Sprint

Please see my latest Daily Caller Op-ed "Wireless Plan Innovation Benefits Consumers & Competition -- here.

• It debunks net neutrality criticism of a reported potential ESPN-wireless pricing experiment.
• It is also Part 15 of my Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom research series.

* * * * *

Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Research Series

Part 1:    Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees

Please read my latest Daily Caller Op-ed: "The FCC Transition?" -- here.

The CTIA just released its semi-annual statistics on the wireless industry’s performance, and its bad news for all those supposed data-driven, pro-regulation proponents who are in search of evidence or data to justify regulating wireless or wireless spectrum holdings.

The data are more powerful evidence of a competitive wireless industry. Hopefully, this data will nudge the FCC to begrudgingly conclude that the industry is indeed competitive, despite their blinders to the data.

Briefly, the U.S. wireless industry:

Competition is alive and well in the U.S. communications market.

Market forces have produced a barrage of big competitive developments in just a few weeks. Dish’s disruptive $25b bid for Sprint could offer consumers a new choice of a lower-price, faster-speed, all-wireless platform for the first time. Google’s disruptive ongoing expansion of Google Fiber from Kansas City to Austin Texas and Provo Utah signals more and new consumers could increasingly enjoy the choice of a new, much-faster, near-comprehensively-integrated broadband offering. And T-Mobile is disrupting in yet another major way with a new maverick wireless pricing model that offers no contract plans and relatively more a la carte pricing.  

These developments are proof positive why competition is so far superior to regulation. Survival is a powerful motivator to disrupt, differentiate and innovate, just as the opportunity for large profit and market leadership are powerful motivators as well.

While regulators slowly fret over how they can solve yesterday’s problems by fiat or opaque subsidy, competition is automatically devising alternative solutions to today’s problems, and inevitably is working on different solutions to tomorrow’s problems.  

I.    Dish-Sprint

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: "DOJ Joins FCC in Picking Wireless Winners & Losers" -- here.

• It is Part 7 of my Government Spectrum Waste, Fraud & Abuse Research Series. 

* * * * *

Government Spectrum Waste Fraud and Abuse Research Series

Part 1: U.S. Government's Obsolete and Wasteful Spectrum Hoarding and Rationing

Please read my latest Daily Caller Op-ed: "Will the New FCC Chair Be a Modernist or Nostalgist?" -- here.

• It is Part 6 of my Modernization Consensus research series. 

* * * * *

Modernization Consensus Series

(Note: This research series previews strategic developments that could encourage consensus to modernize obsolete communications law.)

Part 1: Supreme Court Likely to Leash FCC to Law

Please see my new Daily Caller op-ed "FCC’s Obsolete Wireless Competition Mindset" -- here.

• It puts the FCC’s 16^th Mobile Competition Report into perspective and it is Part 6 of my ongoing Government Spectrum Waste, Fraud & Abuse research series.

  * * * * *

 Government Spectrum Waste Fraud and Abuse Research Series

Please don't miss my new Daily Caller op-ed: "Why IP Interconnection Would Break the Internet" -- here.

• It is a must read for anyone interested in the IP transition and the FCC.

 * * * * *

Obsolete Communications Law Research Series:

Please don't miss my new Daily Caller Op-ed "The Looming Government Spectrum Scandal" -- here.

• It's Part 5 of my ongoing Government Spectrum Waste, Fraud & Abuse Research Series.

* * * * *

Government Spectrum Waste Fraud and Abuse Research Series

Part 1: U.S. Government's Obsolete and Wasteful Spectrum Hoarding and Rationing

Rhetoric aside, the Administration drew an underappreciated and principled line in defending property rights in its deft partial support of the Free Culture petition to the White House to “make unlocking cellphones legal.”

For those paying attention to the whole Administration statement, the Administration included a critical caveat protecting property and contractual rights: i.e. one should be able to legally unlock a cellphone “if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren’t bound by a service agreement or other obligation.”