Today’s ubiquitous Wi-Fi, subject of a love/hate relationship by the cellular industry, comes from precisely “spectrum policies granting special market privileges to favored technologies” – see http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/page4/SSHist.html Was that so bad?

I agree with Fred’s statement, “the FCC’s attempt to make cleared spectrum available for unlicensed use in the PCS band was largely considered a disaster”, but like the Milgrom report he attributes this to the issue of whether the band was licensed or unlicensed. The U-PCS failure was in my opinion more of a result of a very detailed set of technical specifications that industry demanded the FCC adopt whereas the ISM band (Wi-Fi/Bluetooth) FCC rules were also unlicensed but very general so they could adapt with changing requirements.

So while both Fred and Milgrom focus on the unlicensed/licensed dichotomy as being the key factor in success, I feel that technical flexibility and deregulation, available in both the ISM band and the CMRS rules, has also been a key factor.

Now, like the blind men and the elephant, let me give an alternative viewpoint:

While you state “Until recently, the FCC appeared to believe that the Communications Act prohibited the marketing and sale of signal boosters without licensee consent or control” – this is contradicted by the fact that FCC has been granting equipment authorization to these devices for at least a decade and the manuals made no secret what their use was.

Maybe WTB staffers wanted to please CTIA by banning them.

In reality there is poor cellular coverage in many rural areas and that is precisely where these devices sell well. If the cellular industry offered alternative technology and service at a fair price then these devices would disappear from the market. I recently installed one on my sailboat for the basic reason that a lot of creeks on the Eastern Shore where I like to go on summer weekends have no cellular coverage. Indeed, Tolchester Marina (http://www.tolchestermarina.com/) near Chestertown MD is in an area without coverage even though it is a business on a main road.

Early generation boosters indeed did cause interference due to feedback. It is troubling that FCC refused to take any real action in this area and basically stonewalled CTIA’s 11/07 petition (http://files.ctia.org/pdf/filings/FINAL–CTIA–_Jammers_Petition_for_Declaratory_Ruling.pdf)for several years. Fred, weren’t you in charge when this was filed at FCC?

In any case, boosters sold now by the top manufacturers have features that prevent this interference from feedback. But the lack of ANY FCC action allows old style booster to still be sold. The cellular industry has raised some other technical issues where interference is possible. After demanding a total ban on boosters, several carriers are reported now to be negotiating with responsible booster manufacturers for technical standards that would avoid other types of interference even if it means that in some places boosters would have to turn off to avoid a small interference risk.

Such mutually agreeable standards would be win-win and would allow the public in rural areas to get the service expected elsewhere that the cellular industry has not been able to provide while preventing interference. Indeed, rural law enforcement are presently big users of these boosters as is well documents in the 10-4 docket file.

Even if we were to stipulate that VZN is losing money on all its fixed-wire products, it seems fishy that there is only one national wireless provider left that doesn’t have its own significant ILEC holdings underwriting backhaul for the wireless business. Doesn’t it seem possible that backhaul is undervalued when they’re putting these numbers together?

As for USF, it seems quite unlikely that anything pro-consumer could ever be salvaged from that mess.

Edge providers have creatively destructed old, entrenched, non innovative industry, and put a whole new generation to work. Scary, but thats how it works.

Hopefully voters will someday get the fact that without basic BB service, they will be locked out of the information game, job race, chance to educate/improve themselves/families. This is already happening with digital divide/rural issues.

Just as the private roadways were built -and gave way to public owned right of ways ( and now toll ways), but governed (and regulated) by law. Broadband should be everyones right to information and knowledge.

Trying to privatize this common right of way (information) ultimately will challenge our free speech, and the core of our freedoms …all in the name of secular profit.

And I believe in this case, trading near term privatized gain, for future common gains, will have proven to be a recipe for societal/ economic failure.