Comments on: Blair Levin Hints at National Broadband Plan

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:06:35 +0000

If the public were using their cell phones just as cell phones, there would already be enough spectrum for them and zero need to allocate more. The reason the cell phone companies are screaming for more spectrum is — no surprise! — to provide Internet.

And that Internet service could be provided much more efficiently via fixed wireless to the building and then Wi-Fi inside the building, where the very same cell phones could use it.

So, the choice is between prioritizing much less spectrally efficient mobile service or much more spectrally efficient fixed service.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:48:38 +0000

The job of spectrum policy ultimately falls on Congress, and they’re already being advised by the NTIA and the DoJ to reserve spectrum for a Third Pipe. I think Levin would like to do that as well, based on all the comments he’s made on fixed wireless.

That being said, the public clearly has more interest in cell phones than in the Internet, and it’s wise to keep that in mind when making spectrum policy. At this point, there are over 4 billion cell phone users world-wide, and only about 1.6 billion Internet users.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:54:13 +0000

Ah, but the information that’s coming out of the FCC suggests that the plans may be far more specific — and that there may be problems with those specifics. For example, if the frequencies that are auctioned are divided into small slivers covering large geographic areas (which favors cellular providers) rather than larger channels covering smaller ones (which would be necessary for fixed wireless broadband), none of the spectrum could be put to use to compete with wired carriers. And if the auction rules are not changed, the Big Four will simply buy up all that spectrum and there will be no room for small companies, new entrants, or innovation.

In short, the troubling thing about the interview is that it suggests that the policies will be designed to advantage very specific players.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:40:03 +0000

It’s not very complicated: as we’ve seen in the ARRA, some projects will be funded and others won’t; some investments will be get privileged tax treatment, and others won’t; some frequencies will be auctioned and others won’t. There’s no way to implement a plan without putting a finger on the scale, that’s simply the nature of the enterprise. And it’s therefore inevitable that the plan will make some mistakes, since nobody has perfect knowledge of the future, and some of the mistakes will be costly. It is therefore incumbent for critics and watchdogs to take a sober and serious view and to keep on monitoring long after the plan is developed, implemented by Congress, and rolled out.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:57:11 +0000

Nowhere in the statute does it say that the plan is “a guide to government investment in broadband infrastructure.”

The plan will, presumably, include suggestions for regulation, appropriation of funds for subsidies and stimulus, management of programs such as the USF (which should be abolished altogether and replaced with something that will actually work in the 21st Century), and management of other resources dispensed by government (such as right of way and spectrum). But none of this requires that the government pick winners and losers. If it does so (e.g. by giving all available spectrum to mobile, rather than fixed, wireless providers), it will do a lot more harm than good.