The Federal Communications Commission issued final rules for channel sharing. The rules are the result of the recently passed Jobs Act that provides for voluntary incentive auctions of broadcast spectrum.

The FCC stressed that channel sharing is voluntary and that broadcasters and other licensees of spectrum will determine whether they want to enter into sharing arrangements. The FCC expects channel sharing to free up spectrum for wireless broadband providers.

Channel sharing doesn’t mean that an over-the-air broadcaster’s only option is to give up its entire spectrum and go out of business. Broadcasters should be able to retain just enough spectrum for one standard definition program stream, while sharing the rest of its 6MHz channel.

Overall, sounds like a non-intrusive policy for freeing up some spectrum for the mobile types while keeping the over-the-air broadcasters operational.

I love this quote from Bruce Mehlman captured in a piece by Broadcast and Cable yesterday:

“Now more than ever we need more spectrum in the hands of those actually serving our entrepreneurs, to ensure robust and reliable Internet service,” said Internet Innovation Alliance co-chair Bruce Mehlman in a statement. “Policies that allow the markets to deploy these resources to their highest and best use, rather than politicians’ preferences, will lead to a stronger entrepreneurial ecosystem – that means more innovation, more jobs, more cost-savings for consumers and more start-up businesses in the United States.”

If we want to get our economy going again and incentivize the deployment of broadband into unserved areas, government needs to focus on one of its core responsibilities; moving natural resources into their most productive use, with the market setting the price for those resources.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation today held a hearing on the emerging online market. Senator John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV) and chairman of the Committee wanted to know how the emerging online video market would impact quality and affordability of online video content. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) wanted to see, of course, less regulation in the marketplace so that innovation could thrive.

I was not surprised to see net neutrality raise its ugly head. Barry Diller, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of IAC raised the issue most prominently as he expressed concern that gatekeepers may try to negatively impact the flow of video between platforms like his or Amazon and the consumer.

I know. Same old arguments we’ve been hearing since Genesis.

What I found interesting was that Mr. Diller also wanted to see light touch regulation when asked about the appropriate regulatory framework for the online video marketplace. He also said that if someone wanted to start their own broadcast network online, no one could stop them simply because of the Internet’s openness.

It’s not like consumers need help getting to the Internet. They have a number of wired and wireless broadband options. There is still the issue of broadband networks being built out to rural and insular communities. The Federal Communications Commission’s modification of the universal service fund is designed to help in that area.

The biggest challenge may be network capacity, specifically spectrum. It’s for this reason why I believe net neutrality proponents will find themselves in a conundrum. They want consumers to have access to all platforms vying for consumer protection, but take issue with two free market methods for obtaining or conserving access to the electromagnetic airwaves: mergers and data caps. The net neutrality types can’t have it both ways.

If Mr. Rockefeller wants consumers to experience affordable access to online video, he and his net neutrality minions will have to accept tier pricing based on data caps. If not, all the “anybody show up and chow down” demand by content providers as well as consumers will result in poor quality of service. Access to the airwaves is finite. Just because it’s invisible doesn’t mean there is a lot of it.

Michael Copps, former member of the Federal Communications Commission, believes there is a lot of spectrum laying fallow. Unused spectrum could put a dent in the shortage of airwave access facing wireless carriers.

Copps, according to an article in Broadcasting & Cable, said that he believes no one has any idea how much spectrum is actually out there not being put to use.

All the more reason for a complete spectrum inventory and why the FCC should focus more on what I believe a government agency’s primary task should be: managing access to our natural resources and making sure those resources are getting into the hands of those who are willing and able to put those resources to their most productive use.

I wonder how much spectrum is laying fallow in Atlanta?

Brian Chen wrote a piece on 17 April about the use of technology to increase the amount of spectrum access carriers can enjoy. He documents two sides to the spectrum debate.

One side advocates that technology can be used and is used to close any gap in the demand and supply of spectrum.

The other side advocates that deploying more smart antennas simply won’t do. Carriers will need permission to operate on more frequencies within blocks of electromagnetic waves if they are to meet the increasing consumer demand for smart phones, iPads, and apps.

Policy makers may be sending mixed signals (no pun intended) about where the priorities should be placed regarding how we carve and shell out more of the airwaves. In my opinion, the Federal Communications Commission appears to favor transferring the ability to access the airwaves from broadcasters and government agencies to wireless carriers. They don’t talk much about using technology to create more space on the access ramp to the electromagnetic highway or on the lanes within the highway itself.

While deploying antennas that mitigate interference between carriers and the bands they occupy may promote efficient use of the airways, deployment is a business judgment that should be left up to the carriers. Although wresting the monopolizing of blocks of frequencies from carriers and having carriers use technology that allows them to share the airwaves, in the end the utopia of maximized participation in the wireless market will give way to the winner being the company with the most capital, namely the large carriers.

If advocates for competition really want to see more players in the wireless market, the best bet is for the FCC to continue the policy of distributing bands of spectrum.