I really think it’s time to clear the air, and I’m not the only one. Specifically, now that the 700 MHz auction is over and done with, it seems like the perfect moment to take a look at what is and what is not working with regard to U.S. spectrum policy, and just where we should go from here.
Last week Georgetown University held a series of discussions on the spectrum allocation mechanisms currently in place. We’ll soon have audio and video from the event up at www.ctia.org, and I’ll let you know when that’s available. But in the meantime, here’s my two cents worth on a handful of different spectrum-related issues.
Number One: As the volume and variety of content continues to increase and flow on and through wireless networks, and as more Americans turn to wireless for their broadband access – according to the FCC, about 70% of new broadband lines over the last years were mobile wireless subscriptions (:http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280906A1.pdf ) -- the need for more spectrum is real, plain and clear. A regular, reliable schedule of spectrum auctions to achieve that goal makes sense for all involved.
Number Two: As was so obviously demonstrated in the recent 700MHz auction, the market, not regulation, does the best job getting spectrum into the hands of those that will use it. Look at the recent “D” block debacle – this was a nationwide license of some of the most valuable spectrum ever to come up for auction, and yet it was rendered entirely unappealing (i.e. valueless) because of regulatory stipulations. It’s been the freedom to innovate, and use the spectrum to address consumer demand that has enabled the US wireless industry to deliver the most advanced wireless services at some of the world’s most affordable prices – this model clearly works. Why tamper with it? The “D” block experiment clearly gets an “F” for failure.
Number Three: Spectrum is clearly a valuable resource. Duh, right? Regarding the ongoing “white spaces” debate, it is CTIA’s position that licensed use of this spectrum is the best deal for everyone. Unlicensed wireless use brings with it a number of different issues, not the least of which is the problem of who a licensee should contact if someone out there starts messing in the frequency bands that a licensee has already paid substantial amounts of money (millions, maybe billions) for, and causes all kinds of interference for their customers. Think about it in television terms. You’re watching your TV at home and someone operating some gizmo in an adjacent, unlicensed band is running an application that degrades the quality of your TV signal. So, you call the cable company to complain, and then it calls………… who? Unlicensed spectrum users running amok is a terrible deal for consumers and for the industry.
Again, we’ll have highlights from the Georgetown session up for you soon. Also, I know what I’m talking about is hardly anything new. But as it is with so many wireless policy discussions in Washington these days, I think it’s important to keep common sense and practicality in the forefront, and let those citing idyllic hypothetical situations or taking wild swings for the fences do so at their own risk, not the general public’s.
RSS Feed
It looks like CTIA is a typical Corporate lobbying group that wants to screw the public by trying to change the wording in contracts so they won't be sued.
Let's hope the suit goes through for the rest of us. Prorating the contracts and givng 30 days or 10 days after the first billing cycle date, which ever is longer, would be a fair for both the company and the consumer.
Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., introduced the "Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act," which would require prorated fees and a 30-day window for customers to exit a contract.