Bruce Mehlman points out in recent blog post that the FCC cannot have it both ways. It cannot label an auction process as competitive and then support an egregious barrier to entry by allowing some companies to bid on spectrum and leaving others on the sideline.
A participant in a free market enters with a willingness and ability to sell or buy goods and services.
Should spectrum go to the entity indicating through the highest bid, that they have the capacity to purchase and use spectrum?
Good to see more advocates for a less restrictive market stepping up and getting more aggressive with vocalizing their concerns. That’s what the Center for Individual Freedom did in a blog post last week addressing the apparent overreach that the Federal Communications Commission has been executing for almost three years.
Sometimes I think regulators, the FCC included, forget which country we are living in. Seems to be a love affair with all things extra-national no matter what side of the aisle the trouble maker sits on. Newt Gingrich would like us to use some Chilean form of retirement accounts to satisfy the social security issue. Julius Genachowski constantly reminds us that South Korea has greater broadband deployment and speeds than we do. Let’s not forget that the Republican Party believes that President Obama wants to make a European socialist system.
The last charge is pure nonsense, of course, but Mr. Genachowski and his FCC sure tempt many to fall for that lie when his FCC focuses on everything else but how best to get spectrum into the hands of carriers that are in the best position to put that national resource to its optimal use.
A couple posts ago I shared the idea of Apple buying T-Mobile. What would really be an act of charity would be Google buying Sprint. Talk about putting a company out of its misery. Shares of Sprint have been falling for six months and this company needs a parachute. It waged a successful legal/regulatory campaign against the AT&T,T-Mobile merger, but looks like it may be in need of some help itself.
Here is a quote from an analysis by Morningstar:
“We believe this strategy is correct, but execution has failed thus far in one critical area: financing. That Sprint needs to raise capital isn’t a surprise, given the steady debt maturities it faces during the next few years. Sprint’s initial reluctance to clearly lay out its funding needs and continued uncertainty around Clearwire CLWR have caused the market to lose faith in management. Backed into a corner, the firm was forced to accept costly terms on its recent $4 billion debt offering. Sprint should now have the financial resources to work through Network Vision, but the firm still has little room for error.”
Google definitely has resources and could be Sprint’s white knight. In addition, keeping Sprint viable is good for public policy reasons because it keeps another choice for mobile broadband access in the game.
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.
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?