October 2005

Katrina's Radio Silence

[Commentary] Hurricane Katrina blew emergency communications away, crippling relief efforts. Now public safety radio reforms are being floated from every think tank. Some suggest more money and some suggest more spectrum for first responders. Throwing money, frequencies or technology at public safety radio will do little to improve the situation. To save lives, federal policy makers must resist the temptation to impose “apartheid”, treating public safety networks as so special that they must be quarantined on frequencies of their own. Emergency radio services need to exit their government technology ghetto and get onboard advanced networks ­ as smart customers, not Soviet-style suppliers. The solution is to buy public safety radio service just as police cars are purchased from automakers. Private sector operators or system aggregators should bid to supply public safety networks. Airwaves should not be quarantined. This would open up shared use of frequencies, leveraging network economies. Three aspects are key. First, network sharing must be legal. Building tiny castles for each department is ridiculously expensive. Second, public safety spectrum must be available to the marketplace. Agencies benefit from selling airwave access during non-emergency moments, enabling (financially and functionally) the sharing of advanced networks. Finally, local radio fiefdoms must be conquered. Only with regional or perhaps state-wide systems will police in one town achieve mission critical coordination with police in the next. Throwing money -- or radio spectrum -- at police and fire departments will not prevent the next unnatural disaster in radio communications. Turning first responders from uncompetitive network providers into smart shoppers of advanced technology, will. "Waving around internet buzz words and hinting that there is a tech fix," writes Gerry Faulhaber, Wharton economist, "is not only not helpful, it is counterproductive."

The Advantages of New Communications Technology in the Wake of Katrina

[SOURCE: Mobile Satellite Ventures press release]

The DTV Transition's New Math

[Commentary] What are the costs associated to ending analog television in 2009 instead of 2007? There are three big numbers to watch. The first is the amount of the set-top box subsidy. The second is the value of the frequencies to the government. The third is the consumer benefit. Let's do the spectrum math. 1) On the set-top box: "The longer you wait, the more expensive the box becomes, because demand goes down," said an official with Zoran, which makes circuitry for set-top boxes. "From a subsidy point of view, [waiting 'til '09] may be a wash." 2) Will spectrum be worth more in '09? Spectrum experts say the Congressional Budget office is being too cautious when estimating the revenues that could be generated by analog TV spectrum auctions. 3) Consumer benefit: Even if that auction did yield less, delaying the DTV transition until 2009 does not make economic sense. "The notion that the government would delay an auction purely to increase revenues to the federal government is perverse," said Dorothy Robyn of the Brattle Group. "The government should be acting to get the spectrum into the marketplace as soon as possible, and not as a monopolist seeking to maximize revenue," added Gregory Rosston of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. That's because of the massive consumer benefits that flow from increased cellular and broadband competition. With only about 160 megahertz of spectrum devoted to commercial services, the United States is far behind other industrialized countries. If another 60 megahertz were auctioned, consumers would save $24 billion every year because they would use wireless devices more and pay lower prices for using them, according to George Mason University economist Tom Hazlett. Bottom line: Keeping the hard date at 2009 would yield the government at least $10 billion, minus up to $3 billion for converter boxes. There would be no consumer benefit until 2009. That's a $7 billion total. Imagine that a hard date of 2008 yielded $8 billion and the subsidy remained constant. The $24 billion annual consumer surplus puts this package at approximately $29 billion. Even if a hard date of 2007 yielded an implausibly low $5 billion in auction revenue, with a similar subsidy, two years' worth of spectrum usage by consumers means this approach would net a $50 billion benefit.

The Fight Over Wireless

[SOURCE: Slate, AUTHOR: Adam L. Penenberg]

San Jose Considers WiFi Expansion

[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR:Jessie Seyfer]

Cable Sprints Into the Wireless Game

[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Mike Farrell]

CPB Personnel Moves

[SOURCE: Corporation for Public Broadcasting press release]

Former Beer Man with Ties to Delay's K Street Cabal Heads Broadcast Lobby

[SOURCE: Center for Digital Democracy, AUTHOR: Jeff Chester]

FCC Democrats To Seek Telecom Merger Safeguards

[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: David Hatch]

Universal Service Reform Proposed

[SOURCE: Progress & Freedom Foundation press release]
Universal service reform should 1) include a cap on the fund, 2) introduce performance-based block grants, and 3) shift funding to a "numbers tax." These are the conclusions of The Digital Age Communications Act Universal Service Working Group in a Preliminary Report, complete with model legislative language, released Monday by the Progress & Freedom Foundation.
http://www.pff.org/news/news/2005/102405dacausf1.html