AWS-2/AWS-3 Prediction, Part II

[Commentary] Recently, Feld predicted the Federal Communications Commission would opt to auction the AWS-2/AWS-3 spectrum rather than adopt the M2Z proposal.

Yesterday, the FCC issued it's teaser for recommendations to improve broadband adoption. One of these was "[c]onsider use of spectrum for a free or very low cost wireless broadband service." Yesterday, the FCC issued it's teaser for recommendations to improve broadband adoption. One of these was "[c]onsider use of spectrum for a free or very low cost wireless broadband service." That, of course, was M2Z's chief selling point. They would provide a free tier for everyone supported by adds and by the higher-speed, ad free pay tier. So does Feld want to revise his prediction on whether the FCC will adopt the M2Z or T-Mobile asymmetric auction proposal? Not at this point. Sure, this tea leaf looks much more favorable to M2Z than it does to T-Mobile.

But two things. First, the language says "consider" rather than simply "use." The question of whether to require free service of some kind as a public interest obligation was teed up in the pending AWS-2/AWS-3 proceeding. If they were going to go with M2Z, they wouldn't say "consider," they'd say "use spectrum . . . ."

Second, there are a number of other ways to use spectrum for free or low cost wireless. These range from expanding the use of unlicensed spectrum to facilitate creation of community wireless networks to mandating "wireless lifeline"-type programs that would require all carriers to offer cheap or free access on a needs basis. It also remains to be seen whether the FCC will actually do anything other than "consider" such an approach, or whether revenue concerns and incumbent resistance will ultimately carry the day.

So while Feld is pleased to see the FCC looking at spectrum from a public interest/public welfare perspective, he's not changing his bet on how the FCC resolves the AWS-2/AWS-3 band fight. The real questions are (a) timetable, and (b) spectrum caps, yes/no?