No spectrum for competition: Why Ivan reversed

[Commentary] Ivan Seidenberg shocked DC saying "I don't think we'll have a spectrum shortage," when tens of millions of dollars of Verizon lobbyists have been screaming for a year "the Commission must act to identify and allocate additional spectrum for wireless services."

From Verizon's point of view, Ivan is right. They don't need more spectrum for most of a decade and probably longer. For the next 5-7 years, they couldn't even use the spectrum in any major way. The limit on what they will build is technology (LTE is not quite ready) and capital spending (which they are cutting.) Ivan has a damn good reason to be dubious about more spectrum: it might go to competitors. No incumbent likes that. As it is, Verizon and AT&T are becoming more and more dominant in wireless. More spectrum for others might change that, or force Verizon to cut prices to prevent losing customers. Verizon paid $35B for Alltel, largely to get rid of a competitor about to go national. That was at least $10B more than the assets were worth to anyone but an incumbent. More competition is a major goal of the Obama team, because they are afraid of using direct government power. Less than two months after Obama was elected, it became clear freeing more spectrum would be the administration's primary tool. I wrote Obama's Unbelievable But True Wireless Plans back in December 2008. "Doubling available spectrum is practical and top of agenda for Obama's tech people." This wasn't precognition. Kevin Werbach on the transition team had been writing since the 1990's that freeing spectrum should be central to policy. Transition team colleague Susan Crawford (now a University of Michigan professor) had blogged similar several times. Whomever they chose for the FCC would almost certainly support competition through expanding wireless spectrum.

Ivan is ferociously competitive. Also very smart.