Updated on August 25th, 2011
Until recently, the FCC appeared to believe that the Communications Act prohibited the marketing and sale of signal boosters without licensee consent or control. That view has apparently changed. The FCC initially considered simply declaring that signal boosters could be marketed and sold without licensee consent, but ultimately decided to issue an NPRM proposing rules governing third-party signal booster transactions.
The FCC’s new interest in legitimizing the distribution of signal boosters without licensee consent or control is perplexing. Given the FCC’s ongoing existential crisis, it’s not surprising that its signal booster proposal lacks any market analysis justifying regulatory intervention (e.g., there is no evidence that consumers lack access to signal boosters authorized by licensees). What is surprising is that legitimizing third-party signal booster sales would be flatly inconsistent with the regulatory approach the FCC adopted last year in its net neutrality order. In the net neutrality order, the FCC recognized the wisdom of affording network operators “the latitude they need to effectively manage their networks.” (Net Neutrality Order at paragraph 86.) Network operators are thus able to “implement reasonable practices to ensure network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network.” (Net Neutrality Order at paragraph 88.) Signal boosters implicate the same reasonable network management concerns the FCC address in the net neutrality order, but, inexplicably, the FCC wants to specify detailed network management practices for signal boosters. Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment |
TAGS:
mobile wireless
Updated on August 17th, 2011
In my initial post addressing Googorola, I suggested that Google’s motivation for buying Motorola may be less about patents and more about emulating Apple’s vertically-integrated mobile device platform. If I’m right, the deal would have a significant impact on competition throughout the mobile ecosystem and mobile broadband policy. Although I can’t cover all the possibilities presented by Googorola in one post, here’s my take on some interesting potential winners and losers in the mobile market and in mobile policy.
Potential Winners
Googorola: If Google’s stock price is any indication, it looks like the market thinks the deal is a mistake. In think the alternative – failing to even try to monetize Android’s 40% market share – would be a much bigger mistake. Read the rest of this entry »
No Comments |
TAGS:
merger mobile wireless wireless competition
Updated on August 16th, 2011
Google announced yesterday that it has agreed to buy Motorola Mobility for about $12.5 billion, a premium of 63% to the closing price of Motorola Mobility shares last Friday. Google’s CEO, Larry Page, said in a corporate blog post that the merger will “supercharge Android” and strengthen Google’s patent portfolio. Initial stories focused on Motorola’s patent portfolio, saying it is “the centerpiece of the deal.” I’m skeptical this deal is primarily a patent play. A 63% price premium for a major hardware manufacturer with ongoing operations is a lot to pay for patent defense. The largest patent verdict in U.S. history to withstand appellate review was only $290 million. That’s not chump change, but it is significantly less than $12.5 billion. It’s also telling that Google first raised Android patent issues less than two weeks before announcing the Motorola deal. Google’s recent post alleging patent attacks on Android looks like a transparent effort to focus deal commentary on Motorola’s intellectual property and divert attention from other aspects of the deal. Read the rest of this entry »
No Comments |
TAGS:
merger mobile wireless wireless competition
Updated on August 15th, 2011
Captain, Road Prison 36: What we got here is… failure to communicate. Cool Hand Luke (1967).
“People love to categorize.” Categorization helps us make sense of a complicated world. But, when categorization doesn’t reflect substantial similarities, it obfuscates as much as it illuminates. So it is with communications policy, which is categorized primarily by the technologies used to deliver communications services (“stovepipes”) rather than their impact on consumers. This approach to categorization obfuscates the relevant question – whether a particular regulatory approach maximizes consumer welfare (rather than the prospects of particular competitors).
If the government subsidizes universal broadband, it would render government subsidization of over the air broadcast duplicative.
The ongoing debates about broadcast incentive auctions and universal service reform offer a poignant example of such obfuscation. Because the services that are the subjects of these debates use different technologies, and are thus categorized separately, these debates are being conducted independently. When viewed from the perspective of consumer welfare, however, these debates are inherently interrelated. They both involve regulations that are intended to address the same concern – the widespread dissemination of information to consumers from a multiplicity of sources.
The core question in both debates is to what extent the government should subsidize consumer access to information. Because broadband service provides access to far more information than is possible through over the air broadcast, answering this question in the universal service debate informs the incentive auction debate: If the government subsidizes universal broadband, it would render government subsidization of over the air broadcast duplicative.
Read the rest of this entry »
No Comments |
TAGS:
broadband mobile spectrum Universal Service Fund USF wireless
Updated on August 3rd, 2011
Annie: Well, I should probably tell you that I’m taking the bus because I had my driver’s license revoked.
Jack: What for?
Annie: Speeding.
Speed (1994).
Yesterday the FCC released its “Measuring Broadband America” report, “the most comprehensive and rigorous assessment ever of broadband performance in the United States.” (See FCC Chairman Genachowski’s statement here.) The report debunks one of the most widely believed broadband myths with actual data.
Myth: “[C]onsumers aren’t getting the service that they are paying for.”
Fact: “DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home are all delivering quality service generally consistent with what they advertise.” (Chairman Genachowski’s statement.)
In fact, consumers are sometimes getting service that is faster than that for which they are paying even when measured during periods of peak usage. The report found that, on average during peak periods, fiber-to-the-home services delivered 114% of advertised speeds (DSL-based services delivered 82% and cable delivered 93% of advertised speeds).
It’s refreshing to see an FCC report based on actual data that sets the record straight.
No Comments |
TAGS:
broadband FCC