In a letter dated 25 January 2012, Mobile Future urged the Federal Communications Commission to keep spectrum availability at the top of its priority list in 2012. Mobile Future attached a report documenting the impact on growth resulting from the evolution and innovation in wireless.

According to Mobile Future, more than 1.5 million jobs were created when the wireless industry transitioned from 2G to 3g service between 2007 and 2011. In addition, according to Mobile Future, every 10% adoption of 3G and 4G technology increases the chance of an additional 231,000 jobs being added over the next year.

Glad I bought my 3G last year. Love contributing to the cause.

Spectrum is a nonrivalrous, excludable good. Like any other wireless carrier, Sprint’s cell towers, cell phones, heck even their customers generate that electromagnetic field we call spectrum. Just like Sprint bids for access to spectrum from the Federal Communications Commission, we “bid”, usually on a monthly basis, for access to Sprint’s cell towers.

Our little hand held radios that we call cell phones and smart phones emit signals that eventually clog the highways and channels we refer to as frequencies. The greater the demand to access spectrum, the greater the cost to use it.

Sprint, like every other carrier, faces not just a spectrum crunch, but a cash crunch. Telling investors that roaming agreements are its best bet to conserving cash should put investors on edge. Also buying 30 million smart phones when your network isn’t ready for all that capacity doesn’t set well with me either.

I also have to wonder how Clearwire’s spectrum squatting is impacting Sprint’s decision to rely more on roaming agreements to service its customers versus building out its network? According to Sprint’s 10-K, Sprint has a wholesale agreement with Clearwire where Sprint resells Clearwire’s 4G service. Maybe Clearwire hasn’t built out to the areas where Sprint is relying on roaming agreements or Clearwire wants more money. I don’t know.

I do know that investing in your network and building it out puts your subscribers at ease. They do care that the carrier who says they are providing national service is the carrier that is actually carrying their national service.

Sprint acting more like a regional carrier

Sprint and AT&T are at it again. AT&T is calling out Sprint on the Kansas City-based carrier’s use of roaming agreements versus building out a network to provide consumers with real facility-based services. Sprint alleges this is good for consumers because the practice allows the company to provide its nationwide service..

Sprint calls this good for consumers? When a consumer purchases the service of a national carrier, the consumer wants the certainty of knowing that her service is being provided point to point by the network of the wireless carrier to whom the consumer forks over its money. What Sprint is doing inefficiently pricing its services if that is the case.

Worse yet, this may also be indicative of Sprint’s continuous poor management; buying 30 million iPhones it apparently can’t build a network out to service the phones on. Hard to believe the FCC considers what Sprint is doing as optimal use of a scarce resource.

Is it really good for consumers and investors that a wireless carrier of Sprint’s size and stature is mismanaging itself into becoming a regional carrier?

It’s too early to tell what the full impact may be cities and counties from Georgia’s SB 313, the Broadband Investment Equity Act. Staff at the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia relayed their initial assessment that the bill appears to impact just one county, but a more complete review may be needed. I haven’t heard from the Georgia Municipal Association yet, so we’ll have to stay tuned.

About five years ago, states were drafting legislation to basically keep municipalities out of the delivery of cable services. Now it seems like it may be to keep municipalities from providing broadband. I can’t say whether it’s a trend with broadband, but it will be interesting to see what develops on the state and local level given the increased attention to the lack of broadband service to approximately one-third of American households.

You tell me. Do you think broadband provided by a public entity is the way to go?

Grover Norquist co-authored a piece criticizing the FCC’s foot-dragging on the issue of spectrum access. As a case study, Mr. Norquist refers to the challenges LightSquared is facing from other agencies while the FCC apparently is looking the other way. According to Mr. Norquist, the FCC is pulling a John Kerry double take: I was for LightSquared building a $14 billion 4G network before I was against LightSquared building a $14 billion network.

I did appreciate Mr. Norquist’s take on the FCC’s push for rules that would basically allow the agency to choose to whom spectrum will go and to decide who gets to bid on it in the first place. What the FCC is signaling is not competitive bidding. The FCC should not be picking winners and losers. The Japanese did something similar in the 1990s; picking the industries they felt should survive.

Have you heard of the Lost Decade? This type of economic strategy didn’t help Japan pull out of its economic and financial doldrums. Why should we expect picking favorites to work here in the U.S.?