Public safety spectrum, here we go again
Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:
- The Moleskine GTD tabs hack
- No choice but to get things done (on retro computing)
- How to subscribe to toilet paper
If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.
Better late than never, here are my thoughts on the FCC’s auction for the D Block public safety band. There was only one bid for the block, Frontline Wireless to shut down, and some are even suggesting improprieties. Sadly, we’ve got a long way to go before we have an operating public safety network. Why did the D Block auction fail? I think at root the problem is that the FCC simply placed too many restrictions on the would-be licensee, and that’s something the FCC should keep in mind as it considers what to do next.
Under the D Block’s service rules the commercial licensee must come to an agreement with the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (which is the licensee for the adjacent public safety spectrum) about the details of the network to be built. If it doesn’t come to an agreement, the FCC can impose whatever requirements it sees fit on the licensee, and if the licensee surrenders its license or has it taken away, they must pay a forfeiture penalty that can run into the millions. Because there are no similar penalties for the non-profit PSST to come to agreement, this allows the PSST to basically dictate the terms of the network. Why would anyone bid for the privilege to be a part of that deal?
Sadly, Chairman Martin doesn’t seem to get this. He recently lamented the fate of the D Block:
“Did we get everything perfect in it? Obviously not because no one was willing to end up taking on that burden,” Martin conceded. “So, do I wish that someone was willing to take on that burden? Yes. And do we need to restructure it in such a way that someone is willing to take on that burden? Absolutely. But absent somebody else coming up with some idea to solve this, this is the only way to solve what’s really a public-safety crisis.”
Instead of expecting some selfless corporation to “take on the burden” of such a thankless deal, why not try instead to create a license aligned with the interests of both the private sector (profit) and public safety (cheap and interoperable communications solutions)? Here’s my recipe:
- Get rid of the PSST, a bureaucracy more than prone to capture that will do nothing but hold a commercial licensee hostage.
- Take the spectrum now held by the PSST and combine it with the D Block. Create two national licenses on the combined spectrum so as to inject competition and avoid a monopoly provider.
- Place public safety obligations on each of those licenses but allow the licensees to lease excess capacity. What sort of obligations? Obviously public safety should have priority, and leased access would only be secondary. Beyond that, the FCC could include minimum performance standards in the licenses to ensure that the networks are built to public safety standards without having to prescribe specific technologies or methods.
- Auction the licenses without reserve prices.
There are no doubt more than a few hurdles for such a plan to overcome, but I think it makes sense to allow market forces develop public safety networks. I’d love to hear any critiques of this idea. No doubt I’ll be submitting a comment to the inevitable rulemaking on this issue and it would help me to figure out the weaknesses of this scheme.
Note to self: remember this next time the FCC is investigating whether there are ‘enough’ media choices. “For those who can’t get enough of the sex scandal that brought down New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Sirius Satellite Radio has launched what it is calling ‘Client 9 Radio,’ a special channel dedicated to covering all aspects of the Spitzer saga,” CNN reports.
Michael Marcus posts a lenghty critique of the FCC’s web site pointing out how unusable it is. His quick calculations show that “the FCC has more links on its home page than any other agency and just loses to Interior … on number of words.” I use the FCC’s web site in my forthcoming ‘transparency and internet technologies’ paper as an example of the inpenetrable darkness that is online agency data.
A quick response to Cyren Call & Frontline
In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Cyren Call Chairman Morgan O’Brien and Frontline Wireless Chairman Janice Obuchowski each had a letter to the editor responding to my March 13th op-ed about first responder communications. I’d like to take up just a few sentences to respond.O’Brien writes that I “audaciously misrepresent[ed]” Cyren Call’s proposal, but does not point out what that misrepresentation was. So, I can’t answer. Obuchoski, on the other hand, does point out a misstatement about Frontline’s plan. She writes,
[Brito] misstates that the plan would build “an interoperable network over spectrum purchased at auction; but Frontline wants the FCC to restrict that spectrum to public safety use.” Frontline will offer commercial service in the spectrum won at auction and provide public safety with pre-emptible access during emergencies to this commercial spectrum to provide additional capacity during peak periods of crisis when first responders’ communications requirements spike. This spectrum would remain in commercial use at all other times.
The thing is, I have always fully understood that the Frontline proposal would share he spectrum with public safety and commercial users. The error was introduced by a WSJ edit made after the last version of the op-ed that I approved the evening before it was published. (I don’t blame the WSJ; they were probably just editing for length or style.) Continue reading this post »
My op-ed quoted on the Hill
Yesterday all five FCC commissioners went before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Telecom and the Internet for an oversight hearing. Here’s the AP’s account. During the hearing, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca.) introduced into the record my op-ed published on Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal and she read from it to the Commissioners. Here’s the video:It’s really great to see the hard work you put into something maybe having an effect on policy.
Giving McCain benefit of doubt on public safety spectrum
I got my hands on the new public safety communications bill that John McCain introduced last Thursday, but which is not yet available on the web. Unlike what has been reported here and elsewhere, McCain’s bill isn’t a straight-up implementation of the Cyren Call plan. With some trepidation, I say there’s actually quite a bit to like.
McCain’s bill does take 30 MHz now slated for commercial auction and designate it for public safety, which in my book is a bad idea because public safety already has plenty of spectrum, and consumers would forgo the benefits of new commercially available spectrum. But here’s what he does: he sets up a “working group” of first responder and government representatives who will write a report to the FCC outlining what an ideal public-private interoperable network on the 30 MHz would look like. The FCC is then authorized to auction the 30 MHz as long as all the bidders agree to use the spectrum to provide a network that matches the report’s specifications. In some ways this is a lot like the Frontline Wireless proposal. If there is no bidder, however, then the Cyren Call plan kicks in and a Public Safety Broadband Trust Corporation, established by the bill, can buy the spectrum using FCC loan guarantees.
So what’s to like? Well, what there is to like is in the first part of the bill assuming the Cyren Call contingency doesn’t kick in. Continue reading this post »
TPW 2: REAL ID, fair use, and Univision fined
The new episode of Tech Policy Weekly hosted by yours truly is now online. In the show this week, the REAL ID Act gets hot in the states and in Washington, Rep. Rick Boucher introduces a watered-down copyright fair use bill, and the FCC slaps it largest fine ever on Spanish-language broadcaster Univision. On the show are Tim Lee, Adam Thierer, and Jim Harper. You can use the player below to listen to it right here, or click here to subscribe via iTunes.Frontline Wireless joins the interoperability party
Yesterday I filed a public interest comment (PDF) in the FCC’s proceeding to create a national public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. Not coincidentally, so did Frontline Wireless, a new company started by former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and former NTIA Administrator Janice Obuchowski among others. In their filing they propose a new plan to build a national wireless broadband network to be shared by public safety and consumers. This plan comes closer to the commercial provision of public safety communications that I’ve been suggesting, but it’s still a bit off. Below I’ll talk about the plan, but first some background.
As I’ve explained before, the digital TV transition frees up 84 MHz of spectrum. Congress has allocated 24 to public safety and 60 for auction. Morgan O’Brien’s Cyren Call asked the FCC to allocate additional spectrum to public safety for a national network by removing a 30 MHz block of spectrum from auction. The FCC denied the petition saying, quite rightly, that they didn’t have the authority not to auction off the spectrum Congress told them they had to. Cyren Call has since found a sponsor in John McCain who has said he will introduce a bill that would remove the 30 MHz from auction and give it to a “public safety broadband trust.”
The FCC’s current proceeding centers on what to do with the 24 MHz of spectrum that Congress did allocate to public safety. Specifically, the FCC asked for comment on its plan to take 12 MHz of this spectrum and license it to a nonprofit representing the public safety community that would in turn build a national broadband network, charge first responders a fee for service, and lease excess capacity on the network to commercial customers. Continue reading this post »
Brownback, FCC to stop TV from making kids fat
Is Sam Brownback the answer for limited government types in the Republican party? He bills himself as a “full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative,” which implies a leave-us-alone attitude. Doing research at the FCC’s site today, I came across a press release (PDF) announcing the formation of something called The Task Force on “Media and Childhood Obesity: Today and Tomorrow.” Co-sponsor of the “task force” is Brownback.The Task Force will produce a report that will recommend “voluntary” steps advertisers and broadcaster will be able to take to protect children from getting fat. Again, these suggestions will be completely voluntary, but the FCC just wanted to make sure to remind you on its obesity website that it has adopted children’s TV rules including “the requirement that television broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite providers protect children from excessive and inappropriate commercial messages,” and they can do so again.
Republican Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate is “elated” about the task force, but shows her conservative principles, saying (PDF), “Government cannot and should not be responsible for solving every societal problem; however, this affects not only our nation’s health but our budget as well.” Right.
“Given the saturation of media in our children’s lives, we need to understand how media impacts their health and behavior,” said Brownback. “Because parents have no control of how much media saturates their children’s lives, nor how it impacts their health,” he didn’t say, but he might as well have.
Cross-posted at TLF. You can leave and read comments there. →
Martin pushes 90-day shot clock
The FCC website being what it is (or maybe politics being what they are), an agenda is not yet available for the December 20th meeting of the FCC. All eyes are on this meeting because commissioners (including recently de-recused Commissioner Rpbert McDowell) will vote on the AT&T-Bell South merger. However, it now looks like Chairman Martin is also going to take the opportunity to push through a resolution to the cable franchising proceeding that’s been open since January. According to Multichannel News, Martin has circulated a proposed rule that would require local franchising authorities to act on an application for a franchise within 90 days.Martin, who waited for cable-franchising reform to fizzle on Capitol Hill before shopping his own plan, said FCC pressure on cities and towns to act promptly would produce several benefits, including spurring broadband deployment and lowering cable bills. The 90-day cap would apply to entities that had existing approval to occupy public rights of way presumably phone companies initiating service and cable incumbents seeking renewal. … Martin, who has circulated his plan among the other four FCC members, would like it voted on at the agency’s Dec. 20 open meeting.
There has been a flurry of activity in the docket for this proceeding, so it looks like it might happen. Not having seen the draft rule, I wonder what happens after the 90 days are up. In our recent law review article and comments to the FCC, Jerry Ellig and I proposed just such a regulatory shot clock. We proposed that if a locality doesn’t make a decision either way on an application, then the franchise would be deemed granted with a set of default terms, which could be set the same terms of the incumbent’s franchise, for example. Anybody seen the draft rule?
Cross-posted at TLF. You can leave and read comments there. →
FCC turns down Cyren Call
Yesterday the FCC did something a little weird. One week after putting up for public comment Cyren Call’s proposal to revamp public safety communications, it rejected the petition but also decided to keep the commenting open. Quite admirably, the Commission cites lack of authority from Congress. What’s weird is that they didn’t decide to reject the petition during the three months they sat on it before putting out for comment. Also weird are the post-decision comments, which will now have another audience: Congress.In the new issue of Regulation magazine I explain the depth of the public safety interoperability problem and how we might go about tackling it.
In some parts of Europe, private enterprise builds and maintains the public safety network and sells interoperable communications capacity to the agencies there. A similar approach could be pursued in the United States. The government could allow private carriers to build advanced networks on frequencies that it now restricts to public safety use. Instead of building their own incompatible and duplicative networks, agencies and jurisdiction could purchase their communications needs from the private carriers. Because public safety communications typically use very little communications capacity, the carriers could sell space on the network to private entities without interfering with emergency communications.
This a warm-up to a paper I’m writing for FCLJ symposium on public safety interoperability that the Mercatus Center and GMU’s Tech Center are co-sponsoring. The event will take place Dec. 8 at GMU School of Law. Cyren Call’s Morgan O’Brien will be one of the panelists. Event details here.
Cross-posted at TLF. You can leave and read comments there. →
Wi-Fi competition at Logan
Yesterday the FCC ruled that the Massachusetts Airport Authority cannot prevent Continental from putting up a Wi-Fi antenna in its Logan Airport lounge. Some folks, such as Julie Ask of Jupiter, have see this ruling as validating the “no one owns it” character of unlicensed spectrum. As I’ve argued before, unlicensed spectrum works in part because it is used consistent with physical property rights. This is why Ask goes on to say that she “dread[s] the day that a Muni network is overlayed or my neighbors set up 802.11n.”This particular case is actually about property and competition. It’s an analog to a case where an apartment building’s landlord (who gets a cut from the cable company) puts in his leases a clause prohibiting satellite dishes. There’s no point to that clause except to stifle competition, and that’s why Congress told the FCC to promulgate the OTARD rules under which the Logan case was decided. One interesting question is whether such a rule is even necessary in a competitive environment. If you have a competitive market for apartments, then presumably you’ll get the right mix of restricted and non-restricted leases. Another interesting question is whether Logan Airport is subject to sufficient competition to justify such a rule.1
One thing I do know is that this ruling will spur competition. Glenn Fleishmann writes,
This ruling may have little effect in airports outside of Boston-Logan, because I am unaware of any other situation in which the airport authority set up an adversarial approach to the extend of spending what must have been hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing action on the public’s dime against privately owner airlines, which are also the airport authority’s tenants. In the airports I know something about, the development of a comprehensive Wi-Fi system was undertaken with the involvement of airlines and other tenants to provide the right services in the right places. In some airports, different entities, including airlines, run their own distinct systems without any conflict that’s been documented.
I think it will have an effect. Take T-Mobile, which files in favor of Continental in this case. It has a partnership with Starbucks to put hotspot service in its stores. Just about every airport has a Starbucks. Even if other airports are not as hostile as Logan, T-Mobile/Starbucks now doesn’t have to find out by testing the waters at each one. It can go ahead and deploy Wi-Fi at every airport without asking for permission and without fear of litigation (well, little fear). Hopefully this will mean lower prices across across the board. What about free ad-supported wi-fi from Google? All it has to do now is find a tenant partner at airports.
-
I know some are going to say that without the rule Massport would have a “monopoly” over internet access at Logan. But that’s like saying that the owner of a movie theater has a monopoly over the popcorn concession and that’s why they charge high prices. However, when you buy a ticket to a movie, you’re buying a bundle of services, including the option to buy popcorn at a certain price. Movie theaters are competitive and compete on concession prices as much as anything else. If we had “open access” rules for popcorn at movie theaters, you’d see ticket prices go up. The question is whether Logan faces competition from other airports. I don’t know. ↑
Cross-posted at TLF. You can leave and read comments there. →
Federal Censorship Commission?
In an op-ed in the WSJ, NBC Universal’s Bob Wright body slams the FCC’s think-of-the-children media rules. “So an FCC policy intent on ensuring that there will be nothing on broadcast TV that is inappropriate for kids during certain hours is doomed to failure. Do the math: 85% of households have cable and satellite, leaving 15% receiving broadcast TV only. Two-thirds of those households do not have kids under 18. Thus, the FCC appears to be basing its actions on a policy that is relevant to 5% of households. Moreover, government efforts to regulate content are invariably riddled with unfortunate consequences.”-
Welcome.
This is the personal site of Jerry Brito, a lawyer and writer in Washington, D.C. He’s an academic researcher and the creator of Unclutterer and several other blogs. More »
Categories
Search
Presently Reading
