Competition

Net neutrality activists’ criticism of AT&T’s new freebie for consumers called Sponsored Data is nonsensical.

AT&T’s pricing innovation creates a new freebie for consumers and a new freedom for web providers of Internet content, apps and devices that is fully in keeping with any reasonable notion of a free and open Internet.

AT&T’s Sponsored Data offering is no different from other business freebies offered to consumers to market and competitively differentiate their businesses like: Amazon’s free shipping and free Kindle wireless service; Apple’s free messaging and video conferencing; Google’s free Search, Fiber, Maps, Mobile Operating System, and video conferencing offerings; or Yahoo’s free email. A full list of all free and open Internet consumer freebies would be endless.

AT&T’s Sponsored Data innovation is no different from sponsored ads, website sponsors, content sponsors or any other kind of Internet sponsor.

It is nonsensical for net neutrality activists to not be open to yet another free web service. On what reasonable basis is a consumer freebie from AT&T different than a consumer freebie offered by any other competitor in the Internet ecosystem?

FCC staff just muffed an easy opportunity to advance the IP transition on the FCC’s timetable in the National Broadband Plan.

Apparently FCC staff missed the big picture here.

1. On November 25^th, AT&T proposed a baby step forward in the IP Transition.

AT&T did not propose any change in special access rates. AT&T simply proposed that its special access contract term-lengths, synch up with the FCC’s own goals for when the IP transition should be complete.

Instead of promoting investment certainty -- by respecting its own IP transition timetable that the private sector has come to rely on for infrastructure investment planning -- FCC staff announced an unnecessary five-month investigative delay.  

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed “Why Chairmen Upton/Walden Plan a Communications Act Update” – here.

The op-ed provides a foundational answer to both:

• Chairman Upton/Walden’s organizing question: “…is this working for today’s communications marketplace?” and
• Representative Dingell’s core question: What is the need for change?

This is Part 21 of my Obsolete Communications Law Series.

***

FYI: See additional background below: two key PowerPoint presentations & my Obsolete Communications Law Series.

Some wireless competitors and the DOJ/OSTP are urging the FCC to effectively change their spectrum aggregation rules to treat low-band spectrum-technology <1 GHz competitively different than high-band spectrum-technology >1 GHz.

If the FCC complies, it effectively would subdivide the current spectrum marketplace into two technology markets: <1GHz and >1GHz, for the first time in twenty years of spectrum auction history. It also would set the precedent for the FCC to arbitrarily subdivide the spectrum market further in future auctions based on the FCC’s latest technology-mix prognostications at that time.

Big picture, it would represent a regression back towards the 1980s pre-auction period when the FCC, not competitive market auctions, decided which company got what spectrum, and how certain spectrum was allocated.

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed, “YouTube is Ultimate a la Carte” – here -- on Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Rockefeller’s new legislation: “Consumer Choice in Online Video Act.”

• It is Part 21 of my Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom series.

Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series

Part 1: Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees [7-26-11]

For satire to work, one has to have something to work with. Well Google doesn’t disappoint!

Please don’t miss the grins and aha-s from this playful satire -- here.

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Dial-up Rules for the Broadband Age?” -- here -- which rebuts Marvin Ammori’s Wired op-ed: “We’re about to Lose Net Neutrality – and the Internet as we know it.”

This is Part 35 of the FCC Open Internet Order Series.

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Please don’t miss my new white paper:  A Modern Vision for the FCC: How the FCC Can Modernize its Policy Approaches for the 21^st Century (here/PDF).

• It is the first comprehensive review of FCC policy and vision through the lens of what is modern vs. what is nostalgist.
• Please don’t miss the first slide, a chart that concisely defines modern vs. nostalgist FCC visions.
• My recommendation -- A Modern FCC Policy Agenda -- is near the end of this post.    

NetCompetition Capitol Hill Event:

A Modern Vision for the FCC: How the FCC Can Modernize its Policy Approaches for the 21^st Century

Join NetCompetition® and an esteemed panel to discuss: how the FCC can modernize its policy approaches to adapt to modern technology and market realities and unleash innovation, investment and consumer welfare in the 21^st century global economy. The panel will discuss:

• The transition to all Internet-Protocol communications networks;
• Spectrum incentive auctions and building the long-term spectrum pipeline; and
• Internet ecosystem competition and the future of the FCC.

Where: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

When: Monday, November 4, 2013

Time: 12:00 PM - 1:30 PM

If you are interested in learning the linchpin issue to watch to discern whether the FCC’s competition policy will be modern or nostalgist directionally, don’t miss my Daily Caller Op-ed: “The Modern FCC Competition-Policy Linchpin” – here.

• It is Part 6 in the Modernization Consensus Research Series.

Modernization Consensus Series

Part 1: Implications of Google's Broadband Plans for Competition and Regulation - Part 1 Modernization Consensus Series [1-28-13]