Recently in FCC Category

Ok, so yesterday I posted the witness list for today's Net Neutrality/Broadband hearing. I could have woken up at 5am to beat the line standers and get a seat with the lobbyists who pay people to stand in line for them in the halls of the Rayburn building, but I didn't. I could be listening on the Audio Webcast. I tuned in for about 10 minutes, and haven't been impressed yet. I've got other projects, other things to work on, so I'm listening but my attention has not been caught. Why? Have you ever turned on your favorite TV show expecting a new episode and instead getting a rerun, or worse yet, a 3 hour extended version of American Idol? You know what you'll be seeing and hearing. No surprises, nothing to discuss with your friends. Just the same, this hearing, despite a few new faces, was a rerun in a series over the past year or so, including a few at the FCC. 

As if FCC Chairman Kevin Martin troubles weren't enough as is, yesterday they Chairmen of both the full Energy and Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet sent a letter inquiring as to the status of the XM-Sirius merger.

Read it and weep.

How about those June hearings?

I'm not sure why this hasn't gotten more play, but former FCC engineer Michael Marcus pointed out this shocking article in RCR Wireless News which calls attention to a staff report prepared for House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) which strongly suggests that the Committee hold hearings on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's management practices, citing an investigation that began last year and strongly suggests that Martin's management style has hurt the Commission

"We have conducted more than 30 interviews with current and former [FCC] employees as well as industry representatives and private citizens. The bottom line is that the [FCC] process appears broken and most of the blame appears to rest with Chairman Martin," stated an April 28 staff memo to Dingell and oversight and investigations subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).

Between the DTV transition, the recent spectrum auctions and the White Spaces controversy, along with his strange fascination with prioritizing indecency fines, network management, and the Commission's turtle-slow merger review process which is still delaying XM-Sirius, what could happen next?

It's the jocks versus the geeks, only this time the playing field is the FCC, not the high school cafeteria. 

We are deeply troubled by the very serious disruption and harm that portable device 

interference will cause to sport broadcast programming, whether pre-recorded or live, and the 

conduct of  the games themselves.  Sports programming relies extensively on wireless microphones and related audio equipment in its production and distribution. 

...The ESPN Monday Night Football ("MNF") broadcast alone requires 145 wireless frequencies for microphones, talkback and communications.  Under current conditions, one TV channel is simply not enough bandwidth to sustain the MNF broadcaster's needs. ..

The good people at the NYT have given me more reason to get excited about next month's NCTA Cable Show in New Orleans: Watching the speculation, rumour and intrigue behind who might try and take over Time Warner's cable systems, which are about to become sort of "up for grabs" as they get spun off.

Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the chief executive of Time Warner Inc., continued to trim what has for years been the world's largest media company by announcing Wednesday that it would completely spin off its cable company.

The news -- which was not unexpected and follows an earlier transaction in which a portion of the cable unit was spun off into a separate public company -- came as Time Warner reported quarterly earnings that were largely in line with Wall Street's expectations.

This is going to be fun to watch for a number of reasons. Last time there was a major group of systems up for sale was when AT&T sold off their Cable systems, leading to a "friendly" competition between Cox Communications, and the eventual winner Comcast. That victory gave Comcast a huge market advantage in the number of subscribers, but Comcast, which has a reputation for fighting like Rocky, the unofficial mascot of its' home city of Philadelpha, may not be able to benefit from going after TIme Warner without helping Cox, their old Atlanta-based foes. 

As Alex reported in the Weekly Mobile News Roundup, NextWave Wireless, Inc. (yes, THAT NextWave) is planning on selling off their 2.5GHz PCS spectrum licenses.

I'll admit that I'm probably the last guy who you'd expect to come out in favor of limiting a consumer's use of their own technology.  Well, I don't know that I am in favor of Skype not getting "Carterfoned" for use on U.S. mobile devices, but I certainly understand it.

Being able to have free, unlimited calling to other Skype-ers and dirt-cheap rates to other phones would rip the bottom out of the mobile phone industry.  Think about how many people would activate data-only plans or just get the cheapest rate plan to maintain an account with their carrier.  Either carriers would lose a ton of money or, more likely, we'd see the price of data-only plans soar to compensate for the loss in calling plan revenue. 

Also, keep in mind that one of the Big 4 is in pretty serious trouble.  I won't name names, but they've seen millions of customers and billions of dollars evaporate in the last 3 years, seen their stock plummet from a respectable low-$20's to about $6.50 and have been entirely unable to find their direction.  If Skype came in on mobiles we could see our Mystery Carrier shut down or get bought out.  We would lose 25% of the Big 4 national carriers and there would be an enormous number of jobs lost.

So if you're gearing up to scream about how stupid I am, I'm way ahead of you.  I get why people want Skype on their mobile and why they think they should be allowed to.  I understand it, I promise.  But at the same time, it's a really tricky situation that K-Mart (the FCC Chairman, not the retailer) is in the middle of.   Sometimes it's easy to say that  the Government  just likes to meddle or that they can't get their heads out of their asses, but this isn't one of those times.

Trying to find a balance between being pro-competition and (no exaggeration) protecting the future of an entire industry in this country - I'm not jealous.

At CTIA, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin ("K-Mart") announced his intent to deny Skype's petition for a declaratory ruling that would apply "Carterfone" rules to wireless networks, meaning the Big Four couldn't interfere with Skype software on iPhones or BlackBerries. Maybe this was a message to Skype, "stay off their lawn."

Skype didn't get the message. According to this press release, they're testing mass-market VoIP software in a number of countries.

Following recent moves to extend Skype? conversations to a wide variety of new mobile and wireless devices, Skype is taking another major step as it continues to merge its internet communications software with mobile phones. Today, the company released a beta version of Skype for your mobile, a mobile "thin" client that works on about 50 of the most popular Java-enabled mobile phones from Motorola, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson.

The beta version of Skype for your mobile is available worldwide with a feature set that includes chat, group chat, presence (seeing when your contacts are online), and receiving calls from Skype users, and through SkypeIn.* Additional features, which include the making of Skype-to-Skype and SkypeOut calls from the mobile handsets, are initially supported in seven markets: Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

  Now, note that this doesn't include the US. Maybe because of K-Mart's intentions to let the Big Four block Skype traffic, maybe because they want to see how it goes elsewhere first. But no matter what, when that 700mhz phone market opens up, expect Skype to get huge. You'll be able to have a landline, mobile, and portable number on any device you can think of. Now that's competition.

Yes, Washington, There is a Santa Claus. Traditionally, the Federal Communications Commission would announce their meeting agenda only days, sometimes 24-48 hours before a meeting.

Washington, D.C. -Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin 

today announced that topics selected for open meeting agendas will now formallybe made public and posted on the Commission's website three weeks prior to the upcoming monthly meeting.  This step enhances the openness and transparencyof the Commission's processes and deliberations. 

Now and then, I just have to give the FCC (and K-Mart) some credit for doing the right thing. Good job, all.

A day after Chairman Martin testified before the Senate Commerce Committee where he was...questioned, to be polite about the status of the DTV transition, the FCC released this Order of Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on DTV Education and labeling for converter boxes.

I'm not sure what to say about this I'm angry. Basically, the FCC has exempted many VCR and other device manufacturers from noting that their boxes won't work after the DTV switch, because the CEA lobbied them to leave them out. Read the order.

No wonder we can't get this right. Anyone want to explain?

That's right, friends. On May 19th, while most in the industry will be at the NCTA Convention in New Orleans, the FCC is quietly, in almost a stage whisper, convening a summit on the future of the Emergency Alert System. The agenda for this shamefully timed conference is here in PDF format.

Here's the scoop:

Washington, D.C. -The Federal Communications Commission's Public Safetyand Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) todayannounced the agenda for its upcoming Summit on the nation's  Emergency Alert System (EAS):Promoting an Effective Emergency Alert System on the Road to  a Next Generation EAS, to be held on Monday, May19, 2008, 9:00 a.m. -12:45 p.m., in the  Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305).

In line with the Commission's 2007 Second Report and Order on EAS that was released last July, the panel discussions will focus on the current state of the nation's EAS and what is needed to transition to a more robust, Next Generation alert and warning system to help ensure that all  citizens receive accurate and timelyinformation please see the attached agenda.

I'm sorry if I'm about to offend anyone at the FCC, but DO ANY OF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AT ALL? IF SO, WHY SCHEDULE THIS WHEN MOST OF THE CABLE TELEVISION INDUSTRY WILL BE AT THEIR ANNUAL CONVENTION IN NEW ORLEANS?

Oh, right. I know. It's because broadcasters don't like EAS, because they have to maintain equipment for it that could be better used for reruns of American Idol or something. Considering that most Americans get their TV over Cable (to say nothing about the people that will be ABSOLUTELY SCREWED AFTER YOU AND THE NTIA BOTCH THE DTV TRANSITION NEXT FEBRUARY) I think it would be important to have people like representatives from Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Verizon, etc around to talk about a next generation Emergency Alert System. Maybe even the larger mobile phone carriers?

Maybe someone will notice this bone-headed scheduling conflict and fix it...but I doubt it.

...they've designated TracFone, a wireless carrier, eligible to be declared "lifeline service" for rural areas.

This would allow rural Americans who might not be able to afford wireless service to discontinue their wireline service and use TracFone, and TracFone can offer discounts to those consumers by receiving subsidies under the Universal Service Fund. Quoth the order:

We find that TracFone's universal service Lifeline offering will provide a variety of
benefits to Lifeline-eligible consumers including increased consumer choice, high-quality service offerings,nd mobility.In addition, the prepaid feature, which essentially functions as a toll control feature, may be an attractive alternative to Lifeline-eligible consumers who are concerned about usage charges or long-term contracts. 

 

Many have complained that Universal Service is just a slush fund for the old wireline telcos. Not anymore. On the other hand, TracFone first asked about this in 2004. Why did this take 4 years to be finalized?

Also, where are the big 4 carriers on this? Wouldn't some Universal Service cash help them bolster their coverage caps and say, use the savings to deploy next generation service faster? If Wireless is a "lifeline" now, shouldn't they get some help maintaining it and use their money to improve everything else?

Besides their live-blogging at Tech Policy Central the kind people over there had some great off-the-cuff commentary on their Twitter stream. 

Courtesy of Free Press

Instead, they did what they had to do to make the U.S. Wireless market competitive with the EU. Bloomberg News writes:

Google Inc. manipulated a U.S. government spectrum auction by bidding just enough to trigger rules that will open a nationwide set of airwaves to any device and then walking away, Republican lawmakers said.

The so-called open-access requirements, also backed by consumer groups, may have shortchanged taxpayers by discouraging more companies from bidding, Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, said today at a hearing.

``Google was successful in gaming the system,'' Upton said. The rules were a ``social engineering'' experiment by the Federal Communications Commission that prevented the spectrum swath, known as the C-block, from raising billions more

Once again, I will refer everyone to my post from yesterday where I note that Google gave Kevin Martin ("K-Mart") the ammunition he needed to fix the errors of the 1996 Auctions. 

Enter Google. Their proposal for a reserve price and open access was supported by Chairman "K-Mart," who probably has nightmares about NextWave when he thinks of auctions. Why? 

Easy. "K-Mart" can't order or ask for a subsidized network, but the FCC can order a reserve price, open access, and a build-out requirement.

What's the result? The 700mhz auction suddenly becomes a de facto low bid contract. Google hit the reserve, and the rest of the players simply bid enough to win, hoping the other would lose, because either way, the network would be open to everyone. The FCC won because they got their open network, allowing for more competition ("K-Mart" likes competition) and Google won because they can develop their Android phones and be assured that they will have a network to operate on.

This wasn't an auction. It might have started as one, but it finished as a low-bid RFP...and that's a good thing for all of us.

Grant Gross at InfoWorld has said what I've been telling people for months: Google gamed the 700mhz auction system and won.

San Francisco - Three lawmakers complained Tuesday that Google "maneuvered" its way into an open wireless network without having to come up with a winning bid in the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) recently completed 700MHz spectrum auction.

Some lawmakers aren't too happy about that. In particular, Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and John Shimkus (R-IL) "suggested Google out-maneuvered the FCC when the agency required the winner of about a third of the spectrum that was auctioned to operate under open-access rules."

Um, guys? Let me tell you a secret.

Remember the last round of auctions after the 1996 Telecommunications Act? They were a disaster. Ensuing litigation from licensees who couldn't afford to both build out their networks and pay the FCC held up the deployment of PCS services for years. Does anyone remember NextWave? I suggest all of you, yes, every single one of you, go to Amazon and buy "A Tough Act to Follow?" by former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth.

Furchtgott-Roth, who incidentally, is an economist who used current FCC Chairman Kevin Martin (aka K-Mart) as a legal adviser during his tenure on the Commission, tells the NextWave story in great detail.

Now, let me tell you about Europe. Over there, GSM is the standard, because governments subsidized the built-out of wireless networks. So, instead of a patchwork of country-to-country incompatibility, they agreed on GSM and use it, with great success. Unfortunately, if someone tried that here, they'd be shouted down as communists before the idea got off the ground.

Enter Google. Their proposal for a reserve price and open access was supported by Chairman "K-Mart," who probably has nightmares about NextWave when he thinks of auctions. Why?

Easy. "K-Mart" can't order or ask for a subsidized network, but the FCC can order a reserve price, open access, and a build-out requirement.

What's the result? The 700mhz auction suddenly becomes a de facto low bid contract. Google hit the reserve, and the rest of the players simply bid enough to win, hoping the other would lose, because either way, the network would be open to everyone. The FCC won because they got their open network, allowing for more competition ("K-Mart" likes competition) and Google won because they can develop their Android phones and be assured that they will have a network to operate on.

This wasn't an auction. It might have started as one, but it finished as a low-bid RFP...and that's a good thing for all of us.

Last week I had the pleasure of attending an event hosted by George Mason University's Information Economy Project which was focused on the topic of unlicensed spectrum.

The 10 second version: if you use Wi-Fi or a cordless phone, you're using Unlicensed Spectrum. Those 700mhz bands considered "white space" are unlicensed because to use them for TV channels would cause all sorts of TV interference. On the other hand, letting them be used for cool stuff like wide-area networks would have the same effect that the Part 85 rules did in the past (opening the door to stuff like 802.11, which is now an international standard).

It is fair to sell licenses for the exclusive right to use a chunk of spectrum. On the other hand, it is just as fair, not to mention in the public interest (see Communications Act, 1934) for the FCC to allow White Spaces to be used to develop new devices which would use the White Spaces, which are by definition public property, to provide the public with new wireless applications.

Google, MS, Dell and the rest of the White Spaces Coalition (WSC) want to keep white spaces unlicensed.  They want the unused spectrum to be available for use to anyone, the way the internet is.

Sprint and T-Mobile want white spaces to opened up as well.  But under licenses.  Specifically, they want to license the spectrum and use it for backhauling. CTIA  has joined Sprint  and T-Mo (the number 3 and 4 wireless carriers in the country) in supporting the use of white spaces under licenses.  CTIA pointed out that they're worried about interference with devices on the licensed portion of the spectrum, but FCC-mandated tests are being run on potential white space devices to make sure that doesn't happen.

I'm a little torn or the issue.  On the one hand, it would be great to be able to buy a white space device and access the internet for surfing or Skype-ing.  On the other hand Verizon and AT&T (who surprising aren't voicing opposition to the White Space Coalition) spent billions of dollars for 700MHz licenses.  Is it really fair for the WSC to roll out devices that will access that same spectrum without paying for a license?  Although the 700MHz spectrum could be used for voice calls Verizon has already stated that they're going to use theirs to roll out LTE, their next generation wireless broadband.  I don't see them as being happy with white spaces being used for the same thing.

I (as I've said close to 258,798,663,325,458 times) am not a lawyer or anything, but here's my common sense take on white spaces.

If you think (or know) that I'm way off base, please leave comments.


More on CTIA vs Unlicensed White Spaces at FireceWireless.

...is still looking at the merger. Never mind that the Department of Justice Antitrust Division has given it the OK, the FCC has its' own complicated, convoluted merger review process that it has invented for itself based on the "public interest" standard it applies from the 1934 Communications Act. 

We posted last month that Verizon wants the FCC's help in forcing cable companies to accept cancellations from competitors, as opposed to directly from the customer.  That way, if you wanted to leave your cable company to get your video services from Verizon, you would just call Verizon, sign up, and then Verizon would take care of terminating your cable account.  Currently, you would have to call Verizon to sign up and call your cable company to cancel.

Now Comcast wants the FCC to investigate, among other things, the customer retention policies of phone companies.  Why?  Because the same way you can get television from a phone company (like Verizon or AT&T) you can get phone service from a cable company (like Comcast).  Comcast is worried that certain retention policies may be anti-competitive. 

From what I've dealt with when I want to cancel a non-contract service, the retention department wouldn't appear to be anti-competitive.  They usually try to figure out why I'm canceling and then usually offer me something for free to try and change my mind.  Canceling a TV subscription will probably get you an offer for a free month of HBO.  Canceling a mobile phone account and you'll probably be offered a free month of wireless web access.  Are those really anti-competitive?  Are retention offers like that really any different than being offered cable internet for only $19.99 per month...for the first three months?  When you look at it, retention offers and introductory ones are pretty much the same thing - a special deal to make you pick them over someone else.  The only difference is that one is used before you're their customer and the other one is used when it looks like you might not be for much longer.

So, what would be an anti-competitive retention policy?  If they made you fax in a notarized letter stating that you want to terminate your service, that might be.  Or if you have to call one department to request a cancellation.  Then another to get a confirmation code and then call the first one back with the confirmation code so that they can cancel your service.  Basically, anything that would make canceling seem like such an ordeal that you decide not to would, to me, seem like anti-competitive behavior.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but in the same way that the FCC is meeting to define just what constitutes "reasonable network management," it would be nice if e could have a clear definition regarding what retention practices are and are not anti-competitive.

"It is important that we do everything we can to maximize consumer choice and reduce rates." FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in a statement on Friday. "In today's competitive telecommunications market we must make sure that there is a level playing field for all companies to compete."

Quote from Reuters.

I think we've all encountered a Short Code, whether we knew it or not.  Any time that a TV show or radio station wants you to send a text message to a 5-digit number, you're being asked to use a Short Code.  Some cost extra money (especially those bastardly ones that sign you up for the joke of the day) and some just cost the same as a regular text message.  They're used for a variety of purposes.  San Francisco alt rock radio station Live 105 (KITS) uses them to conduct listener polls and as an avenue for receiving requests.  Twitter uses them so that you can send and receive Tweets via SMS.

Carriers have to reach agreements with the companies that distribute content and information via Short Code before their subscribers will have access to them.  Verizon Wireless (VZW) caused quite a stink when they decided not to allow pro-choice organization NARAL to distribute Opt-In messages to its subscribers via Short Code SMS.  VZW quickly reversed their decision.

Ars Technica has details on why the FCC should get involved

Tech freedom advocacy group Public Knowledge, Free Press and other groups were unsatisfied with Verizon's turnaround and have asked the FCC to issue a clear policy position that will block Verizon from engaging in similar practices in the future. Noting that the FCC already unambiguously forbids similar discrimination in voice calls and e-mails, the activist groups argue that there is no reason why those same protections shouldn't extend to SMS messaging, especially since it is becoming an increasingly important vector for communication.

Verizon has also been accused of denying short code access to companies that intend to use SMS to promote of facilitate services that compete directly with other services offered by the carrier. Critics argue that this practice stifles innovation and discourages third-party development of some SMS-based services that are potentially advantageous to consumers.

The first paragraph makes a lot of (common) sense.  I mean, if you can use your mobile phone to make an appointment at planned parenthood, why can't you receive equally pro-choice text messages?  There's always the argument (expressed later in the article) that if carriers are limited in censoring of text messages that spam messages could run amok.  Well, not really.  Federal Law already prohibits the heck out of that.

The second paragraph that we included sounds more than a little like the net neutrality stories that we've posted about (like Comcast and BitTorrent).  Could mobile phone carriers do the same thing by limiting Short Code access?  We've all seen ads on TV telling us to text something like VERYNICE to 12345 to get buy a Borat ringtone.  All of our mobile phone carriers sell ringtones too.  Well, if they decide that they'd rather have you buy their Ali G ringtone as opposed to someone else's, they could deny your access to that company's Short Codes.

The Net Neutrality/Reasonable Network Management debate and the one about Short Codes go hand-in-hand.  Seeing as how there would appear to be a precedent forbidding the restrictions on a voice call because of content, the same would seem to apply to text message content as well.  If that argument hold up, then, seeing as how Short Code/SMS censorship is so similar to "Reasonable Network Management" that could help usher in official Net Neutrality legislation.

Full article at Ars Technica.

We hoped the major media outlets would get to it eventually, and the Post has finally done it. Sort of. 

About 10 million coupons have been ordered through the agency, and about 3.8 million coupons have been sent to consumers, according to the NTIA. But only about 1 percent of the coupons have been redeemed. By law, the coupons expire 90 days after they are issued.

That mandated expiration poses a problem for Spence Haynes, who lives in Salisbury, Md. His coupon expires next month, but the box he wants -- a $40 box made byEchoStar -- is not expected to hit shelves until summer.

He also wants a box that can still receive the analog signals from some community broadcasters, which are not yet required to switch to digital programming. Federal officials said several boxes already have this capability, and they expect more to be available soon.

"I just want to make sure I have access to all the options out there before these coupons turn into pumpkins," Haynes said.

At a hearing Tuesday, members of the Senate Commerce Committee expressed concern that consumers, especially those living in rural areas, may lose some programming. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) worried that people who live far from broadcast towers may have trouble receiving the digital signal, even with a converter box.

"They're going to think they did everything right and then get no signal," Klobuchar said.

Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and Meredith Baker, acting assistant secretary of the NTIA, assured senators that their agencies' awareness efforts have been effective.

Baker said consumers shouldn't have a problem receiving the signals if they reposition their antennas. She also said not all converter boxes were required to receive analog signals because such a feature could degrade the picture quality and increase the cost.

The law doesn't care about Mr. Haynes fairy godmother, and neither does K-Mart or the Acting head of the NTIA (since everyone who gets that job quits). They say everything is hunky-dory, right? 

Wired News has picked up on the massive "user revolt" over Flickr's new video features.

The big issue is the way it was implemented," said Jason Bouwmeester, a systems analyst in Canada and one of the group administrators for No Video on Flickr. "There was no public beta.... They just reset everyone's settings."

Quite rightly, Underwired (that's Wired's oh-so-clever Blog name) points out that the new feature takes away from Flickr's purpose - photography.

"I had hoped my [Pro membership fee] would go to fixing issues with the site, not to starting a video application," said Bouwmeester. "I can't see them reverting [the video service] altogether, but they should have some way for users to ignore it."

I hope people complain as loud when their taxes get raised and their roads don't get fixed. Yahoo should take a lesson from good business and good government, and give the Flickr "taxpayers" a ROI instead of stuff they don't need.

Despite canceling their meeting today, the Commissioners did manage to do what they love most - issuing fines.  While these aren't quite as...sexy...as those levied against various broadcasters for showing glimpses of buttocks or telev