Many have noted recent comments by the CEO of Verizon Ivan Seidenberg casting doubt on the need to allocate additional spectrum for mobile broadband, a key recommendation in the National Broadband Plan.
Verizon’s push for more mobile broadband spectrum continued in a September 30, 2009 filing, which notes:
Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) | TTY: 1-888-TELL FCC (1-888-835-5322)
If you have a camera and a 2D matrix code reader on your mobile phone, you can capture the FCC Phone numbers right to your phone by following these three easy steps:
Step 1: Take a photograph of one of the codes below using the camera on your mobile phone.
Step 2: Use your phone's Datamatrix or QR Code reader to decode the information on the photograph. Please note, these code readers are device specific and are available to download on the internet.
Step 3: Store the decoded address information to your phone's address book and use it with your Maps or GPS application.
This new era of consumer advocacy at the FCC is thrilling. I think the FCC should have full powers to regulate spectrum, to keep it out of control of the Telcom companies.
Sir, I applaud the efforts of the FCC to meet the needs of the American People. Self-serving business interests, as represented by the CEO of Verizon to push some agenda to the detriment of the country, but to his companies profit, are not good for the Nation. In past the nation's telecom companies have routinely lobbied Congress for not only free and unfettered access to National Assets (such as spectrum, which I label as such because if Corporate America controls it, then the Public suffers) but also subsidies funded by the public to provide services upon which they then make an exhorbiatant profit.
Please consider that this persons remarks are only intended to support his opinion that unless public policy is designed to line his pockets and force customers to pay more, he will continue to make up lies such as those recorded in his remarks.
Please allow me to help explain Verizon's remarks.
Verizon has, as it says, more than enough spectrum to serve its own needs for the foreseeable future. But in order to forestall competition, it needs to corner the market, buying up whatever remains so that innovators and would-be competitors cannot get any. It wants to secure this position as quickly as possible, and so is urging the Commission to auction it off under the existing rules -- which favor large incumbents such as Verizon.
In other words: More spectrum is indeed needed, but not for the large hoarders of spectrum, such as Verizon and Sprint. Verizon's remarks are a strong argument for revision of the auction rules to give small, local, and competitive providers a chance to obtain spectrum, despite its high foreclosure value (see the DoJ's remarks to the Commission). Caps, stronger preferences for small businesses, revised rules, and more nonexclusively licensed spectrum (with rules similar to 3650 MHz, but with mandatory spectrum ettiquettes to ensure fair play) are all necessary.
How can there be a spectrum crisis because of the iPhone etc.. when AT&T hasn't even deployed 3G equipment on it's PCS holdings (EDGE only), and neither AT&T or VZ have used their spectrum in the AWS and WCS bands?
If there was a crisis, why would they not have used all their spectrum? And why not use equipment that maximizes capacity?
Why take spectrum away from broadcasters and the government when these two don't even use the spectrum they do have?
Ivan is right, and the FCC is wrong about this.
Edward: Thanks for exposing Seidenberg's flimflammery.
Ivan is right and his lobbyists are wrong, at least for the better part of a decade at Verizon. Verizon lobbyists are among the best, under instructions not to lie. But they are all lawyers and the like who aren't technologists. Ivan's spent 30 years building networks and is a much more reliable source. They'd like more spectrum, of course, because in the long run it lowers the cost of building networks. Lobbyist hyperbole took over after that.
If the FCC releases more spectrum - which I support - it might go to competitors. No incumbent wants that. Canada, Mexico, France and most other nations are reserving spectrum for new entrants. Personally, I like competition and think that would be a good thing. The economics of scale in telecom mean the spectrum may not be enough to make new entrants viable in the U.S., as AT&T and Verizon are already pulling away. It's hard to analyze.
But Ivan's shareholders presumably don't want to face that risk.
Is there ANYONE left at the FCC who understands RF and signal propagation?
Proposals to take away UHF spectrum for wireless broadband will leave the still-nascent MH service dead in its cradle. Who will want a mobile TV device with a 3-foot-long antenna to pick up MH from VHF TV stations?
And where is this compelling need for wireless broadband? What about the millions of Americans whose only TV service comes from free, over-the-air TV? And who have little use for broadband? (Yes, they are still out there.) Who speaks for this group?
Doe anyone at the FCC understand the limitations of shared bandwidth networks for delivering video and audio content, vs. fixed, high bit rate digital TV?
What about the advantages of a decentralized TV distribution medium in times of emergencies, such as hurricanes, floods, and other severe weather? (Or in the case of man-made disasters?) Cell phone networks fold like a card table. Broadband speeds drop like a stone.
But TV keeps chugging along, like it always has. Broadband is NOT the answer to everything. It is but one of many ways for people to communicate and get information. It should not become the predominant communications medium as the expense of other, time-tested outlets.
If the United States government is so keen on using spectrum for wireless broadband, it should free up a chunk of the hundreds of megahertz it currently reserves for military and other uses. Don't pinch the broadcasters, who are just getting out of the gate with ATSC and MH services that are proving to be popular with cost-conscious viewers.
In the interests of disclosure, I don't work for a TV station, or a network, or NAB, or MSTV. I just believe this policy of "broadband above all else" to be misinformed and technically flawed. And definitely NOT in the interests of Americans.
But then again, perhaps I'm not that surprised this is happening, since it appears that Gen Xers are taking over the FCC.
This is exactly why the FCC needs to be more data driven along with getting appropriate independent third party experts to validate the claims with reality. The FCC should be taking much of what each side has to say with a grain of salt.