Fast Net News, DSL Prime, DOCSIS Report

My comment: Time to get serious about reducing consumer costs, including royalty/patents. By apparent accident, I wound up on a U.S. State Department advisory committee dealing with ITU and international regulations. I was never told the proceedings were confidential or asked to keep them so, but I am treating them that way. However, I believe in the spirit of the FCC ex parte rules. Those advocating to government should do so publicly. I am not reporting on the committee, but am making public what I personally advocated.
   In the context of the ITU discussion of moving the Internet forward internationally, I advocated taking the lead in making it more affordable for all. In particular, I pointed to the high and controversial patent/royalty costs, which I believe look to raise the costs of wireless, especially LTE and LTE Advanced, brutally. A mobile phone now costs $25 and a low end smartphone/MiFi about $100, heading to $30-50 in a few years. If the royalties claimed by Motorola, Apple, and literally dozens of others were enforced, that would add $20-50 to the cost. Microsoft alone wants $5 from every Android connection despite an almost insignificant part of the “intellectual property.”
    Getting the poor of the world connected requires bringing down the price as far as possible. As hardware costs come down with Moore’s Law, making royalties truly “reasonable” is the single most important step to bringing down the cost of the gear. ITU leader Haolin Zhou once told me in Geneva “the best standards have no royalties.” A good interim goal is that the total royalties should be 5-10%. On something like LTE, with literally hundreds of patent claims, that means very, very few companies have contributed enough invention to justify more than a fraction of 1%.

I filed a freedom of information request for the material redacted in a Sandwich Islands petition at the FCC to allow them to collect more than allowed in the recent USF proceeding. They have requested, and the FCC agreed, to hide from public  view basic information like how much money they are receiving and how much they will lose. These are blacked over in the filing. Sandwich Islands is particularly controversial since they collect $10's of thousand per subscriber (I believe) and have been exposed in the Hawaiian press as having deep political connections. I think it's ridiculous for the FCC to hide basic information in policy proceedings, such as how much money is involved. I wrote a note to Austin Schlick, FCC General Counsel. I expect this will be buried or ignored, although everyone knows the FCC  redacts far too much and it affects the policy discussion. Including AT&T/TMo.

Jules Genachowski thoughtfully questioned the House bill to auction some broadcast spectrum. It would hurt the U.S. effort to use spectrum efficiently. Technology has changed and spectrum monopolies are increasingly inappropriate. Shared spectrum - think WiFi and white space super WiFi - typically supports 3-10 times as much wireless traffic as traditional telco mobile networks.

     The more I learn about wireless networks as I consult on one the more I realize that heterogeneous networks are a crucial part of capacity design. The best engineers at Ericsson, Alcatel, and the networks themselves are very strong on this. LTE Advanced is built around "heterogeneous networks" with WiFi and femto offload playing a crucial role. Hetnets are a key part of the 3GPP LTE Advanced standards and both Ericsson's and Alcatel's roadmap.

     The few experts on wireless in D.C. are starting to make themselves heard over the din of lawyer/lobbyists. If wireless capability is important, shared spectrum is the way to go.

     Here are Jules comments, presumably authored by staff.

Over the last weeks and months, we have conveyed to Members of Congress and  their staff concerns about provisions that would reduce FCC flexibility to maximize the overall value of freed-up spectrum, enhance spectrum efficiency, and promote robust innovation and investment.  Several provisions of the House bill would tie the agency’s hands in ways that could be counterproductive, reducing economic value and hindering innovation and investment.  One important example is the legislation’s seeming limitation on the Commission’s ability to accommodate new technologies, including those that use unlicensed spectrum, like super WiFi or machine-to-machine Internet connected devices.  I encourage Congress to leave no doubt that the FCC can continue its policies to promote unlicensed spectrum use alongside licensed uses.