Aspen, Colorado. Land of slopes, home of the late, great Hunter S. Thompson, and for one day at least, a place for some fine communications policy trash-talking.

The arena was the opening reception of the Technology Policy Institute’s annual conference. The trash-talker was one R. Stanton Dodge, general counsel for the Dish Network, who told attendees that his company definitely still had plans to jump into the wireless game.

“This is a fine function with Verizon here,” Dodge said, “but we want to eat their lunch and AT&T’s as well.”

While Dodge’s bluster was entertaining, it also highlighted something often forgotten when it comes to communications policy. Specifically, that the industry has no shortage of current or willing participants. According to CTIA, there are now over 30 wireless providers in the U.S., which means Dish is looking to join a rather crowded field that is certainly not lacking a competitive playing field.

Dish’s wireless plans also highlight how important it will be for the FCC to allow unrestricted, competitive bidding among all qualified bidders in its upcoming spectrum auctions.  With its massive spectrum holdings — and plans to acquire more before it launches its service — the satellite TV provider is just one player who could be a major disruptive force in the industry. With every wireless provider in need of more airwaves to keep up with consumer demand on their networks, the FCC must avoid picking winners and losers by favoring some providers while restricting other qualified bidders from participating in the spectrum auctions.

That would be the very definition of anti-competitive behavior.

By: Mike Montgomery
As seen on Daily Kos

In the wireless industry it’s possible to be first and third at the same time.

Take, for example, wireless provider Sprint, which was recently acquired by the Japanese firm SoftBank for a little more than $20 billion. It’s a good-sized sum for America’s third-largest wireless provider—but then, that ranking applies only to number of customers, not its spectrum holdings.

While Sprint has only half as many subscribers as Verizon or AT&T, they happen to hold twice as much wireless spectrum – the invisible airwaves that enable mobile devices to send and receive data – thanks to their recent full buyout of Clearwire. Amazingly, Sprint has shown an uncanny ability to simultaneously win and lose, taking the gold medal in spectrum and a bronze in customers.

With their riches in spectrum holdings and underperformance as a business, it’s no wonder the company found itself in the middle of a bidding war between SoftBank and U.S. satelliteprovider DISH.

The point here isn’t to bash Sprint. They’re trying to run their business shrewdly, even if sitting on their airwaves hoard, while pining for more, risks hurting their customers and potentially their shareholders. But Sprint’s enviable spectrum position also shows that when it comes to the allocation of spectrum for wireless providers, industry rank isn’t as cut and dried as the number of customers in your flock.

This distinction is particularly important in light of calls by some carriers, including Sprint, and government officials to artificially limit the two largest wireless providers from the FCC’s upcoming spectrum incentive auctions based on the gap in subscribers between Sprint and Verizon/AT&T. Instead of banging the drum on Capitol Hill about how bad they’ve got it, Sprint should be trying to get more consumers to use their network.

Nevertheless, Sprint’s obvious spectrum advantage coupled with the fact that provider T-Mobile recently joined forces with fellow provider MetroPCS—a move that places the German-owned company in a much stronger, competitive position—the wireless industry is far more competitive than Sprint would like the world to know.

Competitive industries serve a great benefit to consumers by delivering better services at lower prices. Those on the side of restricting the involvement of certain providers from the FCC’s auctions are actually arguing against consumers.  Tens of millions of people just want their phones and tablets to function as designed and want to enjoy exciting new technologies that rely on advanced mobile broadband.  The FCC should consider that AT&T and Verizon have the most customers because consumers choose to use their networks. By restricting their auction participation, the FCC isn’t creating more choices for consumers — it’s hamstringing the choices consumers have already made. That’s not a win for anybody.

As the old saying goes, it’s not personal, it’s just business.  Sprint has the airwaves it needs to take care of its customers and then some, and the same goes with T-Mobile. But without open spectrum auctions, millions of Americans are at risk of receiving diminished service for their hard-earned dollars. To them, that makes it personal.

By: Mike Montgomery 
As featured in The Hill

At first blush, the event held by Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy entitled “The Broadband Technology Explosion: Rethinking Communications Policy for a Mobile Broadband World” could have easily seemed like a wonk fest for public policy nerds. But for those of us who made the trip to Silicon Valley’s Quadrus Conference Center on Sand Hill Road, the discussion was anything but boring. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the topics being hashed out are critical to the future of the Valley.

Chief among those topics was spectrum, specifically the best way to make more airwaves available for mobile broadband. By happenstance, the Pepperdine event coincided with the news that Instagram was launching new video capabilities, dubbed Instavine on social media as it was launched to compete with Twitter’s video platform, Vine. As this news lit up Twitter, I asked the panel how video from Instragram’s billion-plus users will affect wireless networks.

“[It] will create a larger load,” AT&T’s Richard Clarke replied. “We’re swimming fast, but the current is moving far faster.”

This demand for ever-increasing amounts of data (the “current” that Clarke spoke of) is driving carriers to pursue more wireless spectrum. The FCC plans to auction off 300 MHz of new spectrum to these wireless companies, but the panelists — including Harvard Business Review’s Larry Downes, Navigant Economics’ Hal Singer, and Pepperdine’s James Prieger — were doubtful that the full 300 MHz will ever reach the auction podium.

Put another way, the FCC’s efforts will only go so far, and unless the commission also eases restrictions on the secondary market transactions for spectrum, shortcomings will continue to exist. And these shortcomings, the panelists were sure to point out, could have a very real effect on the health of the wireless industry.

While no one believes the FCC should get out of the spectrum regulation business, there was broad agreement at the event that the commission needed to rethink its definition of public interest when it comes to the airwaves. Mobile broadband has been such a game changer, smartphones and tablets so explosively popular, that the current definition of public interest for spectrum is quickly falling out of stepwith consumer interests.

Singer in particular opined that the FCC should focus less on antitrust laws in its approach to regulation and instead focus more protecting consumers, a role they are uniquely qualified to fill.

Singer’s point has implications for spectrum policy. By focusing on consumer  to all wireless carriers regardless of their size, the commission will not place itself in the undesirable position of picking winners and losers in a thriving and highly competitive market. Will keeping auctions open, along with the FCC staying within its regulatory lanes, best serve consumer interests? At the Pepperdine event, the answer was a definite yes.

By Mike Montgomery
As seen on The Huffington Post  

Last week, the White House dropped a broadband bombshell in the form of a series of initiatives aimed at freeing up government-controlled spectrum for wireless providers. It also released a new report, “Four Years of Broadband Growth,” which is brimming with positive news about our nation’s broadband infrastructure.

It was a good week for both consumers and our country’s vibrant tech industry.

In Silicon Valley, President Obama’s focus on spectrum was especially welcome. In many ways, mobile broadband has become the lifeblood of our tech community. But as wireless providers are increasingly strapped for spectrum — and consumers continue to embrace mobile broadband at an unprecedented pace — there have been valid concerns that the blood would stop flowing. Or at the very least, that clogged airwaves would give the local tech industry chest pains.

As the single largest holder of spectrum, the U.S. government has the power to ensure America remains at the forefront of mobile broadband. The FCC’s upcoming spectrum incentive auctions have the potential to alleviate some of the congestion wireless providers face, but the fact of the matter is more action will be needed to free up spectrum, and needed quickly, in order to keep up with ever-growing consumer demand for advanced broadband-enabled services and applications.

While you could easily take the cynical view and declare allocating more spectrum for wireless is long overdue, it’s worth remembering that mobile broadband — and the mobile app industry it has sparked — is still in its infancy. The smartphone revolution only really began six years ago, after all, and outside of a select few visionaries, few had anticipated the monumental shift that has followed.

If wireless providers were caught somewhat flat footed by the sudden surge in demand for data on their networks, they’ve been investing billions to catch up. As the White House broadband report shows, annual investment in wireless networks jumped by more than 40 percent from 2009 to 2012 — from $21 billion a year to $30 billion. At the same time, the report finds, investment in Europe was static, and in Asia — including China — it only increased by 4 percent.

For Silicon Valley, all this investment in wireless infrastructure has helped inspire a wave of innovation and economic growth. And with more than 500 million connected devices and counting in America, we may only be at just the beginning of the mobile broadband boom. That’s what makes President Obama’s focus on spectrum so critical. More spectrum will mean more powerful networks, which will mean more innovation, which will inspire more investment in more powerful broadband networks.

As long as government policies continue to encourage investment in our nation’s broadband networks, this cycle of investment and innovation has the potential to become an even bigger economic powerhouse. President Obama has called for every part of America to be connected to the digital age. For Silicon Valley, and the country’s other tech hubs, that’s a goal worth achieving.

As featured on Daily Kos 
By: Mike Montgomery

$12 billion.

That’s a lot of clams, even to the federal government. But that’s approximately how much the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will be leaving on the table if they restrict some bidders during their upcoming spectrum incentive auctions, according to economists Robert J. Shapiro, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and Coleman Bazelon. In their study published by Georgetown University, “The Economic Implications of Restricting Spectrum Purchases in the Incentive Auctions,” the trio warn that limiting just two participants — Verizon and AT&T — from taking part in spectrum auctions could “reduce auction revenues by about 40 percent.”

But wait, there’s more. The group also estimates that forcing certain providers to watch from the sidelines could raise consumer bills by 9 percent. In short, the federal government will be refusing money, and consumers will be paying more money for their wireless service.

If that sounds backward to you, you’re not alone.

There was some good news on the education front, courtesy of The White House:

“Today, President Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to take the steps necessary to build high-speed digital connections to America’s schools and libraries, ensuring that 99 percent of American students can benefit from these advances in teaching and learning. He is further directing the federal government to make better use of existing funds to get this technology into classrooms, and into the hands of teachers trained on its advantages. And he is calling on businesses, states, districts, schools and communities to support his vision.”

The tl;dr read version: President Obama wants every student in America online. And he wants it to happen sooner rather than later.

Smart. Students today are better served by carrying a tablet rather than a backpack full of books, especially if they’re going to learn the skills they’ll need to play in the global economy and avoid future back pain.

But hitting the president’s mark will take more than words, especially with cities and school districts strapped for dough. Broadband networks don’t build themselves, which means continued private investment — and a regulatory environment that encourages it, both on the state and federal level — will be key.  Connecting 99% of students isn’t a moon shot, by any means, but it is a heavy lift. This means everyone, from government to business, needs to roll up their sleeves and work together to get it done.

As a strong proponent of preserving the Internet as a platform for communication and commerce kept free from burdensome regulation, I geeked out when I knew I would be spending time with the guy I perceived as leading the charge against our virtuous, sacred Internet.

I refer, of course, to the head of the International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”), Dr. Hamadoun Touré, who convened the World Conference on International Telecommunication (“WCIT”) late last year. I expected Dr. Touré to be the Internet’s equivalent of a goose farmer cultivating foie gras, force-feeding regulation down the Internet’s throat.

But for all the criticism heaped upon the ITU for its goals and process before, during and after the WCIT, I was surprised by a few of the notes Touré struck during his visit to Stanford University. During his keynote speech, Touré advocated for every single draconian proposed change to the world’s telecommunications laws, which was exactly what I expected from him. But what really stood out to me was his recognition of the need for updated communications infrastructure.

Touré spoke of all-IP (Internet protocol) networks springing up around the world and the need to embrace this technological advance as the next frontier in a hyper-connected world. He told the sold-out crowd that nations around the world are installing these IP networks with great success, spawning the creation of exciting micro-economies that didn’t previously exist. Touré implied that the U.S. has an opportunity to lap the rest of the world in terms of installing all-IP networks. Extrapolating on Touré’s statement, the U.S. must speed the transition in order to continue to stay ahead of the curve domestically while retaining our competitive edge globally.

Interestingly, while Dr. Touré seems to prescribe regulation as the solution to virtually every problem facing the Internet, his answer to the question of how to encourage faster and greater deployment of IP networks stands in stark contrast to that position. Oh the irony! He says the way to go is “light-touch regulation,” which limits the extent to which government should intervene with the management of the Internet ecosystem.

Obviously, I didn’t agree with everything Dr. Hamadoun Touré had to say over the course of the two-day Stanford symposium. However, I was thrilled to learn that the leader of the ITU is a vocal opponent of heavy regulations when it comes to transitioning the United States to the IP future we so desperately need.