Google, Verizon & Wireless Broadband Expansion: “Net Neutrality” Soon A Memory ???

09 August 2010. By David Caploe PhD, Chief Political Economist, EconomyWatch.com.

In the wake of the just concluded joint conference call with members of the media by Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon and Eric Schmidt of Google re their proposal for a “tiered” Internet –

09 August 2010. By David Caploe PhD, Chief Political Economist, EconomyWatch.com.

In the wake of the just concluded joint conference call with members of the media by Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon and Eric Schmidt of Google re their proposal for a “tiered” Internet –

which, significantly, would EXCLUDE any wireless communication from the “non-discrimination” part of their “plan” –

it becomes even more important that President Obama recently announced

his administration would seek to nearly double the amount of wireless broadband spectrum available for commercial use over the next ten years.

If both his plan – and the Verizon / Google “plan”, not a business agreement 😉 – succeed,

any notion of “net neutrality” in the United States would be down the drain,

which would be a disaster not just from an equality and principle point of view,

but would also put the US technologically and economically even farther behind other countries where “net neutrality” isn’t even an issue –

China excepted, of course, whose Net is anything BUT neutral ;-).

Obama recently signed a memorandum that aims to make available for auction some 500 megahertz of spectrum

that is now controlled by the federal government and private companies.

Most of that would be designated for commercial use in mobile broadband and similar applications,

though aspects of the plan will require Congressional approval,

which is something very important, for reasons outlined below.

The effort embraces recommendations made by the Federal Communications Commission –

with whom Seidenberg and Schmidt said they had “cleared” their “plan” –

in its National Broadband Plan, which was released in March and encourages the expansion of high-speed wireless broadband services.

But some aspects could be opposed by television broadcast companies, which will be asked if they want to give up some of their spectrum for auction.

Cable companies that have invested heavily in wired telecommunications networks could also lose from the new direction,

which is one reason the “wireless exemption” aspect of the Verizon / Google “plan” is so crucial to understanding its implications.

Roughly 45 percent of the spectrum to be auctioned would come from federal government agencies that will be asked to give up allocations that they are not using or could share,

according to administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The remainder would come from unused spectrum already scheduled for auction or from broadcasters and other spectrum licensees

who would be offered incentives to give up or share parts of their communications airwaves.

Currently, the spectrum for wireless communications is about 547 megahertz.

While it is not unexpected that the Obama administration would embrace some of the recommendations of the National Broadband Plan,

the announcement is significant because it puts momentum behind actions that the F.C.C. does not have the authority to take on its own.

Specifically, the presidential memorandum will direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

to identify federally controlled communications bands that can be made available within five years for exclusive or shared use by commercial companies.

Negotiations have been continuing between the White House and federal departments including defense, justice, state, Treasury and energy,

which use dedicated government spectrum for official and classified communications.

The administration is expected to ask Congress to approve the use of some of the proceeds from an auction of federal spectrum to finance the upgrading of government communications equipment and systems.

Congress would also need to approve the F.C.C.’s use of so-called incentive auctions of spectrum that is already allocated to private companies, including broadcast networks.

Those auctions would pay broadcast networks and others to give up unused portions of the spectrum that they license from the federal government, which would then be licensed to or shared with wireless companies.

Which, coincidentally, raises the question of why television stations of ANY sort are allowed to “charge what the market will bear” for POLITICAL advertisements, whether for candidates or issues.

The reason this is so important is that raising money for television and other media advertising –

ALL of which is in fact owned by the public, and simply licensed to private corporations,

who then proceed to make, literally, billions of dollars from those licenses,

which they get from politicians and others politically-interested actors,

who, in turn, spend almost all THEIR time raising money to pay for that media advertising – rather than actually dealing with issues –

is PRECISELY why corporations who give that money to political actors, whether elected or not,

HAVE SUCH EXCESSIVE POWER OVER THE POLITICAL PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES.

It’s a circle, all right, but NOT that hard to understand, and certainly something about which SOMETHING can and should be done –

except this is the Obama administration, which, as we’ve pointed out a hundred times, is one of the most corporate-oriented regimes in US history, after Cheney / Bush of course.

But back to the latest structural development in this whole sordid situation.

Finally, Congress would have to designate how the money generated by auctions should be spent –

which, again, points out how – if this insane cycle could be broken – there actually is NO STRUCTURAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE

to completely transforming the whole media advertising / political fund-raising / corporate control of policy cycle which currently holds America in a death grip.

Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the F.C.C. and an Obama appointee, welcomed the administration’s initiative.

In the long term, companies that are developing emerging wireless technologies could benefit from the greater availability of wireless spectrum, industry analysts say –

which, again, is why the “wireless exemption” from the whole Verizon / Google plan is so critical.

Consumers might conceivably maybe perhaps benefit from the actions, as wireless communications continue to improve and more convenient devices are made widely available.

Some spectrum also would be made available for free, unlicensed use by start-up companies and others, administration officials said.

Such unlicensed spectrum has previously helped in the development of cordless phones, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth applications.

Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge, a consumer-oriented policy group, said the interest of consumers will be most helped by auctions that help to promote competition between wireless companies

rather than entrenching the dominant providers in the market – which, again, points out the inherent problems in an “agreement” of ANY sort by giants like Verizon and Google.

Since the release of the F.C.C.’s broadband plan, some broadcasters have expressed doubts about the spectrum allocation recommendations.

Dennis Wharton, an executive vice president at the National Association of Broadcasters, said that

while expanding broadband is important, it should not be done at the expense of broadcasting,

which provides free, local television service to tens of millions of Americans.

“We appreciate F.C.C. assurances that further reclamation of broadcast television spectrum will be completely voluntary,”

Mr. Wharton said, according to this article in the New York Times.

With the recent conversion of analog broadcast signals to digital, broadcasters returned 108 megahertz of spectrum to the government for auction.

Some of the wireless companies that bought that spectrum have not developed all of it,

leaving broadcasters wary of giving up more of their holdings to companies that might simply warehouse it, industry officials say.

But while we shouldn’t be shedding any tears for the broadcast industry –

which has made billions, if not trillions, from the insultingly repetitive political advertising that has obscenely lowered the level of public discourse in the US –

perhaps THEY can be enrolled in fighting back against a plan for broadband expansion that does NOT provide – in the most ironclad way – for net neutrality.

But, given the way things are going in the US these days, that’s probably NOT going to happen.

 

David Caploe PhD

Editor-in-Chief

EconomyWatch.com

President / acalaha.com