fight. TLPS is a novel wireless technology that uses a channel of spectrum that straddles unlicensed spectrum and licensed spectrum. The licensed portion is currently used by Globalstar for satellite communications but the FCC generally wishes to get away from mandating certain services–like satellite communications–and to allow licensees to use their spectrum for whatever service is demanded by consumers. For that reason, the FCC has sought, since releasing the 2010 National Broadband Plan, to make this relatively unproductive “satellite spectrum” available for land-based wireless broadband use. Knowing that the FCC is willing to be flexible to meet growing consumer broadband needs, Globalstar saw an opportunity to merge its licensed spectrum with a portion of the free, adjacent unlicensed spectrum. With this wider channel, some of it shared with existing unlicensed users, wireless broadband delivered via TLPS technology became feasible. As TLPS approval nears the finish line, however, some unlicensed users are objecting that TLPS will interfere with their services.

The FCC proceedings reveal a technical debate about interference measurements. These claims distract from the larger issue: Either the Part 15 rules mean what they say–unlicensed users have no interference protection–or the FCC is increasingly back in the business of beauty contests and deciding which services are entitled to free spectrum.

Henry Goldberg, a communications lawyer who represented Apple years ago in getting more unlicensed spectrum allocated, predicted these fights at a 2008 Information Economy Project conference.

[I]f you are a company or a municipality or a port authority or a university who has invested in unlicensed spectrum to provide a WiFi services for a fee, you’re not so sure you want someone using unlicensed spectrum to compete with you. Such players may try to use contractual rights, lawsuits, etc. to seek to limit additional entry to what has become “their” spectrum. If a “not-in-my-back-yard” dynamic takes over, the very essence of Part 15 is compromised. Vigilance is needed to fight Part 15 NIMBY.

It’s this growing Part 15 NIMBYism that concerns many spectrum policy watchers. No one wants the return of beauty contests and the FCC picking winners among different technologies.

But Goldberg has a discouraging addendum to his prescient warning against NIMBYism in unlicensed bands:

Supporter of unfettered grazing rights that I am, it doesn’t offend me to have the town permit grazing by sheep and cows, but forbid elephants.

Herein lies the problem. The FCC is being pressured to declare that TLPS is an elephant that should not be allowed in the commons filled with wifi sheep and Bluetooth cows. LTE-U will be the next target.

If the FCC encourages these kinds of complaints, the result will be customary law that is destructive to innovation in unlicensed bands. Firms will sink investments in technologies and business plans that comply with the rules, and only later learn they are violating unwritten rules.

The bigger problem is that the FCC is entering beauty contest territory once again. Even if the FCC someday prohibits “elephants” in unlicensed–current Part 15 rules say unlicensed users have no protection against others–the agency has to determine what that means. The FCC does not want to go back to the bad old days of beauty contests, specifying, in the face of intense lobbying, that only certain technologies were allowed on certain frequencies in certain places.

As firms find ways to intensely use free unlicensed spectrum, more conflicts like these may arise. Unfortunately these fights politicize FCC decisionmaking and could stymie new wireless innovations.

It may be that NIMBYism in unlicensed is inevitable. If interference in unlicensed is a regular problem and the FCC finds itself picking winners, the FCC needs to be much more cautious about allocating unlicensed spectrum. It’s worth noting that auctioning spectrum removes the temptation to engage in the ad hoc dispensations of spectrum that plagued the agency for decades. In any case, the results of the TLPS and LTE-U proceedings will have ramifications beyond the approval or denial of those technologies.

Related Reading: Super Wifi and Unlicensed Spectrum: “Spectrum Condos” How the FCC Killed a Nationwide Wireless Broadband Network

Last Wednesday, it was my great pleasure to testify at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing entitled, “The Connected World: Examining the Internet of Things.” The hearing focused “on how devices… will be made smarter and more dynamic through Internet technologies. Government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, however, are already considering possible changes to the law that could have the unintended consequence of slowing innovation.”

But the session went well beyond the Internet of Things and became a much more wide-ranging discussion about how America can maintain its global leadership for the next-generation of Internet-enabled, data-driven innovation. On both sides of the aisle at last week’s hearing, one Senator after another made impassioned remarks about the enormous innovation opportunities that were out there. While doing so, they highlighted not just the opportunities emanating out of the IoT and wearable device space, but also many other areas, such as connected cars, commercial drones, and next-generation spectrum.

I was impressed by the energy and nonpartisan vision that the Senators brought to these issues, but I wanted to single out the passionate statement that Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) delivered when it came his turn to speak because he very eloquently articulated what’s at stake in the battle for global innovation supremacy in the modern economy. (Sen. Booker’s remarks were not published, but you can watch them starting at the 1:34:00 mark of the hearing video.)

Embrace the Opportunity

First, Sen. Booker stressed the enormous opportunity with the Internet of Things. “ This is a phenomenal opportunity for a bipartisan, profoundly patriotic approach to an issue that can explode our economy. I think that there are trillions of dollars, creating countless jobs, improving quality of life, [and] democratizing our society,” he said. “We can’t even imagine the future that this portends of, and we should be embracing that.”

Sen. Booker has it exactly right. And for more details about the enormous innovation opportunities associated with the Internet of Things, see Section 2 of my new law review article, “The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation,” which provides concrete evidence.

Protect America’s Competitive Advantage in the Innovation Age

Second, Sen. Booker highlighted the importance of getting our policy vision right to achieve those opportunities. He noted that “a lot of my concerns are what my Republican colleagues also echoed, which is we should be doing everything possible to encourage this and nothing to restrict it.”

“ America right now is the net exporter of technology and innovation in the globe, and we can’t lose that advantage,” he said and “we should continue to be the global innovators on these areas.” He continued on to say:

And so, from copyright issues, security issues, privacy issues… all of these things are worthy of us wrestling and grappling with, but to me we cannot stop human innovation and we can’t give advantages in human innovation to other nations that we don’t have. America should continue to lead.

This is something I have been writing actively about now for many years and I agree with Sen. Booker that America needs to get our policy vision right to ensure we don’t lose ground in the international competition to see who will lead the next wave of Internet-enabled innovation. As I noted in my testimony, “If America hopes to be a global leader in the Internet of Things, as it has been for the Internet more generally over the past two decades, then we first have to get public policy right. America took a commanding lead in the digital economy because, in the mid-1990s, Congress and the Clinton administration crafted a nonpartisan vision for the Internet that protected “permissionless innovation”—the idea that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted without prior approval.”

Meanwhile, as I documented in my longer essay, “Why Permissionless Innovation Matters: Why does economic growth occur in some societies & not in others?” our international rivals languished on this front because they strapped their tech sectors with layers of regulatory red tape that thwarted digital innovation.

Reject Fear-Based Policymaking

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Sen. Booker stressed how essential it was that we reject a fear-based approach to public policymaking. As he noted at the hearing about these new information technologies, “ there’s a lot of legitimate fears, but in the same way of every technological era, there must have been incredible fears.”

He cited, for example, the rise of air travel and the onset of humans taking flight. Sen. Booker correctly noted that while that must have been quite jarring at first, we quickly came to realize the benefits of that new innovation. The same will be true for new technologies such as the Internet of Things, connected cars, and private drones, Booker argued. In each case, some early fears about these technologies could lead to overly-precautionary approach to policy. “ But for us to do anything to inhibit that leap in humanity to me seems unfortunate,” he said.

Once again, the Senator has it exactly right. As I noted in my law review article on “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle,” as well as my recent essay, “Muddling Through: How We Learn to Cope with Technological Change,” humans have exhibited the uncanny ability to adapt to changes in their environment, bounce back from adversity, and learn to be resilient over time. A great deal of wisdom is born of experience, including experiences that involve risk and the possibility of occasional mistakes and failures while both developing new technologies and learning how to live with them. More often than not, citizens have found ways to adapt to technological change by employing a variety of coping mechanisms, new norms, or other creative fixes.

Booker gets that and understands why we need to be patient to allow that process to unfold once again so that we can enjoy the abundance of riches that will accompany a more innovative economy.

Avoiding Global Innovation Arbitrage

Sen. Booker also highlighted how some existing government legal and regulatory barriers could hold back progress. On the wireless spectrum front he noted that “ the government hoards too much spectrum and there is a need for more spectrum out there. Everything we are talking about,” he argued, “is going to necessitate more spectrum.” Again, 100% correct. Although some spectrum reform proposals (licensed vs. unlicensed, for example) will still prove contentious, we can at least all agree that we have to work together to find ways to open up more spectrum since the coming Internet of Things universe of technologies is going to demand lots of it.

Booker also noted that another area where fear undermines American leadership is the issue of private drone use. He noted that, “ the potential possibilities for drone technology to alleviate burdens on our infrastructure, to empower commerce, innovation, jobs… to really open up unlimited opportunities in this country is pretty incredible to me.”

The problem is that existing government policies, enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), have been holding back progress. And that has had consequences in terms of global competitiveness. “As I watch our government go slow in promulgating rules holding back American innovation,” Booker said, “what happened as a result of that is that innovation has spread to other countries that don’t have these rules (or have) put in place sensible regulations. But now we seeing technology exported from America and going other places.”

Correct again! I wrote about this problem in a recent essay on “global innovation arbitrage,” in which I noted how “Capital moves like quicksilver around the globe today as investors and entrepreneurs look for more hospitable tax and regulatory environments. The same is increasingly true for innovation. Innovators can, and increasingly will, move to those countries and continents that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity.”

That’s already happening with drone innovation, as I documented in that piece. Evidence suggests that the FAA’s heavy-handed and overly-precautionary approach to drones has encouraged some innovators to flock overseas in search of more hospitable regulatory environment.

Luckily, just this weekend, the FAA finally announced its (much-delayed) rules for private drone operations. (Here’s a summary of those rules.) Unfortunately, the rules are a bit of mixed bag, with some greater leeway being provided for very small drones, but the rules will still be too restrictive to allow for other innovative applications, such as widespread drone delivery (which has Amazon angry, among others.)

Bottom line: if our government doesn’t take a more flexible, light-touch approach to these and other cutting-edge technologies, than some of our most creative minds and companies are going to bolt.

I dealt with all of these innovation policy issues in far more detail in my latest little book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom, which I condensed further still into this essay on, “Embracing a Culture of Permissionless Innovation.” But Sen. Booker has offered us an even more concise explanation of just what’s at stake in the battle for innovation leadership in the modern economy. His remarks point the way forward and illustrate, as I have noted before, that innovation policy can and should be a nonpartisan issue.

Additional Reading

• testimony: “My Testimony for Senate Internet of Things Hearing,” February 11, 2015.
• essay: “A Nonpartisan Policy Vision for the Internet of Things,” December 11, 2014.
• law review article: “The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation,” November 2014.
• essay: “Don’t Hit the (Techno-)Panic Button on Connected Car Hacking & IoT Security,” February 10, 2015.
• essay: “Striking a Sensible Balance on the Internet of Things and Privacy,” January 16, 2015.
• essay: “Some Initial Thoughts on the FTC Internet of Things Report,” January 28, 2015.
• slide presentation: “Policy Issues Surrounding the Internet of Things & Wearable Technology,” September 12, 2014.
• essay: “CES 2014 Report: The Internet of Things Arrives, but Will Washington Welcome It?” January 8, 2014.

Many readers will recall the telecom soap opera featuring the GPS industry and LightSquared and the subsequent bankruptcy of LightSquared. Economist Thomas W. Hazlett (who is now at Clemson, after a long tenure at the GMU School of Law) and I wrote an article published in the Duke Law & Technology Review titled Tragedy of the Regulatory Commons: Lightsquared and the Missing Spectrum Rights. The piece documents LightSquared’s ambitions and dramatic collapse. Contrary to popular reporting on this story, this was not a failure of technology. We make the case that, instead, the FCC’s method of rights assignment led to the demise of LightSquared and deprived American consumers of a new nationwide wireless network. Our analysis has important implications as the FCC and Congress seek to make wide swaths of spectrum available for unlicensed devices. Namely, our paper suggests that the top-down administrative planning model is increasingly harming consumers and delaying new technologies.

Read commentary from the GPS community about LightSquared and you’ll get the impression LightSquared is run by rapacious financiers (namely CEO Phil Falcone) who were willing to flaunt FCC rules and endanger thousands of American lives with their proposed LTE network. LightSquared filings, on the other hand, paint the GPS community as defense-backed dinosaurs who abused the political process to protect their deficient devices from an innovative entrant. As is often the case, it’s more complicated than these morality plays. We don’t find villains in this tale–simply destructive rent-seeking triggered by poor FCC spectrum policy.

We avoid assigning fault to either LightSquared or GPS, but we stipulate that there were serious interference problems between LightSquared’s network and GPS devices. Interference is not an intractable problem, however. Interference is resolved everyday in other circumstances. The problem here was intractable because GPS users are dispersed and unlicensed (including government users), and could not coordinate and bargain with LightSquared when problems arose. There is no feasible way for GPS companies to track down and compel users to use more efficient devices, for instance, if LightSquared compensated them for the hassle. Knowing that GPS mitigation was unfeasible, LightSquared’s only recourse after GPS users objected to the new LTE network was through the political and regulatory process, a fight LightSquared lost badly. The biggest losers, however, were consumers, who were deprived of another wireless broadband network because FCC spectrum assignment prevented win-win bargaining between licensees.

Our paper provides critical background to this dispute. Around 2004, because satellite phone spectrum was underused, the FCC permitted satellite phone licensees flexibility to repurpose some of their spectrum for use in traditional cellular phone networks. (Many people are appalled to learn that spectrum policy still largely resembles Soviet-style command-and-control. The FCC tells the wireless industry, essentially: “You can operate satellite phones only in band X. You can operate satellite TV in band Y. You can operate broadcast TV in band Z.” and assigns spectrum to industry players accordingly.) Seeing this underused satellite phone spectrum, LightSquared acquired some of this flexible satellite spectrum so that LightSquared could deploy a nationwide cellular phone network in competition with Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility. LightSquared had spent $4 billion in developing its network and reportedly had plans to spend $10 billion more when things ground to a halt.

In early 2012, the Department of Commerce objected to LightSquared’s network on the grounds that the network would interfere with GPS units (including, reportedly, DOD and FAA instruments). Immediately, the FCC suspended LightSquared’s authorization to deploy a cellular network and backtracked on the 2004 rules permitting cellular phones in that band. Three months later, LightSquared declared bankruptcy. This was a non-market failure, not a market failure. This regulatory failure obtains because virtually any interference to existing wireless operations is prohibited even if the social benefits of a new wireless network are vast.

This analysis is not simply scholarly theory about the nature of regulation and property rights. We provide real-world evidence that supports our notion that, had the FCC assigned flexible, de facto property rights to GPS licensees like the FCC does in some other bands, rather than fragmented unlicensed users, LightSquared might be in operation today serving millions with wireless broadband. Our evidence comes, in fact, from LightSquared’s deals with non-GPS parties. Namely, LightSquared had interference problems with another satellite licensee on adjacent spectrum–Inmarsat.

Inmarsat provides public safety, aviation, and national security applications and hundreds of thousands of devices to government and commercial users. The LightSquared-Inmarsat interference problems were unavoidable but because Inmarsat had de facto property rights to its spectrum, it could internalize financial gains and coordinate with LightSquared. The result was classic Coasian bargaining. The two companies swapped spectrum and activated an agreement in 2010 in which LightSquared would pay Inmarsat over $300 million. Flush with cash and spectrum, Inmarsat could rationalize its spectrum and replace devices that wouldn’t play nicely with LightSquared LTE operations.

These trades avoided the non-market failure the FCC produced by giving GPS users fragmented, non-exclusive property rights. When de facto property rights are assigned to licensees, contentious spectrum border disputes typically give way to private ordering. The result is regular spectrum swaps and sales between competitors. Wireless licensees like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile deal with local interference and unauthorized operations daily because they have enforceable, exclusive rights to their spectrum. The FCC, unfortunately, never assigned these kinds of spectrum rights to the GPS industry.

The evaporation of billions of dollars of LightSquared funds was a non-market failure, not a market failure and not a technology failure. The economic loss to consumers was even greater than LightSquared’s. Different FCC rules could have permitted welfare-enhancing coordination between LightSquared and GPS. The FCC’s error was the nature of rights the agency assigned for GPS use. By authorizing the use of millions of unlicensed devices adjacent to LightSquared’s spectrum, the FCC virtually ensured that future attempts to reallocate spectrum in these bands would prove contentious. Going forward, the FCC should think far less about which technologies they want to promote and more about the nature of spectrum rights assigned. For tech entrepreneurs and policy entrepreneurs to create innovative new wireless products, they need well-functioning spectrum markets. The GPS experience shows vividly what to avoid.

I’ve spent much of the past year studying the potential public policy ramifications associated with the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT). As I was preparing some notes for my Jan. 6th panel discussing on “Privacy and the IoT: Navigating Policy Issues” at this year’s 2015 CES show, I went back and collected all my writing on IoT issues so that I would have everything in one place. Thus, down below I have listed most of what I’ve done over the past year or so. Most of this writing is focused on the privacy and security implications of the Internet of Things, and wearable technologies in particular.

I plan to stay on top of these issues in 2015 and beyond because, as I noted when I spoke on a previous CES panel on these issues, the Internet of Things finds itself at the center of what we might think of a perfect storm of public policy concerns: Privacy, safety, security, intellectual property, economic / labor disruptions, automation concerns, wireless spectrum issues, technical standards, and more. When a new technology raises one or two of these policy concerns, innovators in those sectors can expect some interest and inquiries from lawmakers or regulators. But when a new technology potentially touches all of these issues, then it means innovators in that space can expect an avalanche of attention and a potential world of regulatory trouble. Moreover, it sets the stage for a grand “clash of visions” about the future of IoT technologies that will continue to intensify in coming months and years.

That’s why I’ll be monitoring developments closely in this field going forward. For now, here’s what I’ve done on this issue as I prepare to head out to Las Vegas for another CES extravaganza that promises to showcase so many exciting IoT technologies.

• essay: “A Nonpartisan Policy Vision for the Internet of Things,” December 11, 2014.
• slide presentation: “Policy Issues Surrounding the Internet of Things & Wearable Technology,” September 12, 2014.
• law review article: “The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation,” November 2014.
• essay: “CES 2014 Report: The Internet of Things Arrives, but Will Washington Welcome It?” January 8, 2014.
• essay: “The Growing Conflict of Visions over the Internet of Things & Privacy,” January 14, 2014.
• oped: “Can We Adapt to the Internet of Things?” IAPP Privacy Perspectives, June 19, 2013
• agency filing: My Filing to the FTC in its ‘Internet of Things’ Proceeding, May 31, 2013
• book: Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom, 2014.
• video: Cap Hill Briefing on Emerging Tech Policy Issues, June 2014.
• essay: “What’s at Stake with the FTC’s Internet of Things Workshop,” November 18, 2013.
• law review article: “Removing Roadblocks to Intelligent Vehicles and Driverless Cars,” September 16, 2014.

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.

The FCC is set to vote later this month on rules for the incentive auction of spectrum licenses in the broadcast television band. These licenses would ordinarily be won by the highest bidders, but not in this auction. The FCC plans to ensure that Sprint and T-Mobile win licenses in the incentive auction even if they aren’t willing to pay the highest price, because it believes that Sprint and T-Mobile will expand their networks to cover rural areas if it sells them licenses at a substantial discount.

This theory is fundamentally flawed. Sprint and T-Mobile won’t substantially expand their footprints into rural areas even if the FCC were to give them spectrum licenses for free. There simply isn’t enough additional revenue potential in rural areas to justify covering them with four or more networks no matter what spectrum is used or how much it costs. It is far more likely that Sprint and T-Mobile will focus their efforts on more profitable urban areas while continuing to rely on FCC roaming rights to use networks built by other carriers in rural areas.

The television band spectrum the FCC plans to auction is at relatively low frequencies that are capable of covering larger areas at lower costs than higher frequency mobile spectrum, which makes the spectrum particularly useful in rural areas. The FCC theorizes that, if Sprint and T-Mobile could obtain additional low frequency spectrum with a substantial government discount, they will pass that discount on to consumers by expanding their wireless coverage in rural areas.

The flaw in this theory is that it considers costs without considering revenue. Sprint and T-Mobile won’t expand coverage in rural areas unless the potential for additional revenue exceeds the costs of providing rural coverage.

A study authored by Anna-Maria Kovacs, a scholar at Georgetown University, demonstrates that the potential revenue in rural areas is insufficient to justify substantial rural deployment by Sprint and T-Mobile even at lower frequencies. The study concludes that the revenue potential per square mile in areas that are currently covered by 4 wireless carriers is $41,832. The potential revenue drops to $13,632 per square mile in areas covered by 3 carriers and to $6,219 in areas covered by 2 carriers. The potential revenue in areas covered by 4 carriers is thus approximately 3.5 times greater than in areas covered by 3 carriers and nearly 8 times greater than in areas covered by 2 carriers. It is unlikely that propagation differences between even the lowest and the highest frequency mobile spectrum could reduce costs by a factor greater than three due to path loss and barriers to optimal antenna placement.

Even assuming the low frequency spectrum could lower costs by a factor greater than three, the revenue data in the Kovacs report indicates that additional low frequency spectrum would, at best, support only 1 additional carrier in areas currently covered by 3 carriers. Low frequency spectrum wouldn’t support even one additional carrier in areas that are already covered by 1 or 2 carriers: It would be uneconomic for additional carriers to deploy in those areas at any frequency.

The challenging economics of rural wireless coverage are the primary reason the FCC gave Sprint and T-Mobile a roaming right to use the wireless networks built by Verizon and AT&T even in areas where Sprint and T-Mobile already hold low frequency spectrum.

When the FCC created the automatic roaming right, it exempted carriers from the duty to provide roaming in markets where the requesting carrier already has spectrum rights. (2007 Roaming Order at ¶ 48) The FCC found that, “if a carrier is allowed to ‘piggy-back’ on the network coverage of a competing carrier in the same market, then both carriers lose the incentive to buildout into high cost areas in order to achieve superior network coverage.” (Id. at ¶ 49). The FCC subsequently repealed this spectrum exemption at the urging of Sprint and T-Mobile, because “building another network may be economically infeasible or unrealistic in some geographic portions of [their] licensed service areas.” (2010 Roaming Order at ¶ 23)

As a result, Sprint and T-Mobile have chosen to rely primarily on roaming agreements to provide service in rural areas, because it is cheaper than building their own networks. The most notorious example is Sprint, who actually reduced its rural coverage to cut costs after the FCC eliminated the spectrum exemption to the automatic roaming right. This decision was not driven by Sprint’s lack of access to low frequency spectrum — Sprint has held low frequency spectrum on a nationwide basis for years.

The limited revenue potential offered by rural areas and the superior economic alternative to rural deployment provided by FCC’s automatic roaming right indicate that Sprint and T-Mobile won’t expand their rural footprints at any frequency. Ensuring that Sprint and T-Mobile win low frequency spectrum at a substantial government discount would benefit their bottom lines, but it won’t benefit rural Americans.

Join TechFreedom on Thursday, December 19, the 100th anniversary of the Kingsbury Commitment, AT&T’s negotiated settlement of antitrust charges brought by the Department of Justice that gave AT&T a legal monopoly in most of the U.S. in exchange for a commitment to provide universal service.

The Commitment is hailed by many not just as a milestone in the public interest but as the bedrock of U.S. communications policy. Others see the settlement as the cynical exploitation of lofty rhetoric to establish a tightly regulated monopoly — and the beginning of decades of cozy regulatory capture that stifled competition and strangled innovation.

So which was it? More importantly, what can we learn from the seventy year period before the 1984 break-up of AT&T, and the last three decades of efforts to unleash competition? With fewer than a third of Americans relying on traditional telephony and Internet-based competitors increasingly driving competition, what does universal service mean in the digital era? As Congress contemplates overhauling the Communications Act, how can policymakers promote universal service through competition, by promoting innovation and investment? What should a new Kingsbury Commitment look like?

Following a luncheon keynote address by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a diverse panel of experts moderated by TechFreedom President Berin Szoka will explore these issues and more. The panel includes:

• Harold Feld, Public Knowledge
• Rob Atkinson, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation
• Hance Haney, Discovery Institute
• Jeff Eisenach, American Enterprise Institute
• Fred Campbell, Former FCC Commissioner

Space is limited so RSVP now if you plan to attend in person. A live stream of the event will be available on this page. You can follow the conversation on Twitter on the #Kingsbury100 hashtag.  

When: Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:30 – 12:00Registration & lunch 12:00 – 1:45Event & live stream

The live stream will begin on this page at noon Eastern.

Where: The Methodist Building 100 Maryland Ave NE Washington D.C. 20002

Questions? Email contact@techfreedom.org.

Call it what you want: a bailout, a thumb on the scales, bidder restrictions–the FCC might conspicuously intervene in the 2015 incentive auctions at the behest of smaller carriers and public interest advocates.

Chairman Wheeler’s recent comments indicate the FCC may devise a way to prevent the largest two carriers–AT&T and Verizon–from purchasing “too much” of the television broadcasters’ spectrum at auction. AT&T likely sees the writing on the wall and argues that if there are auction limits, the restrictions should apply only to the auction, rather than more extreme restrictions that would penalize AT&T and Verizon, the largest carriers, for previously-acquired spectrum. As The Switch’s Brian Fung put it,

the small carriers favor what are called “asymmetric” spectrum caps that affect various carriers differently, while opponents prefer “symmetric” caps that don’t account for existing market positions.

While I wish AT&T put up more of a fight to auction interventions, they (and staff at the FCC) are handicapped in pursuing an unrestricted auction. The blame lies mostly with Congress who gave the FCC vague (thus ripe for abuse) and conflicting mandates spanning decades. The 1993 law authorizing auctions, for instance, requires the FCC to “avoid[] excessive concentration of licenses” and to “disseminat[e] licenses among a wide variety of applicants” among other regulatory carve-outs for smaller competitors. These latter requirements, if implemented as rigorously as smaller carriers would like, directly undermine the purpose of the 2012 American Taxpayer Relief Act that requires the upcoming spectrum auctions raise $7 billion for a public safety broadband network and $20 billion for deficit reduction.

By asymmetrically penalizing AT&T and Verizon, the FCC increases the probability the auction fails to raise the tens of billions of dollars needed (see Fred Campbell’s recent paper). I haven’t heard a policymaker speak about the incentive auction without remarking how extraordinarily complex it is. That complexity–as was made clear in this week’s Senate hearing on the subject–means no one knows how much spectrum will be auctioned off or how much money will be raised. I was doubtful the FCC would secure the called-for 120 MHz for auction in the first place, but the Senate hearing convinced me that they might not get even 60 MHz. If the FCC meddles too much and the broadcasters aren’t assured they’ll get top dollar for their spectrum, the broadcasters might not show up to sell.

For many reasons, the FCC should ignore the pressures to restrict the large carriers in bidding. Smaller carriers argue the large carriers will outbid them only to preclude competition and hoard the spectrum. Every major carrier is spending billions to expand its footprint and capacity rapidly so the hoarding argument is hard to accept (not to mention, carriers face FCC build out requirements). The hoarding argument also confounds me because AT&T and Verizon are at the forefront arguing for more spectrum auctions, particularly spectrum from federal agencies. Would they want the market flooded with new spectrum only so they could spend billions to hoard it?

Asymmetric auction restrictions also resemble a bailout for smaller carriers. T-Mobile and Sprint–who most actively lobby for auction restrictions–are not mom-and-pop establishments. Each is a sophisticated, powerful corporation with access to capital markets and backed by larger international telecoms–Germany’s Deutsche Telekom for T-Mobile and Japan’s SoftBank for Sprint. DT and SoftBank have both pledged to spend billions in the next few years to improve their American carrier’s competitive position. Such carriers do not need an FCC handout.

The bailout resemblance is more apparent when you realize Sprint has been hamstrung for nearly a decade with damaging business decisions. Three come immediately to mind: 1) the dreadful merger with Nextel in 2005; 2) the ill-fated bet in 2008 to forgo LTE rollout in favor of WiMax, a competing 4G standard; and 3) the loss of over one million customers when it discontinued its push-to-talk iDEN service for network upgrades. The losses from the Nextel merger alone approach $30 billion.

To be clear, I don’t second-guess Sprint’s decisions. They did what innovative firms are supposed to do in attempting big, risky investments. However, it should not be the job of the FCC to favor some firms through spectrum auctions because some carriers’ business decisions did not pan out. That is not a competitive wireless auction–that is an FCC-orchestrated bailout. Granted, the FCC has been handed conflicting mandates. The Commission has ample discretion, however, to conduct a competitive auction that both complies with the law and improves chances of reaching the ambitious revenue goals. Intense meddling with auction results could prove disastrous.

There is bipartisan agreement that the 1996 Telecom Act was antiquated only shortly after President Clinton’s signature had dried on the legislation. There is also consensus that spectrum policy, still largely grounded in the 1934 communications statute, absolutely distorts today’s wireless markets. And there is frequent criticism from thought leaders, right and left, that the FCC has been, for decades, too accommodating to the firms it regulates and too beholden to the status quo (economist Thomas Hazlett quips the agency’s initials stand for “Forever Captured by Corporations”).

For these reasons, members of Congress every few years announce their intention to reform the 1934 and 1996 communications laws and modernize the FCC. Yesterday, some powerful House members unexpectedly reignited hopes that Congress would overhaul our telecom, broadband, and video laws. In a Google Hangout (!), Reps. Fred Upton and Greg Walden said they wanted to take on the ambitious task of passing a new law in 2015.

Much depends on next year’s elections and the composition of Congress, but hopefully the announcement spurs a major re-write that eliminates regulatory distortions in communications, much as airlines and transportation were deregulated in the 1970s–an effort led by reformist Democrats.

About ten years ago, more than fifty scholars and technologists crafted reports which constituted the Digital Age Communications Act (or DACA) that is largely deregulatory (a majority of the group had served in Democratic administrations, interestingly enough). In 2005, then-Sen. Jim DeMint proposed a bill similar to the working group’s proposals. The working group’s recommendations aged very well in eight years–which you can’t say about the 1996 Act–and represents a great starting point for future legislation.

As Adam has said the DACA reports have five primary reform objectives:

– Replacing the amorphous “public interest” standard with a consumer welfare standard, which is more well-established in field of antitrust law – Eliminate regulatory silos and level the playing field through deregulation – Comprehensively reform spectrum not just through more auctioning but through clear property rights – Reform universal service by either voucherizing it or devolving it to the States and let them run their own telecom welfare programs; and – Significantly reforming & downsizing the scope of the FCC’s power of the modern information economy

DACA redefines the FCC as a specialized competition agency for the communications sector. The FCC largely sees itself as a competition agency today but the current statutes don’t represent that gradual change in purpose. The FCC is slow, arbitrary, Balkanizes industries artificially, and attempts to regulate in areas it isn’t equipped to regulate–the agency has a notoriously bad record in federal courts. These characteristics create a poor environment for substantial investments in technology and communications infrastructure. The DACA proposals aren’t perfect but it is a resilient framework that minimizes the effect of special interests in communications and encourages investments that improve consumers’ lives.

Both parties of Congress has been increasingly critical of federal agencies’ inefficient use of spectrum in the past few years and it seems like agencies are getting the message. The NTIA, which is the official manager of federal agency spectrum, released a letter yesterday announcing that the Department of Defense would be relocating some of its systems. Defense had reached an agreement with broadcasters that Defense systems will share spectrum in the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) band.

The soon-to-be vacated band held by Defense will eventually be auctioned off–hopefully in 2014–for billions of dollars and likely used for mobile broadband provided by wireless carriers like AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. These carriers face serious congestion problems because of government-created scarcity of spectrum.

The carriers actually had targeted some of BAS spectrum because they weren’t convinced Defense would be willing to move their systems. The broadcaster deal reached with Defense means everyone’s apparently happy–the broadcasters can keep their BAS spectrum, the feds get new equipment and Congress off their back (temporarily), and the carriers get new spectrum for auction.

The deal is welcome news because the spectrum will be put to a higher-valued use once auctioned. The federal government pays almost nothing for its own spectrum and is a poor steward of the resource. Transferring spectrum from agencies to carriers means lower phone bills and more mobile broadband coverage. Government agencies are notoriously resistant to moving their systems or sharing with others, so entering into a sharing pact with the broadcasters indicates some of the resistance is thawing.

It’s not unequivocal good news, though.

The government is clearing out from a 25 MHz band of spectrum and occupying the larger, 85 MHz BAS band that will be shared with broadcasters. The military will need a larger band because sharing imposes some capacity constraints necessitating new, agile systems that search the airwaves to make sure they don’t interfere with existing broadcast users. Dynamic sharing like this only adds to the cost and complexity and may imperil next years’ planned auction.

Further, the BAS band is unavailable for auction only because of the antiquated command-and-control regime the FCC uses to award spectrum licenses. BAS is mostly used for electronic news gathering, which relays local and national newscasts from reporters on the scene to broadcast studios. Broadcasters have used BAS spectrum since the 1960s when it was allocated to them for free.

In a market, broadcasters likely would not have as much BAS spectrum as they currently have. In fact, because of technology changes and squeezed newsroom budgets, broadcasters are finding cheaper alternatives. Increasingly, journalists are using carriers’ LTE technology to transmit their breaking newscasts since the technology costs a fraction of the cost of news vans and equipment needed for BAS transmissions. That is to say, there are alternative business models in the absence of Soviet-style allocations.

So despite these industry changes, BAS spectrum cannot be auctioned for its highest-valued use (probably mobile broadband) under current FCC rules. Further, it will be even more difficult to bring the benefits of auctions to the airwaves if federal users are intermingling with existing users, broadcasters in this case. It’s a trend to be wary of. Let’s just hope that next year’s planned auctions occur on time so that more consumers can benefit from mobile broadband.

I recently prepared a paper for the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition and Consumer Electronics Association that provides empirical data regarding the costs of restricting the eligibility of large firms to participate in FCC spectrum auctions (available in PDF here). The paper demonstrates that there is no significant likelihood that an open incentive auction would substantially harm the competitive positions of Sprint and T-Mobile. It also demonstrates that Sprint and T-Mobile have incentives to constrain the ability of Verizon and AT&T to expand their network capacity, and that Sprint and T-Mobile could consider FCC restraints on their primary rivals a “win” even if Sprint and T-Mobile don’t place a single bid in the incentive auction. (Winning regulatory battles is a lot cheaper than winning spectrum in a competitive auction.)

Some might think it is implausible that Sprint or T-Mobile would decide to forgo participation in the incentive auction. However, the recent announcement by Sprint that it won’t compete in the H block auction highlights the difficulty in predicting accurately whether any particular company will participate in a particular auction. Sprint’s announcement stunned market analysts, who had considered Sprint a key contender for the H block spectrum. Until recently, Sprint had given every indication it was keen to acquire this spectrum, which is located directly adjacent to the nationwide G block that Sprint already owns. It participated heavily in the FCC’s service rules proceeding for the H block (WT Docket No. 12-357) and even conducted its own testing to assist the FCC in assessing the technical issues. But, by the time the H Block auction was actually announced, Sprint decided its business would be better served by focusing its efforts on the deployment of its trove of spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band.

Such reversals are not unusual during the FCC auction process. Frontline Wireless, a company that no longer exists, successfully persuaded the FCC that it would build a nationwide, interoperable public safety network in the 700 MHz band, if the FCC imposed a public/private partnership condition on the D Block. But, shortly before the auction was scheduled to start, Frontline announced that it had been unable to obtain sufficient financing, and as a result, the D block was never sold.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Sprint or Frontline acted deceitfully in seeking spectrum rules they considered favorable to their interests without actually participating in the resulting auction. My point is that there is a critical distinction between regulatory efforts and business decisions. Companies often participate in regulatory proceedings to optimize their potential business options, but the results they seek are just that –  options – until a business decision must be made.

This distinction leads to another important point: It is impossible for the FCC to predict accurately the ultimate business decisions of multiple independent companies whose particular business plans and the circumstances determining them are unknown to the FCC or anybody else. A particular company often cannot accurately predict its  own decisions in rapidly changing circumstances (e.g., when Frontline was lobbying the FCC, it could not know with certainty that it would obtain the financing it required to buy the D Block). This inherent uncertainty is why the discredited licensing methodology of comparative hearings failed. It required the FCC to make reliable predictive judgments about the needs and efficiency of potential spectrum users, which proved to be an impossible task.

Ironically, the bidding restrictions proposed for the incentive auction are a form of “comparative hearing lite”. The DOJ’s recommendation – that the FCC “ensure” that Sprint and T-Mobile win spectrum in the incentive auction – is based on its own predictive judgments regarding the relative spectrum needs of all four nationwide mobile providers and their willingness to use future spectrum resources efficiently. Of course, there is no reason to believe that the DOJ is capable of judging such matters more reliably than the FCC did during the era of comparative hearings. As the H and D Block auctions demonstrate, it is impossible for the DOJ to know whether Sprint and T-Mobile will even show up to participate in the incentive auction.

It could be argued that the exact match between the DISH bid commitment and the H block reserve price is purely coincidental. To actually believe this was a coincidence would require the same willing suspension of disbelief indulged by summer moviegoers who enjoy the physics-defying stunts enabled by computer-generated special effects. When moviegoers leave the theater after watching the latest Superman flick, they don’t actually believe they can fly home.

The FCC’s Wireless Bureau recently adopted an unusually high $1.564 billion reserve price for the auction of the H block spectrum. Though the FCC has authorized the Bureau to adopt reserve prices based on its consideration of “relevant factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of the spectrum being auctioned,” it appears the Bureau exceeded its delegated authority in this proceeding by considering factors unrelated to the value of the H block spectrum that have the effect of giving a particular firm an advantage in the auction. Specifically, the Bureau considered the value to DISH Network Corporation of amendments to FCC rules governing other spectrum bands already licensed to DISH (e.g., the 700 MHz E block) in exchange for DISH’s commitment to meet the $1.564 billion reserve price in the H block auction – a commitment that is contingent on the FCC Commissioners amending rules governing multiple spectrum bands no later than Friday, December 13, 2013.

No matter what the FCC Commissioners decide, if the reserve price stands, the only sure winner would be DISH. If the FCC Commissioners  don’t endorse the DISH deal, DISH need not honor its commitment to meet the artificially inflated reserve price, which could result in the spectrum auction’s total failure. If the Commissioners do endorse the DISH deal, the artificially inflated reserve price could deter the participation of other bidders and lower auction revenues that are expected to fund the national public safety network. Neither option would result in an open and transparent auction designed to provide all potential bidders with a fair opportunity to participate.

The FCC would be the only sure loser. The appearance of impropriety in the H block proceeding could compromise public trust in the integrity of FCC spectrum auctions. To ensure the public trust is maintained, the FCC Commissioners should thoroughly review the processes and procedures implemented by the Wireless Bureau in this proceeding before auctioning the H block spectrum.

The following discussion provides background information on the purposes of spectrum auctions and reserve prices. This background information is followed by a more detailed analysis of the terms of the DISH deal and the advantages it would bestow on DISH, the lack of analysis in the Wireless Bureau’s order, the role of the Commissioners, and the potential damage to the integrity of FCC auctions.

The Purpose of Spectrum Auctions

FCC spectrum auctions are intended to assign licenses to the firms that value the spectrum most highly, who are presumed to be most likely to provide the highest quality and most timely service to the public. Though this presumption was controversial when Congress first authorized spectrum auctions in 1993, twenty years and eighty-two auctions later, there is widespread agreement that open and transparent auctions have generally succeeded in licensing spectrum to the most efficient firms while minimizing delays in service to the public, preventing unjust enrichment, and providing revenue to the public treasury. Like any other market-based mechanism, however, competitive bidding mechanisms are vulnerable to market distortions. When the rules governing a spectrum auction are likely to produce market distortions, it weakens the presumption that the resulting auction is likely to award spectrum licenses to the most efficient firms.

The Purpose of Reserve Prices

The FCC has previously concluded that artificially inflated reserve prices are likely to result in market distortions.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established a presumption requiring the FCC to impose minimum opening bids or reserve prices in FCC auctions unless it is not in the public interest. ( See FCC 97-413 at ¶ 139) Traditionally, reserve prices are used to maximize auction revenue and cannot be lowered once an auction begins. In its order implementing the Balanced Budget Act, the FCC determined that the minimum opening bid/reserve price requirement was not intended to require traditional reserve prices designed to maximize auction revenue – the provision was intended only as protection against assigning spectrum licenses at unacceptably low prices. (See id. at ¶ 140) The FCC thus directed the Wireless Bureau to consider only “relevant factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of the spectrum being auctioned” when establishing reserve prices. (See id. at ¶ 141 (emphasis added))

It is implicit in this delegation of authority that the Wireless Bureau cannot consider factors that are  irrelevant to the valuation of the spectrum being auction. As the Bureau has previously recognized, establishing reserve prices based on factors that are unrelated to the valuation of the spectrum being auctioned could artificially inflate reserve prices, which could deter bidders from participating in the auction and preclude the assignment of the spectrum to the most efficient firms. (See DA 97-2147 at ¶¶ 13-14)

Despite its lack of delegated authority to do so, it appears that the Wireless Bureau considered irrelevant factors that may have artificially inflated the reserve price in the H block auction, including the value to DISH Network Corporation of amendments to FCC rules governing other spectrum bands already licensed to DISH. There is no rational (let alone reasonable) relationship between amendments to rules governing other spectrum bands that are  uniquely valuable to a particular firm and the value of the H block spectrum generally. The Bureau nevertheless considered the unique interests of DISH while playing a larger game of Let’s Make a Deal involving otherwise unrelated FCC proceedings.

The Deal with Dish

The terms of the deal with DISH were memorialized in an  ex parte letter (DISH Letter) filed by DISH in WT Docket No. 12-69 (“Promoting Interoperability in the 700 MHz Commercial Spectrum”) on September 10 (three days before the Wireless Bureau issued its order establishing the H block reserve price), and a petition for waiver (DISH Petition) filed by DISH on September 9 (which has not yet been assigned a docket number). According to these deal documents, DISH agreed to:

• Consent to a reduction in the power limits currently applicable to its E block spectrum in the lower 700 MHz band (see DISH Letter at 2-3); and

• Bid “at least a net clearing price equal to any aggregate nationwide reserve price established by the Commission in the upcoming H Block auction (not to exceed the equivalent of $0.50 per MHz/POP [i.e., $1.564 billion])” in order “to provide critical funds for FirstNet.” (DISH Petition at 2)

DISH stated that its consent and bid commitment are “contingent” on FCC actions to:

• Extend DISH’s buildout deadlines in both the lower 700 MHz E block and the AWS-4 band; and

• Authorize DISH to operate its AWS-4 spectrum in the 2000-2020 MHz band, which currently must be used only as uplink, as either uplink or downlink. (See DISH Letter at 2-3)

In the DISH Letter, DISH stated its “anticipat[ion] that the Commission will adopt a final order effectuating these changes no later than December 31, 2013,” including the “ grant in its entirety” of the DISH Petition. (See Dish Letter at 2-3 (emphasis added)) In the DISH Petition, DISH stated that the FCC must adopt an order effectuating these changes “at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the H Block auction,” or its $1.564 billion bid commitment “shall no longer apply.” (See DISH Petition at 15) After the DISH Petition was filed, the Wireless Bureau ordered the H block auction to commence on January 14, 2014, which means DISH’s bid commitment applies only if the FCC Commissioners grant the DISH Petition in its entirety and modify the rules governing the 700 MHz E block no later than Friday, December 13, 2013.

Despite the fact that the deal gives the FCC Commissioners less than three months to grant DISH’s desires, DISH would have  two and one-half years from the date the DISH Petition is granted to file an election stating whether it would deploy the 2000-2020 MHz band for downlink or uplink. (See DISH Petition at 1-2)

The Advantages Bestowed on Dish

If DISH were given the ability to elect whether to deploy the 2000-2020 MHz band for downlink or uplink for nearly two and one-half years  after the H block auction concludes, DISH would have a substantial advantage in the auction relative to other potential bidders.

A discussion of the relationship between the H block and the AWS-4 spectrum and previous industry positions regarding this relationship is informative when analyzing the advantages bestowed on DISH and how it could affect the strategies of other potential bidders.

The current uplink requirement in the AWS-4 spectrum at 2000-2020 MHz and the downlink requirement in the adjacent H block spectrum at 1995-2000 MHz creates “particularly difficult technical issues” that “affect the use and value” of these bands. ( See FCC 12-151 at ¶¶ 53, 65 (AWS-4 Order)) The deployment of downlink and uplink in adjacent bands increases the potential for harmful interference from out-of-band emissions (OOBE) and receiver blocking (or “overload”). (See AWS-4 Order at ¶ 72) In the AWS-4 proceeding, DISH argued that these interference issues meant the H block could not be auctioned at all and must be treated as a guard band (which would have eliminated most of its value). (See id. at ¶¶ 66, 69) The FCC chose to reduce the utility (and thus the value) of the AWS-4 spectrum instead by (1) increasing the OOBE limits applicable to the 2000-2020 MHz band, (2) limiting the power of mobile terrestrial devices in the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the AWS-4 band, and (3) requiring that DISH accept any OOBE and overload interference into that portion of the AWS-4 band caused by future, lawful operations in the H block. (See id. at ¶ 72) According to DISH, these restrictions render the 2000-2005 MHz portion of its AWS-4 spectrum unsuitable for mobile services.

In its order establishing service rules for the H block (H Block Order), the FCC noted that DISH had accepted the limitations on its AWS-4 spectrum and that “nothing [in the H Block Order was] intended to revisit these determinations.” (H Block Order, FCC 13-88 at ¶ 49) The FCC did, however, “specifically adopt . . . rules to adequately protect operations in adjacent bands, including the . . . 2000-2020 MHz AWS-4 uplink band.” (Id. at ¶ 48) These rules include a “more stringent OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in watts, for transmissions from the Upper H Block into the 2005-2020 MHz AWS-4 band.” (See id. at ¶ 59-60 (the FCC typically applies an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB at the edges of mobile bands only)) Sprint (who holds all of the licenses for the PCS G Block, which is contiguous with and complementary to the H block) had advocated for a less stringent limit of 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB across the 2005-2020 MHz band, and DISH (who holds all of the AWS-4 licenses) had advocated for an even more stringent 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB limit. (Id. at ¶ 65) The FCC split the difference, finding that an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB was “more consistent with the balancing of interference concerns between the AWS-4 and H Block bands discussed in the [AWS-4 Order]” than the less stringent limits proposed by Sprint and the more stringent limits proposed by DISH. (See id. at ¶ 68-73) The FCC also noted that licensees in the H block and the AWS-4 band could agree to modify the technical restrictions governing interference between these bands through private negotiation. (See AWS-4 Order at ¶ 73; H Block Order at ¶¶ 65, 208)

Relationship Between H Block & AWS-4 Spectrum

If the FCC Commissioners were to endorse the DISH deal, it would give DISH the  unilateral ability to rebalance the interferences issues the FCC previously considered and resolved in its 2012 AWS-4 Order and its 2013 H Block Order – a unilateral ability that DISH could choose to exercise after the H block auction concludes. This would create a significant information asymmetry between DISH and all other potential bidders in the H block auction, which would improve DISH’s bidding position relative to other firms and potentially deter their participation in the auction. For example, if DISH were to elect to use the AWS-4 spectrum for downlink, it would mitigate the interference concerns that currently exist between the H block and ASW-4 bands, which would tend to increase the value of the H block to all potential bidders. Because DISH would have the unilateral ability to stall its election for nearly two and one-half years after the H block auction ends, however, DISH would be uniquely positioned to accurately assess the probability that it would choose to mitigate interference concerns by electing the downlink option. In these circumstances, other firms are likely to discount or ignore entirely whatever increase in value they would otherwise accord to the H block spectrum based on the mere possibility that DISH could elect to limit the 2000-2020 MHz band to downlink transmissions.

The proposed downlink election would also give DISH leverage in subsequent interference negotiations between itself and future H block licensees, which would tend to lower the bids of other firms while simultaneously limiting DISH’s incentive to bid any higher on the H block spectrum than its commitment would otherwise require. Assume, for example, that DISH meets its commitment by bidding the $1.564 billion reserve price but is subsequently outbid by Sprint. In the absence of the proposed election right, DISH would have an incentive to raise its previous bid because, if DISH owned both the H block and the AWS-4 spectrum, it could unilaterally eliminate the technical restrictions on both bands through private agreement with itself (a common practice when a single licensee owns spectrum across multiple blocks or bands). With the downlink election right, however, DISH’s incentive to bid on the H block in order to mitigate interference would be substantially diminished, because DISH could use its election right as leverage in post-auction interference mitigation negotiations with Sprint.

For example, assuming Sprint wins the H block, it would have an incentive to seek DISH’s agreement to the less stringent OOBE limits Sprint sought, but did not obtain, in the H block rulemaking proceeding. DISH likewise would have an incentive to seek Sprint’s agreement to technical parameters that would allow DISH to use the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the AWS-4 band for mobile services, which is something DISH sought, but did not obtain, in the AWS-4 and H block rulemaking proceedings. Because the downlink election would mitigate the interference concerns the FCC was required to balance in these rulemaking proceedings, it is possible DISH could use the election right to rebalance the technical rules in its favor (and thus increase the value of its AWS-4 spectrum)  without paying for the H block spectrum at auction or paying to obtain the agreement of the H block licensees (in this hypothetical, Sprint). This possibility would tend to lower the price DISH would be willing to pay for the H block spectrum at auction while giving Sprint and other potential bidders incentives to discount their bids to account for the potential costs of their subsequent interference negotiations with DISH.

In effect, endorsing the DISH deal would provide DISH with an implicit government subsidy for its anticipated interference negotiations, the cost of which would be borne by the government (and, ultimately, public safety) in the form of lower auction revenues for the H block, which would tend to explain the Bureau’s decision to adopt the unusually high H block reserve price proposed by DISH.

The Lack of Analysis

Despite the obvious connection, the Wireless Bureau did not cite the DISH Letter or DISH Petition in its order adopting DISH’s minimum bid commitment as the reserve price for the H block auction. The Bureau didn’t discuss the DISH deal at all. It instead cited a brief ex parte letter (DISH Ex Parte) filed by DISH in the H block auction proceeding (AU Docket No. 13-178) on the same day DISH separately filed the DISH Petition (which has not yet been assigned a docket number).

The DISH Ex Parte also neglects to mention the DISH Petition filed that same day or the deal memorialized in the DISH Letter filed in WT Docket No. 12-69 the following day. The DISH Ex Parte addresses the reserve price issue in a single paragraph, which states only that “DISH estimates that the value of the H Block is at least $0.50 per” MHz-Pop on a nationwide aggregate basis (i.e., $1.564 billion) based on recent auctions and secondary market sales. ( See DISH Ex Parte at 1 (citing the 2006 AWS-1 auction, the Verizon SpectrumCo transaction, and a Morgan Analyst Report)). Though it states the value of the H block is “at least” $1.564 billion, the DISH Ex Parte does not offer any analysis indicating that this estimate is an appropriate reserve price based on factors considered relevant by the FCC when establishing reserve prices – and neither does the Wireless Bureau’s order.

As noted above, the FCC has determined that reserve prices should be used only as protection against assigning licenses at unacceptably low prices and not as a tool to maximize auction revenue. In its order delegating authority to the Wireless Bureau to establish minimum opening bids or reserve prices, the FCC directed the Bureau to consider “the amount of spectrum being auctioned, levels of incumbency, the availability of technology to provide service, the size of the geographic service areas, issues of interference with other spectrum bands, and any other relevant factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of the spectrum being auctioned.” ( See FCC 97-413 at ¶ 141) The Wireless Bureau didn’t discuss any of these factors in its order adopting the H block reserve price or find that a lesser amount would be “unacceptably low” (which seems unlikely given the more stringent technical limitations imposed on the H block in order to mitigate its “particularly difficult technical issues”). The Bureau simply concluded without analysis that the amount of DISH’s bid commitment is “appropriate” given the Spectrum Act’s requirement to use the auction proceeds for public safety purposes. (See DA 13-1885 at ¶ 172) The reasons why the Bureau believes this particular amount is appropriate were left unstated.

Though the FCC has occasionally adopted relatively high reserve prices in the past, they were expressly based on the potential value of the spectrum being auctioned or statutory incumbency issues. For example, in Auction 66, the FCC adopted a relatively high reserve price to ensure the auction raised enough revenue to relocate incumbent federal spectrum users as required by statute. The FCC also adopted relatively high reserve prices in Auction 73 because it was concerned that the unique public interest obligations and stringent buildout requirements it had imposed on that spectrum could result in unacceptably low auction prices. Safeguarding against the assignment of spectrum at unacceptably low prices due to factors relevant to the valuation of the spectrum being auctioned is the purpose the reserve price requirement is intended to serve.

As noted above, however, the FCC has concluded that it is inappropriate to adopt a high reserve price merely to maximize revenue (no matter how noble the cause) or to serve purposes unrelated to the spectrum being auctioned, because reserve prices adopted for such reasons are more likely to result in a failed auction. The irony in this instance is that, if the unusually high reserve price makes it more likely that the H block auction could fail, public safety could be worse off than if there were no reserve price at all. It is also ironic that DISH’s bid commitment is  itself evidence that the reserve price adopted by the Bureau is artificially inflated. If the H block spectrum were actually worth “at least” as much as DISH estimates (and DISH were actually interested in winning it), DISH would not have had a legitimate reason to make its H block bidding commitment contingent on the FCC granting “in its entirety” the relief sought by DISH.

The unusually high reserve price placed on the H block spectrum is especially troubling given the obvious implication that the Bureau’s decision was driven primarily by factors unrelated to  either the value of the H block or the interests of public safety – i.e., it appears the Bureau was motivated by the DISH deal’s role in resolving interoperability issues in the 700 MHz band. Though that is undoubtedly a noble goal, it is ignoble to achieve it by compromising the integrity of an unrelated spectrum auction.

It could be argued that the exact match between the DISH bid commitment and the H block reserve price is purely coincidental. The Bureau’s failure to mention that DISH had concurrently filed a petition committing to bid an amount identical to its suggested reserve price is not, however, enough to satisfy a claim of coincidence that meets the straight face test. To believe this was a coincidence would require the same willing suspension of disbelief indulged by summer moviegoers who enjoy the physics-defying stunts enabled by computer-generated special effects. When moviegoers leave the theater after watching the latest Superman flick, they don’t actually believe they can fly home.

The Role of the Commissioners

The particular process followed by the Wireless Bureau in this instance creates additional risk that the auction could fail and leave public safety with no revenue from the H block.

The Bureau’s adoption of an unusually high reserve price was presumably premised on the notion that, even if the reserve price is artificially inflated, there is little risk that the H block auction would fail because DISH committed to meet the reserve price. The problem with this premise is that DISH’s commitment is contingent on the FCC Commissioners agreeing to grant DISH specific relief before the auction, a decision that is outside the Bureau’s control. If the full FCC chooses to deny the DISH Petition and other rules changes sought by DISH, or simply fails to act within the requisite time, the H block auction may have to proceed  with an artificially inflated reserve price and without any commitment by DISH to meet it.

In these circumstances, the Bureau’s decision to adopt an unusually high reserve price also has the effect of placing inappropriate pressure on the FCC Commissioners to act in accordance with the will of the Bureau. If the H block auction procedures stand, the options of the Commissioners would appear to be limited to (1) endorsing the DISH deal or (2) risking the failure of the H block auction due to the unusually high reserve price, which could in turn delay the payment of auction revenue slated for use by public safety. The Wireless Bureau’s decision thus has the effect of forcing the Commissioners into making a Hobson’s choice.

Given that the H block reserve price is based on considerations that lie outside the scope of the Bureau’s delegated authority, the reserve price should only have been approved (if at all) by a full FCC vote after a thorough analysis of its potential impact. In no event should the Bureau have adopted DISH’s proposed reserve price without a reasonable opportunity for comment by the public and thorough consideration by the Commissioners, especially given its potential impact on other spectrum bands.

The Integrity of FCC Auctions

The process for adopting the reserve price in the H block proceeding begs the question: Was this intended to be an open and transparent auction designed to assign H block licenses to the firms that value them most highly  or a privately negotiated retail sale designed to ensure a minimum level of auction revenue while accomplishing unrelated policy goals that also benefit a particular firm? No matter the answer, the fact that this question must be asked is enough to compromise the public’s trust in the ability and willingness of the FCC to conduct open and transparent spectrum auctions that provide all potential bidders with a fair opportunity to participate. To restore public trust in the integrity of FCC auctions, the Commissioners should thoroughly review the Wireless Bureau’s competitive bidding processes and procedures before auctioning the H block spectrum.

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.

“Permitting voluntary spectrum transactions between federal and commercial users would harness the power of market forces to put both commercial and federal spectrum to its highest and best uses.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a hearing today to ask, “How can Congress meet the needs of Federal agencies while addressing carriers’ spiraling demand for spectrum in the age of the data-intensive smartphone?” In my view, the answer requires a flexible approach that permits experimentation among multiple approaches.

There are challenges and opportunities for  both (1) clearing and reallocating federal spectrum for commercial use and (2) sharing spectrum among federal and commercial users. Economic and technical issues may require different strategies for different spectrum bands and different uses. Experience indicates that voluntary negotiations among interested parties – not bureaucratic fiat – are likely to produce the most efficient strategy in any particular instance. Unfortunately, current law does not provide market incentives or mechanisms for the relevant parties (federal and commercial spectrum users and spectrum regulators) to achieve efficient outcomes.

Congressional action creating markets for spectrum transactions between federal and commercial users would provide the relevant parties with an opportunity to maximize their spectrum use through voluntary negotiation. A market-oriented approach would permit experimentation, encourage innovation, and promote investment while increasing the efficiency of spectrum use. The result would benefit consumers, federal agencies, and the economy.

Federal users lack incentives to relinquish or share spectrum with commercial users

The law requires the NTIA and FCC to jointly plan spectrum allocations to accommodate all users and promote the efficient use of the spectrum. Although the agencies have agreed to share spectrum when the potential for harmful interference is low, the NTIA typically does not voluntarily agree to repurpose federal spectrum for exclusive commercial use. That typically requires a Presidential memorandum, Congressional legislation, or both.

The reason: NTIA and its constituent federal spectrum users have no  incentive to voluntarily relinquish federal spectrum rights.

First, government agencies generally cannot profit from relinquishing their spectrum (i.e., they are not subject to the opportunity costs applicable in commercial markets). They are entitled to reimbursement for the costs of relocating their wireless systems after a commercial spectrum auction, but the majority of auction proceeds are remitted to the general Treasury.

Second, government agencies face an uncertain funding environment (i.e., they cannot raise capital in commercial markets). Agencies often reserve federal spectrum allocations for planned wireless systems that are unfunded, which can result in federal spectrum lying fallow for years. An agency that reserves spectrum for a planned system can remain optimistic that it will receive funding in the next budget cycle. But, if the agency relinquishes its spectrum, it cannot build the planned system even if it does receive funding.

The lack of potential benefits and the funding uncertainty inherent in the government budgeting process combine to create an environment in which federal agencies have low opportunity costs for reserving spectrum and high opportunity costs for relinquishing it. Creating market mechanisms that  reverse these opportunity costs would provide government agencies with incentives to voluntarily relinquish or share their spectrum in ways that promote overall spectrum efficiency.

Federal users lack incentives to share spectrum with other federal users

The lack of incentives for efficient use of federal spectrum extends to intra-agency sharing as well.

There are approximately eighty different federal entities that are authorized to use federal spectrum. It would be more efficient for multiple agencies to share spectrum and systems in certain bands, but the lack of market incentives combined with jurisdictional issues make it difficult for them to work together. For example, DOJ, DHS, and DOT tried to build a shared wireless network for voice communications, but, “despite costing over $356 million over 10 years,” the project failed to achieve the results intended.

Market mechanisms that permit federal agencies to profit from their spectrum could eliminate the funding issues and alleviate the “turf wars” that plague intra-agency projects.

Potential mechanisms for repurposing federal spectrum

The current proposals for repurposing federal spectrum fall into three general categories.

One option is to create a GSA-like agency for federal spectrum users. This would provide an incentive for efficient use of federal spectrum by imposing an opportunity cost for inefficiency (in the form of rents paid by federal spectrum users to the new agency), but it would not improve funding mechanisms for federal wireless systems.

Another option is the sharing-only approach proposed by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). This approach could provide commercial users with additional access to federal spectrum, but it would not alter federal incentives or funding and lacks the degree of certainty that is typically necessary for substantial commercial investment.

The third option would permit federal spectrum users to sell or lease their spectrum rights and use the funds to build new systems or secure usage rights on commercial systems. This could be accomplished through the use of incentive auctions in some circumstances, though individually negotiated transactions between federal and commercial users would provide significantly more flexibility. This alternative would tend to reverse (by merging) the incentives discussed above: Federal users would face higher opportunity costs for reserving spectrum and lower opportunity costs for relinquishing it.

The third option also has the advantage of permitting multiple approaches to the issue of apportioning spectrum for federal and commercial uses. I expect that, even if government agencies were permitted to engage in secondary market transactions with commercial spectrum users, they would still prefer sharing on a non-interference basis in bands with unique requirements, which would accommodate additional spectrum for unlicensed uses. If it appeared that federal users still lacked sufficient incentives to improve the efficiency of their spectrum use, Congress would retain the option of creating a GSA-like agency to charge rents to federal spectrum users.

Permitting voluntary spectrum transactions between federal and commercial users would harness the power of market forces to put both commercial and federal spectrum to its highest and best uses. As FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel noted recently, “our federal spectrum policy needs to be built on carrots, not sticks.” Giving federal spectrum users an opportunity to negotiate a share in the benefits of repurposing federal spectrum would be a carrot worth pursuing.

A few days ago, the big news in the telecom world was that President Obama again ordered federal agencies to share and sell their spectrum to expand commercial mobile broadband use. This effort is premised on the fact that agencies use their gifted airwaves poorly while demand for mobile broadband is surging. While the presidential memorandum half-heartedly supports clearing out agencies from some bands and selling it off, the focus of the memo is shared access, whereby federal agencies agree to allow non-federal users to use the same spectrum bands with non-interfering technologies.

The good news is that there is no mention of PCAST’s 2012 recommendation to the president to create a 1000 MHz “superhighway” of unlicensed federal spectrum accessed by sensing devices. This radical proposal would replace the conventional clearing-and-auction process with a spectrum commons framework reliant on unproven sensing technologies. Instead of consumers relying on carriers’ spectrum for mobile broadband, this plan would crudely imitate (in theory) wifi on steroids, where devices would search out access over a huge portion of valuable spectrum, avoiding federal users. Its omission in the recent memo likely means the unlicensed superhighway won’t be pursued.

Still, this doubling-down on other forms of dynamic spectrum sharing is unfortunate for several reasons. First, it mostly entrenches the disastrous status quo by acceding to federal agencies’ claims that they can’t be safely moved. Giving federal agencies free spectrum decades ago was a costly mistake that needs to be corrected through pricing and through clearing. By throwing their hands up and saying that clearing and auctioning federal spectrum is too difficult and sharing is the best alternative, the administration forces us to suffer for the mistakes of the past.

Second, sharing, as envisioned in the memo, will not be accomplished quickly or extensively. Whatever technologies come out of this–there are several options, which only adds research delays–will be constrained by what interference risks the agencies accept. Engineering tests and simulations cannot answer this question; it is an economic and political question, and the economics is very distorted as it is. Federal agencies and particularly the military are very jealous of their spectrum. And who can blame them, since their wireless systems are often used for communications and training exercises that, if not directly protecting the lives of civilians, employees, and soldiers, are an important component of preparation for combat. But this jealousy means agencies are not good at sharing wireless bandwidth.

For “sharing skeptics,” UWB’s experiences illuminates our concerns. Ultrawideband (UWB) is a wireless low-power technology used for radar and data services and, beginning in 1989, its proponents sought regulatory approval to share federal spectrum for UWB commercial applications. UWB uses huge portions of spectrum but is very low power–transmissions from a cellphone are millions of times more powerful than UWB transmissions. Even then, UWB applicants were subjected to a process that can only be described as Kafka-esque as it went–for 13 years–agency to agency, submitting filings and completing interference tests, attempting to show that the technology would not threaten federal operations, before it finally got approval. Indicative of agency foot-dragging, a UWB manufacturer noted,

It took NTIA nearly a year to obtain internal sign off by government users of spectrum to approve with conditions the requests for waivers submitted by [UWB] companies. This despite the fact that the devices . . . were lifesaving instruments for public safety and law enforcement personnel, and all 2500 devices requested, if operating together in a single room, would emit less than one quarter the power of a cell phone.

That same UWB applicant made over 100 trips to DC in 6 years and spent millions of dollars to push his technology. Another large UWB company backed by Intel went out of business in the meantime. To be clear, the technologies contemplated in the memo are different from UWB, but UWB is not alone and the institutional resistance will be the same for future sharing technologies. There will be extensive tests, frequent denials, delays, and billions of dollars of continued waste of underused federal spectrum.

I have no doubt the heads of NTIA and DoD favor making mobile broadband more available to consumers. But it is also their duty to ensure that military and federal systems work well all the time. Given these two priorities (faster mobile downloads of cat videos versus public safety and military training), guess which one the NTIA and agencies will favor? What probability of service disruption will federal agencies tolerate? The answer–as we’ve seen in previous sharing attempts–is vanishingly small. That means if any technologies are approved for sharing on federal bands–a process that will take years–they will be likely constrained by very conservative technical criteria and low-power operations.

The memo’s best recommendation is exploring “incentives” (that is, pricing) for federal agencies to relinquish spectrum. Blair Levin–who worked on the FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan–voiced support for creating a “GSA for spectrum” at a Washington Post forum this week, and hopefully this sentiment will become a priority. Until agencies are paying market prices for this valuable resource, attempts to force agencies to share are bound to run into these problems since there is no way to analyze the economic tradeoffs.

But a GSA for spectrum is a long ways off and I suspect the regulatory risks and delays in the interim, combined with the poor economics of the permitted technologies, will scare away most investment. Whatever does emerge will be a poor substitute for the robust wireless networks we see everyday on our smartphones using exclusively licensed commercial spectrum, which is why the memo’s focus on sharing–not clearing and auctioning–is sorry news.

For more on proposals for reclaiming federal spectrum through clearing and auctioning, please see my hot-off-the-presses Mercatus working paper.

The Department of Justice has suddenly reversed course from its previous findings that mobile providers who lack spectrum below 1 GHz can become “strong competitors” in rural markets and are “well-positioned” to drive competition locally and nationally. Those supporting government intervention as a means of avoiding competition in the upcoming incentive auction attempt to avoid these findings by highlighting misleading FCC statistics, including the assertion that Verizon owns “approximately 45 percent of the licensed MHz-POPs of the combined [800 MHz] Cellular and 700 MHz band spectrum, while AT&T holds approximately 39 percent.”

Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint Nextel) recently sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) signed by Dick Thornburgh, a former US Attorney General who is currently of counsel at K&L Gates, expressing his support for the ex parte submission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) that was recently filed in the FCC’s spectrum aggregation proceeding. The DOJ ex parte recommends that the FCC “ensure” Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile obtain a nationwide block of mobile spectrum in the upcoming broadcast incentive auction. In his letter of support on behalf of Sprint Nextel, Mr. Thornburgh states he believes the DOJ ex parte “is fully consistent with its longstanding approach to competition policy under Republican and Democratic administrations alike.”

Mr. Thornburgh is mistaken. The principle finding on which the DOJ’s new recommendation is based – that the FCC should adopt an inflexible, nationwide restriction on spectrum holdings below 1 GHz – is clearly  inconsistent with the DOJ’s previous approach to competition policy in the mobile marketplace. Both the FCC and the DOJ have traditionally found that there is no factual basis for making competitive distinctions among mobile spectrum bands in urban markets, and the DOJ has distinguished among mobile spectrum bands only in rural markets.

In its 2006 complaint against the merger of Alltel and Western Wireless, the DOJ found that, in rural markets with relatively low population densities, it cost more to achieve broad mobile coverage using 1.9 GHz PCS spectrum, which made it less likely that providers with PCS spectrum would deploy in those markets. Based on that finding, the DOJ concluded that additional mobile entry would be difficult in certain rural markets in which the combined firm would own all available 800 MHz Cellular spectrum – the only mobile spectrum below 1 GHz that was available on a nationwide basis at that time.

In that same merger proceeding (I was the FCC Chairman’s wireless advisor at the time), the FCC refused to adopt the DOJ’s rural market distinction and instead maintained its traditional view that spectrum bands above 1 GHz are suitable for the provision of competitive services in both urban and rural markets.

Although the DOJ continued to apply its rural market distinction in subsequent merger reviews ( i.e., Alltel/Midwest Wireless and AT&T/Dobson), it recognized that the distinction wasn’t reliably predictive in every rural market and was competitively irrelevant to nationwide competition. For example, in the 2008 Verizon/Alltel merger, the DOJ found that Verizon was a “strong competitor” in rural markets in which Verizon didn’t own any Cellular spectrum below 1 GHz, “because, unlike many other providers with PCS spectrum in rural areas, it has constructed a PCS network that covers a significant portion of the population.” Similarly, in its 2011 complaint against the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, the DOJ concluded that “T-Mobile in particular” was “especially well-positioned to drive competition, at both a national and local level,” in the mobile market even though T-Mobile owned very little spectrum below 1 GHz at that time.

The DOJ’s new recommendation is a sudden reverse in course from its previous findings that mobile providers who lack spectrum below 1 GHz can become “strong competitors” in rural markets and are “well-positioned” to drive competition locally and nationally.

The DOJ’s sudden reversal is particularly surprising given that the amount of spectrum below 1 GHz has increased substantially since the DOJ adopted its rural distinction in 2006. At that time, the 800 MHz Cellular band was the  only spectrum band below 1 GHz that was broadband-capable and fully available on a nationwide basis. Since then, two additional sub-1 GHz spectrum bands capable of supporting mobile broadband services have become available on a nationwide basis – the 800 MHz SMR and 700 MHz bands. Sprint Nextel owns nearly all of the 800 MHz SMR band nationwide, T-Mobile acquired 700 MHz spectrum through its acquisition of MetroPCS this year, and many rural and regional mobile providers own 800 MHz Cellular and 700 MHz spectrum in rural areas across the country.

Those supporting government intervention as a means of avoiding competition in the upcoming incentive auction attempt to avoid these facts by highlighting misleading FCC statistics, including the assertion that Verizon owns “approximately 45 percent of the licensed MHz-POPs of the combined [800 MHz] Cellular and 700 MHz band spectrum, while AT&T holds approximately 39 percent.” This statistic is misleading in two respects.

First, this statistic  excludes the 800 MHz SMR band, which is owned almost exclusively by Sprint Nextel. Excluding an entire spectrum band below one gigahertz from the statistical calculation creates the misleading impression that Verizon and AT&T hold a higher percentage of mobile spectrum below 1 GHz than they actually do.

Second, the FCC’s “MHz-POPs” methodology is weighted by population, which skews the resulting percentage of spectrum ownership significantly higher for companies that own spectrum in densely populated urban areas. A hypothetical using this methodology to calculate the percentage of “MHz-POPs” in the Cellular Market Areas (CMAs) covering the State of New York demonstrates just how skewed this methodology can be in the spectrum aggregation context.

Assume that “Company A” and “Company B” both own spectrum “Block X” (i.e., both companies own the same amount of spectrum in absolute terms) in different geographic areas in New York State. Specifically, assume that “Company A” owns “Block X” in geographic license area CMA001 (covering New York City and Newark, New Jersey), and “Company B” owns the same spectrum block in the other sixteen CMAs, including all six rural license areas in the state. If their spectrum holdings are calculated using the FCC’s population-weighted “MHz-POPs” methodology, “Company A” holds 70 percent of the “Block X” spectrum and “Company B” holds only 30 percent. (For an explanation of this methodology, see the “Technical Appendix” at the bottom of this post.)

As this example demonstrates, analyzing the percentage of spectrum mobile providers hold on a nationwide basis using the FCC’s “MHz-POPs” methodology is particularly misleading given the DOJ’s determination that spectrum below 1 GHz is competitively relevant only in sparsely populated rural areas. For example, if the FCC were to adopt a rule prohibiting any one mobile provider from holding 50% or more of the spectrum below 1 GHz in New York State on a “MHz-POPs” basis, “Company A” would be in violation of the rule even though it holds spectrum in  only 1 market and doesn’t hold any spectrum in rural markets.

When the 800 MHz SMR band is included and spectrum holdings are evaluated on a market-by-market basis, at least four different mobile providers hold spectrum below 1 GHz in most markets – a result that wasn’t even possible in 2006 (absent nationwide spectrum disaggregation on the secondary market) when the DOJ adopted its rural distinction.

Mr. Thornburgh’s broad statements about the DOJ’s past approach to competition policy generally and the FCC’s skewed statistics are not legitimate, data-based substitutes for a detailed analysis of DOJ precedent and current spectrum holdings below 1 GHz in both urban and rural markets. A detailed analysis indicates that the DOJ’s new recommendation is  not “fully consistent” with its previous approach to competition in the mobile marketplace, though it is consistent with a desire to rig the spectrum auction to favor certain competitors.

Technical Appendix

The FCC calculates “MHz-POPs” by multiplying the megahertz of spectrum held by a mobile provider in a given area by the population of that area.

The FCC also weights spectrum holdings by population using a “population-weighted average megahertz” calculation. The FCC calculates the nationwide “population-weighted average megahertz” of a mobile provider by dividing that provider’s “MHz-POPs” (as calculated above) by the US population.

The calculations for the New York State example in this blog post use “Cellular Market Areas,” which consist of Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Rural Service Area (RSA) licenses as defined by the FCC in Public Notice Report No. CL-92-40, “Common Carrier Public Mobile Services Information, Cellular MSA/RSA Markets and Counties,” DA 92-109, 7 FCC Rcd. 742 (1992). The population figures are from the 2000 U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

This post is a parody of “ Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems ” written by Galileo Galilei in 1632, which attempted to prove that the earth revolves around the sun (the Copernican system). Although the Copernican system was ultimately proven to be scientifically correct, Galileo was convicted of heresy and his book was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books for more than two hundred years.

Galileo’s book was written as a dialogue between three characters, Salviati, who supported Galileo’s view, Simplicio, who believed the universe revolves around the earth (the Ptolemaic system), and Sagredo, an open-minded person with no established position. In this parody, Salviati supports the use of actual or de facto guard bands between broadcast and mobile services, Simplicio supports the FCC’s competing guard band proposals in the 600 MHz and 700 MHz bands, and Sagredo remains open-minded.

INTERLOCUTORS

Salviati, Sagredo, Simplicio

SALVIATI. We resolved to meet today and discuss the differences in the FCC’s approach to the potential for harmful interference between broadcast and mobile services in the 600 MHz band on the one hand and the lower 700 MHz band on the other.

To prevent harmful interference between broadcast and mobile services in the 600 MHz band, the FCC has proposed separating these services with guard bands in which neither service would be allowed to operate. To make this easier to understand, let us use this tablet to illustrate the FCC’s proposed 600 MHz band plan and other such matters as they arise during our discussion.

The FCC adopted a very different approach to this issue in the 700 MHz band. Rather than require a spectral guard band between broadcast and mobile services, the FCC created geographic exclusion zones to protect broadcast services from the potential for harmful interference from mobile services in the lower 700 MHz A Block.

The FCC considered imposing additional limitations to protect mobile services in the A Block from broadcast services in Channel 51, but ultimately decided to provide A Block licensees with the flexibility to account for harmful interference through their own business plans, services, and facilities.

As a result, the 3GPP defined two LTE band classes for paired spectrum in the lower 700 MHz band:

• Band Class 17, which uses the A Block as a de facto guard band separating mobile services in the lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks from broadcast services in Channel 51; and

• Band Class 12, which has no guard band.

A group of A Block licensees subsequently filed a petition asking the FCC to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require that all devices operating on paired commercial spectrum in the 700 MHz band be capable of operating on all paired frequencies in the band and also to suspend authorization of 700 MHz devices that are incapable of operating on all such frequencies. Last year the FCC initiated a rulemaking proceeding to evaluate whether the lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks would experience harmful interference, and to what degree, if the FCC were to impose an interoperability mandate.

It would appear that the FCC has since answered the first question, whether eliminating the  de facto guard band in 3GPP Band Class 17 would cause harmful interference, by proposing 6 MHz guard bands between broadcast and mobile services in the 600 MHz band.

SIMPLICIO. The 600 MHz band uses different frequencies than the 700 MHz band, and different frequencies have different characteristics. The FCC has often adopted different rules for different frequency bands. If the potential for harmful interference between broadband mobile services were similar in both bands, the FCC would not have omitted that fact.

SAGREDO. You might at least add, “if it had occurred to the FCC to consider the question.” If the FCC were to consider it, could the FCC plausibly conclude that the potential for harmful interference between broadcast and mobile services is substantially different in the 600 MHz band?

SALVIATI. Your question seems to me most excellent. Though I grant that the FCC adopts spectrum rules on an ad hoc basis, I feel no compulsion to grant that the arbitrary distinctions of FCC process confer legitimacy on question of physics. Whether the potential for harmful interference is substantially the same in the 600 MHz and 700 MHz bands is a question amenable to answer only by demonstrative science, not speculation regarding past FCC actions and current omissions.

Neither the FCC nor the industry has adduced any evidence that the potential for harmful interference varies substantially between the 600 MHz and 700 MHz bands. To the contrary, the available evidence indicates that the potential for harmful interference in these bands is substantially similar due their relatively close proximity within the electromagnetic spectrum and the fact that the phenomena responsible for interference between broadcast and mobile services are not frequency dependent.

SIMPLICIO. I do not mean to join the number of those who are too curious about the mysteries of physics. But as to the point at hand, I reply that licensees in the A Block are asking the FCC to impose an interoperability mandate for competitive reasons. AT&T, who owns spectrum in the lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks, has deployed only Band Class 17, which excludes the A Block. Licensees in the A Block must use Band Class 12, which is not supported by AT&T. That is preventing A Block licensees from taking advantage of AT&T’s economies of scale for purchasing devices and roaming on its network. This seems to be conclusive evidence that AT&T excluded Band Class 12 from its B and C Block devices to raise the costs of its rivals, a form of anticompetitive behavior.

SAGREDO: I do not claim to comprehend the mysteries of physics, but I have some knowledge of the laws governing competition. The law does not penalize a company merely for being successful in the marketplace – it prohibits only anticompetitive behavior that is “unreasonable” or “wrongful.” The fact that AT&T’s decision to deploy Band Class 17 may incidentally raise its rivals’ costs is irrelevant if AT&T had legitimate business reasons to make that decision.

SALVIATI. Exactly so, which brings us full circle. Whether AT&T had legitimate reasons to deploy Band Class 17 depends on the laws of physics. If deploying Band Class 12 has the potential to cause harmful interference to the B and C Blocks, AT&T’s decisions to deploy Band Class 17 cannot be considered anticompetitive.

SIMPLICIO. What about the expectations of the A Block licensees? Band Class 17 was not proposed to the 3GPP until after the 700 MHz auction was completed. It seems legitimate to me that the FCC honor their expectation that all licensees would deploy Band Class 12.

SALVIATI. Another question answers yours. Did the FCC require or even encourage the deployment of interoperable devices in the 700 MHz band?

SIMPLICIO . You already know the answer. The FCC clearly said licensees could make their own determinations respecting the services and technologies they deploy in the band so long as they comply with the FCC’s technical rules. What does that have to do with the expectations of the A Block licensees?

SALVIATI. It demonstrates that the ostensible expectations of the A Block licensees were unreasonable. The FCC’s rules clearly gave B and C block licensees the absolute right to eschew deploying Band Class 12, and it was reasonably foreseeable that B and C Block licensees would exercise that right given the potential for harmful interference inherent in Band Class 12. Based on the FCC’s rules, the ostensible expectation of the A Block licensees is more reasonably categorized as a blind hope or a calculated risk. On average, the A Block licensees paid less than half the price the B Block licensees paid for the same amount of spectrum. If the B Block licensees had decided to deploy Band Class 12, the A Block licensees would have enjoyed access to maximal economies of scale while the B Block licensees suffered from the same interference potential at twice the price. If not, the A Block licensees knew that they could still deploy Band Class 12 on their own at half the price.

SIMPLICIO. You say the A Block licensees could still deploy Band Class 12 systems in their spectrum, but they say they cannot deploy without AT&T’s help. Why should I favor your position over theirs?

SALVIATI. Experience proves my position is correct. US Cellular, one of the A Block licensees who petitioned the FCC in this matter, has already deployed Band Class 12 in its A Block spectrum.

SAGREDO. I cannot without great astonishment – I might say without great insult to my intelligence – hear it said that something cannot be done that has already been done. I submit that I am better satisfied with your discourse than that of the A Block licensees in respect to the competitive and economic issues. But my knowledge is insufficient to reach my own conclusion regarding the physics. Perhaps AT&T was acting unreasonably when it chose to use the A Block as a de facto guard band to protect its operations in the C and B Blocks from harmful interference.

SALVIATI. That is the question Simplicio dreads. He knows that, if the FCC answers that question in the affirmative, it cannot establish guard bands in the 600 MHz band. The law governing the 600 MHz band provides that “guard bands shall be no larger than is technically reasonable to prevent harmful interference between licensed services outside the guard bands.” It can hardly be technically reasonable to require a 6 MHz guard band in the 600 MHz band while finding it was technically unreasonable for AT&T to treat the 6 MHz A Block as a de facto guard band given the evidence that the interference potential is substantially the same.

SAGREDO. Let us close our discussions for the day. The honest hours being past, I think Simplicio might like to contemplate this question during our cool ones. Tomorrow I shall expect you both so that we may continue the discussions now begun.

Few dispute that mobile carriers are being squeezed by the relative scarcity of radio spectrum. This scarcity is a painful artifact of regulatory decisions made decades ago, when the regulators gave valuable spectrum away for free to government agencies and to commercial users via so-called “beauty contests.” As more Americans purchase tablets and smartphones (as of a year ago, smartphones comprise a majority of phone plans in the US), many fear that consumers will be hurt by higher prices, stringent data limits, and less wireless innovation.

In the face of this demand, freeing up more airwaves for mobile broadband became a bipartisan effort and many scholars and policymakers have turned their hungry eyes to the ample spectrum possessed by federal agencies, which hold around 1500 MHz of the most valuable bands. The scholarly consensus–confirmed by government audits–is that federal agencies use their spectrum poorly. Because many licensees use spectrum under the old rules (free spectrum) and use it inefficiently, President Obama directed the FCC and NTIA to find 500 MHz of spectrum for mobile broadband use by 2020.

I recently published a Mercatus working paper surveying plans that encourage federal agencies to economize on their use of radio spectrum, with the ultimate goal of auctioning cleared spectrum to the highest bidders (probably mobile broadband service providers given consumer needs). In my research, interviewees pointed to two problems with reclaiming federal spectrum: (a) there is no effective process to get federal users (especially the powerful Department of Defense) to turn over spectrum, and (b) federal users don’t pay market prices for spectrum, resulting in inefficient use and billions of dollars of value annually wasted.

I’ll note two of the promising spectrum management plans here. As for improving the process of quickly getting federal spectrum auctioned off, there is a bill, promoted by Sen. Kirk and Rep. Kinzinger, to “BRAC the spectrum.” BRAC (the Base Realignment and Closure procedure), as Jerry Brito documents, was a move by Congress in 1988 to successfully accomplish the politically difficult task of closing military bases. BRAC-ing the spectrum would mean the congressional creation of a commission with the authority to clear federal users out of their spectrum. All spectrum-clearing decisions by this commission during its tenure would stand, absent a disapproving joint resolution from Congress. The identified spectrum could be auctioned off within a few years and the proceeds could be used to move the federal systems to other bands, with the remainder going to the Treasury.

The second proposal I highlight is the creation of a GSA-like agency that controls federal spectrum. This proposal, from Thomas Lenard, Lawrence White, and James Riso, would accomplish the second goal of making federal users pay substantial fees for their spectrum. The federal government pays market rates for many important inputs–tanks, carriers, land, etc.–so why is spectrum free? The GSA, the authors explain, owns real estate and buildings and it leases those to federal agencies. Just as paying rent forces federal agencies to economize on building size and amenities, a “GSA for spectrum” would lease spectrum to agencies, hopefully preventing the sort of waste currently seen in federal bands.

I’m probably the first TLF author to favor the creation of 2 new federal agencies in a post (hopefully not my last!), but these proposals may be necessary given the damaging status quo. Federal waste of spectrum assets isn’t disputed and the consumer benefits of freeing up spectrum are obvious. The fight lies primarily between powerful interest groups and affected congressional committees, some of whom will see their constituent oxen gored (DoD, defense contractors, technology firms). Given the urgent needs, it’s foolish to continue to do nothing.

” . . . the cooperative process envisioned by the National Broadband Plan is at risk of shifting to the traditionally contentious band plan process that has delayed spectrum auctions in the past.”

The National Broadband Plan proposed a new way to reassign reallocated spectrum. The Plan noted that, “Contentious spectrum proceedings can be time-consuming, sometimes taking many years to resolve, and incurring significant opportunity costs.” It proposed “shifting [this] contentious process to a cooperative one” to “accelerate productive use of encumbered spectrum” by “motivating existing licensees to voluntarily clear spectrum through incentive auctions.” Congress implemented this recommendation through legislation requiring the FCC to transition additional broadcast spectrum to mobile use through a voluntary incentive auction process rather than traditional FCC mandates.

Among other things, the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiating the broadcast incentive auction proceeding proposed a “lead” band plan approach and several alternative options, including the “down from 51” approach. An overwhelming majority of broadcasters, wireless providers, equipment manufacturers, and consumer groups rejected the “lead” approach and endorsed the alternative “down from 51” approach. This remarkably broad consensus on the basic approach to the band plan promised to meet the goals of the National Broadband Plan by accelerating the proceeding and motivating voluntary participation in the auction.

That promise was broken when the FCC’s Wireless Bureau unilaterally decided to issue a Public Notice seeking additional comment on a variation of the FCC’s “lead” proposal as well as a TDD approach to the band plan. The Bureau issued this notice over the objection of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who issued a separate statement expressing his concern that seeking comment on additional approaches to the band plan when there is a “growing consensus” in favor of the “down from 51” approach could unnecessarily delay the incentive auction. This statement “peeved” Harold Feld, Senior Vice President at Public Knowledge, who declared that there is no consensus and that the “down from 51” plan would be a “disaster.” As a result, the cooperative process envisioned by the National Broadband Plan is at risk of shifting to the traditionally contentious band plan process that has delayed spectrum auctions in the past.

Consumer groups, including Public Knowledge, acknowledged the consensus

Mr. Feld’s “pique” with Commissioner Pai’s view that the “down from 51” approach had become the “consensus framework” for the 600 MHz band plan is surprising. According to Mr. Feld, Sprint, Microsoft, and the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (PISC) objected to the “down from 51” approach. As support for this position, Mr. Feld cited reply comments filed by the PISC, a coalition that includes, among others, Public Knowledge.

Contrary to Mr. Feld’s assertion, however, the PISC reply comments  support Commissioner Pai’s view. The PISC reply comments expressly state that there is a “consensus in favor of a 51-down band plan with a duplex gap,” which is “supported as technically superior by virtually all major industry commenters.”

To be sure,  after Commissioner Pai issued his statement, Mr. Feld met with the Wireless Bureau to state for the record that there is no consensus support for the “down from 51” approach. Prior to that meeting, however, Public Knowledge had not expressed that view.

Why has Mr. Feld suddenly become so vehemently opposed to the “down from 51” approach?

“Down from 51” would not reduce revenue

Mr. Feld claims that the “down from 51” approach embraced by the broadcasters and “so many carriers and equipment manufacturers” would be an “absolute disaster” for that very reason – i.e., most of the industry supports it. In Mr. Feld’s view, the fact that the overwhelming majority of industry participants support the “down from 51” approach is evidence that they are “colluding” to reduce auction revenue.

Although the service rules and auction revenue are to some extent interdependent, insofar as band plans are concerned, wireless providers have far greater incentives to promote spectral and operational efficiency than to reduce auction prices. The costs of building and operating wireless networks are significantly higher than the one-time costs of acquiring spectrum at auction, and consumer demand for wireless broadband capacity is rapidly increasing. Given these facts, no rational wireless provider has an incentive to promote a band plan designed to reduce auction revenue.

In any event, Mr. Feld’s theory that the “down from 51” approach could reduce revenue by making too much spectrum available is irrelevant to the band plan issue. Even assuming his theory is correct, the FCC’s other proposed approaches to the band plan, none of which “cap” the amount of spectrum that would be accepted in the reverse auction, would run the same risk. Similarly, Mr. Feld’s proposed solution of limiting the amount of spectrum accepted in the reverse auction could be applied to any approach to the band plan, including “down from 51.”

“Down from 51”  is not anticompetitive

Mr. Feld claims that the “down from 51” approach is anticompetitive because, in his view, wireless providers that lack spectrum below 1 GHz “are the only ones capable of using the downlink spectrum, and even then only if they bid exclusively on the supplementary downlinks.” According to Mr. Feld, this means such providers will bid only on the downlink spectrum and leave the paired spectrum to Verizon and AT&T even though, in his view, providers that lack spectrum below 1 GHz are the ones that “most need” uplink spectrum.

Of course, if this were true, it would be irrational for any wireless provider to join Verizon and AT&T in supporting the “down from 51” approach. Yet, T-Mobile, the only nationwide provider that lacks nationwide spectrum below 1 GHz, is a signatory to the “Joint Accord” supporting the “down from 51” approach, an approach that is also supported by rural and regional providers.

Given the current state of the record, a finding based on Mr. Feld’s hypothesis would require the FCC to assume that wireless providers generally behave irrationally when developing band plans – an assumption so absurd it would fail even the most deferential application of the  Chevron standard for judicial review.

“Down from 51” is not inefficient

Mr. Feld claims the “down from 51” approach is spectrally inefficient because it “maximizes the total number of guard bands” while retaining a duplex gap.

To the contrary, the “down from 51” approach proposed by the FCC would require the  minimum total number of guard bands while retaining a duplex gap: one.

If enough spectrum is cleared to place the guard band adjacent to Channel 37 as proposed by T-Mobile, the “down from 51” approach would also minimize the amount of spectrum that must be allocated to guard bands. This specific version of the “down from 51” approach would require a total of only 4 MHz of guard band spectrum while providing 10 MHz of protection against interference (6 MHz in Channel 37 plus an additional 4 MHz yielded by broadcasters in the reverse auction).

In comparison, the “down from 51 reversed” approach proposed by the Wireless Bureau in the Public Notice would require at least  two guard bands.

If the FCC intends to maximize spectral efficiency by minimizing the total number of guard bands, it will not adopt the “down from 51 reversed” approach proposed by the Wireless Bureau. That is why the FCC proposed to place the 600 MHz uplink band adjacent to the lower 700 MHz uplink band in the “lead” proposal in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

A TDD approach is inefficient

Mr. Feld claims that a “down from 51 TDD” approach would make “maximum use” of spectrum above Channel 37 because it would eliminate the duplex gap required for FDD deployments. He neglects to mention, however, that a TDD approach would require an additional guard band that would be the same or substantially similar in size to the FDD duplex gap in the “down from 51″ approach. Compare the FCC’s “down from 51” approach with the Wireless Bureau’s “down from 51 TDD” approach:

As I’ve noted previously, the switching times inherent in LTE TDD systems also produce latency and reduce coverage – issues that would be exacerbated in rural deployments in the 600 MHz band. LTE TDD operates in two modes: a 10-millisecond mode (more latency, but more coverage) and a 5-millisecond mode (less latency, but less coverage). In the 10-millisecond mode, LTE TDD is generally not suitable for the streaming applications that stress mobile networks the most (e.g., video chat applications). In the 5-millisecond mode, LTE TDD is generally suitable for streaming applications, but suffers from significantly reduced coverage. According to Qualcomm, in a coverage-limited system using the same frequency, TDD requires 31 to 65 percent more base stations than FDD to maintain the same throughput.

This doesn’t mean that TDD technologies have no role to play in the wireless marketplace. In the absence of channel aggregation opportunities, TDD is the only choice when paired spectrum is unavailable. It can also be used to enhance capacity when coverage is not the delimiting factor.

The primary driver behind LTE TDD deployment generally, however, appears to be Chinese industrial policy, not spectral efficiency. After China’s TDD-based SCDMA technology failed to gain traction internationally, it focused its efforts on developing a TDD version of LTE that would be backward compatible with its SCDMA standard and expand China’s technological influence globally. As a result, China became the primary promoter of the LTE TDD standard and a major owner of the standard’s essential patents (i.e., Huawei states that it leads the world in essential LTE patents). Based on likely deployment scenarios in the 600 MHz band, an FCC-mandated TDD approach would benefit Chinese patent holders, not American consumers.

The Public Notice Should Not Have Been Issued by the Bureau

Finally, Mr. Feld accused Commissioner Pai of “poisoning” the rulemaking process by calling attention to the Wireless Bureau’s disregard for his role as a Commissioner. Mr. Feld portrayed the Public Notice as a routine matter, but as a former Chief of the Wireless Bureau, I know that Bureaus do not circulate routine items to the Commissioners. A Bureau typically circulates an item to the Commissioners with a waiting period only when its authority to issue the item at the Bureau-level is unclear. If a Commissioner objects to the issuance of the item at the Bureau level, established practice requires that it be submitted to the Commission for a vote.

In my experience, the Bureau’s decision to ignore Commissioner Pai’s objection was, at a minimum, a serious breach of comity and established protocol. If anything “poisoned” the process in this instance, it was the Bureau’s insistence on issuing a Public Notice on authority delegated to it by the Commission over the objection of a Commissioner.

Conclusion

The surest path to “disaster” in this proceeding is for the FCC to take the incentives out of the incentive auction. The Bureau’s insistence on pushing an approach that most broadcasters, wireless providers, and equipment manufacturers don’t support is more likely to deter participation in the auction than incent it. It is the industry – not the Wireless Bureau – that ultimately must agree to risk its capital in the auction and deploy new wireless infrastructure. If the Wireless Bureau’s preferred approach wins and, as a result, the industry declines to participate in the auction, everyone loses.

This week at CTIA 2013, FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel presented ten ideas for spectrum policy. Though I don’t agree with all of them, she articulated a reasonable vision for spectrum policy that prioritizes consumer demand, incorporates market-oriented solutions, and establishes transparent goals and timelines. Commissioner Rosenworcel’s principled approach stands in stark contrast to the intellectually bankrupt incentive auction recommendation offered by the Department of Justice last month.

Commissioner Rosenworcel clearly defines three simple goals for a successful incentive auction:

• Raising enough revenue to support the nation’s first interoperable, wireless broadband public safety network;
• Making more broadband spectrum available through policies that are attractive to broadcasters; and
• Providing fair treatment to those broadcasters who do not wish to participate in the auction.

All three goals are consistent with consumer demand for wireless broadband services, the market-oriented reassignment of broadcast spectrum envisioned by the National Broadband Plan, and the will of Congress.

In comparison, the DOJ’s recommendation focuses on only one goal: Subsidizing two particular companies – Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile – to ensure they obtain spectrum in the auction. The DOJ claims these subsidies are necessary to promote competition. But, there is a substantial difference between fair government policies that promote competition generally and a policy of favoring foreign-owned companies over their domestic competitors.

Unfortunately, the DOJ is not alone in its belief that bestowing government benefits on favored companies is a legitimate goal in a free society. Some members of the House Commerce Committee believe the DOJ’s past merger reviews provide “a solid factual and analytical basis” for its current recommendation to the FCC.

The fatal flaw in this theory is that the DOJ’s recommendation to the FCC is inconsistent with the factual findings and analysis of the DOJ in its past merger reviews. As I’ve noted previously, in its complaint against the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, the DOJ found that, “due to the advantages arising from their scope and scale of coverage,” Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile are “especially well-positioned to drive competition” in the wireless industry. That finding doesn’t provide any factual or analytical basis whatsoever to conclude that Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile require special government treatment in the incentive auction in order to compete with Verizon and AT&T.

That’s why the DOJ recommendation relies on an irrational and discriminatory presumption that Verizon and AT&T are using spectrum less efficiently than Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile. A speculative presumption doesn’t require the DOJ to admit its own deceit. It merely requires audacity.

In an era when government officials routinely revise the facts to suit their preferred outcomes and disclaim responsibility for the actions of the agencies they’re charged with leading, Commissioner Rosenworcel’s speech required intellectual bravery and political courage. Her ideas deserve a fair hearing.

Frontline relied on the DOJ foreclosure theory to predict that the lack of eligibility restrictions in the 700 MHz auction would “inevitably” increase prices, stifle innovation, and reduce the diversity of service offerings as Verizon and AT&T warehoused the spectrum. In reality, the exact opposite occurred.

The DOJ recently recommended that the FCC rig the upcoming incentive auction to ensure Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile are winners and Verizon and AT&T are losers. I previously noted that the DOJ spectrum plan (1) inconsistent with its own findings in recent merger proceedings and the intent of Congress, (2) inherently discriminatory, and (3) irrational as applied. Additional analysis indicates that it isn’t supported by economic theory or FCC factual findings either.

Economic Theory

The Phoenix Center published a paper with an economic simulation that exposes the fundamental economic defect in the foreclosure theory underlying the DOJ recommendation. The DOJ implicitly recognizes that the “private value” of spectrum (the amount a firm is willing to pay) equals its “use value” (derived from using spectrum to meet consumer demand) plus its “foreclosure value” (derived from excluding its use by rivals). In its application of this theory, however, the DOJ erroneously presumes that Verizon and AT&T would derive zero use value from the acquisition of additional spectrum – a presumption that is inconsistent with the FCC findings that prompted the auction.

The Phoenix Center notes that  all firms – including Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile – derive a foreclosure value from the acquisition of spectrum due to its scarcity. When considering the benefits to consumers, it is the comparative use value of the spectrum for each provider that is relevant. If the use value of the spectrum to Verizon and AT&T exceeds that of Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile, economic theory says Verizon and AT&T would maximize the potential consumer benefits of that spectrum irrespective of its foreclosure value.

Of course, determining the differing use values of spectrum to particular firms is what spectrum auctions are for, which brings the DOJ’s argument full circle: If government bureaucrats at the DOJ and the FCC could accurately assess the use values of spectrum, we wouldn’t need to hold spectrum auctions in the first place.

The circularity of the DOJ theory explains its reliance on an unsubstantiated presumption that Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile have the highest use value for the spectrum. If the DOJ had instead (1) conducted a thorough factual investigation, (2) analyzed the resulting data to assign bureaucratic use values for the spectrum to each of the four nationwide mobile providers, and (3) compared the results to determine that Verizon and AT&T had lower use values, the DOJ would have engaged in the same failed “comparative hearing” analysis that Congress intended to avoid when it authorized spectrum auctions. Given the Congressional mandate to auction spectrum yielded by the broadcasters, the FCC cannot engage in a comparative process to pick winners and losers, and it certainly cannot substitute an unsubstantiated presumption for an actual comparative process in order to avoid the legal prohibition.

FCC Factual Findings

The foreclosure theory and DOJ presumption are also inconsistent with the auction experience and current factual findings of the FCC. The DOJ foreclosure theory has been presented to the FCC before and has proved invalid by the market.

When the FCC was developing rules for the 700 MHz auction in 2007, Frontline Wireless sought preferential treatment using the same foreclosure theory as the DOJ. Frontline submitted a paper (prepared by Stanford professors of economics and management) that relied on the same types of information and reached the same conclusion as the DOJ – that Verizon and AT&T were dominant “low-frequency” wireless incumbents with “strong incentives” to acquire and warehouse 700 MHz spectrum, and that their participation in the 700 MHz auction must be limited in order to “promote competition” and prevent “foreclosure.” Frontline predicted that, if Verizon and AT&T were not prevented from bidding in the 700 MHz auction, it would “inevitably lead to higher prices, stifled innovation, and reduced diversity of service offerings.”

The FCC rejected Frontline’s foreclosure theory. The FCC concluded that, “given the number of actual wireless providers and potential broadband competitors, it [was] unlikely that [incumbents] would be able to behave in an anticompetitive manner as a result of any potential acquisition of 700 MHz spectrum.”

The last five years have proven that the FCC was correct. Though Verizon and AT&T acquired significant amounts of unfettered 700 MHz spectrum, the auction results have not led to the “higher prices, stifled innovation, and reduced diversity of service offerings” predicted by Frontline. In its most recent mobile competition report, the FCC reported that:

• Verizon used its 700 MHz spectrum to deploy a 4G LTE network to more than 250 million Americans less than four years after Verizon’s 700 MHz licenses were approved (i.e., it didn’t warehouse the spectrum).

• Mobile wireless prices declined overall in 2010 and 2011, and the price per megabyte of data declined 89% from the 3^rd quarter of 2008 – a few months before Verizon received its 700 MHz licenses – to the 4^th quarter of 2010 (i.e., industry prices decreased).

• The number of subscribers to mobile Internet access services more than doubled from year-end 2009 to year-end 2011 (i.e., industry output increased).

• Prepaid services are growing at the fastest rate, and new wholesale and connected device services are growing significantly (i.e., providers continued to provide new and diverse service offerings).

• Market concentration has remained essentially unchanged since 2008 (the population weighted average of HHIs increased from 2,842 in 2008 to 2,873 in 2011 – a change of only 1 percent).

Remember: Frontline relied on the DOJ foreclosure theory to predict that the lack of eligibility restrictions in the 700 MHz auction would “inevitably” increase prices, stifle innovation, and reduce the diversity of service offerings as Verizon and AT&T warehoused the spectrum. In reality, the exact opposite occurred. Verizon and AT&T did not warehouse the spectrum, industry prices decreased while output increased, diverse new service offerings exhibited the strongest growth, and market concentration remained essentially unchanged. And, while competition thrived, consumers reaped the benefits.

So, why would the DOJ make the same failed argument for the 600 MHz auction (other than crony capitalism)? Some might say, “Even the boy who cried wolf was right once.” But, even if one were inclined to give the DOJ the benefit of the doubt, the theoretical possibility that the foreclosure theory could adversely impact the 600 MHz auction must be weighed against the potential harm of limiting participation in the auction.

The harm is well documented and could prove particularly problematic in this auction. A paper coauthored by Leslie Marx, who led the design team for the 700 MHz auction when she was the FCC’s Chief Economist, demonstrates that excluding Verizon and AT&T would have even more severe consequences in the incentive auction than in previous auctions.

A paper published by economists at Georgetown University’s Center for Business and Public Policy attempts to quantify the severity of these consequences. It estimates that excluding Verizon and AT&T from the auction could reduce revenues by as much as 40 percent ($12 billion) – a result that would jeopardize funding for the nationwide public safety network, reduce the amount of spectrum made available for wireless Internet services, and adversely affect more than 118,000 U.S. jobs. That is a steep price to pay for the privilege of seeing whether the boy is crying wolf again.