Gross domestic product did a 180 degree turn in the fourth quarter as the nation saw national output shrink by an annualized rate of .1%. The Bureau of Economic Analysis attributed the shrinkage to decreases in private inventory investment, federal government spending, exports, and state and local government spending.

The one saving grace was the increase in equipment and software expenditures, up 12.4% in the fourth quarter. While not the best proxy for broadband spending in America, it does reflect the demand for the lifeblood components of an all IP network.

This positive growth jives with an observation made today by Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski who, in remarks made before the Southwest Family Enhancement Center, that annual capital investment in wireless has grown 25% since 2009, and that the U.S. accounts for 1/4 of global investment in mobile infrastructure.

Wireless broadband in particular and information technology in general are having a positive impact on gross private investment and overall GDP. Scaring off investors with even hints of new regulation is the last thing the economy needs.

A post in the Motley Fool describes AT&T management as “bullish” when it comes to spectrum. The post uses AT&T’s attempts at acquiring T-Mobile last year (Wow, has it been a year?) as an example. Another example includes buying smaller companies in order to obtain more spectrum. AT&T’s two-year data plan package for 3G and 4G tablets is expected to eat into Sprint’s reputation as the cheapest provider of data, according to Motley Fool.

The bullishness appears like the appropriate strategy in my opinion. Sprint has made 70% of itself available for purchase by Japan’s Softbank and is also considering buying out the remaining investors in Clearwire. While Sprint’s pending moves won’t be enough to knock AT&T or Sprint from their industry leading positions, Sprint can become a stiffer competitor in the wireless market.

Hopefully the Federal Communications Commission continues to play observer this time around. A facilitating regulator the FCC was not as it signaled to the industry and the U.S. Department of Justice its lack of support for last year’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T. By rule, the FCC must approve the transfer of licenses from Clearwire to Sprint assuming Clearwire no longer operates as a separate entity if Sprint goes ahead with a buy. I would not be surprised if Sprint goes ahead with a complete acquisition that sends Clearwire into spectrum heaven. It would probably make the company more valuable to Softbank if Sprint actually has its name on those licenses.

Either way, the FCC should, to use a sports term, let them play. If any regulatory approvals are needed, they should be granted with haste. A minimalist regulatory approach is what’s needed right now.

Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Federal Communications Commission was empowered under Title III of the Communications Act to promulgate its data roaming rule. The rule, however, does not impose any common carrier obligations on mobile Internet providers.

In 2007, the FCC mandated that mobile voice carriers offer roaming agreements to other carriers on a just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis. The FCC invoked Title II of the Communications Act reasoning that mobile voice providers have a common carrier obligation to provide roaming.

The 2007 mandate did not extend to mobile Internet or mobile data carriers that entered voluntarily into roaming agreements with other carriers for mobile data.

The FCC’s rationale for its rule was:

1. The mandate would promote access to seamless mobile data coverage nationwide;
2. The mandate balances incentives for new entrants and incumbents to deploy advanced networks across the country; and
3. The mandate would foster competition among multiple wireless providers

Verizon and AT&T opposed the rule, arguing that the rule was unnecessary given that carriers were already entering voluntary agreements for data roaming and that smaller carriers would have reduced incentive to build their own networks.

On the surface, investors in large carriers such as AT&T and Sprint should not see any additional losses from the ruling. The data roaming rule has been in place from 2007 and given that no new rules or divestitures resulted from the ruling, I see no additional costs of compliance to AT&T or Verizon due to this legal proceeding.

I don’t see how in the long run the ruling would benefit smaller carriers. If anything they may see increases in whatever charges they are assessed by the larger carriers as a result of negotiations in for future agreements, and they can thank the FCC’s competition posture for this.

As spectrum becomes harder to come by, larger carriers may feel compelled to pass on higher costs of handling additional traffic from smaller carriers. Delays by the FCC in releasing spectrum compounded by burdensome and lengthy scrutiny of license transfers will make a scarce resource more expensive. Smaller carriers will not be able to have their cake and eat it too.

For example, smaller carriers will argue that they do not have the capital to expand their networks on the one hand while on the other criticize any attempts by the FCC to ensure that spectrum goes to the carriers with the greatest economies of scale and the larger client base that would be negative impacted by a lack of sufficient spectrum. Either way, smaller carriers are going to have to absorb the costs of expanding traffic on the network either through sucking it up and deploying their own networks or paying increasing costs for roaming.

Smaller carriers may find themselves being more of a price taker in negotiations for roaming because all a larger carrier has to show is that the roaming charge being negotiated is commercially reasonable, a lower standard than the classic just and reasonable standard.

In the immediate term, the ruling may be deemed by Verizon and AT&T as a loss, but in the longer term, smaller carriers may have simply delayed the inevitable.

The Federal Communications Commission yesterday posted a letter from U.S. Cellular Corp. documenting a recent ex-parte meeting between the wireless carrier and staff members from the FCC’s wireless telecommunications bureau. In the letter, U.S. Cellular Corp. says that its meeting with FCC staff was geared toward urging action on interoperability rules.

Specifically, U.S. Cellular Corp. told the FCC that it believes that all its commercial band 12 devices would pass band 17 interference testing consistent with 3GPP specifications. U.S. Cellular also told the FCC that it would be moving forward with VoLTE equipment deployment in 2013 and 2014.

U.S. Cellular Corp. expects VoLTE will reduce disparities between CDMA and GSM devices and that VoLTE would bolster the argument that CDMA carriers should have AT&T devices that are interoperable with Band 12.

I just read a blog post in The Hillicon Valley that may have some policy and commercial implications down the road. A new coalition of advocacy groups, the Open Wireless Coalition, would like to see and expansion of free, open Wi-Fi networks beyond McDonalds and Starbucks. The group hopes that consumers benefit from a world of free, near ubiquitous access and innovation creates new devices that can be used in this space.

I guess it’s like someone who works their farm and a bunch of people come walking by and decide to snack on fruit for free, sometimes without so much as a howdy do and a thank you.

If there is technology that allows a passerby to slice off enough unused airspace and pay rent for it, it’s all good. That way the earnings from the rent can be reinvested into beefing up security to protect the “landlord” and his other “tenants”. Otherwise, it sounds like mooching and poor policy should the FCC decide to regulate in this space.