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.

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.

The Wall Street Journal reported back on 27 March 2012 that Sprint has plans to offer 4G phones on an LTE network. Given the time and energy the company wasted trying to block the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, it’s about time.

It’s good to see from a broadband adoption standpoint that Sprint is deploying a network that can help the company deploy these advanced mobile devices. If it can leverage a price strategy that gets the company more customers at a lower price to consumers, all the better. Lower prices charged to consumers keeps them connected.

The Wall Street Journal posted a piece about the failure of consumers to protect their online identities on their smartphones. Before we became smartphone users, we were cell phone users. We didn’t realize then that cell phones are really little radios. Today we are smart phone users (at least 46% of American adults) and don’t realize that our smartphones are not just little radios, but also minicomputers.

Because they are minicomputers that send and receive stored information over the air, it’s important that we use password protections and apply security updates when asked.

Programs designed to help increase broadband literacy will have to include an emphasis on security if we are to keep people online, especially those whose sole method of access is via mobile.

Law professor Susan Crawford wrote a post for Wired.com arguing that H.R. 3309 would take the FCC in the wrong direction by gutting the agency’s power. After giving a brief history of deregulatory efforts and market entry spawned after the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Professor Crawford concluded that,

“You’d think that Congress would want to have an empowered regulator able to do something to protect the country from the rational, profit- seeking depredations of our new generation of monopolists.”

According to Professor Crawford, that new generation of monopolists includes Comcast and Time Warner for high-speed internet access; and AT&T and Verizon for wireless services.

The last thing the FCC needs is any more encouragement to follow an increased interventionist scheme. Just yesterday, T-Mobile USA announced the closing of seven call centers and the layoffs of hundreds of workers. The FCC was asked to consider a projection of job losses and call center closings in its review of the request to transfer licenses from T-Mobile to AT&T.

Instead, the FCC decides to play merger expert and, along with the Department of Justice, forced AT&T and T-Mobile to abandon their merger plans. Just like its net neutrality rules, the FCC never considered market impacts of its decisions. They refuse to carryout and document a market failure analysis before implementing decisions. This is not type of agency that anyone wants to have greater regulatory control.

It should stick to its number one priority: ensuring access to public resources such as spectrum and rights-of-way.