FCC

FCC broadband analysis uncovers seven critical gaps

The FCC has jumped decisively into the broadband deployment issue with a number of new initiatives. In the “concrete” area, it issued a declaratory ruling to expedite the decisions on cell tower installation, removing what some operators characterized as selected local logjams.

Perhaps the most far-reaching thing in the laundry list of broadband commentary yesterday was a task force report from the national broadband plan activity that listed no fewer than seven critical gaps that impact broadband availability. In summary, they were USF limitations, demographic inequality, consumer education problems, spectrum limitations, infrastructure cost barriers, STB innovation stagnation and privacy issues. While there has been publicity to suggest that open access is now a strong contender, those views are linked only to past studies and not to any current comment by the FCC. We indicated our view on the Berkman study in a past blog; we disagree almost totally with its findings.

New broadband stimulus proposal emerges from FCC inquiry

A proposal to pay ISPs to connect broadband customers is one of those that’s emerging out of the FCC broadband policy debate, and the concept has some merit. A direct payment for a connected subscriber might address the fact that there is a very large base of consumers who can get broadband but don’t, and not being willing/able to pay for it appears to be the largest reason.

A subsidy would be a strong incentive to boost broadband usage, but there are major risks. The incentive might spawn another overlay CLEC model that doesn’t really address cost management and thus doesn’t create a viable market. Users might be pirated to gain their subsidies and given substandard services. Some significant tuning on the idea is essential if it’s to form an element of a future broadband policy. We think, for example, that the funds should go only to ISPs who provide facility-based services.

Verizon’s smartphone direction still chasing AT&T?

Verizon is apparently planning a total smartphone blitzfor the holidays, including the already-discussed Droid from Motorola, but also according to rumor, a new HTC Android smartphone and perhaps a third model as well.

The Verizon moves are, we think, are calculated to make things complicated for AT&T and Apple with the iPhone for the holidays. A multiplicity of models at various sizes and price points makes sense at this stage in the market, but there is no question Apple still has the cachet that other smartphones have so far been unable to match.

We think all of these smartphone wars are a signal that whatever the FCC might do with wireless net neutrality, operators are committed to the mobile web.

FCC includes pivotal issue in Net Neutrality NPRM

The FCC isn’t “considering” net neutrality rules as a formal order; they’re “proposing” specific actions. That’s the meaning of what happened yesterday at the public meeting. The FCC approved its net neutrality Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by unanimous vote, but Republicans dissented in part, just enough to keep alive the partisan bickering that’s characterized Washington and to reflect their concern with some of the points.

If you look at the document closely, you find it really consists of four parts. One codifies the original principles of net neutrality that were published in 2005. The second requires that providers treat lawful traffic in a non-discriminatory way and publish any traffic management policies. Both these sections (which are subdivided further in the NPRM) are largely accepted by all. The third element asserts the FCC’s position that these principles be applied across access types, meaning wireline telco, cable, and wireless. This raises some ire in the industry, and also with some Republicans.

The final point, in our view this is the most controversial, asks for comment on the specialized services that are IP-delivered and share the broadband pipe with the Internet. The FCC wants to know how to define these and what rules (including the six defined in the first and second parts we’ve outlined) should apply to these special services.

This last issue is pivotal because should the FCC decide these services are also to be regulated in some way, they could impose access-sharing requirements on telco IPTV offerings. We think it will be months before any order comes out of this process, but just the fact that the FCC is thinking about the third and fourth issues here could force operators to consider what would happen to their mobile and wireline walled-garden services if access connections had to be wholesaled to competitors at a fair price.

Regulatory issues are never covered well in the media, and the public interest in this one will likely make it worse. Make no mistake; the key to the future is in the single issue of those managed or special services!

Policy clues surface as FCC hits its stride

The FCC is hitting its stride in regulatory policy terms, primarily relating to the issues of next-gen voice. In one matter, the FCC has already asked Google for specific details on Google Voice, in response to AT&T filing a complaint that the service was really a regulated voice service and was discriminating against open call routing to exchanges with high reciprocal compensation rules.

Now the FCC’s chairman is making it clear that his FCC thinks mobile services are the really hot regulatory issue. Genachowski applauded the AT&T decision to open its mobile network to VoIP services and the Verizon Wireless partnership with Google. He still feels that mobile services aren’t necessarily as competitive as the FCC would like. The knotty issues for mobile are the application of net neutrality and the question of open handsets and handset subsidies.

FCC universal broadband cost estimate doesn’t factor in performance

The FCC said that giving 100 Mbps broadband to every home would cost $350 billion, which is about half what we think it would cost to give every household FTTH and therefore pretty consistent with our own models. The FCC also said you could provide 50 Mbps for $50 billion, and our model says that’s a third of the actual number.

The relationship between broadband cost and service performance is complex, and we suspect that most planners simply haven’t delved into the details at this point. The issue here is that public policy goals in broadband might be aggressive because of intense industry lobbying, but that real progress is unlikely to be made toward universal service unless there are major compromises in performance.

We are covering this issue in depth in October’s issue of our newsletter/journal Netwatcher.

FCC net neutrality proposal confuses the issue

Reviewing FCC Chairman Genachowski’s comments on the net neutrality process, we find that there are a number of interesting points.

• First, the FCC is indeed proposing to apply net neutrality to wireless, which is something that’s already caused concerns among wireless providers. Wireless is the last bastion of profitability for the operators, after all.
• Second, the FCC is making it very clear that net neutrality rights will apply only to lawful content, and in fact Genachowski specifically said it would not apply to P2P that infringes on copyright. That means that the ISPs would be free to interfere with “non-lawful” traffic.
• Third, and perhaps most significantly, the FCC is saying that while it is important to offer managed services, which we assume means services with managed QoS, in parallel with the Internet, these can’t be allowed to compromise Internet service capacity and quality growth. This could pose the risk that the FCC might reverse its long-standing position on IPTV.

We don’t know exactly what the FCC has in mind (nor does anyone else (which likely includes the FCC!), but this announcement could create more uncertainty than clarity, which could influence U.S. providers’ investment in broadband. A Senate bill to block the order has been introduced, but it has no chance of passing. The House net neutrality bill will, according to sponsors, move forward.

Google Voice, Apple, AT&T and the FCC: The flap continues

Google has released some information that suggests that Apple’s statements to the FCC in July about blocking Google Voice were not correct, and the rumor is that even more damning information is available at Google for release should Apple not reconsider its position.

Apple claimed that its “rejection” of the Google Voice application was for look-and-feel reasons, but the Google release suggests it was explicitly because Google Voice competed with basic Apple/AT&T functionality, something the FCC would likely rule on.

This issue could bite both Apple and AT&T because an actual false statement to the FCC would be bad politics, at the minimum. We say this because it’s not clear whether the FCC really has authority over Apple and handsets. The FCC would have to contend that Apple was simply a stalking horse for AT&T interests in this case, and AT&T is within the FCC’s jurisdictional web.

Market pressure could cost AT&T Apple iPhone exclusivity

There’s growing speculation that AT&T’s honeymoon with iPhone may be coming to an end. Pressure from the government on the wireless industry is mounting, and Apple is no longer doing exclusive deals with iPhone. In fact, it can’t afford to.

With iPhone in the U.S. locked to AT&T, there’s too much of a risk that the U.S. market (the number-one smartphone market) will end up validating a host of iPhone competitors that might have little chance under normal circumstances. AT&T has relied on iPhone to gain some market share, however, and has won some Verizon customers. Since Verizon would be likely to get the iPhone next, the loss could send a bunch running back.

We’re hearing some speculation that Apple and Verizon will do a 4G deal, though, so the opening of the iPhone won’t be imminent.

FCC on wireless: Defining competition is task one

The FCC voted unanimously to move both of its wireless investigations to the formal Notice of Inquiry phase, but it is clear that (as usual) the body is divided along party lines regarding just what might be done.

Democrats think the industry has competitive issues and Republicans do not. Their differences seem to us to come out of the definition of “competition.” Republicans want to define it as having multiple wireless provider choices available, while Democrats define it as having relative freedom and flexibility to exercise handset and service options without being locked into a single provider.

In short, the “mobility” of customers is a concern of Democrats, and that may be a harder point to cover in a regulatory sense.