Alice - The Marianne of the Convergence Revolution in France

The attractive young lady at the left is "Alice", the symbol of Telecom Italia's DSL service in France. She is holding the "Alicebox" - their combined DSL, VoIP, IPTV customer premises equipment. The woman on the right is Marianne, an allegorical figure of Liberty and the French Republic. Alice and her less dramatic competitors are leading France to a real convergence revolution that seems to be lacking in the US.

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology is the core of this revolution and ironically it was invented in the US at the former Bellcore, which is turn evolved from Bell Labs. For a while FCC was requiring incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) like Verizon to unbundle their local loop and let 3rd parties offer DSL. The ILECS hated the idea, complained about the financial terms of the the mandatory leases, and managed to get the policy reversed. Let's see what the US has missed.

In France there are several companies offering DSL with other services either bundles in or available at a small surcharge. These are France Telecom (the former monopolist), Alice/Telecom Italia, Neuf Telecom, Free (which is not actually free), and Darty (the French equivalent of Circuit City). (Non-Francophones might want to view these links through Google's translation page which will help the understandability a lot.) These carriers sweeten their offers by throwing in special deals like free MIMO Wi-Fi LANs, free calling to up to 27 countries, free domestic long distance in France (although Tahiti is not included - sorry Gauguin fans - even though other French overseas DOM/TOMs are), and - more importantly - IPTV, a cable TV-like service. (On the long distance issue, attentive readers may recall my 6/17/06 entry on "Telecom Too Cheap to Meter".)

Now the title of this blog is SpectrumTalk so you may wonder why I am talking about Alice and friends. C-O-N-V-E-R-G-E-N-C-E. The IPTV that is being offered by these French firms is crosselastic (competes with even though it is different in nature) to both traditional CATV and over-the-air television! Already in the US only 14% of households get their television solely from over-the-air signals and the growth of IPTV could decrease this further. At some point the broadcasters may wish to review the Kwerel/Williams proposals in FCC OPP Working Paper 38 and think about selling their spectrum rights to more socially valuable alternative uses. (This would be facilitated if they could be allowed to retain some or all of their must-carry rights, but more on that in a later posting.) More importantly, the whole concept of content regulation of TV in the US is based on the idea of scarcity. No scarcity of video channels, no need for content regulation - other than limiting access to indecency to adults. Finally, nearly unlimited opportunities for new channels, which you get with IPTV and multiple DSL providers, will be the best thing for Free Speech and the 1st Amendment that ever happened.

So, hopefully, Alice may be able to visit the US in the near future if FCC revisits its policy on DSL competition and looks more at the long term impacts.

Your thoughts?

FCC Chairman Martin Reconfirmed

Chairman Martin was reconfirmed by the Senate today, November 17, for a second 5 year term. He issued this statement:

"I am deeply honored to have been confirmed by the Senate for a second term as Commissioner and Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. I thank President Bush and the Congress for the privilege to continue to serve in his Administration and alongside my colleagues on the Commission.

I look forward to working with the Administration and Congress, as well as with my fellow Commissioners and the incredibly able staff at the FCC to ensure that all Americans share in the benefits and opportunities offered by the best communications system in the world. I will continue to work to provide a regulatory environment that promotes competition and drives investment and innovation while protecting consumers and promoting public safety."

Note that this statement mentions nothing about spectrum issues except implicitly in the context of public safety. Chairman Martin, congratulations on your reconfirmation, but if you want to "drive investment and innovation" in the rather large wireless sector of the FCC's jurisdiction, please consider the advice at the end of the recent entry here:

Please pay attention to

1. Emptying the inbox better
2. Telling industry what your spectrum strategy is
3. Considering initiatives to make new technologies available without waiting for petitions in every case.

Commissioner Copps issued the following statement:

I congratulate my colleague and friend, Kevin Martin, on his reconfirmation by
the Senate last night. One of the true pleasures I have had at the Commission is getting to
know Kevin since we came here together in 2001 and working with him on a wide
variety of matters. Much of the time we agree, some of the time we don't, but I continue
to value the frank discussions we have, the intellect and character he brings to the
Commission and his ability to maintain cordial personal relations amidst all of the
difficult issues moving here. Having been through several confirmation processes
myself, I know how pleased Kevin must feel today and I am happy for him and his fine
family.

John Branscome Joins the WAM

On November, 8, 2006 Commissioner Michael J. Copps announced that John Branscome has been detailed to his office to assist in handling spectrum and international issues. As such he becomes part of the WAM (Wireless Advisors' Meeting), the inner circle of commissioners' staff that review spectrum policy issues with the top FCC staff in regular meetings. (Due to the Carter-era Government in Sunshine Act, more than 2 commissioners may not normally meet to discuss policy.)

John has been serving as Chief of the Spectrum and Competition Policy Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Prior to his appointment as Division Chief, John served as Legal Advisor to the Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. He was co-chair of the FCC's Wireless Broadband Access Task Force. He also served on detail as acting legal advisor for wireless, international, and technology issues for Comm. Abernathy. He joined the FCC in 1999. Before that, he worked for the law firm of Wilkinson Barker & Knauer.

He did not have a specific role in the Spectrum Policy Task Force, which is just as well since that might be a real career hindrance in the current FCC.

Congratulations, John, on a promotion well deserved!

-----------------

With this change, the apparent e-mail addresses of the WAM members are:

Fred.Campbell@fcc.gov,Barry.Ohlson@fcc.gov,Aaron.Goldberger@fcc.gov, Angela.Giancarlo@fcc.gov, John.Branscome@fcc.gov

FCC and "The Vision Thing"

In the previous post, a reprint of an article from RCRNews, there was a de facto exchange between "an FCC official, who asked that his name not be used" and me on the issues of spectrum reform and leadership at FCC at present. The "FCC official" was given as the source for the following:

• "FCC is indeed moving ahead on spectrum reform. "The perception that things are slowing down is not correct. Across the board we've been active on spectrum reform," he said. The official pointed to the completion of the advanced wireless services auction and last week's decision to the permit Qualcomm Inc. to operate its MediaFLO mobile TV offering in markets where TV broadcasters are currently using the 700 MHz spectrum. In addition, he said the FCC continues to integrate spectrum flexibility into its wireless rules."

All of the above facts are literally true. But there is a difference between addressing some of the most visible issues supported by large corporations in the FCC "inbox" and the issue of leadership in spectrum policy. Indeed, while I support all the specific actions mentioned, I don't think they constitute "spectrum reform".

Indeed, the "inbox" is not even being emptied well. Look at reconsiderations pending in Dockets 03-108 (Cognitive Radio) and 04-151 (3650 MHz band). The creation of rules enabling new technology and new bands does not result in capital formation if there are ambiguities and unresolved challenges to the new rules. While the Commission can not directly affect court review of its decisions, it should at least resolve spectrum policy reconsiderations on a timely basis. It isn't.

The path proposed by the Spectrum Policy Task Force was one approach to "spectrum reform". The current Commission certainly doesn't have to be bound by that vision and they seem to have distanced themselves from it by abolishing the task force without public announcement - although leaving a vestigial web site. But 18 months after Chairman Powell's departure, what is the spectrum policy vision of the current Commission? Frankly, I don't know.

As a contrast of the present FCC vision vacuum, look at the strategy statements by its British counterpart Ofcom. If one was considering making R&D investments in innovative radio technology would you want to invest in the US with its murky plan for the spectrum future or UK where you can see the general direction of spectrum policy?

Published Ofcom strategy for UK spectrum evolution

Note that in this discussion, I have not criticized any specific FCC decision and advocated a specific direction. I only ask that the current Commission both "empty its inbox" and give industry and potential new entrants to industry a better vision of what direction it is headed in.

US industry and the wireless indistry in general are now reaping the benefits of the Commission's leadership in the 1980s on making spread spectrum technology available for commercial use and designating the ISM bands for unlicensed use. This was not an FCC reaction to petitions from major corporations - indeed it was actually opposed by mainstream industry at the time! But this leadership resulted in new services and economic growth via both Wi-Fi and CDMA cellular.

FCC new equipment authorization in ISM band each year after 1985 decision
(Wi-Fi and related equipment under 47 CFR 15.247)

In the 1990s the FCC also opened up 57-64 GHz to commercial use in Docket 94-124 without waiting for petitions from major corporations. This time, at least, the major players did not oppose the FCC initiative. Now we can see the growing commercial interest in this band even in the New York Times! Already 13 models from 6 different have been approved by FCC, not counting the recently announced IBM chip set for this band. Would IBM have started investing in this technology if it didn't know the band would be available or under what terms? How difficult would it have been to raise venture capital without signals from FCC?

So Commissioners, please pay attention to

1. Emptying the inbox better
2. Telling industry what your spectrum strategy is
3. Considering initiatives to make new technologies available without waiting for petitions in every case.
   

Spectrum Policy Committee Remains
Shrouded in Secrecy
By Jeffrey Silva
Oct 13, 2006
[Reproduced from RCRNews with kind permission]

Oct 13, 2006
WASHINGTON-Nearly two years after President Bush authorized the creation of an advisory committee as part of spectrum policy initiative launched in 2003, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has yet to disclose identities of members, whether any meetings have been held or explain what progress has been made on White House-driven spectrum program that from the beginning has been shrouded in secrecy and yielded few tangible results to date.

NTIA, a unit of the Commerce Department that advises the president on telecom policy and manages federal government spectrum, last week declined to provide any details on the status of advisory committee and the Bush spectrum initiative. Todd Sedmak, an NTIA spokesman, said the agency may say more publicly by the end of the year or early 2007. But Sedmak did not elaborate on what NTIA planned to announce. The spectrum advisory committee, which is allotted between five and 20 members, is chartered for two years. The charter can be renewed.
While NTIA has tried to keep the matter quiet, criticism has surfaced about financial disclosure statements required of advisory committee participants. At least one top industry lobbyist invited to join the panel is said to have refused to be part of the advisory committee as a result of financial filing requirements. Some federal advisory committees do not require financial disclosures. It is unclear whether the structuring of the Commerce spectrum management advisory committee, with its financial disclosure requirements, has caused NTIA to lose talent that otherwise it might have been able to attract.

One think-tank scholar said NTIA's handling of the advisory committee is symptomatic of a broader spectrum management issue and raises questions about the Bush administration's commitment to take on tough spectrum reform challenges.

"The delays and secrecy associated with setting up the advisory panel are indicative of a much larger problem of delay and secrecy in bringing accountability to federal use of spectrum," said J.H. Snider, research director of the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program.

Snider was a candidate for the advisory panel, but apparently was passed over.

"The administration and much of industry knows there is serious mismanagement of federal spectrum. But the administration faces a dilemma," said Snider. "On the one hand, it wants to avoid political heat by saying it is doing something about the problem. On the other hand, it doesn't have the political stomach to seriously address it. A primary purpose of the advisory committee is to give the administration political cover for claiming it takes the mismanagement problem seriously. The delays and secrecy are indicative of just how ambivalent the administration is about having the advisory committee seriously grapple with the issues necessary to fulfill its mission."

The spectrum advisory committee was a key recommendation that grew out of the Bush spectrum effort.

NTIA is working with the FCC on another major recommendation in the Bush spectrum policy initiative: sharing spectrum by federal government and non-federal spectrum users-like those in the mobile-phone industry. The FCC has yet to issue a ruling on spectrum sharing.

There is a strong perception in industry that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is far less committed to spectrum management-particularly cutting-edge reforms-than his predecessor, Michael Powell. Powell created a spectrum task force whose work led to numerous rulemaking proceedings. Some have been completed, others have not. Under Martin, spectrum reform white papers are virtually no where to be found.

"It is quite apparent that Chairman Martin has severe problems in finding staff outside his immediate circle that he can trust. The heads of the Office of Engineering & Technology and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau are still acting and Julius Knapp was not even formally named acting head of OET until about two months ago-and then without any formal announcement," said Michael Marcus, a telecom consultant and a former associate chief for technology at OET. "When the homeland security bureau was finally created after more than a year of planning, it doesn't have a regular head and the acting head was never even formally announced." [Note that Julius Knapp has been named permanent head of OET since this story was first published in RCR, but there has been no public announcement. See previous SpectrumTalk entry for more.]

Marcus said the FCC has been hampered by an exodus of spectrum policy experts and inability to attract replacements, a situation that pre-dates Martin's chairmanship.

"Unfortunately good spectrum policy needs people on the 8th floor with a good feel for the issues," said Marcus. "They don't need to have engineering degrees if they understand the issues. But for that last decade there has been a scarcity of such people on the 8th floor and it continues under Chairman Martin. So if you feel insecure about the issues, you go slow and avoid decisions, if possible. ... Unfortunately, the wireless industry needs leadership from FCC and timely resolution of policy issues for both its own growth and to provide efficient and effective services to the rest of the U.S. economy. We are reaping the benefits now of [a 1985] decision that paved the way for Wi-Fi and set the stage for CDMA cellular. But what decisions are the FCC making today the clear the way for new technologies 10 to 20 years from now?"

An FCC official, who asked that his name not be used, replied that the FCC is indeed moving ahead on spectrum reform. "The perception that things are slowing down is not correct. Across the board we've been active on spectrum reform," he said. The official pointed to the completion of the advanced wireless services auction and last week's decision to the permit Qualcomm Inc. to operate its MediaFLO mobile TV offering in markets where TV broadcasters are currently using the 700 MHz spectrum. In addition, he said the FCC continues to integrate spectrum flexibility into its wireless rules.

[NTIA announced the membership of the advisory committee on November 3, 2006 after the original publication of this article in RCR.]