You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-01 14:31
I wanted to commend and spotlight a critically important and completely under-reported/under-appreciated part of the FCC Chairman's statement on the 700 MHz auction released yesterday:
This is very important, welcome, commendable, and strong affirmation of the FCC's broad deregulation policy -- that was completely lost in the gaggle of press coverage.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-01 10:57
There are so many problems with the FCC's new 700 MHz auction rules that create a more regulated open access/net neutrality license -- its hard to know where to start.
Yesterday I highlighted the dirty little secret that there is very substantial risk that this will become known as the "do over auction" because it may not raise enough money to satisfy the rules and because the FCC likely overstepped its legal authority and will be overturned in court.
Let's raise another dirty little secret behind the new rules that will increase regulatory uncertainty for broadband deployment.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-07-31 10:59
A much under-reported part of the high drama behind the FCC's current 700 MHz auction rules is that there is a very substantial risk that this becomes known as the "do over" FCC auction.
First, to any outside observer, the FCC's highly-tailored auction rules appear to have a pretty obvious "set aside" for the Google camp and its proposed net neutrality/open access business model for a third of the 700 MHz spectrum.
Second, there is substantial legal risk that the FCC does not have the authority to condition these licenses in a way that limits an "open" auction and substantially reduces the revenue for the US Treasury.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-07-30 18:19
Well said Jim!
"Open" is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-07-30 11:00
I keep shaking my head in disbelief when the Google camp breathlessly claims that the 700 MHz is the last opportunity to create a true "third broadband pipe?"
The much ballyhooed proposal in the 700 MHz auction for an "open access license" (whatever that endlessly evolving term means) claims to be all about Government creating a "third broadband pipe?"
Let's come down to earth folks.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-07-24 12:37
Please read FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's outstanding op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today. It eviscerates the sloppy thinking and weak evidence of net neutrality/open access proponents that are trying to manufacture a national broadband problem/crisis to justify their new Big Government "National Broadband Policy."
This op-ed is particularly timely given the current and tightly coordinated attempts by liberal House and Senate Democrats to establish the groundwork for an abandonment of competition and free market policies in communications and replace it with a new "National Broadband Policy" which is the liberal codeword for a Big Government-managed broadband sector.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-07-20 18:57
Anyone who hasn't read Google's letter to the FCC today on the 700 MHz auction -- you have to -- its an absolute hoot!
First Google, despite what you may think, the US Government and FCC policy is not "for sale." (And even if you think it is, at least try to be less obvious about your cynicism in public.)
Second, the demand in their letter oozes with arrogance. Let's parse the final and operative sentence of Google's letter to see just how arrogant.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-07-19 11:35
What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with this picture? Nothing!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-07-18 12:28
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-07-13 11:03
FCC Chairman Martin's surprising proposed open access/net neutrality regulations for the 700 MHz auction, threaten to broadly chill the broadband investment necessary to deliver broadband deployment to all Americans.
Chairman Martin has now emphatically embraced the core economic principle of former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt's Frontline Proposal (and Frontline's Google gaggle of investors), which is that market forces will not and cannot promote sufficient "competition" so the government must regulate and "manage competition" (i.e. mandate prices, terms and conditions -- either directly or indirectly) to ensure consumer welfare.