Posts Tagged ‘ wireless competition ’

FCC Cares More about Protecting Competitors than Protecting Consumers

Updated on February 8th, 2012

Nearly everyone knows that cars need gas to run. They may not know that mobile devices need radio spectrum to run. Without spectrum – the invisible airwaves that make wireless services possible – mobile devices are as useless as a car that’s run out of gas. Nobody expects we’ll run out of gas any time soon, but the FCC expects we’ll run out of spectrum within the next two years if we don’t take action. In a report released in October, 2010, the FCC estimated that an additional 275 MHz of spectrum will be required to meet mobile data demand in 2014. Will we be able to provide enough spectrum within the next two years to meet consumer demand for mobile data?

If certain groups in Washington get their way, the answer will be “no”. Congressional efforts to make more spectrum available are being held up by the FCC and so-called “public interest” groups who want to play favorites with our spectrum resources. They are actively lobbying against spectrum legislation because they want to prevent companies like AT&T and Verizon Wireless from getting the spectrum they need to provide the services their customers want. That might be good news if you are a competitor of those companies, but it is very bad news if you’re a customer of those companies. If those companies are denied the spectrum they need, their customers will be denied the service they deserve. I doubt the millions of subscribers that rely on those companies for wireless communications are going to be happy when they find out the FCC is lobbying to deny them an opportunity to receive better service. Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments |


               

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 »

No Comments |


               

Dish Network’s Potential for Competitive Disruption in the Mobile and MVPD Markets

Updated on September 6th, 2011

The National Broadband Plan recommended that the FCC “accelerate terrestrial deployment in 90 MHz of Mobile Satellite Spectrum (MSS).” The FCC began implementing this recommendation this year when it granted LightSquared a waiver to use its MSS spectrum for a wholesale terrestrial LTE network intended to “enhance[e] competition among mobile wireless providers.” Until recently LightSquared appeared to be the FCC’s only near-term opportunity for a new nationwide, facilities-based mobile broadband competitor.

That changed a few weeks ago when Dish Network unveiled its own plans to build a terrestrial LTE network using MSS spectrum. Dish Network is buying both DBSD North America and TerreStar, who together hold 40 MHz of MSS spectrum in the 2 GHz band. In its recent application seeking approval for the Terrestar transaction and waivers to provide terrestrial service (available here), Dish Network says that, if its requests are granted, it will make “substantial terrestrial network deployment commitments intended to increase wireless broadband competition, including in rural areas.” (Application at 48.) These commitments include deploying an LTE Advanced network pursuant to a “reasonable, attainable buildout schedule keyed to commercial availability of the LTE Advanced Standard.” (Application at 48.)

Dish Network’s plan to build a new 4G broadband network offers the potential for significant competitive disruption in both the mobile broadband and MVPD markets, especially when combined with the retail and streaming video assets Dish Network acquired from Blockbuster earlier this year. Due to capacity and other limitations inherent in satellite broadband services, satellite TV providers don’t currently offer broadband services capable of competing in urban and suburban markets with the cable modem, DSL, and fiber offerings of other multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). The inability of satellite TV providers to offer competitive broadband services in urban and suburban markets is in part why cable operators have maintained approximately 70% market share while Dish Network has competed primarily on price. With its planned 4G deployment, Dish Network could compete on quality of experience by offering video, broadband, telephone, and mobile services on integrated service platforms through Blockbuster’s virtual and retail stores (imagine mobile devices that access a Blockbuster apps store with streaming content, a TV device that seamlessly combines Dish Networks satellite programming with streamed wireless services, etc.). For the first time, Dish Network would be able to compete across the entire value chain.

Dish Network is also well positioned to quickly become a formidable new competitor in the mobile broadband market. Unlike a typical new entrant, Dish Network already has significant brand awareness and customer relationships, existing retail networks, and an industry partnership with Frontier Communications. Dish Network could leverage its 14 million MVPD subscribers, 4 million Frontier Communications customers, and Blockbuster retail stores to quickly generate a nationwide presence in the mobile market and substantially lower its customer acquisition costs. Because Dish Network does not have an embedded base of devices that depend on earlier generations of wireless technology, it would be able to deploy and maintain a single, cost effective LTE Advanced network. Its spectrum would also enable the use of spectrally efficient 20 MHz channels – a channel size some incumbent mobile operators cannot deploy due to the limitations of their spectrum holdings. (For example, Verizon’s current generation LTE network is limited to 10 MHz channels based on its available spectrum.) Although Dish Network may eventually need more spectrum, as a new entrant with no legacy technology concerns, Dish Network wouldn’t face a capacity crunch anytime in the near term.

Given the potential for Dish Network to increase competition in both the MVPD and mobile markets, I expect the FCC to grant the application. It would be difficult for the FCC to deny Dish Network’s application after granting similar relief to LightSquared. Even if the FCC would have preferred to reassign the 2 GHz MSS spectrum using an incentive auction, Dish Network’s commitment to “creating a competitor against the mobile broadband incumbents” (Application at 22) is an offer the FCC is unlikely to refuse.

No Comments |


         

Googorola Winners and Losers: The Competitive Impact of the Google-Motorola Deal in the Mobile Space

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 |


         

The Real Reason Google Is Buying Motorola

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 |


         

RSS