Updated on July 30th, 2010
Rumack: Elaine, you’re a member of this crew. Can you face some unpleasant facts?
Elaine Dickinson: No.
Airplane (1980).
In 2007 (while I was Wireless Bureau Chief at the FCC), the FCC issued a declaratory ruling (“Classification Order”) classifying for the first time wireless broadband services as “information services.” Perhaps more importantly, the FCC found that “mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not a ‘commercial mobile service’ under section 332 of the Act.” (Classification Order at para. 1). The latter finding is likely fatal to any attempt by the FCC to reclassify mobile wireless broadband service as a common carrier service subject to Title II regulation or data roaming obligations. Why is this finding so pivotal to ongoing debates at the FCC regarding the regulatory treatment of mobile wireless broadband? Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment |
TAGS:
mobile telecommunications wireless
Updated on July 22nd, 2010
C-3PO: “Curse my metal body, I wasn’t fast enough, it’s all my fault!” Star Wars (1977).
In its Sixth Broadband Deployment Report (“Sixth Report”), the FCC concludes that “broadband deployment to all Americans is not reasonable and timely.” (Sixth Report at para. 2 (emphasis in original).) However, the FCC doesn’t attempt to answer the question titling this blog post. To the contrary, the Sixth Report “emphasize[s] that [its] conclusion in no way diminishes the achievements industry has made deploying better and faster forms of broadband to most Americans, nor the Commission’s past efforts to foster broadband deployment.” (Report at para. 6.) The FCC can say that, but that doesn’t make it true. Somebody’s always at fault.
In this case, it’s the FCC that must shoulder the blame – because it hasn’t acted in a timely manner in its efforts to reform the Universal Service Fund. And Universal Service Funding (or some other method of subsidy) is the only way to achieve universal broadband service (the goal articulated by the FCC in the Sixth Report.) (See my earlier post on the Sixth Report here.) Efforts to fundamentally reform the Universal Service Fund have been ongoing for years, but have failed in the face of intense lobbying by rural carriers that benefit disproportionately from the status quo. The Report’s finding that the status quo isn’t good enough may finally give the FCC the political cover it feels is necessary to take responsibility for the Universal Service Fund and enact real reform. Otherwise, there’s little point in the Sixth Report’s conclusion regarding the “reasonable and timely” deployment of broadband to consumers that cannot be economically served by industry.
No Comments |
TAGS:
broadband Universal Service Fund
Updated on July 22nd, 2010
Milton Waddams: “I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven, I told Bill that if Sandra is going to listen to her headphones while she’s filing then I should be able to listen to the radio while I’m collating so I don’t see why I should have to turn down the radio because I enjoy listening at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven.” Office Space (1999).
Section 706 of the Communications Act requires the FCC to annually “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability [i.e., broadband] is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” In its last 5 reports, the FCC has concluded that broadband was being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. Now, in its Sixth Broadband Deployment Report (“Sixth Report”), the FCC has concluded that “broadband deployment to all Americans is not reasonable and timely.” (Sixth Report at para. 2 (emphasis in original).) Read the rest of this entry »
No Comments |
TAGS:
broadband Universal Service Fund
Updated on July 13th, 2010
Dana Barrett: “What is that thing you’re doing?”
Dr. Peter Venkman: “It’s technical . . . .”
Ghostbusters (1984)
So far I’ve successfully resisted the urge to comment on the 700 MHz D Block issues percolating at the FCC (although I did reference the FCC’s report in an earlier post). After coming back from my traditional 4th of July holiday, however, I’ve succumbed to the temptation to opine on the FCC’s “D Block Capacity Report.”
Others have already analyzed the Report in detail. (For Andrew Seybold’s comprehensive analysis, click here.) And I’ll try not to repeat their analyses in this post. Instead, I focus on the framing of the Report and, perhaps most importantly, what the Report doesn’t say.
The FCC frames its D Block capacity Report as a “technical” analysis intended to determine whether 10 MHz of spectrum is sufficient to meet public safety’s communications requirements in various scenarios. But, of course, this purported “technical” analysis is based as much on economic and policy assumptions as it is on engineering. It has to be: Because capacity is impacted by issues like cell density, which is in part a matter of economics, capacity isn’t solely a technical issue.
The FCC appears to concede that whether 10 MHz of spectrum is sufficient for day-to-day operations depends in part on how much money public safety has to deploy and maintain the network. (See Report at pages 5-7.) Indeed, the Report relies heavily on the potential economies of scope and scale that public safety would enjoy if the D Block is licensed to a commercial operator. (See Report at pages 16-17.) But the report erroneously assumes that the “benefits associated with sharing an LTE band class (Band Class 14) with the commercial D block licensee would evaporate” if the D Block were given to public safety. Isn’t it just as likely that public safety could use its access to an additional 10 MHz of spectrum (which, according to the Report, public safety doesn’t need) as an incentive to entice a commercial licensee into a mutually beneficial, voluntary partnership with public safety? Unfortunately, the Report doesn’t address this question or other alternative scenarios involving both economic and technical analysis.
Ironically, the FCC is clearly relying on significant relationships developing between public safety and commercial partners through roaming and priority access regimes. (See Report at pages 11-12.) However, the FCC apparently wishes to impose roaming and priority access requirements on commercial licensees as a matter of regulatory fiat, rather than allow them to develop through cooperative agreements between commercial licensees and public safety (using the D Block as leverage). It appears the FCC is more comfortable with imposing regulation on commercial licensees (who will be forced to allow public safety to access their spectrum and commercial resources) than giving more spectrum to public safety and relying on voluntary sharing arrangements. Regardless of its merits, this preference is one of policy and economics that has been given a dubious “technical” patina.
No Comments |
TAGS:
D-Block public safety spectrum