Last week, multiple
industry groups representing Internet service providers filed a petition asking
the FCC to stay the unnecessary privacy regulations. The petition also discussed
how ISPs are taking steps to protect customers’ privacy online. The
groups, which include CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom, as well as various advertising and
advocacy groups, state that the FTC's framework has protected Internet users for
years while the FCC’s new rules create an inconsistent and confusing framework
that weakens data protection online.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Thursday, January 26, 2017
5G Deployment Projected to Create 3 Million Jobs and $500 Billion in GDP
Earlier this
month, Accenture Strategy published a report entitled “Smart Cities: How
5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities.” The next
generation of wireless network infrastructure will employ 5G technology, which will
feature the dense placement of small cells to deliver speeds 10 times faster
than 4G. When 5G technology is deployed, cities will be able to enjoy smarter
and more efficient use of local government services such as energy, utilities,
transportation, and public safety.
5G wireless
technology is anticipated to produce very large economic and social benefits in
the United States. The Accenture report projects that 5G will create $275
billion in investment, 3 million jobs, and $500 billion in gross domestic
product. In addition, the capabilities enabled by 5G technology will allow
cities to save millions of dollars. For example, smart lighting automatically will
dim public street lights when no pedestrians or vehicles are present. Public
transportation will be able to reduce wait times by optimizing bus and train
schedules with commuter smartphones. Vehicle-to-vehicle communications will minimize
congestion and lead cars through hazardous road conditions.
When it comes to
public safety, deployment of 5G networks in smart cities will save lives. High-speed
video surveillance will allow first responders to assess crime scenes and
dangerous situations before arriving. Real-time monitoring of gunshots will
provide the police with exact locations and timelines. Sensors with 5G
technology will warn local residents about possible emergencies, such as
tornadoes, flooding, or security threats.
Importantly, 5G
networks will impact positively cities of all sizes. The report estimates that
5G’s impact on the city of Saratog, CA, with a population of 29,900, will be
300 additional jobs and $50 million in additional economic activity. The use of
5G in the city of Beaumont, TX, with a population of 118,000, will create 1,000
new jobs and $180 million in additional economic activity. The use of 5G in the
metropolitan area of Chicago, IL, with a population of 9,472,000, will create
90,000 new jobs and $14 billion in additional economic activity.
Another report
published earlier this month by Deloitte, entitled “Wireless
Connectivity Fuels Industry Growth and Innovation in Energy, Health, Public
Safety, and Transportation,” contains similar findings on the economic and
social benefits of 5G wireless technology. This report says that smart cities collectively
could create $1.8 trillion in additional revenue to the U.S. economy. With
regard to public safety, the Deloitte report finds that a one-minute reduction
in response time translates to an 8% reduction in mortality. It also says that
self-driving cars could reduce emissions by 40-90%, travel times by 40%, and
delays by 20%. Whether the economic impact of 5G technology is $500 billion or
$1.8 trillion, it is clear that deployment of 5G will make cities safer, healthier,
and contribute significantly to the U.S. economy.
However, there are
some existing regulatory barriers and practices that stand in the way of
realizing these significant benefits. Some municipalities take 18 to 24 months
to approve small-cell implementations. Also, because providers must deploy many
densely-placed small cells for networks to operate smoothly, the practice of municipalities
charging a fee for each individual cell placement will discourage deployment. Reducing
these barriers, by allowing the use of public rights of way, eliminating or
minimizing fees, and streamlining approval processes, will increase the rate of
5G deployment and help unlock smart cities.
5G technology is
the future of mobile wireless broadband. And the future is now. Without
unnecessary delay, the FCC, along with state and local governments, should take
affirmative actions that encourage 5G deployment and, at the same time,
eliminate, or at least reduce, restrictions and fees that hinder 5G deployment.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Ajit Pai Appointed Chairman of the FCC
Congratulations to
Ajit Pai, who was appointed Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission by
President Donald Trump. My colleagues and I agree that this is an excellent and
deserving appointment. Given his resume as Commissioner, Chairman Pai will continue
to push for free-market policies in the communications field, enabling competition,
innovation, and investment in this space.
FSF is grateful
that Chairman Pai recently spoke at
FSF’s 10th anniversary luncheon in December 2016. We wish him
the best of luck as FCC Chairman!
Labels:
Ajit Pai,
Chairman Pai,
Competition,
FCC,
FSF 10th Anniversary,
Innovation,
Investment
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Broader Spectrum Licenses Could Increase Auction Revenues
On January 17,
2017, Scott Wallston, President of the Technology Policy Institute, published a
blog entitled “Don’t
Be Disappointed by the FCC’s Incentive Auction.” Mr. Wallston discusses why
the success of the 2015 AWS-3 auction created unrealistic expectations for the
broadcast incentive auction. He states that licenses restrict how bidders can
use spectrum, therefore wireless-only spectrum will produce higher market
values than TV broadcasting-only spectrum. Mr. Wallston commends the FCC for
going forward with the incentive auction, but says if licenses allowed for a
broader use of spectrum, we may see higher auction revenues.
Labels:
Broadcast TV,
FCC,
Incentive Auction,
Spectrum Auctions
Monday, January 09, 2017
A Proposal for Trialing FCC Process Reforms
For over a decade, I’ve been advocating various reforms in
the way the Federal Communications Commission conducts its business, wholly aside
from debating the rightness or wrongness of the substance of particular agency
decisions. In other words, I’ve long advocated certain process reforms intended to make the Commission function in a more
efficient and effective manner, and, when appropriate, in a more transparent
manner.
Without further elaboration here, I’ve been privileged to
testify before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology in 2011,
2013,
and 2015,
in hearings on various draft bills proposing a variety of specific FCC process reforms. Congressman Greg
Walden, then Chairman of the House Subcommittee and now Chairman of the full
Committee on Energy and Commerce, deserves much credit for diligently pursuing
the cause of FCC process reform during the last six years. Although several of
the bills he sponsored, along with various of his colleagues, passed the House
of Representatives, they were not given serious consideration in the Senate.
At the FCC, despite a few very modest gestures, there were
no serious efforts by Chairman Tom Wheeler to adopt consequential reforms in
the way the Commission conducts business. Indeed, some might argue that there has
been a deterioration of process during Chairman Wheeler’s tenure that, if
anything, has contributed to a deterioration in the substantive quality of the
agency’s decisions.
But that is not the argument I wish to make today.
What I want to suggest is that, as soon as practical after it
gets organized, the newly reconstituted Commission should get on with
implementing process reforms. And, more specifically, I suggest, for certain
changes that may be considered more controversial for one reason or another,
that the Commissioners consider implementing them on a trial basis with a review
to take place on a date certain. There is no reason why the Commission cannot
be open to some experimentation and trialing in the area of process reform, secure
in the knowledge that experience may dictate further modifications.
It is well-known that Commissioner Michael O’Rielly has been
a vocal, persistent, and eloquent advocate of FCC process reform over the last
several years through his blogs, speeches, and opinions. Indeed, in a July 2016
blog, “Snapshot
of Process Reform Ideas,” Commissioner O’Rielly posted a list of 24 proposals
he has made. In doing so, he explained that:
These efforts have never been an attempt to undermine the
authority of the Chairman or the ability of the Commission majority, whoever
they may be on a particular issue, to get items completed in a timely
manner. Instead, this entire effort is about improving the efficiency of
the Commission and increasing fairness and transparency with regard to a
process that is questionable in some instances and downright objectionable in
others.
I’ve agreed
with many of Commissioner O’Rielly’s suggestions and have questions about others.
Some are truly more pure process reforms than others, and some are more
consequential than others. But no one can deny the effort that Commissioner
O’Rielly has put into this project or the thoughtfulness with which he has
approached it. (I would be remiss in not applauding Commissioner Pai’s ongoing process
reform efforts as well.)
Consider one of Commissioner O’Rielly’s (and Commissioner
Pai’s) most consequential proposals: “Publicly post Open Meeting items at the
same time as circulated to Commissioners.” I happen to agree with this proposal.
As I explained at some length in my May
2015 House Subcommittee testimony, posting the draft Open Meeting agenda
items is consistent with the “best practices” suggested by the Administrative
Conference of the United States in a 2014 Recommendation. And in an era when it
became common practice for the agency’s Chairman to post a blog describing his own
views regarding the contents of a draft item, often along with a “fact sheet”
containing the Chairman’s own version of the “facts,” it seems to make little
sense to deny the public access to the full text of the item. Posting the text
on the Commission’s website will eliminate disparities in access by the public
to Commission information and also reduce misunderstandings that arise from selective
filtering and partial release of snippets of the draft item.
Nevertheless, because posting draft Open Meeting items represents
a substantial departure from the way the Commission has operated for decades,
many question how this change will affect the way the Commissioners interact
among themselves and the public during the period leading up to the Sunshine
cut-off period and whether, in turn, such changes may affect adversely the
quality of the Commission’s decisionmaking. These are not frivolous concerns.
The principal point I want to make here is that I see no
good reason why the Commissioners could not adopt that particular process reform with the proviso
that the new procedure will be evaluated after a year or two. And, then, based
on actual operating experience, changes can be made if deemed advisable.
The same can be said for other reform proposals about which
there may be legitimate differences of opinion, such as requiring that all
“editorial revisions” be completed and orders published within three or four business
days after the Open Meeting. Or allowing any Commissioner to elevate a decision
about to be made on delegated authority to a full Commission vote.
I start from the premise, which shouldn’t be subject to
serious dispute, that there are ways that the Commission can improve its
process – the manner in which it conducts
its business – so that it operates in a more efficient, more effective, and
more transparent fashion. Every institution can. There is no reason there
should be any partisan disagreement about this.
Process matters. Better process not only can improve the productivity of the Commission, but, more importantly, it can improve the quality of the agency’s decisions. I certainly am not suggesting that all process reforms need to be subject to trials. But if the notion of trialing changes in procedure is a means to the end of getting certain consequential process reforms adopted sooner rather than later, the newly constituted Commission should be open to this idea.
Process matters. Better process not only can improve the productivity of the Commission, but, more importantly, it can improve the quality of the agency’s decisions. I certainly am not suggesting that all process reforms need to be subject to trials. But if the notion of trialing changes in procedure is a means to the end of getting certain consequential process reforms adopted sooner rather than later, the newly constituted Commission should be open to this idea.
Labels:
FCC,
FCC Process Reform,
Free State Foundation,
FSF,
Randolph J. May,
Randolph May
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)