Archive for January, 2012

Four Trends that Will Disrupt Wireless Regulation in 2012

Updated on January 17th, 2012

I participated in a panel about the “Wired Home and Wireless Policy” at the Broadband Breakfast Club this morning. The panel was aimed at the impact of convergence on communications policy, though it touched on a number of current policy issues, including the current debate about incentive auction legislation (see my separate post about the spectrum crunch here). I focused my remarks on four emerging trends that are likely to disrupt wireless regulation in 2012: convergence 2.0, cloud computing, hotspot 2.0, and small cells. Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment |


               

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski Rejects Spectrum Compromise in Remarks at CES

Updated on January 17th, 2012

In his remarks at the Consumer Electronics Show last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the debate over the spectrum crunch has been settled: If we don’t authorize incentive auctions and make more spectrum available, “consumers will face slower speeds, more dropped connections, and higher prices.” He also said the United States would lose the international wireless race and would pay the price in lost jobs, investment and innovation. That’s the bad news. The good news is broad, bipartisan agreement in Congress that we need to get incentive auctions done. Although the House and Senate differ on the details, they have both passed bills that would provide the additional spectrum the FCC Chairman believes will prevent the dire consequences he outlined in his remarks. Game over, everyone wins, right?

Not so fast. The Chairman also said “getting it right is as important as getting it done.” By “getting it right,” he means doing it the FCC’s way rather than the way Congress has proposed. Chairman Genachowski took issue with provisions in the House bill that would prohibit the FCC from allocating cleared spectrum bands for unlicensed use by companies that didn’t pay the price required to clear those bands, and would prohibit the FCC from rigging the auction results by limiting the ability of certain companies to win. Even assuming the FCC would do a better job making such decisions, I can’t agree that doing it the FCC’s way is more important than doing it at all when the FCC Chairman says doing nothing would kill jobs, harm consumers, and hurt our global competitiveness. (For a more detailed look at the substantive issues, see posts here and here.)

As AT&T said on its policy blog last week, “it would be a disservice to the Nation if the FCC is so adamant about preserving and enhancing its own power that it would risk killing this crucial legislation.” The House and Senate have already compromised on the key issue that held up the legislation last year, which was the reallocation of the D Block to public safety. We can’t afford to further delay the deployment of a nationwide, interoperable public safety network or the availability of more mobile spectrum while we argue about the extent of the FCC’s regulatory authority. It’s time to embrace the public safety compromise forged in Congress and declare victory.

No Comments |


            

House-Senate Spectrum Debate Pits Industry Flexibility Against FCC Mandates

Updated on January 10th, 2012

A small group of Senators sent a letter to their leadership yesterday urging that the FCC be given the flexibility to “set aside some spectrum in certain bands for unlicensed use.” The letter attempts to frame the debate in terms of the FCC’s flexibility to determine optimal spectrum use. The assumption underlying this notion is that the FCC is in the best position to make optimal decisions for the high tech industry. The House is apparently unwilling to take that leap of faith. The letter thus begs the real question: Do we believe the technology industry should have the flexibility to adjust spectrum use on the basis of market demand (the House approach)? Or, do we believe that the FCC should mandate how spectrum should be used on the basis of its technocratic expertise (the approach advocated in the letter)? We already know the answer: Experience has proven that maximizing the flexibility of the high tech industry to use spectrum in accordance with market demand maximizes innovation and consumer welfare. Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments |


      

RSS