Does the word “communications” or “telecommunications” mean anything anymore? Communications refers to the act of imparting or interchanging thoughts, opinions, or information by signs, writing, or speech. A communication may be a document or message imparting news, views, or information.

If I talk to my son, I’m communicating (or trying to. Kids are hard headed.). If I call him on his cell phone, we are still communicating since the only thing happening is that electrons are moving up and down a wire and the message isn’t being changed by the phone company (But as parents we know the message is being changed in our kids’ heads…).

The reason I’m pondering the definition is because I’d love to see Apple, Google, or Facebook make a play for a wireless or even a wireline company. I don’t want to see them get bogged down by 20th century notions of what communications is, however. The FCC and a bunch of state regulatory commissions would love to get their hands on a piece of Apple’s, Google’s or Facebook’s cash flow.

With people using their smart phones as miniature and mobile information access terminals (I avoid using the term computer or phone when I can), maybe some type of separations cost scheme is needed, much like the separations mechanism used by the FCC and the states to share access revenues. That would really give Apple, Google, or Facebook an advantage by reducing their cost of entry into the wireless market while giving AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile a run for their money.

I expect, given their truly nationwide network that AT&T and Verizon would do well. Deadweight companies like Sprint and T-Mobile would probably go the away like the wind, given their networks are not as large or as fast.

Let’s face it. Apple, Google, and Facebook are media companies. It’s only logical that they would want to secure the distributional channels for the information that they want to share, namely our information. It would be like AMC Studios owning movie theatres. They produce the flick, they sell the flick.

Can FCC follow policy that would keep them out of the way of a potential mega deal?

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?