September 2009

Wireless Lobbyists Step Up Defensive Against Net Neutrality

The wireless industry has been on a charm offensive, working overtime to lobby regulators, journalists and lawmakers to ease off one of the most vibrant sectors of the US economy. After last week's proposal for new Network Neutrality rules that would include mobile broadband operators, that offensive has turned into a full-tilt defensive. CTIA-The Wireless Association, the main trade group for carriers like AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel and hundreds of handset makers and mobile software firms, is toting around a 35-page slide deck that outlines their case. They say the wireless industry has been among the most vibrant sectors of the economy and that it's moving too quickly to be regulated. Even with a stubborn recession, CTIA's vice president of regulatory affairs, Christopher Guttman-McCabe, told me over lunch last Thursday, the wireless industry directly employs 268,000 people with jobs that pay 50 percent higher the national average of wages in similar categories and that carriers are on track to continue to invest this year and next, their average capital investments of $22.8 billion a year. So why pick on us? That's the message by carriers by CTIA's six-member team assigned to lobby the FCC (and the 5-8 outside law firms hire to work on net neutrality and other wireless issues).

Net neutrality not so neutral

[Commentary] The phrase "net neutrality" has an ingratiating appeal. Net neutrality rules proposed by the Federal Communications Commission would "prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information" over their networks, the Associated Press reports. Proposed rules also would "bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc. ... from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks." What's wrong with that? If we take the government at its word - always problematic at best - all Web traffic will be treated equally, and Internet users will have more freedom to download music, video and other services. But to bring about a utopian desire for virtually unlimited access over a limited resource, government would require broadband providers to operate in ways not necessarily in the best interest of the companies or their paying customers. More government control of the Internet isn't neutral. It's the nose under the tent everyone will come to regret, save perhaps those politically connected interests who manage to "game" the system.

Rep Boucher praises FCC, begins work on net neutrality bill

A Q&A with House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA). He has an ambitious agenda: legislation that would limit the amount of information companies like Facebook and Google could collect from consumers; reforming the Universal Service Fund, the pool of money to which telecom companies contribute in order to provide services to libraries, schools and underserved areas; and he says public safety agencies need to be able to communicate across a national network, rather than the current patchwork of networks that do not work together.

Verizon CTO sees eventual move to metered broadband

Verizon Communications Chief Technology Officer Richard Lynch told a 2009 FTTH Conference & Expo press conference that the broadband industry "will see a pricing paradigm shift" because Internet service providers (ISPs) "cannot continue to grow the Internet without passing the cost on to someone." His comments are believed to mark the first time a Verizon executive had publicly supported metered billing at some point in the future. Lynch said that it is Verizon's hope that the Federal Communications Commission's current consideration of Network Neutrality rules as part of a national broadband policy doesn't result in rules that limit ISPs' ability to offer premium bandwidth offerings, while maintaining open access to the public Internet. When asked how Verizon would meet the burgeoning demand for bandwidth for Internet video and other services, Lynch admitted "the concept of a flat-rated infinitely expanding service for everyone just won't work." "We are going to reach a point where we will sell packages of bites," Lynch said. "Now I'm not announcing a new pricing plan. But we have already gone this way in wireless because that is where the resource is most constrained."

Incumbents Invited to the Broadband Stimulus Table

The National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) and Rural Utilities Service (RUS) have embarked upon a 30-day period of accepting responses from existing service providers in their reviews of service area classifications, which will includes defining the unserved and the underserved areas for the BIP/BTOP infrastructure applications. Existing broadband service providers who respond to Public Notices with multiple proposals will need to file separate responses for each individual service area. This is in order for their existing services to be considered when determining eligibility for funding in the BIP and BTOP Infrastructure applications.

CTIA Wants More Spectrum -- 800 MHz in the Next 6 Years

"As the Chairman and other FCC Commissioners understand, spectrum is our industry's backbone and is what encourages innovation and competition. In order to facilitate the 'virtuous cycle' of the industry, more spectrum must be made available. As spectrum is brought to market, the virtuous cycle begins, as networks are upgraded to add capacity and greater capabilities, handsets are then developed to take advantage of next generation networks, application and content developers then create new content to take advantage of new handset capabilities, and ultimately, consumers demand more. It's a cycle that never ends as long as spectrum is available. The U.S. is the most efficient users of commercial spectrum in the world. But as the Chairman has recognized, the industry needs access to more spectrum so we can continue to meet the growing consumer demand - whether it's for personal reasons such as mHealth or for environmental reasons such as smart grids. Other countries around the world have recognized the need to facilitate this virtuous cycle and have identified hundreds of megahertz of spectrum to reallocate for licensed commercial use. In this filing, we are asking the FCC to work with the Federal government to immediately begin to identify and allocate up to 800 MHz of additional spectrum over the next six years. We also have requested policymakers to meet short-term spectrum needs by pairing and allocating readily-available spectrum. We are proud that the mobile wireless industry is providing broadband access where you want it, when you want it, but we are facing a perfect storm where demand may outpace supply. By allocating and assigning more spectrum, the federal government will encourage continued innovation and competition within the industry and ensure our continued economic investment and impact."

USA! We're Number 1!

[Commentary] Rah! Rah! Rah! That's right: We Americans rock. Why? Because — unlike in previous Gs — we've got 4G first, and we're using it to kick butt and take names, at least as far as the wireless vendors are concerned. For the first time in more than a decade, the U.S. is leading the way in the implementation of a new generation of wireless technology. And that has made the U.S. the focus of every vendor's 4G efforts globally. The U.S., and North America in general, has always been important to global wireless vendors, but its split technology loyalties and general tardiness in deploying new networks have served to keep vendors occupied in other regions of the world when a new standard emerges. Now the tables have turned. The number of long-term evolution (LTE) commitments in North America is staggering, as are the aggressive deployment schedules of carriers. Consequently, instead of focusing their initial sales efforts on Europe and East Asia, wireless vendors are making North America their first point of attack. If the number of LTE innovation labs the vendors keep opening on American soil isn't enough to convince you of their Yankee fever, then their words should.

FCC Broadband Discussion moves to Charleston

The Federal Communications Commission's 2nd National Broadband Plan field hearing will be held on October 6th in Charleston, South Carolina. The event will focus upon broadband adoption issues. The Commission will be represented by South Carolina native Commissioner Mignon Clyburn as well as by Commissioner Michael Copps.

FCC to Begin Review of Media Ownership Rules

The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau will hold a series of workshops to jumpstart the Commission's quadrennial review of its media ownership rules. The purpose of the workshops initially will be to receive public input on the appropriate scope and methodology of the proceeding and later to help build an analytical and empirical foundation for a Commission decision. The forums will cover a wide variety of topics that the Commission expects to consider in its review, including the state of the current media marketplace and the role of the media ownership rules in that marketplace. The Commission will seek viewpoints and information from a broad range of experts; consumers; public interest and trade associations; labor unions; media industry representatives, both traditional and new; and other interested persons. The Bureau will hold its first workshop in the series in early November 2009. This initial forum will provide an opportunity for academics, industry stakeholders, and the public interest community to present their views on the framework the Commission should use for conducting its ownership review. Their insights will help determine the questions the Commission should address and how best to gather the data needed to answer those questions.

Stations Cut Costs by Using News -- More or Less

As ad dollars continue to decline, television stations are looking at new options with news: In some cases, cutting back, but in others, actually expanding the amount of local news they offer. By stretching their existing news resources into longer or additional news programming they open up more revenue opportunity without adding too much to costs. Television news directors in Los Angeles came under attack last month for their initial lack of coverage of the arson-caused Station fire, which killed two firefighters, destroyed about 80 homes and became the largest wildfire in Los Angeles County history. The fire was already spreading out of control on Saturday, Aug. 29, the day of Sen. Edward Kennedy's funeral, an event that received widespread coverage. Viewers in the fire-affected areas as well as local politicians and television critics complained that LA stations had dropped the ball that weekend by not providing extensive fire coverage Los Angeles Times critic Mary McNamara went so far as to call it "a virtual, and inexplicable, news blackout." Was it because of the economy? It's common knowledge that news departments operate on the weekends with only a fraction of their Monday-through-Friday staff, but that additional personnel is called in — or simply shows up — when a big story breaks. Not a single news executive would admit that any budgetary cutbacks affected the initial fire coverage, saying their stations provided comprehensive reporting before the fire turned deadly and threatened residents. All the same, media watchers have been warning recently that layoffs and cuts are having an enormous impact on the quality of television news.

Benton

Search