Who Hates the National Broadband Plan? (OT)

[Guest guest]

Who Hates the National Broadband Plan?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361361,00.asp

 

 

 

 

 

Post

a Comment

 

 

by David Murphy

 

Are you ready for more Internet? That's the question that U.S.

regulators will soon be asking, as Reuters

is reporting that the Federal

Communications Commission is set to reveal the National Broadband Plan on March

16.

While some details of the plan remain to be seen, FCC Chairman

Julius Genachowski has already mentioned a few of the key highlights

that the FCC will be recommending to Congress. These include a goal to

connect 100 million Americans to 100 Mbps Internet within 10 years and

the desire for television stations to give up unused spectrum to assist

a growing market for wireless services, amongst others.

What is new, or perhaps unexpected, is some of the backlash that's

coming back at the FCC from affected parties, including the very

consumers that the National Broadband Plan is, in theory, designed to

help. Who's upset... and why?

Government Agencies

While entities like the Department of Defense might not be irritated

by the FCC's reported recommendations, they could nevertheless balk at

the agency's future requests to give up some of their wireless

spectrums for mobile development.

This could directly impact the agency's goal to free up 500 MHz of

spectrum for wireless use within the next ten years--"Although the

potential of mobile broadband is limitless, its oxygen supply is not,"

said Genachowski, referring to a future lack of available spectrum for

mobile growth, in a February 24 speech.

Television Broadcasters

According to Genachowski, even the largest television markets only

use approximately half the spectrum currently allocated to

corresponding stations. The FCC wants these stations to voluntarily

relinquish their unused spectrums, which the FCC would then put up for

bid in an auction-type format.

This process would give companies in the wireless industry a chance

to purchase additional spectrums and better support future bandwidth

concerns--A Cisco

report claims that wireless networks in the United States

could carry up to 740 petabytes of data by 2014. As for the television

stations, the FCC would send them a direct percentage of the generated

cash from the auctions of their "donated" spectrums.

That might sound like a good deal on paper, but it doesn't seem to

make much sense for the affected television stations. After all,

stations are free to sell their spectrums however they see fit.

"I truly don't visualize a scenario where proceeds [from a sale]

would exceed lost business opportunities," said Paul

Karpowicz, president of Meredith Broadcasting, in an interview with BusinessWeek.

Selling their available wireless spectrums would stifle the ability

of broadcasters to grow mobile services of their own, which would

lock them in to more of a legacy technological architecture. At least,

that's their argument. They'd give up their opportunity for mobile

development while handing over the keys to the kingdom to anxious

mobile carriers, who would be free to deploy advanced services and Web

access--with a government head-nod--on the purchased spectrums.

As well, television stations just finished returning a hunk of

spectrum as a result of the recent transition to digital TV. Any more

spectrum transfers could hurt their ability to deliver over-the-air

broadcasts to customers, argues the National Association of

Broadcasters.

"As a one-to-many transmission medium, broadcasters are ready to

make the case that we are far and away the most efficient users of

spectrum in today's communications marketplace," said NAB Vice

President Dennis Wharton in an interview with Ars

Technica.

"We look forward to working with policymakers to help expand the

roll-out of broadband without threatening the future of free and local

television, mindful of the fact that local TV stations just returned

more than a quarter of our spectrum following our transition to

digital."

Mobile Carriers

The FCC's National Broadband Plan isn't a complete boon for wireless

companies--the FCC is also allegedly

proposing a free (or low-cost) nationwide wireless network. The details of this

plan haven't been released beyond that generalized description.

However, the hint of it has been enough to rile up various mobile

providers.

Not only would the government suddenly jump into the business of

competing against established carriers, but--worse for consumers--said

competition could dissuade mobile providers from caring as much about

the general upkeep of their networks. For carriers, the question is

this: Why invest in a paid-for network if everyone's flocking to the

free solution just around the corner?

As well, the technical challenges of a national wireless network

have the potential to interfere with the spectrums in which carriers

have already spent considerable investments.

T-Mobile's been one of the more vocal opponents of a governmental

push for a national wireless network. According to InformationWeek, the

company paid more

than $4 billion for spectrum during the Advanced Wireless Services

auction in 2008. Yet, Internetnews' Kenneth

Corbin reports that T-Mobile's own interference tests have shown

that the spectrum used for the government's free wireless service

ambitions would interfere with its own spectrum by raising performance

issues during peak calling times on its network.

Lawmakers

Since the FCC's National Broadband Plan is just that--more a map

than a series of requirements--there opens up the possibility for

disagreeable suggestions to incur the Congressional wrath of opposed

parties. Or, simply put, unhappy members can enact legislative actions

to block the FCC from being able to follow through on the different

regulatory changes it will suggest in the plan.

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, already attempted

to block the FCC from regulating the Internet as-is in an October

2009 bill. According to Neil Fried, chief counsel for Republicans on

the House Energy and Commerce Committee, House Republicans might very

well adopt a

similar legislative strategy in response to elements of the

National Broadband Plan.

People

A smattering of Internet responses from consumers reacting to some

of the talked-about ideas in the National Broadband Plan reveals a fear

that government regulation could stifle competition or otherwise enjoin

U.S. policy with network performance. Here are a few examples of the

general Web response to the FCC's thoughts:

"This will result in government takeover of the industry. It won't

happen overnight, but incrementally. They already have the name for it:

National Broadband, like National Health Care. They'll build

infrastructure, increase access, give free access to "the

underprivileged", and work with the big providers to squeeze out

competition (corporate fascism)."

--ebystrom

"Considering how frequently unintended consequences of regulation

(when we have yet to see any true problems with the current internet

system) wreak havoc on things I don't see the rush to go into giving

FCC the power over the internet. It is non-centralized at the core, and

we should keep it that way."

--jeffbax

"This is exciting. It's interesting to note the parallels to the

evolution of the film industry in the late 19th century and early 20th

century. By 1910, the film industry was firmly established - as the

Internet is now - but was still in its infancy, with plenty of room to

grow. I think the really mind-blowing stuff is still ahead of us."

--Steve

J