Post Commr. Adelstein speech at F2C — Q&A
paraphrased — word choices all mine
Frankston: Can you focus on bits instead of services? We don't need phone companies.
Adelstein: Someone has to build these networks. We're using limited tools to ensure internet remains open and free but these businesses have to be able to attract investment. Infrastructure isn't adequate enough to support traffic that will appear. True we do hear a lot of fluff about what that investment needs to be, but we still have infrastructure needs. Seee AT&T/BellSouth merger. Title I is questionable area of legal authority in which to be doing this, so we have to replace nondiscrimination elements in Title II with new Title I requirements.
Isenberg: What's the FCC's power here, and your power?
Adelstein: I'm one of five Commissioners. 535 members of Congress. And they leave a lot of responsibility for big decisions to us. I'm often surprised by how much power and responsibility we have, particularly given the legal authority we have. An awesome responsibility. Sometimes I'm in the minority. We prefer to be unanimous — we did that in AT&T merger. So we can have a positive influence; others to judge whether we're doing a good job.
Brough Turner: What about other ways of using unused spectrum? Most of it unused most of the time. Look how much can happen with small slivers being made available — cognitive radio could be key. What's your response?
Adelstein: I've talked about cognitive radio in the past. Key to spectrum policy. Transform how we use it; revolutionary. We need to find ways of allowing radios to reach their full fruition. We're experimenting with testbeds and new service rules. Have to take what we have and do more. Same time we have to worry about harmful interference.
JH Snider from New America: FCC is mostly carrots, few sticks. Lots given away in spectrum flexibility; but boy no demands. MMDS band, given to incumbents. No buildout yet. Many promises, nothing done. Where is the stick?
Adelstein: So I'm not very effective…. You're right, it's easy to give away carrots. Spectrum policy has been like that. I think we need to be held accountable. Stick could be: we'll take away spectrum if you're not using it. That could be reasonable spectrum policy. We should be doing this.
Alicia McDonald: AT&T merger was highly contentious; please reflect on how it worked politically. Fine that we have an NN definition in it; is it useful, will it be enforced? And you said you wanted better policy analysis — what do you mean?
Adelstein: Talks for merger didn't get going until we know who players were going to be in the debate. [McDowell made final decision to stay out.] I think good conclusion should really work; areas where most concern was expressed. Concerns about last mile, eg. Less debate about whether backbone is competitive. We were able to get beyond question of whether NN can be defined. Good discussion, contentious, but broke new ground, smashed old myths. We can use this as a baseline going forward. Opens possibility of having further rational discussions.
As for enforcement — Chairman says he'll enforce NN provision. He's committed that to Congress as well. But he doesn't think it should be FCC-wide policy.
As for policy advice I [Adelstein] could use: industry doesn't want public to know what their data is. Eg, in advanced service penetration report we go on zip codes and 200Kb. All inadequate. We know this analysis is completely faulty. (See Kentucky Connect reports.) We should figure out where our problems are and where people aren't getting it and why. Far too shallow data right now. Hopeful that upcoming NPRM on data collection will help that.
Isenberg: Thanks.
Comments
Got something to say?