Universal Broadband

Kudos to Robert Hahn and Hal Singer for their outstanding op ed in the Washington Post "Earmarked Airwaves."

• The editorial cogently presents the fork in the road that faces any major FCC decision: to follow law, which promotes competition and market-driven outcomes, or to freelance and try and "manage" competition and pick winners and losers in advance through "spectrum earmarking."
• FCC history is littered with freelance "managed competition" failures, but two are particularly ignominious and highly relevant to this 700 MHz auction:
• the illegal UNE-P scheme to rig telecom competitive outcomes following the 1996 Telecom Act; and
• the Nextwave auction scandal that kept 30 MHz of prime spectrum fallow and tied up in court for almost a decade.

At its core a spectrum auction is the quintessential type of competition. The auction law's purpose in 1993 was to use market forces, competition, to allocate the public's asset most appropriately, largely because previous FCC spectrum allocation processes were so ineffective, unfair and prone to serious abuse and graft.

• While no process is perfect, a clean competitive auction process has proven highly effective in rewarding US taxpayers and fostering a growing and highly competitive wireless marketplace that greatly benefits consumers.

This 700 MHz auction may be shaping up to be FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's legacy moment: will it be marked by promoting competition and market-based outcomes or will it be marked by standing on the auction scales to ensure the spectrum is "earmarked" to the predetermined, chosen "winner" -- in this case former Clinton-Gore FCC Chairman Reed Hundt's Frontline Wireless company.  

Net neutrality proponents continue to fabricate problems to manipulate public policy to promote government intervention and regulation over free markets.

• They fabricated a non-existent problem that broadband companies wanted to block, degrade and impair users access to the content of their choice.
• Totally bogus. They have produced no evidence to back up their fabricated problem.
• They are up to their old tricks again, trying to fabricate a problem that the US is falling behind on broadband. See Steve Levy's "hook-line-and-sinker" take on US broadband standing in the world in Newsweek.
• This is a fabricated bogus "problem" as well.
• They only cite a biased OECD study that claims the US is 24th in the OECD, but don't mention any of the many counter-arguments why that "study" is way off the mark.
• FCC Commissioner McDowell recently did a great job discrediting the very flawed methodology that the OECD used.  
• The OECD report is a classic example of "How to lie with statistics."
• There is also never a mention by net neutrality proponents of the competing broadband ranking study by The Economist's Intelligence Unit which ranks the US #2 in Internet/broadband in the world.

Fortunately net neutrality proponents have failed miserably in their efforts to date. 

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell gave an outstanding speech today at the Broadband Policy Summit in which he did the single best job I have seen totally debunking the OECD rankings that purportedly indicate the US is falling behind on broadband.

Commissioner McDowell explains with example after example -- how skewed the OECD methodology is.

• My personal favorite line in the speech was on how the OECD methodology is skewed against the US:

• "...even if every existing broadband subscriber in America had a fiber-fed 100 mbps broadband connection, we would only rank 12th."

Bloomberg reports that Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards "backs Google's push for wholesale leasing of airwaves."

Let's cut to the chase here.

Google has proposed a self-serving idea for real-time auctions of spectrum that might be able work in five to ten years time, but is not at all relevant to, or practical for, the auction scheduled for next winter.

• Google's idea is really a clever diversion and stalking horse for wireless net neutrality -- a sweet-sounding name for government-subsidized free spectrum or "corporate welfare for dotcom billionaires."  
• More importantly, Google's proposal would effectively undermine the FCC's ability to raise the maximum amount in the upcoming 700 MHz auction for American taxpayers.
• Presidential candidate Edwards appears more interested in pandering to powerful Democratic special interests and fundraisers that can contribute to his lagging campaign, than being a good steward of taxpayer money.  
• And who might those special interests be that Mr. Edwards is pandering to?
• Google, whose employees in the last election cycle contributed 98% to Democratic candidates;
• Al Gore, Google's senior Advisor, (who is now seriously rich, but quietly so, from his Google options) and who is ringleader of "Google's Poodles" Google's very own astroturf group the "Open Internet Coalition."  and
• Former Clinton-Gore FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, Chairman of Frontline spectrum company, funded in part by Google-related money, which is seeking to rig the upcoming FCC spectrum auction for their own commercial benefit under the guise of an "open Internet."

Don't be fooled by the clever diversions surrounding the FCC's upcoming 700 MHz auction.

Senate Democrats are attempting to sneak through the back door what they cannot get through the front door of the "free and open"  policy process.

The Inouye "Broadband Data Improvement Act" is really a long term trojan horse for net neutrality and heavy regulation of broadband.

• The bill requires that the FCC "establish a new definition of second generation broadband to reflect a data rate that is not less than the data rate required  to reliably transmit full-motion, high definition video." 
• "Reliable" "high-definition" broadband is certainly not DSL or existing cable modems.

The clever ruse in this innocuous-sounding language is to redefine broadband competition as a total abject failure, and to declare broadband market failure, so the pro-regulatory types can regulate broadband becuase it is not competitive, or is at best a future duopoly.

I'd like to welcome back to the playing field, the reconstituted "ItsOurNet Coalition" which inexplicably went away in January, but has now returned as "The Open Internet Coalition!"

Now we finally know what they were doing while they were gone from the scene for four months...

• They were losing weight.
• The coalition shed the excess pounds of Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon.
• Who needs them!
• It must have been too burdensome for Google to have to accomodate these more reasonable and less-regulatory members of the previous ItsOurNet coalition.
• Now the new "slimmed down" coalition can be faster, more nimble and united around being pro-regulatory for others.
• The remaining coalition members are a much tighter and cohesive bunch.
• There's now no one big or bold enough to challenge the Big Dog and ringleader Google. 
• There's also no one in the coalition who believes in a free market broadband policy.
• And it is basically companies and groups whose common thread is they have hired up all the under-employed pro-regulatory staffers who hate the telcos and cablecos.
• The remaining group is of one mind -- their nirvana "democracy".

I was frankly surprised that the new group chose not to be forthright and embrace its new "slimmed-down" public physique.

I personally think the Markey proposal to spend $36 million for a "national broadband map" is a monumental waste of taxpayer money and really bad "policy".

• We don't have even a "national" broadband problem, we have more broadband facilities based competition and investment than any nation in the world.
• We may have a rural broadband lag, and if a map is needed at all it could only be justified for rural areas and it would only cost a fraction of the $36m.
• If Chairman Markey proposed a rural broadband map I would be much more muted in my criticism.

However, there is a not so hidden agenda lurking here.

• A "national" broadband map is a transparent political scheme to re-define the issue so pro-regulation and pro-net neutrality proponents can define away "competition" and current policy success with a stroke of a pen.
• If they can define away satellite and the 5 national wireless providers as broadband competitors, they can smugly say "I told you so" broadband is really a monopoly/duopoly and declare  competition policy a failure!
• Then they could have a policy basis for mandating net regulation, subsidies and net neutrality!

The reason they want a national broadband policy is that they want a one-size-fits-all national policy like net neutrality which ensures everyone gets the same broadband service regardless of different needs, wants or means.

• These "nationalized" regulation visionaries, then can create a role for Big government programs where there is none now.

It still amazes me how Chairman Markey and his fellow Big Government/net neutrality proponents can not see that competition and not regulating the Internet has been a fabulous, albeit imperfect success for the United States.

Calls by House Telecom Chairman Ed Markey and other Big Government proponents for better "broadband mapping" is simply a "trojan horse" for regulating the Internet. and more government intervention in the marketplace. 

Mr. Markey knows that calling for better data is generally an easy way to build consensus around an issue while staying "under the radar."

• He also knows that he can skew the process to his policy liking by rigging how the new "map" is supposed to be drawn.

Make no mistake about it, this is Chairman Markey's first step in a grander scheme to have Big government play a much bigger role in the Internet and the digital economy. 

I attended the Educause conference panel today because they made a big deal about how they were going to launch a new white paper with a new compromise on net neutrality that would be "more reasonable."

• When I arrived and asked about the availablity of the new net neutrality white paper, I was disappointed when informed it was "delayed indefinitely."
• Seems like this white paper is in the same purgatory of indecision, and "keystone kops-ville",  that the relaunch of the online giant coalition is, the former ItsOurNet coalition which is reportedly now the "Open Net Coalition".
• Seems like the net neutrality movement is going through a whole lot of handwringing about what to do next.
• It kind of reminds me of when a barking dog finally catches the passing car. Now what to do?

I was also amused that Educause, this academic oriented forum, did not even attempt to present a balanced panel that represented both points of view on net neutrality.

I just rewatched the outstanding Fiber to the Home Council's video on the Internet Exaflood.

• I blogged about it before and will probably blog about it again in the future, because it is the best single five minute explanation, for novices and experts, of how the Internet is changing and improving.

If SaveTheInternet and FreePress was truly interested in a free and open debate on net neutrality they would want to send this outstanding informational video out to their email blast list.