Today the New America Foundation hosted an event on “Making the Network Work,” focusing on telecommunications and business markets with the nation’s leading competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”).
The participants claimed they have “written the book” on the IP transition, based on significant marketplace gains resulting from their investments in modern networks, deployment of thousands of miles of fiber, and the success of their high end and secure Enterprise service offerings.
Yet, while consumers, industry, Congress and the FCC have all acknowledged the need to upgrade America’s antiquated telephone networks, CLECs cling to old 20th century telephone networks and the desire to preserve the status quo. Instead of advocating how best to accelerate the delivery of next generation high-speed broadband networks and services to the American consumer, XO Communications’ CEO appeared to suggest that policymakers focus on the “many places where the old copper network will be in place for decades, [and that she]…doesn’t see that changing.”
The CLEC “rear-view” mirror approach also seeks to extend the rules governing outmoded telephone networks to modern competitive broadband networks, and ensure continuation of special regulatory treatment for services provided in the highly competitive business market. The CLEC effort to preserve the status quo is evident in their opposition to any effort to allow telephone companies to grandfather existing copper network contracts and prepare for new offerings once the upgrade to high-speed broadband networks is complete.
CLECs also seek government intervention to manage how the nation’s existing and highly successful Internet networks interconnect with one another. Today, Internet providers privately negotiate “IP Peering and transit” agreements for their interconnection needs. These arrangements have existed since the creation of the Internet and have been critical to the massive growth of broadband services to the American consumer.
Surprisingly, in their call for greater government intervention, however, not one CLEC provided evidence or offered a substantiated claim of an existing market failure. Rather than invest and compete in a vibrant and robust broadband market, CLECs seek FCC intervention to prop-up business models based on a dying copper network.
Thankfully, we heard a different message from new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, in his first major address, at Ohio State University this week, where he affirmed that he is “a rabid believer in the power of the marketplace” and that his focus will be to see “what, if any action (including governmental action) is needed to preserve the future of network competition” (Wheeler’s emphasis).
Wheeler said that he seeks to use the tools of government regulation “in a fact-based, data-driven manner” and that if “a market is competitive, the need for FCC intervention decreases.” That is what is happening in the marketplace.
The Chairman cited the example of cellphone unlocking — where carriers are responding to demands for consumers to be able to unlock their phones, without formal government action.
Similarly, light-touch government oversight has allowed the Internet to flourish and has brought robust competition to wireless and wired broadband markets to the benefit of the American consumer.
With regard to interconnection arrangements, Chairman Wheeler needs to look no further than the marketplace. Just last week, competitors Verizon and Vonage provided the latest example of providers reaching mutually beneficial interconnection agreements through commercial negotiations. This follows a similar agreement that Verizon achieved with Comcast last year.
That’s the way it has always worked, is working, and will continue to work — if only regulators don’t rush in to dictate a false “solution” where the market is working.
Today’s letter from a handful of organizations that asks the FCC to set spectrum-auction aggregation limits puts whipped cream on a mud pie. The FCC should follow Congress’ clear goals of getting more spectrum out into the marketplace for all willing investors and maximizing revenue to fix the debt, rather than siding with some competitors over others. We should be finding more spectrum for all carriers rather than barriers to hold some back. The suggested limits would reduce auction revenue, make broadcasters less likely to participate and reduce the pace of broadband investment.
Today’s Wall Street Journal has a short piece that packs a big tech wallop.
Penned by Charles Townsend, “Smartphones to Monitor Insulin and Smell Flowers” argues that the devices we now carry are only at the beginning of the potential. For example, Townsend writes:
Ten years from now, you won’t need to carry your Visa or MasterCard because your cellphone will function as a credit card. You will place your phone on a scanner at a restaurant and your purchase will either be charged directly to your cellular bill or to your credit card. The phone will verify that it is you by checking your thumb print. Wireless companies will have become mobile banks.
Other highlights from Townsend’s piece: A new wireless camera being developed by Qualcomm that transmit pictures to your doctor’s smartphone(!); a smartphone that translates languages for you in real-time(!); and a phone that, as Townsend puts it, is “able to smell a strange odor in your home and tell you that tomatoes are rotting(!).”
Townsend’s article isn’t all future-cool, though, as he pivots into territory we at IIA have long tread in — having enough spectrum available to handle the coming deluge of data on wireless networks. As he writes:
If all goes as planned, the FCC may be able to come up with about half of the necessary new wireless spectrum by 2020, leaving a 250 MHz shortfall. Hopefully, the FCC can convince a number of federal agencies to give up significant additional spectrum. Otherwise, wireless engineers will have to come up with a better way to use the finite amount of spectrum they already have. If they don’t, soon enough your smartphone will remind you of the dial-up speeds of the 1990s—and it will be years, if not decades, before we realize the full potential of these devices.
Once again Holman Jenkins offers terrific insight into the dynamic broadband marketplace, highlighting the true forces driving investment (competition) and the forces holding back progress (outdated regulations). Referring to Google’s much-celebrated fiber investments in key cities Jenkins observes in the Wall Street Journal:
“Google’s real innovation was to tunnel under the regulatory morass that inhibits physical broadband deployment. Why is Google introducing Google Fiber in Kansas City and not its native California? Google’s own Milo Medin has explained repeatedly that regulatory brambles make California ‘prohibitively expensive.’”
Jenkins turns to the FCC’s failure to launch reasonable proposals to allow carriers to shift investment from older technologies carrying increasingly less traffic, to newer technologies carrying an exponentially growing volume of voice, video and data. The need for modernizing our regulations becomes even more critical when one reads a study authored by Dr. Anna-Maria Kovacs, a visiting scholar at Georgetown’s Center for Business and Public Policy. Dr. Kovacs’ analysis estimated that incumbents telcos spent a total of $154 billion on their communications networks, with more than half maintaining fading legacy networks that carry less than 1 percent of all data.
While so much else is crippled by Washington paralysis, broadband deployment should be freed.
At a technology conference in London this month, a BMW official gave a remarkable account of the speed at which his company is adopting wireless technologies to improve its cars’ performance.
Last year, according to Vice President of IT Infrastructure Mario Mueller, there were about one million BMWs wirelessly connecting to the web. This year, that number has grown to 2.5 million vehicles, and by 2018 he expects 10 million vehicles wirelessly feeding and receiving data.
In terms of mobile data, BMW’s vehicles currently use 40 gigabytes per day. By 2018, the company expects this will grow to a terabyte per day, which is enough data to stream 366 hours of high-definition video, according to Netflix.
BMW’s mobile transformation is one more example of the increasingly urgent need for officials at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hold its upcoming spectrum incentive auction, tentatively planned for late next year. This will be the first major auction of airwaves necessary to handle Americans’ growing mobile data demands since early 2008, when Apple didn’t even have a public App Store.
This is why it is vital that the FCC structure this spectrum auction in a way that promotes the best possible use of this spectrum and generates the most revenue. Above all, the Commission should soundly reject the concept of favoring some bidders over others. An attempt to artificially favor or hinder bidders would be terribly unfair to tens of millions of wireless users who might see degraded service as a result of wireless providers not getting the spectrum they need to serve their customers.
Beyond that, artificial restrictions could cost U.S. taxpayers as much as $12 billion in lost revenue, according to a Georgetown study, much of which would go to fund a nationwide public safety system for first responders. This network will help police and other emergency response personnel to coordinate rescue efforts during emergencies.
The FCC has every reason — sustaining jobs, protecting taxpayers, fostering economic growth — to hold fair and unrestricted auctions. Such an auction is the best way to promote economic vibrancy and the benefits of our wireless marketplace.
For the FCC to do anything less would put our mobile economy on a road to nowhere.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute released its 2013 list of Investment Heroes. This year, like last year, the telecom and cable sector is a big winner.
AT&T and Verizon once again lead the way in domestic investment, and telecom is second only to the booming energy sector in total U.S. investment. PPI shows that these two companies combined invested nearly $34.5 billion to build-out nationwide high-speed broadband networks and infrastructure. AT&T alone invested almost $19.5 billion. As a sector, telecommunications and cable invested $50.5 billion last year, over a third of the nearly $150 billion invested by the Fortune 150 last year. Such levels of investment are remarkable, but not surprising. With each passing day, Americans witness and benefit from the emergence of the nation’s “data-driven economy,” all driven by U.S. telecom and technology company capital investment. Our data-driven economy is at the forefront of creating new jobs in entirely new industries — like mobile apps — and is a driving force in improving cost structures and the delivery of services in sectors such as healthcare, education, and agriculture.
Broadband providers have done their part to improve the path to economic recovery, demonstrated by their significant investments in America. The progress we’ve seen, however, needs to continue. Billions of dollars of additional private investment is necessary to bring ubiquitous high-speed broadband to every American.
For this to take place, government should adopt policies that create an environment for sustained investment. As PPI notes, government can ensure that upcoming FCC wireless spectrum auctions proceed in an open manner and allow all carriers to bid equally and without restrictions. No one company should be given favored treatment to the disadvantage of its competitors. Moreover, government can also proactively promote additional investment by eliminating existing regulatory barriers and helping to speed the upgrade and modernization of our nation’s antiquated telephone networks, so that more Americans can benefit from the high-speed Internet and video services that next generation broadband networks offer.
It is uncertain that the nearly $50.5 billion in existing telecom and cable investment will continue unless government helps promote additional regulatory and business certainty by adopting wise and timely pro-market investment policies. In the meantime, we owe our gratitude and thanks to the tech and telecom companies who invest in America and help spur innovation, create jobs, and contribute the nation’s economic growth.
Top 25 Nonfinancial Companies by Estimated U.S. Capital Expenditure
Be careful where you swing the regulatory hammer, or you might kneecap an entire industry.
That’s just one of the takeaways from a must-read an op-ed in Roll Call penned by Martin H. Thelle and Bruno Basalisco of Copenhagen Economics. Titled “Europe’s Internet Handcuffs Show U.S. How Not to Regulate,” the piece makes a strong case against miring America’s broadband industry in the regulatory muck.
If you’re looking for the duo’s argument in a nutshell, it can be found in the third paragraph:
Since the late 1990s, the U.S. and the European Union have taken two very different paths on broadband policy. While the U.S. has focused on infrastructure-based competition, the EU has forced service-based competition through government regulation, with the primary objective of lowering prices.
According to Thelle and Basalisco, that focus on service-based competition has been near disastrous for the EU when it comes to investment in broadband. How disastrous? Try this on for size:
As with any communications service, investment in infrastructure is needed to provide consumers with the quality services they demand. A decade after unbundling in Europe, per capita investment in telecommunications infrastructure now lags the U.S. by more than 50 percent.
Now that’s a regulatory knee-capping — so much so that Thelle and Basalisco are genuinely surprised that some here in the States want to take a page out of the EU’s model. As they write:
Clearly, the cautious U.S. decision to refrain from applying EU-style unbundling on providers has spurred competition and investment in the American broadband market, thus enabling huge advances in Internet technology. Reversing that decision would risk hindering further advancements in all services using broadband infrastructure.
Heading down a path of EU-style, interventionist broadband regulation could severely harm U.S. investments in necessary communications infrastructure, darkening U.S. competitiveness globally.
That right there is what those of us against leveling more regulations on the broadband industry have been arguing all along. Even from across the Atlantic, Thelle and Basalisco recognize that the U.S. model is working quite well. The question is, will regulators here recognize the EU’s model isn’t working well at all?
That’s the conclusion Ev Ehrlich, former undersecretary of commerce for the Clinton administration, comes to in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal [LINK] Calling his piece “The Myth of America’s Inferior Broadband,” Ehrlich takes a direct shot across the bow of those calling for heavy-handed regulations in the U.S broadband industry. And he relies on facts rather than rhetoric to do it.
On the oft-cited global broadband ranking, Ehrlich writes:
The Internet company Akamai, which produces international speed rankings, has the U.S. currently at No. 9, up from No. 22 in 2009—faster than in France, Germany and Britain. A recent report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation notes that the U.S. has the second-lowest entry-level broadband prices (behind Israel) in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, despite ranking No. 27 among OECD countries in population density, a key driver of cost.
A jump from #22 to #9 in just four years is a success, any way you slice it. Especially given the state of the economy during that same stretch. And a big reason for that success, Erhlich notes, is the $250 billion U.S. broadband companies have invested in networks since the global recession started in 2008. How does that match up to other countries? According to Ehrlich, quite well:
Compare this with Europe, where in most countries Internet service providers lease aging wires from incumbent, often state-sanctioned telephone companies. This may have created instant infrastructure for Europe, but because the ISPs do not own the underlying infrastructure, they have no incentive to invest in it. The incumbent phone companies, in turn, are often directly or indirectly subsidized heavily by taxpayers.
There’s much more in Ehrlich’s piece, but I’ve already used my allotment of block quotes, so head on over to the Wall Street Journal and read his full op-ed. SPOILER ALERT! Anyone hoping America embrace European-style regulations of the broadband industry are going to be a bit shocked.
This week, the Washington Post hosted a live panel discussion titled “Spectrum Supply and Demand.” Debate was lively; however, there was no disagreement on the need for additional spectrum for the nation’s wireless and digital economy. When leaders of industry, competing companies, and government can agree on anything, it is worth taking notice.
Spirited discussion on the panel regarding wireless policy shared a common premise: The urgent need for more spectrum, a valuable resource that has transformed industries and lives. Additionally, most panelists argued that government action can help by reallocating spectrum for commercial wireless use. Debate arose, however, on the specifics and details of where and how to get more spectrum.
Wireless carriers can acquire more spectrum in three ways: by auction, through government reallocation of spectrum and transfers of spectrum between private entities. The FCC will conduct an incentive auction within the next year or two that will provide broadcasters the opportunity to sell some of their spectrum to mobile carriers. Secondary market transactions allow wireless providers to sell spectrum to other companies who are equipped to use that resource to serve consumers quickly. Both options present a number of challenges not the least because they both rely on government management. Government is the largest holder of spectrum and has the power to bring that to market for consumer use.
On-going inaction by government quickly emerged as a shared frustration, prompting an energetic discussion about the government’s role in reallocating spectrum for consumer use. Initiatives to reallocate government spectrum for consumer use and the need for speed, according to many on the Washington Post panel, are long overdue.
President Obama recently released a Memorandum calling for a federal spectrum inventory to identify possible opportunities for allocation of federal spectrum for consumers. This new initiative could present potential solutions, yet panelists were not hopeful that it would provide a quick fix to the existing spectrum crisis. At bottom, the inventory would help in providing an authoritative account of how much spectrum exists and who holds it within the federal government. Hopefully this will result in meaningful action by government not only to complete an inventory of spectrum but take steps to reallocate spectrum for consumer high-speed broadband use to help stave off the imminent spectrum crunch poised to impact America’s cities, including Washington DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco as soon as the next year.
The FCC’s upcoming incentive auction presents a faster solution to the spectrum problem but with no less controversy. Auction design provoked spirited reactions from the panelists. Congress previously mandated that qualified bidders could not be prohibited from participating in the auction and that a portion of the auction proceeds would fund FirstNet, a nationwide public safety broadband network for America’s first responders. As FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai emphasized during the panel, the auction rules must be designed so that the auction is successful for buyers, sellers, public safety and the U.S. Treasury. A complex endeavor.
With this in mind, many believe auction rules should be structured to maximize both participation and proceeds. Establishing fair rules that allow all carriers to participate without restriction will capitalize on the hypercompetitive state of the wireless market. If certain bidders are limited by rules that prevent them from buying needed spectrum (counter to Congressional intent), then auction proceeds would be reduced, jeopardizing revenues, broadcaster participation, and FirstNet’s funding.
By contrast, some panelists favor restrictions on bidding. However, that would lead to reduced proceeds and likely not guarantee greater competition. The companies that would most benefit from bidding restrictions, T-Mobile and Sprint, are both well equipped with spectrum and well-funded by their parent companies. For instance, T-Mobile is owned by Deutsche Telekom, a partly state-owned German company, and by the time the auction takes place, Sprint could have a well-capitalized foreign owner under Japan-based SoftBank. Both companies can reasonably be expected to bid competitively for valuable spectrum without U.S. government intervention to favor their spectrum acquisition goals.
The mobile revolution has transformed modern life and the American economy, and it will inevitably dynamically shape the future, too. But without additional spectrum to meet consumer demand, this could all be at risk. Leaders from a variety of companies, organizations, and government entities agree with that fundamental premise. Yet the mobile revolution can’t change an underlying fact: Ensuring both highly competitive bidding and fair, open rules of the auction will increase the benefits to our country’s broadband infrastructure, and ultimately, to U.S. consumers.
Our own Bruce Mehlman has penned an op-ed for the Silicon Valley Mercury News on the perils of over-regulating the FCC’s upcoming spectrum auction. Here’s a taste:
In March, 37 senators urged President Barack Obama to appoint Jessica Rosenworcel to chair the Federal Communications Commission. The president instead named the well-qualified venture capitalist and industry veteran Tom Wheeler. Rosenworcel is sure to continue contributing mightily to the FCC as a commissioner, but perhaps the president should consider her for another job—attorney general.
This is not another criticism of the controversies embroiling the Department of Justice. Rather, Rosenworcel’s real contribution would be to offer a breath of fresh air in economic policy in the department, especially with regard to the dynamic tech marketplace.
The Justice Department doesn’t get it. Rosenworcel does. And the department’s anachronistic worldview threatens to delay our mobile broadband future.
Late last week, the FCC’s Technology Transitions Policy Task Force announced it was issuing Public Notice seeking comment on proposed “beta” trials to transition America’s networks to all-IP. Below are reactions to the announcement from IIA leadership.
From Honorary Chairman and former Congressman Rick Boucher:
”The FCC’s recognition of the importance of the move from TDM to all-IP networks is a welcome building block, but it’s disappointing that comprehensive IP transition trials have not been authorized. Only through a comprehensive examination can potential issues be identified and addressed and consumers be protected.”
From Co-Chairman Bruce Mehlman:
“The Commission is steering in the right direction, but traveling at the wrong speed. Fully committing to all-IP networks would bring the greatest benefits to consumers and best-equip America to compete on a global scale. Baby steps won’t keep pace with technology.”
From Co-Chairman Jamal Simmons:
“The three areas on which the FCC seeks comment are all important pieces of the puzzle, but instead of a piecemeal approach to figuring out challenges with the IP Transition, the Commission should quickly adopt a holistic strategy, including well-defined trials in designated wire centers, to bring broadband-enabled benefits in health care, education and entrepreneurship to all Americans.”
A recent agreement between Verizon and AT&T over spectrum holdings has inspired complaints from the usual suspects.
In the agreement, AT&T will pay close to $2 billion to acquire 39 of Verizon’s lower 700 MHz B-block licenses. While that sounds complicated, all it really means is two innovators in a highly competitive industry have found a neat way to solve mutual problems… You know, the free market in action. And as with any free market solution to a problem—especially in the wireless industry—there are other competitors and interest groups aiming to block the deal from going forward.
It’s no secret the wireless industry is scrambling to keep up with consumer demand. To the delight of chiropractors everywhere, we are now a nation of slouchers, spending our days hunched over tiny screens. All this activity on our devices creates data, and all that data needs spectrum to travel from point A to point B. As a result, the airwaves are getting more and more crowded—a problem outgoing FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski accurately labeled the “spectrum crunch.”
The Commission’s upcoming spectrum incentive auctions will hopefully go a long way toward easing this crunch. But let’s face it, government is about as nimble as an iceberg, which means wireless providers need more than years-away government action to meet the needs of their customers. Since it’s impossible for the regulatory grind to keep up with consumer habits, it will take free market solutions to keep wireless customers satisfied.
Few technologies have been as quickly adopted as mobile broadband, and as a result, the wireless industry is a victim of its own success. With government assistance in freeing up airwaves a minefield of red tape, blocking deals between providers for spectrum drags the entire industry down. Companies like Verizon and AT&T are motivated by the need to please their customers. The question is, what motivates those trying to block them from doing so?
Our own Bruce Mehlman has an opinion piece in The Street today examining the current state of telecom policy and how outdated regulations are holding a vibrant industry back. Here’s a taste:
As with government, the ability of businesses to invest is not unlimited. When demanding investment in redundant copper networks to preserve the status quo for an ever-shrinking minority of consumers, policy makers directly rob investment from faster broadband networks that serve the ever-growing majority of consumers. That’s the wrong choice.
Today’s broadband marketplace is hyper-competitive, rapidly innovating and most enabled by less regulation and a lighter regulatory approach to advance the public interest and best serve consumers. It’s clear that outmoded telecommunications regulations designed in the pre-broadband, pre-smart phone era no longer advance America’s future.
With the news that Chairman Julius Genachowski will reportedly join Commissioner Robert McDowell and leave the FCC, our leaders reflect on the departures.
“Chairman Genachowski has provided a valuable service as FCC chairman. He oversaw the adoption of a comprehensive reform of the federal universal service fund. He has set the stage for the FCC’s consideration of the transition to all Internet Protocol networks. I commend him on his success and wish him well in his future endeavors.” — Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher
“Chairman Genachowski has shown remarkable composure and resilience as FCC chairman while facing cross-pressures to ensure competition while encouraging the innovation necessary to achieve the President’s goal of 98% broadband coverage for Americans. Under his leadership the commission has moved toward freeing up more spectrum and giving fair consideration to the IP transition.
“On a personal note I wish Julius and his wife Rachel well in their future endeavors.”— IIA Co-Chairman Jamal Simmons
“Rob exemplified the very best traditions in his years on the Commission, serving with honor, intelligence, humor and grace. He had a hand in shaping a great number of policies that improved American competitiveness and helped lay the groundwork for future innovation and tech-led growth. He will be missed.” — Co-Chairman Bruce Mehlman
By every measure, the Internet is one of the most important creations in human history. Key to the Internet’s success has been restraint when it comes to government control, both in the way that content is distributed and the content itself. But some fail to connect these dots and are calling for increased government regulation of the networks that power the Internet — including turning them into a national public utility. Susan Crawford, visiting professor at Harvard Law School, for example, has released a new book Captive Audience. As explained by Fred Campbell of CLIP in an op-ed for RedState, “the book declares the United States is suffering from broadband inequality because no ‘privately provided wired Internet access product . . . can compete with cable.’ Its proposed solution to this alleged monopoly is government ownership and control of Internet infrastructure as a public utility.”
While I remain a fan of Susan’s intelligence and passion, one need only look at the struggling European telco market to see how aggressive government interventions have backfired, with outdated networks and ailing market players. In his op-ed, Campbell draws a parallel between the Internet and the printing press, which so revolutionized communication that it brought down tyranny and upended entire governments. In 1662, the Parliament of England passed the Licensing of the Press Act, which was aimed at “preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” Under the Act, people were required to hold a license to own a printing press, and all published work needed approval by the Church or government authorities before it was printed, among other limitations.
The printing press was the Internet of its age, a true revolution in communication democratizing speech and expression. This is what made it so dangerous to authority and why the Press Act of 1662 lasted for eleven long years. It’s also why our founding fathers explicitly kept new forms of communications technology free from government control. Though his analogy is a bit of a stretch, given Crawford’s steadfast support for free speech and opposition to censorship of any kind, Campbell has a point when declaring “…history shows there is something to fear in Captive Audience, but it is not the cable monopoly bogeyman. It is the captive audience we would become if the modern means of mass communications were owned and controlled by the government.”
The easiest way to stifle free expression is to put government in charge of how that speech gets transmitted. And while free expression is an absolute public right, it is not a public utility. Gate keepers can close the gates they control just as easily as they open them, and utilities are just a switch away from being shut off.
At his blog Maximum Entropy, Bret Swanson (who is one of our Broadband Ambassadors) writes about a recent op-ed from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in the Wall Street Journal:
Chairman Genachowski is right to herald the incentive auctions that could unleash hundreds of megahertz of un- and under-used spectrum from the old TV broadcasters. Yet wrangling over the rules of the auctions could stretch on, delaying the the process. Worse, the rules themselves could restrict who can bid on or buy new spectrum, effectively allowing the FCC to favor certain firms, technologies, or friends at the expense of the best spectrum allocation. We’ve seen before that centrally planned spectrum allocations don’t work. The fact that the FCC is contemplating such an approach is worrisome. It runs counter to the policies that led to today’s mobile success.
Swanson’s full post is worth checking out, as is a recent post from our own Bruce Mehlman on Genachowski’s spectrum vision..
In today’s Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski goes over the many steps the Commission is taking to free up more spectrum from wireless use. Calling broadband the “engine for economic growth,” he starts out his op-ed by backing up that statement:
To sustain long-term economic health, America needs growth engines, areas of the economy that hold real promise of major expansion. Few sectors have more job-creating innovation potential than broadband, particularly mobile broadband.
Genachowski then highlights how the U.S. now leads the world in 4G LTE deployment (along with the fact that private investment in mobile infrastructure is “more than 50% higher than in Europe”), but warns that in order to keep both deployment and investment happening, more airwaves are critical. As he writes:
Spectrum is finite, and the demand for airwaves being created by data-hungry, Internet-connected devices is on pace to exceed supply. How significant is the spike in demand? Today’s smartphones generate 50 times more mobile traffic than a traditional cellphone. For tablets, it’s 120 times more traffic. As a result, American wireless networks are running at the highest utilization rate of any in the world.
One solution to this problem, Genachowski tells readers of the Journal, is the Commission’s upcoming spectrum incentive auctions, which have the potential to both free up airwaves and deliver much needed revenue to the Federal Government. That’s potentially a win-win, as they say. But as our own Rick Boucher wrote this past February, the key to making the FCC’s initiative successful for consumers and the economy is ensuring spectrum auctions are open to all bidders. Boucher:
History has shown that when the FCC has tried to pick winners and losers in the wireless market, American consumers have lost. Past attempts by the Commission to favor certain bidders and/or impose rigid regulations on auction winners have drastically diminished auction proceeds, left major blocks of spectrum unused, and led to what FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski himself has labeled “America’s looming spectrum crisis.”
The simple truth is America’s wireless industry continues to be fiercely competitive… Allowing the FCC to impose conditions on spectrum auctions will not make the industry more competitive. And the spectrum critically needed by all providers to keep up with increasing demand will not be put to its full use, leading to spectrum shortages, reduced investment and innovation, and higher prices for consumers.
Only through truly competitive, open spectrum auctions will America’s wireless industry continue to thrive. After all, the best way to ensure competition is to encourage everyone to compete.
Genachowski and the entire FCC deserve praise for their tireless work to keep this critically important issue on the front burner. But given mobile broadband’s benefits — not just to consumers and the economy, but to communities, education, and the health care industry — ensuring spectrum incentive auctions are open to all those willing to make the substantial private investment to keep rapid deployment going should be at the top of the list. As Genachowski himself wrote in his op-ed:
Private-sector innovation in mobile broadband has been extraordinary. But maintaining the creative momentum in wireless networks, devices and apps will need an equally innovative wireless policy, or jobs and growth will be left on the table.
Reporting from the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, the AP’s Peter Svensson looks at the coming machine-to-machine revolution:
Companies are promising that machine-to-machine, or M2M, technology will deliver all manner of services, from the prosaic to the world-changing. At U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm Inc.‘s booth here at the show, there’s a coffeepot that can be ordered to start brewing from a tablet computer, or an Internet-connected alarm clock. A former president of Costa Rica is also at the show, talking about how M2M can save massive amounts of greenhouse gases by making energy use more efficient — enough to bring mankind halfway to the goal of halting global warming.
The M2M phenomenon is part of the larger drive to create an “Internet of Things” — a global network that not only links computers, tablets and phones but that connects everything from bikes to washing machines to thermostats. Machina Research, a British firm, believes there will be 12.5 billion “smart” connected devices, excluding phones, PCs and tablets, in the world in 2020, up from 1.3 billion today.
Driving the M2M movement will be advanced networks — both wired and wireless — able to power the constant flow of data. To get there will take investment. As my fellow Chair Jamal Simmons recently wrote in Fierce Telecom:
[F]or consumers, businesses and our nation as a whole to benefit from the opportunities enabled by a high-speed, all IP-based broadband network, the entire ecosystem must invest.
Last week, our Co-Chairman Bruce Mehlman appeared on a panel as part of the State of the Net in Washington, D.C. The discussion, “The Internet Leadership Challenge: Restoring America to Economic Greatness Through Sound Internet Policy,” was moderated by Joe Waz, Senior Strategic Adviser to the Comcast Corporation. Also on the panel were Blair Levin, Communications & Society Fellow, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform.
Here’s video of the discussion, which touches on President Obama’s legacy, taxation of the Internet, and the transition from legacy networks to all-IP.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN USER AND Internet Innovation Alliance
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is comprised of various Web pages operated by Internet Innovation Alliance.
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is offered to you conditioned on your acceptance without modification of the terms, conditions, and notices contained herein. Your use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site constitutes your agreement to all such terms, conditions, and notices.
Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is offered, including but not limited to the charges associated with the use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site.
LINKS TO THIRD PARTY SITES
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site may contain links to other Web Sites (“Linked Sites”). The Linked Sites are not under the control of Internet Innovation Alliance and Internet Innovation Alliance is not responsible for the contents of any Linked Site, including without limitation any link contained in a Linked Site, or any changes or updates to a Linked Site. Internet Innovation Alliance is not responsible for webcasting or any other form of transmission received from any Linked Site. Internet Innovation Alliance is providing these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by Internet Innovation Alliance of the site or any association with its operators.
NO UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED USE
As a condition of your use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site, you warrant to Internet Innovation Alliance that you will not use the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these terms, conditions, and notices. You may not use the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site in any manner which could damage, disable, overburden, or impair the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site or interfere with any other party’s use and enjoyment of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. You may not obtain or attempt to obtain any materials or information through any means not intentionally made available or provided for through the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Sites.
USE OF COMMUNICATION SERVICES
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site may contain bulletin board services, chat areas, news groups, forums, communities, personal web pages, calendars, and/or other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group (collectively, “Communication Services”), you agree to use the Communication Services only to post, send and receive messages and material that are proper and related to the particular Communication Service. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using a Communication Service, you will not:
Defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others.
Publish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate any inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful topic, name, material or information.
Upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy of publicity) unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents.
Upload files that contain viruses, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another’s computer.
Advertise or offer to sell or buy any goods or services for any business purpose, unless such Communication Service specifically allows such messages.
Conduct or forward surveys, contests, pyramid schemes or chain letters.
Download any file posted by another user of a Communication Service that you know, or reasonably should know, cannot be legally distributed in such manner.
Falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is uploaded.
Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Communication Services.
Violate any code of conduct or other guidelines which may be applicable for any particular Communication Service.
Harvest or otherwise collect information about others, including e-mail addresses, without their consent.
Violate any applicable laws or regulations.
Internet Innovation Alliance has no obligation to monitor the Communication Services. However, Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right to review materials posted to a Communication Service and to remove any materials in its sole discretion. Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right to terminate your access to any or all of the Communication Services at any time without notice for any reason whatsoever.
Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right at all times to disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in Internet Innovation Alliance’s sole discretion.
Always use caution when giving out any personally identifying information about yourself or your children in any Communication Service. Internet Innovation Alliance does not control or endorse the content, messages or information found in any Communication Service and, therefore, Internet Innovation Alliance specifically disclaims any liability with regard to the Communication Services and any actions resulting from your participation in any Communication Service. Managers and hosts are not authorized Internet Innovation Alliance spokespersons, and their views do not necessarily reflect those of Internet Innovation Alliance.
Materials uploaded to a Communication Service may be subject to posted limitations on usage, reproduction and/or dissemination. You are responsible for adhering to such limitations if you download the materials.
MATERIALS PROVIDED TO Internet Innovation Alliance OR POSTED AT ANY Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE
Internet Innovation Alliance does not claim ownership of the materials you provide to Internet Innovation Alliance (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit to any Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site or its associated services (collectively “Submissions”). However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you are granting Internet Innovation Alliance, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; and to publish your name in connection with your Submission.
No compensation will be paid with respect to the use of your Submission, as provided herein. Internet Innovation Alliance is under no obligation to post or use any Submission you may provide and may remove any Submission at any time in Internet Innovation Alliance’s sole discretion.
By posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission as described in this section including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the Submissions.
THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE MAY INCLUDE INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. CHANGES ARE PERIODICALLY ADDED TO THE INFORMATION HEREIN. Internet Innovation Alliance AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS MAY MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR CHANGES IN THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE AT ANY TIME. ADVICE RECEIVED VIA THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PERSONAL, MEDICAL, LEGAL OR FINANCIAL DECISIONS AND YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL FOR SPECIFIC ADVICE TAILORED TO YOUR SITUATION.
Internet Innovation Alliance AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED ON THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE FOR ANY PURPOSE. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ALL SUCH INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Internet Innovation Alliance AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate your access to the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site and the related services or any portion thereof at any time, without notice. GENERAL To the maximum extent permitted by law, this agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington, U.S.A. and you hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of courts in King County, Washington, U.S.A. in all disputes arising out of or relating to the use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. Use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is unauthorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these terms and conditions, including without limitation this paragraph. You agree that no joint venture, partnership, employment, or agency relationship exists between you and Internet Innovation Alliance as a result of this agreement or use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. Internet Innovation Alliance’s performance of this agreement is subject to existing laws and legal process, and nothing contained in this agreement is in derogation of Internet Innovation Alliance’s right to comply with governmental, court and law enforcement requests or requirements relating to your use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site or information provided to or gathered by Internet Innovation Alliance with respect to such use. If any part of this agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable pursuant to applicable law including, but not limited to, the warranty disclaimers and liability limitations set forth above, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be deemed superseded by a valid, enforceable provision that most closely matches the intent of the original provision and the remainder of the agreement shall continue in effect. Unless otherwise specified herein, this agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the user and Internet Innovation Alliance with respect to the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site and it supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral or written, between the user and Internet Innovation Alliance with respect to the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. A printed version of this agreement and of any notice given in electronic form shall be admissible in judicial or administrative proceedings based upon or relating to this agreement to the same extent an d subject to the same conditions as other business documents and records originally generated and maintained in printed form. It is the express wish to the parties that this agreement and all related documents be drawn up in English.
COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK NOTICES:
All contents of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site are: and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved.
The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.
The example companies, organizations, products, people and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, person, or event is intended or should be inferred.
Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
NOTICES AND PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CLAIMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Pursuant to Title 17, United States Code, Section 512(c)(2), notifications of claimed copyright infringement under United States copyright law should be sent to Service Provider’s Designated Agent. ALL INQUIRIES NOT RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE WILL RECEIVE NO RESPONSE. See Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.