FCC’s spectrum search

Expanding broadband is a cornerstone of President Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaOvernight Energy — Sponsored by the National Biodiesel Board — Texas coal plant to shut down | Macron rejects trade deals with climate pact outsiders | Vote on park funding bills to miss deadline Obama urges Americans to vote: 'This moment is too important to sit out' Trump doctrine just declared at UN — and it’s called ‘maximum pressure’ MORE’s technology agenda.The president hopes doing so will spur job growth and foster new industries from healthcare to smart-grids. While members of Congress bombard the FCC with letters and telecom lobbyists battle over net neutrality, Blair Levin is consumed with finding more spectrum for wireless broadband.


Net neutrality is really about a type of competition the FCC is trying to grapple with, said Levin, who is leading the effort to develop a National Broadband Plan that is due to Congress in February.

“There’s competition between service providers, like Comcast and Verizon, but net neutrality is more about a very different type of competition — competition within the ecosystem,” he said during a panel I moderated with him at the AlwaysOn conference earlier this week. “Take the iPhone, which caused AT&T’s data use to go up 5,000 percent. Is AT&T a competitor to Apple or a partner? If you study the economics of it, it’s a little bit of both, and that’s what you see with Google Voice as well.”

Regardless of whether net neutrality measures are put in place, Levin said, by far the biggest concern is the lack of spectrum available. CTIA, the lobbying group that represents wireless carriers, said the industry needs at least 800 megahertz (MHz) of radio waves over the next decade to meet demand. It takes up to 13 years to clear those waves so they can be repurposed for wireless use. But the FCC has plans to clear only 50 MHz.

“There’s nothing that will cause prices to go up and quality to suffer more than the lack of spectrum,” Levin said. “It’s difficult to get policymakers to focus on a problem that doesn’t exist yet, but I feel confident that if we want to be a leader in mobile broadband, we have to face the difficult decisions of how to get more spectrum.”

Should broadcasters therefore be worried that more airwaves could be taken from them, similar to what happened when Congress mandated the digital television transition?

Yes, Levin said. “Everyone should be worried.”

Sen. John KerryJohn Forbes KerryRubio wants DOJ to find out if Kerry broke law by meeting with Iranians Time for sunshine on Trump-Russia investigation Pompeo doubles down on criticism of Kerry: The Iran deal failed, 'let it go' MORE (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee that handles communications and Internet issues, has sponsored a bill to take a detailed inventory of all government spectrum holdings to be sure all airwaves are being used efficiently. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce panel that covers technology, has also listed spectrum inventory as a priority.

But government agencies are likely to fight to keep their spectrum holdings. Just last week, Department of Defense deputy assistant secretary Ron Jost said the department has its own growing spectrum requirements, driven by the need for more and more bandwidth to, for example, transfer video and other data collected by unmanned aerial vehicles and other data-gathering equipment used in the field.

Bruce Mehlman, chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance, a coalition of communications companies such as AT&T and Nortel, said the hunger for more spectrum may never be sated.

“There’s no provider of wireless broadband that has enough spectrum today for the wireless broadband of tomorrow,” he said.

Eshoo runs into high Internet access fees

Another big issue FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has said he will take up in the coming months is so-called “special access,” or the fees smaller phone companies and cell phone carriers pay to lease access on the major backbone networks operated by AT&T, Verizon and Qwest.

Smaller companies say they are forced to pay exorbitant rates to the big phone companies, which control most of the country’s high-capacity fiber lines. AT&T and Verizon maintain that their rates are competitive and fair.


Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), whose district includes many tech companies in Silicon Valley, had heard the complaints about the high rates, but had never personally dealt with the issue until her office considered signing up for a high-bandwidth system to communicate with West Coast constituents.

Eshoo’s office wanted to set up Cisco’s “telepresence” system, a video conferencing product that would beam high-quality video feeds between Eshoo’s Palo Alto and Washington offices. She thought it would be a great way to meet virtually with companies and constituents during the week, when she is on Capitol Hill.

But her staff soon found out that connecting the product to an AT&T line, the sole provider in her district, would cost upwards of $10,000 a month.

Needless to say, those plans are on hold for the time being. But the experience also got Eshoo, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on technology and Internet issues, more interested in the special access problem. Expect her to be more vocal on the issue in the future.