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.

David Honig, executive director of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council recently wrote a piece for The Huffington Post discussing how mobile broadband access is contributing toward closing the digital divide between minority groups and white Americans. His piece was written in response to a piece written by Professor Susan Crawford in The New York Times.

Professor Crawford’s position was that the emphasis should be on getting wired broadband services in the home because wireless mobile devices such as smartphones are not practical for citizens needing to write resumes or producers of content.

Overall I agree with Mr. Honig that wireless broadband access is better than no access at all. Yes, wireless networks allow us to produce content that can be sold to generate income and revenue. I think the emphasis, however, should be on production versus just connectivity and consumption of digital content, which is where Professor Crawford may have been going in her piece.

Susan Crawford, professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, wrote a piece for The New York Times in December about the benefits of wireline broadband access versus wireless in the effort to close the digital divide. Professor Crawford does a good job highlighting the benefits of wireline access versus the limited capacity of wireless broadband access.

Professor Crawford had me up to where she recommended government intervention in the broadband access market. I agree wholeheartedly that, depending on capacity demands and needs, a wireline connection is more conducive to productivity than a wireless connection.

Do we really need government intervention to incentivize consumers to become producers? Probably. We’ve used tax exemptions to get consumers to buy non-income producing assets such as houses and cars. We provide tax credits to companies for research and development. A fiscal policy approach would be preferable to a FCC promoted and enforced telecommunications policy.

The editorial board at The New York Times is having issues with a non-issue. A joint venture between Verizon and a number of cable companies, including Comcast and Time Warner, has the national paper of record in a slight tizzy. Less than two weeks after tasting victory from AT&T’s withdrawal of its bid to buy T-Mobile USA, The Times is questioning the impact the Verizon joint venture would have on wireless competition.

Verizon bought some spectrum, the nectar of all that is wireless, from Comcast and Time Warner. Comcast and Time Warner will also offer bundled packages of video and Verizon wireless services and Verizon will offer its subscribers calling packages that include cable service. Not bad if you believe in convergence and bundling.

The New York Times, on the other hand, wants more Federal Communications Commission oversight to ensure wireless competition. The New York Times, as a newspaper is representative of a losing business model, is instructing the wireless market on competition? Wow.

What Verizon and the cable companies have proposed is merely good business. Both represent access channels to consumers. They are already inside the homes of consumers who may need the others services. Why continue building out to homes when your competitor agrees to help sell your prime product over his channel in exchange for you doing the same for him?

Can anyone say that they are ready to see government try to substitute its “business judgment” for that of Verizon’s?

The New York Times Editorial Board recently posted an opinion piece that concluded that a fix to the wireless market should include a declaration by the Federal Communications Commission that broadband access services are telecommunications services.

The Times should know better.

Unless the Times enjoys seeing flare ups between the legislative branch and the administrative branch, or would like to see the judiciary repeat again and again that the FCC should not go around trying to circumvent the Congress, then advising the FCC to take this route is a waste of time.

Congress has reiterated its intent that the FCC and federal law keep as light a touch as possible on the Internet. Congress would have to change law in order to bring broadband further into the clutches of the FCC.

What’s more disturbing is that the Times believes that a competitive wireless market would result from declaring broadband a telecommunications service. Following that logic, that would mean making wireless a more regulated service as well.

If the Times believes that consumer welfare is best enhanced by a robust, competitive wireless market, that’s fine. You will nary find disagreement with that position. At this point, however, the issue isn’t competition. The issue is quality of service.

Spectrum is limited. Increasing quality of service, particularly in the face of increasing demand for mobile data services, requires an expansion of scale on the part of existing carriers. This expansion of scale helps ensure against dropped calls, poor voice quality, and maintenance of data transfer speeds.

Opening up another jurisdictional battle over declaring broadband to be a telecommunications service won’t make the wireless market more competitive.