The Department of Justice has filed comments on the FCC’s broadband plans. Susan Crawford, ex of the White House, blogs her reaction. For me, the most interesting of Susan’s comments is:

Re-allocation of spectrum makes sense. But the “foreclosure value” to market-powerful incumbents of buying that spectrum – and keeping their competitors from buying it – may exceed its market value. So DOJ very gently (with lots of caveats) suggests that the highest value use for new spectrum may actually be to make it available for license by new rivals.

This refers to this in the DoJ comments:

The goal in assigning licenses to any such new spectrum designated for commercial services should be to ensure that it generates the greatest ultimate benefits to the consumers of those services. When market power is not an issue, the best way to pursue this goal in allocating new resources is typically to auction them off, on the theory that the highest bidder, i.e., the one with the highest private value, will also generate the greatest benefits to consumers. But that approach can go wrong in the presence of strong wireline or wireless incumbents, since the private value for incumbents in a given locale includes not only the revenue from use of the spectrum but also any benefits gained by preventing rivals from eroding the incumbents’ existing businesses. The latter might be called “foreclosure value” as distinct from “use value.” The total private value of spectrum to any given provider is the sum of these two types of value. However, the “foreclosure value” does not reflect consumer value; to the contrary, it represents the private value of forestalling entry that threatens to inject additional competition into the market.

This is one of the places where pure market forces (whatever that means since we’re already talking about a highly constrained and artificial auction) can work against the social values we’re trying to achieve. I hope the Omnibus Broadband Initiative folks receive the DoJ’s gentle hint as if it were delivered with a 2×4.

[Self-serving:] (I have been posting interviews wit the Broadband Initiative folks at Broadband Strategy Week.

3 Comments »

Brett Glass runs a Wireless ISP (WISP) in Laramie, Wyoming that spreads across some wide open spaces. To compete, he argues, he needs the government to regulate the right aspects and to keep its hands off everything else. (He believes Net Neutrality is unnecessary and will hurt the ability of small ISPs to compete.)

I interviewed him when he came to Berkman to give a talk. (My liveblogging of his talk is here.)

There are more such interviews at Broadband Strategy Week.

2 Comments »

Nick Sinai is Dir. of Energy and Environment for the FCC’s Broadband Strategy plan. In the latest posting at Broadband Strategy Week, he talks about how the requirements of the Smart Grid will affect the plan. How smart will the grid be? Will the FCC be regulating our refrigerators? Are there privacy concerns? How much bandwidth is required to support it? Who will build it? Will the Smart Grid be based on Internet protocols to ensure interoperability? Will it use the broadband infrastructure or the existing information infrastructure created by the electric companies? Should the energy industry be disrupted (in the good sense)?

6 Comments »

Paul Brigner, Executive Director of Internet and Technology Policy at Verizon, says what he would tell the Broadband Strategy Initiative: Build on our this country’s current success providing access to the Internet. Do no harm (= beware of Net Neutrality). And question the research that shows that America has fallen behind other countries in the ubiquity, price, and speed of broadband.

More at Broadband Strategy Week.

2 Comments »