Benton RSS Feed

The Federal Communications Commission has requested comment on a Petition for Rulemaking filed by LightSquared seeking a new co-primary allocation permitting non-Federal terrestrial mobile use of the 1675-1680 MHz band.

You remember LightSquared – the company that wanted to deploy a tower-based wireless broadband network in the 1545-1555 MHz satellite downlink portion of the L Band, close to GPS frequencies. GPS users objected, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) which administers federal spectrum, decided GPS interference concerns could not be overcome, whereupon the FCC pulled LightSquared’s tentative authorization. With its recent Petition for Rulemaking (and other documents filed in late September), LightSquared seeks a work-around to its GPS headache (and possibly a Hail Mary to resurrect the company, which is now in bankruptcy). LightSquared’s idea is to pair its existing and as-yet-uncontroversial authorizations for two 10 MHz uplink bands, at 1627.5-1637.5 MHz and 1646.7-1656.7, with a downlink (and terrestrial) channel at 1670-1680 MHz. This band is farther removed from GPS frequencies than LightSquared’s old request. The lower half of the band, at 1670-1675 MHz, is allocated for non-Federal fixed and mobile uses, and has been auctioned; LightSquared, through a subsidiary, has made arrangements to lease this segment. No problem there. But the upper half of LightSquared’s proposed band, at 1675-1680 MHz, is not, at first glance, a good home for a high-powered cellular-type network.

Comments are due on December 10, 2012, and reply comments on Boxing Day, December 26. If the FCC decides to proceed, it will solicit further comments by way of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

[Commentary] It's a small matter, I know, compared with the historic issues now obsessing the commentariat, such as the fiscal cliff and how many mistresses and admirers David H. Petraeus could keep in the air simultaneously. But before we say goodbye to Campaign 2012, I would just like to point out that the entire drama of a close election, as played out in the media on election night, is basically fake.

Like broadcasters presenting baseball games in the early days of radio, the television networks know who's going to win the game and more or less how it's going to play out, inning by inning. They know this primarily because of research conducted by the National Election Exit Poll on election day. And yet, in a perverse exercise of high-mindedness, the major news organizations have all agreed not to report the results of exit polls until after the polls have closed in a particular state. It's easy to see why the TV networks don't mind putting on a play if the suspense keeps people watching past 6:30 p.m. But it amazes me that, with the encouragement of the government, not to mention an endless string of foundations and commissions and pompous individuals, some of the biggest players in the media world conspire to present a view of the world they know to be false.

Figures obtained by The Associated Press through a freedom of information request show a steadily rising tally of prosecutions in Britain for electronic communications — phone calls, emails and social media posts — that are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character — from 1,263 in 2009 to 1,843 in 2011. The number of convictions grew from 873 in 2009 to 1,286 last year. Behind the figures are people — mostly young, many teenagers — who find that a glib online remark can have life-altering consequences. Lawyers say the mounting tally shows the problems of a legal system trying to regulate 21st century communications with 20th century laws. Civil libertarians say it is a threat to free speech in an age when the Internet gives everyone the power to be heard around the world.

[Commentary] The airwaves and the newspapers have been peppered with reports belittling the impact of outside groups on the 2012 election. Many have taken it a step further and concluded that super-PACs and “dark money” groups — the groups that don’t disclose their donors — are not the threat to our democracy that many had feared. That is where they are wrong.

The tiny cadre of wealthy Americans who were campaign bundlers, as well as the donors who gave to super-PACs and dark money groups, will be the winners — regardless of whom they gave to. How can that be? If their candidate lost, wouldn’t a good businessman question whether he got a good “return on investment”? While favorable electoral outcomes might not have been successfully purchased in many instances, you can be very sure that what was successfully purchased was access and influence.

Regardless of whether their party won or lost, these donors can now convert their large contributions into a ticket to be cashed in for access to and influence with elected officials and their staffs. Having demonstrated their willingness to give large amounts, elite donors seeking audiences with powerful politicians will be rewarded. Savvy politicians will recognize the people they need to keep happy. So, they will continue to court these big-money donors. The new reality in Washington will see the ultra-well-heeled getting even more preferential treatment than in the past. But where does that leave the rest of us?