federal communications commission – Page 4

My Insanely Long Field Guide To Understanding FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Statement On Peering.

Harold April 3, 2014 January 29, 2015Life In The Sausage Factory, Media Ownership, Series of Tubes, Tales of the Sausage Factory

At the press conference following the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)�March 31 Open Meeting, Chairman Tom Wheeler made the following observation:

“Interconnection is part of the Network Compact.” Peering “is just a $3.50 word for interconnection.”

Wheeler followed up this statement by explaining that there was a difference between “network neutrality” and the “open internet” on one hand and “interconnection” as the ‘path to the Internet’ on the other hand.�While government has a critical role in monitoring peering/interconnection to protect the�values of the Network Compact, it isn’t a network neutrality issue. You can see Wheeler’s�full statement here�(Start at 144:45 – 147:23 has unrelated stuff in middle) (transcript here).

After the meeting, the FCC released a separate statement that they really mean it when they say that they aren’t going to do peering as part of the Net Neutrality rules. While Brendan Sasso at National Journal gets points�for noticing that�”the FCC could decide to enact separate regulations on the issue or force Comcast to accept new rules in order to receive permission to buy Time Warner Cable,” most folks I’ve read in the press have broadly interpreted this as indicating the FCC�will not look into the Comcast/Netflix�dispute or�complaints by Cogent and Level 3�about large edge-providers squeezing them for higher interconnection fees.

Personally, I think most people are totally misreading this. Wheeler’s statements make it look more likely to me that the FCC will start looking closely at the Internet peering market, not less likely, especially as part of the Comcast/TWC deal. Indeed, Comcast’s Chief Lobbyist David Cohen, who ranks in my book as one of the absolutely smartest and most effective telecom lobbyists ever, has already started backing away from earlier statements that regulators would ignore peering issues and that�he expects them to look at the Comcast/Netflix deal. (Unsurprisingly, Cohen also said he expects regulators to find no problems with the deal and called Netflix CEO�Reed Hasting’s arguments�that this eviscerated net neutrality “hogwash.”)

Below, I will rant at considerable length that (a) Wheeler is right, this is not a “network neutrality” issue, but the same goddam interconnection issue that we have struggled with for more than a hundred years in every networked industry from railroads to electricity to broadband; (b) The FCC needs to actually look at this and study it and understand how the market works before it makes any decisions on what to do; and, (c) While Wheeler is not saying in any way, shape or form he actually plans to�do�anything before he has real information on which to base a decision, he is signaling — for anyone actually paying attention — that he is, in fact, going to actually look at this as part of his overall transition of the agency around his “Fourth Network Revolution” and “Network Compact” ideas.

While this last would seem pretty basic and obvious, it represents a significant change in policy from the previous insistence that IP magic pixie dust obscures all things Internet and makes them invisible to the FCC. Whether I agree with what Wheeler ultimately does or not — and I have no idea what he might ultimately do here, he could decide the market is competitive and working just fine — I don’t believe Wheeler is going to go around with his eyes and ears covered blathering about the magic nature of the Internet. I think Wheeler is actually going to check under the hood and see what actually makes the damn thing tick — and Comcast is just the company to help him do it.

Much ranting below . . .

Commissioner Pai: A ‘Consensus’ Of Incumbents Without Consumers Is No Consensus And means Disaster For 600 MHz.

Harold May 23, 2013 May 23, 2013Spectrum, Tales of the Sausage Factory

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Wireless Bureau issued what should have been a fairly routine and highly technical Public Notice about possible alternative band plans for the 600 MHz Auction aka the Incentive Auction aka �that incredibly crazy, complicated deal Congress came up with last year where broadcasters sell back licenses to the FCC so the FCC can sell them to wireless companies.� Since public comment makes it clear that the various proposals present a lot of challenges (see my incredibly long and wonky explanation here), it shouldn�t surprise anyone that the Wireless Bureau asked for further comment after holding a band plan workshop a few weeks ago.

But Commissioner Pai issued a separate statement blasting the Wireless Bureau. In particular, Pai berated the Bureau for departing from what he called the �consensus framework� for one particular band plan � the band plan favored by AT&T, Verizon, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the largest equipment manufacturers. Pai ignored objections to the AT&/VZ/NAB plan and support from consumer groups (including Public Knowledge), competitors such as Sprint, or tech companies such as Microsoft. Over and over in his statement, Pai cited to the comments of AT&T, Verizon and NAB as proof of a �broad consensus� as if none of these objections existed.

As someone fairly active in this proceeding, who actually participated in the Band Plan Workshop, I am more than a little peeved. Yoo hoo! Commissioner Paaaaiiiiii!!! What am I, chopped liver? I am also more than a little irked at the allegations that the Bureau somehow behaved improperly in issuing the Public Notice. Pai’s accusation that the PN violates the Bureau’s delegated authority by soliciting comment on alternatives to the AT&T/VZ/NAB “consensus plan” appears designed to bully the Bureau into submission.

Setting my personal pique aside, as I keep trying to explain, letting the broadcasters and the largest wireless incumbents write the rules for the auction spells absolute disaster. If Pai genuinely wants to see a successful Incentive Auction, that means looking past industry “consensus” and getting into the very nasty and complicated details to figure out the right set of tradeoffs that will (a) get the broadcasters and wireless guys to the auction, but (b) not let them short the U.S. Treasury out of the cash it expects to collect in the process.

I vent and take one more shot at explaining this below . . . .

Would Tom Wheeler Really Have Approved The AT&T/T-Mo Merger? Why I don’t Think So.

Harold May 1, 2013 June 6, 2013Life In The Sausage Factory, Tales of the Sausage Factory

After weeks of speculation, it now�appears certain that President Obama will nominate Thomas Wheeler�to replace Julius Genachowski as Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with Commissioner Mignon Clyburn to serve as acting until Wheeler�s nomination gets confirmed by the Senate. In recent weeks, Wheeler�s background as a lobbyist many years ago for first the cable industry and then the wireless industry have�raised concerns�that Wheeler remains more sympathetic to business interests than the public interest. As anyone who has read Public�Knowledge�s official statement in response to the nomination�can see, while we understand those concerns,�we agree with many other public interest colleagues�who think that Wheeler has an independent perspective and an open mind. Certainly we will have disagreements with the new Chairman (assuming Wheeler is confirmed), but we expect that Wheeler will actively work to promote competition and protect consumers.

Yeah, I know, that sounds like either wishful thinking or Washington insider talk. So allow me to explain my line of reasoning (since, unlike a number of other Wheeler supporters, I actually don�t know Wheeler at all). In particular, I want to tackle the current �Tom Wheeler would have approved the AT&T/T-Mobile merger in 2011.� It�s easy to say �oh, all that lobbying for the cable and wireless industry was long ago when they were scrappy upstarts. Why, that was so long ago that the cable industry were battling the broadcasters and the wireless industry were battling the telcos (as opposed to these days when the cable industry battles the telcos and the wireless industry battles the broadcasters)!� But if Wheeler was actually a supporter of AT&T/T-Mo, then it would seem to prove he still has sympathies to his old industry incumbent comrades.

I examine the People v. Tom Wheeler in the matter of AT&T/T-Mo below . . .

The Progeny Waiver: Will the FCC Wipe Out Smart Grid? Save Thousands of Lives? Both? This Season on Spectrum Wars!

Harold March 5, 2013 March 5, 2013Life In The Sausage Factory, Spectrum, Tales of the Sausage Factory

Depending on whom you ask, the Progeny Waiver will either (a) totally wipe out the smart grid industry, annihilate wireless ISP service in urban areas, do untold millions of dollars of damage to the oil and gas industry, and wipe out hundreds of millions (possibly billions) of dollars in wireless products from baby monitors to garage door openers; (b) save thousands of lives annually by providing enhanced 9-1-1 geolocation so that EMTs and other first responders can find people inside apartment buildings and office complexes; (c) screw up EZ-Pass and other automatic toll readers, which use neighboring licensed spectrum; or (d) some combination of all of the above.

That�s not bad for a proceeding you probably never heard about.

For me, the Progeny Waiver is a microcosm of why it has become so damn hard to repurpose spectrum for new uses. The added twist here is that this time it is largely the unlicensed spectrum users acting like incumbents and saying that it will be the end of the universe if Progeny lights up its system (although the licensed neighbors say the same thing, pretty much), and Progeny, the licensee, arguing that everything will be JUST FINE, really, and if it isn�t too damn bad because we are licensed and they are unlicensed so there!

You might ask, �if this Progeny thingie is so gosh darn important, why have I never heard of it?� Well that�s why you read this blog, you clever reader you. This amazing little proceeding is still so deep in the bowels of the FCC that only the true spectrum wonks have noticed. But action now appears imminent, so consider this a sneak preview of this season�s favorite telecom reality show,�Spectrum Wars.

What raises the stakes on this too damn high, however, is the implications for the future of unlicensed generally and the implications for the credibility of the FCC as an agency able to actually do the technical job of managing an increasingly complex spectrum world. Fairly or unfairly, everyone is going to compare this to Lightsquared (waiver, followed by worries about interference, arguments that the FCC failed to follow its own rules and procedures, blah blah). Let us add to this House Republicans who would love to call the FCC on the carpet for mismanaging spectrum � especially around unlicensed. Add to that the car manufacturers in the 5 GHz band and the federal users generally wanting to show that the FCC can�t adequately manage the stuff it has and you have a pack of circling sharks just waiting for the FCC to screw this one up and commence the feeding frenzy.�So no pressure.

Happily, I have, if not a solution, at least a better way for the FCC to cover it�s rear-end and contain the damage, below . . . .

Obama finally Nominates Rosenworcel and Pai: Can They Get Confirmed Before The FCC Drops to 3?

Harold November 2, 2011 November 2, 2011Life In The Sausage Factory, Tales of the Sausage Factory

The White House finally confirmed what everyone in the D.C. telecom world has expected for months. Obama officially nominated�Jessica Rosenworcel to replace outgoing FCC Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, whose term expires when Congress adjourns, and Ajit Pai to replace Republican Commissioner Meredith Baker, who stepped down last March. Both have considerable experience at the FCC, giving them understanding of how the agency functions in a very nuts and bolts kind of way. Both have broad experience with a range of communications issues, and no particular ties for/against any particular industry sector or company.

In short, both are �workhorse wonks,� with a proven track record of digging in on the complex issues that make this sector such a joy for those of us who like wonkiness and tough questions and such an eye-glazing, mind-numbing experience for those who don�t. While no one can say with any certainty what happens in this crazy and poisonous partisan environment, which every day comes more closely to resemble the delightful fable of the turtle and the scorpion crossing the river, their nominations should raise little controversy. Hopefully, the Senate will confirm both before the end of the year, when the FCC will otherwise drop down to 3 Commissioners.

For those unfamiliar with how this works, or with the candidates themselves, I provide a primer below.

DoJ Says “No” To Ma Cell; Here’s What Happens Next (and Why It’s All Over But The AT&T Screaming)

Harold August 31, 2011 August 31, 2011Life In The Sausage Factory, Spectrum, Tales of the Sausage Factory

In what is undoubtedly the best Labor Day present the Department of Justice ever gave America, DOJ has filed to block the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger in court. One should not, however, expect AT&T to give up easily. AT&T can, and almost certainly will, decide to fight rather than simply abandon the deal. If nothing else, it has $6 billion in break up fees to pay if the merger does not go through. On the plus side, the odds definitely favor the DoJ, which is why so many companies simply abandon the merger once DoJ has filed.

Meanwhile, the FCC, an independent agency, still needs to make its decision on what it will do. Unlike DoJ, where the head of the Anti-Trust division makes the call (subject to the usual political checks, of course), the FCC must have a vote on an Order, which must get a majority of the Commission (3 votes). Since Congress repealed the FCC�s ability to immunize phone mergers from antitrust back in 1996, the FCC cannot approve if DoJ wins in court. OTOH, the FCC is under no time pressure, and can wait to see how the court case turns out. At the same time, however, the court may decide to stay consideration until the FCC decides, since the merger cannot proceed without FCC approval.

All of this has huge implications for AT&T and its current bluster that it will fight DoJ for the right to eat T-Mo. Normally, AT&T could hope to get this wrapped up in a few months, and continue to try to use its political muscle to force a settlement. But the interaction between DoJ’s challenge and the FCC lawsuit make it incredibly difficult for AT&T to get this done before Deutsche Telekom decides it wants it $6 billion cash ‘n spectrum break up fee. As I explain below, AT&T must simultaneously persuade the FCC not to act while convincing the court to move at super speed, despite the fact that the usual way things work is for courts to wait for agencies to finish review (because the agency may remove the need for the court to act).

I explain AT&T’s legal problems below . . .

What the DoJ Documents Tell Us About the Comcast/NBCU Merger

Harold January 24, 2011 January 24, 2011Cable, Life In The Sausage Factory, Media Ownership, Series of Tubes, Tales of the Sausage Factory

In all the hoo ha about the Comcast/NBCU Merger, few folks troubled to read the Department of Justice�Competitive Impact Statement,�Complaint, andConsent Decree. That�s rather unfortunate, as these documents sets forth a straightforward case under the antitrust laws for program access conditions for online competitors and for network neutrality. Here�s the short version:� Comcast pre-merger makes almost 30 times more money from providing cable service than from programming revenues. Even adding all of NBCU�s revenue, Comcast will still make more than twice as much from selling cable service ($34 billion) as from programming ($16.9 billion). Anyone who can do basic arithmetic would therefore conclude that yes, Comcast�s incentive to protect its cable business from erosion by online distributors (or even from traditional rivals) outweighs the potential gain from increasing programming distribution. As an added bonus, for those ideologically committed to believing otherwise, turns out Comcast�s own documents agree with the simple arithmetic and not the fun theoretical models their experts submitted. Which is why (among other reasons) DoJ continued oversight is not merely something extra. It really matters.

Lets break this out some below �

Genachowski's Remarks At Auschwitz

Harold January 27, 2010 February 24, 2013General, Tales of the Sausage Factory

I cannot claim to know Chairman Genachowski very well. But the remarks below, given as head of the U.S. delegation in commemoration of the 65th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz, mark him as my brother on a level that goes beyond all levels of politics and policy.

Ezchor! Lo tishcach I will remember; do not you forget.

On the Cultural Significance of “The Cultural Significance of Free Software” : Part one: my review of the book.

John July 21, 2009 February 24, 2013My Thoughts Exactly, Software

In a manner remarkably similar to how my homologue John Compton Sundman was approached by the obscure editors from the Society for Analytical Engines to edit the entries of the inaugural Hofstadter Prize for Machine-Written Narrative (as chronicled in Cheap Complex Devices), I was approached, some five months ago, by the book review editor of the journal “Science as Culture” to write a review of Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software by Christopher M. Kelty. I agreed to write the review for free. (Why? Because I’m a monkey/amateur –just ask Harlan Ellison).

I think the book, despite its various shortcomings, is good; important, even. It raises significant issues that bear upon (yes, I know how hyperbolic this sounds) whether democracy and the ideals of pan-human equality have any future.

My draft review appears below. At some point, presumably, a version of this review, perhaps considerably revised, will appear in Science as Culture

Funny issues arose regarding copyrights and copylefts of the review itself. I’ll write more about them in a second post.

Important DC Cir Opinion on Boring Procedural Stuff for the FCC,And Why We Should Care.

Harold June 2, 2009 February 25, 2013Life In The Sausage Factory, Tales of the Sausage Factory

Every now and then, the fact that I am a lawyer leaks through here. OK, it leaks through a lot — including my insatiable tracking of the minutia of the D.C. Circuit and how it impacts things FCC.

Which brings me to last month’s opinion in Globalstar, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. In the grand scheme of things, this decision only impacts two companies, Globalstar and Iridium. What makes the decision important is that it addresses the scope of a Petition for Reconsideration and whether a Petition for Recon re-opens the entire docket. Along the way, it once again admonishes parties about relying on ex partes to build an administrative record, which may actually breathe some life back into the procedural rules at a time when every FCC proceeding is “permit but disclose.”

More importantly, this case illustrates that the details of this stuff matter — not just in telecom but in all aspects of regulatory reform. If we want a real progressive movement, we need to nurture our own special teams in every policy area that follow the day-to-day mundane and prosaic details that make the difference for effective advocacy on the big ticket items.

So for all you procedure buffs out there, continued below . . . .