The President’s 5G public works project

It is election year and President Trump is signaling that he is well aware that priming the economic pump to quench America’s thirst for growth in the economy may buy him some political capital while helping his fellow Republicans in the Congress and maybe a few Republican governors and state house members retain their seats. Today’s latest political proposal: construction of a nation-wide 5G communications network by the federal government.

Reuters reported earlier today that among the Trump administration’s initiatives to address potential Chinese hacks of America’s communications systems is the construction of a 5G network by the U.S. government. According to the report, the idea is still being considered among lower ranking staff within the Administration and proposals may not get to the President for another six to eight months.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai was quick to respond this morning to the 5G proposal. Mr Pai argued in his brief statement that construction of this latest generation of high-speed communications network was best left to the market. Rather than going down a costly and eventually unproductive path, the chairman recommended that federal policy stay the course and focus on getting more spectrum, that portion of electromagnetic waves necessary for making calls and moving mobile data, into the commercial space.

Again, Mr Pai demonstrated that he is one Republican that attempts to be practical.

Progressives haven’t come out one way or the other …. yet. Progressives have thrown support in the past behind the idea that initiatives on the part of municipalities to build their own broadband networks, premised on the need for access to affordable broadband in the face of a lack of supply by large carriers such as AT&T and Comcast. On first blush, Mr Trump’s idea seems to be nothing but municipal broadband on steroids, just on a national level.

I doubt, however, that advocacy groups like Public Knowledge or Free Press are going to jump on the opportunity to provide Mr Trump with any favorable optics on this issue. The last thing progressives want to risk is giving the Administration any type of lifeline that would help pull Mr Trump’s popularity into the respectable zone.

Mr Trump could have used the opportunity to make a political play based on economic stimulus a nation-wide project like this could provide. He could have sold it like his version of the Hoover dam, especially in rural or mountainous areas where broadband companies have dared not tread because of sparser populations and rough topography. The Deplorables in flyover states and the Forgotten that inhabit the insular territories of the Caribbean and the Pacific would have warmed up to Mr Trump’s goody bag of 5G services by 2021,especially if the idea is sold as another job creator.

Mr Trump will have to sell broadband access providers on the idea of falling on their swords and taking one in the national interest. According to NCTA, broadband providers have invested $1.4 trillion in constructing and deployong broadband networks. The cable industry alone claims to have made a $275 billion investment in broadband infrastructure.  They are not about to tell investors that future returns on this investment are about to be pushed aside by a public works communications project designed to keep China from eavesdropping on two ex-college room mates talking recipes for peach cobbler and the latest #MeToo campaign.

State regulators probably can’t wait for the return of net neutrality rules

Sovereign individuals are seeking refuge in cyberspace. Minimizing state intervention in the goings on in cyberspace should be a legal priority for those that want to engage and prosper in a decentralized internet. Imposing old telephone rules on broadband access providers under the guise of ensuring the democratization of the internet will have the opposite effect. The rules won’t create more freedom. It will squelch it.

What net neutrality rule proponents take for granted is the actual logistics of Title II regulation and the slippery slope that will emerge from old style telephone regulation of the prime conduit to the digital economy.

First, let’s look at regulation of the access piece from consumer to their internet service provider. Consumers will want this connectivity regulated, especially consumers that use cable modem services for their access. State regulators, who have long abdicated their participation in regulating access services, will find themselves struggling to get back into the oversight game. One argument for validating participation in regulation will be the regulators expert status as a protector of consumer interests. Most consumers know nothing about networks and will need the guiding hand of state commissions on issues of network management and transparency.

I will not be surprised if state commissions start requiring some type of price schedule that is made available for public viewing. Also, state commissions will find reasons for opening investigations into how network management may be impacting pricing. Lawyers and external affairs specialists will be in great demand.

The Federal Communications Commission and state public service commissions will take a more active role in rate design. In jurisdictions where they were abandoned, tiered rates be reintroduced. To make up for the dearth of broadband deployment in rural areas, states will now see an opportunity to authorize higher rates per broadband access line in urban areas in order to keep rates lower in rural areas. As more Americans move to urban centers, they will have to contend not only with higher housing prices but higher communications prices as well.

And I don’t see why wireless communications being spared the onslaught either. Dumping your landline may not be enough to escape increases in mobile phone rates designed not only to fund additional broadband deployment but to maintain universal service access to wire-line services by low income folks.

America was moving in the right direction by innovating access to the internet and in turn getting rid of a layer of onerous communications regulation in then form of state regulators. Net neutrality invites them back in.

 

Some clarity on what net neutrality is

The Twitter-verse is going bonkers over today’s report that the Federal Communications Commission is considering getting rid of net neutrality.  That view is erroneous. The concept or principle of net neutrality is not being abandoned. What Chairman Pai is proposing is that the FCC stop applying the telecommunications rules found in Title II of the Communications Act to enforce net neutrality.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, internet protocol was being introduced into phone networks. Also, new local phone entrants such as cable companies and local network bypass companies were bringing new services into local markets. The issue was, how do we bill for the exchange of traffic ie data and voice traffic in such a way as to encourage competition. Regulators decided to lightly regulate the agreements that these companies entered into to exchange traffic. Some companies decided to exercise what was once called “bill and keep.” In other words, they wouldn’t bill each other for the exchange of traffic.

Over past 25 years, this traffic has increased. Phone networks needed the additional revenue to invest in networks that could keep up with traffic as well as compete with bypass providers like cable companies. Also, content providers and search engines were developing and spawning more traffic. Net neutrality grew out of this. In short, it has never been about democracy for the consumer. That’s a bullshit argument that a strategic communications expert made up in order to generate support from regulators to keep the exchange of traffic between the Googles and the Verizons low to non-existent.

The consumer is being used if you will as an excuse. Rates are going to stay where they are. The real issue is, smaller content providers who can’t pay broadband companies or content delivery companies the fees to move their traffic will fall to the wayside.

Consumers are being duped by Facebook and Google into supporting their argument for net neutrality. It is ironic that those companies use the “open internet” concept to design apps that spy on you….

Voluntary market agreements not FCC should create incubators.

The Federal Communications Commission today issued a notice of proposed rulemaking as a first step toward creating an incubator program for disadvantaged groups that want to enter the television and radio broadcast industries. According to the Commission, “Such a program would seek to encourage new and diverse broadcast station owners by drawing on the technical expertise and/or financial assistance of existing broadcasters.”

The NPRM also seeks comment from the public on how best to structure and implement the program.

The State via the Commission has a monopoly on access to spectrum. It has the force of law behind this monopoly. It should, for the sake of bond holders, pursue policies that help increase returns on the spectrum that it licenses to private companies. The better broadcast companies perform i.e. attract listeners and views and sell advertisement, the more taxable income for the State and continued flow of income to bond holders.

I don’t see this incubator program doing that. It is a pure political move. It is designed to keep the barbarians aka social justice warriors from knocking down the gate. The Commission has been holding the warriors off since the Clinton Administration by not following through on recommendations to institute such programs. It appears now, with this NPRM, that they are trying to give the impression of progress on the issue of diversity.

They should save their strength.

Any incubation for future broadcast station owners can be done in the private sector. Potential and existing broadcast station owners can enter into voluntary agreements to exchange expertise and financial assistance in exchange for a piece of a minority owner’s action. It should be up to a potential minority owner to explain the economic and financial value that an existing broadcast station owner can glean from an investment in a minority-owned station or outright sale of an existing station to a minority-owned firm.

Think of the decision rule the British Empire imposed on itself when it decided to decolonize. The second world war drained the Empire of resources. Holding on to territories in Africa and the Caribbean was expensive, so they cut a deal with these protectorates. We’ll prepare you for independence and you’ll give us a piece of the economic action.

This is the model that existing broadcast station owners and potential minority-owned firms should enter. Where the existing owner wants to off-load a station and a minority firm shows it can bring value, then they can enter an exchange. The State via the Commission need not involve itself by establishing incubator programs.