US President Barack Obama has massively opened up the American airwaves by planning the auction of 500 MHz in government and commercial spectrum over the next decade.
This move will provide more space for mobile telephony which has taken out a…
US President Barack Obama has massively opened up the American airwaves by planning the auction of 500 MHz in government and commercial spectrum over the next decade.
This move will provide more space for mobile telephony which has taken out a significant chunk of the US wireless capacity as the popularity of products like the iPhone and BlackBerry reach epic proportions. Obama’s actions track the suggestions of the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan proposed in March. The plan would privatize underused government and commercial airwaves.
Revenue from auctioning freed-up spectrum would go toward creating a nationwide mobile broadband system for public-safety agencies such as police and fire-fighters, as well as to reduce the US deficit. The new ’emergency services channel’ would cost between US$12-16bn.
The FCC’s plan is very ambitious, calling for “the fastest and most extensive wireless networks” of any nation by 2020. This would enhance the services offered to consumers and also create a competitive space between the wireless and telephone companies. If the US wants to embrace a digital future, and support its electronic and digital industries, it must allow companies that are developing emerging wireless technologies greater availability to the wireless spectrum. Bringing underused or ‘warehoused’ resources under state and private control back into action, is essential in this process.
Some spectrum also would be made available for free, unlicensed use by start-up companies and others. Such unlicensed spectrum has previously helped in the development of cordless phones, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
If government auctions do not free enough airwave, the FCC wants US’s commercial TV stations give up some of their spectrum for wireless use in return for payment. However this was not welcomed by TV, and Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the Washington-based National Association of Broadcasters claimed: “Many aspects of the plan may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised.”
The broadcasters said that they would their entire spectrum in the coming years as the demand for new services such as mobile TV increases. Cable companies that have invested heavily in wired telecommunications networks could also lose out from the process, so they too have been hard lobbying Capitol Hill against the FCC.
Any opening up of competitive space in the wireless and telecom industries has provoked squeals of protest from the incumbent telecom companies, and Julius Genachoswki, Chairman of the FCC is not seen as a crowd-pleaser amongst the traditional service providers.
Much like the debate that has raged on between the traditional service providers and cable companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon and new upstart Internet companies such as Google and Skype over the classification of broadband, this auction has divided legislators.
The FCC is also grappling with the reorganisation of the Universal Service Fund and issues surrounding network neutrality. It argues that the USF should contribute to the development of a national mobile broadband system made available to affluent and poor consumers and urban and rural dwellers alike. However, the rural telephone companies have been lobbying against this, as they get most of their income from the USF.
Although the FCC has not revealed any specific reform plans yet, one option the agency is considering is to place a USF fee on Internet service instead of long-distance voice service. This levelling of the field between the traditional cable networks and newer Internet companies has been the subject of continual arguments. While Internet-driven companies such as Google and Skype favour the proposals of the FCC to reclassify broadband as a ‘Title II common-carrier’ service, Verizon, AT&T and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association oppose the proposed reclassification.
When a court ruled against FCC’s challenge of Comcast’s throttling of customer bandwidth, it decided to take what it called a ‘third way’ approach to regulating the broadband industry and reclassify broadband as a common carrier service. This latest move is the first step the agency has taken to advance its net neutrality regulation ambitions for wireless and wireline networks.
The move represents a difficult political situation for the White House, which appears to be on a collision course with Democrats in Congress, many of whom support AT&T, Verizon and others and have voiced opposition to the FCC’s plan. It will also test the lobbying prowess of Google and other technology groups that strongly favour greater regulation of broadband companies but have less experience in Washington than the communications industry.
Another proposal to increase competition being mulled over by the FCC is excluding AT&T and Verizon from the spectrum auction. This would be very damaging to the two telecom majors. Genachowski said: “the importance of empowering consumers and promoting competition is especially great” in difficult economic times. However, this could be sabre-rattling in order to get AT&T and Verizon behind the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and revision of broadband’s service classification.
