ISP Policy Chiefs Hit FCC on Competition; Rosenworcel Seeks FCC 5G Spectrum Action

Some generally agreed with the sentiment from moderator Larry Downes, project director of the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, that at the commission, competition is "really just a proxy for more regulation." When the agency wants "to talk about competition, we get a new definition of it, or no definition of it," he said. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel sought FCC action on some spectrum, saying it's a busy time for the FCC, but she wouldn't talk about what she called the slow-moving court proceeding on net neutrality rules or on the fast-moving ISP privacy proceeding. Spectrum policy has been an area where the FCC generally got praise at TIA 2016 (see 1606070021), speakers on various panels said. A commission spokesman declined to comment.

Senior executive vice presidents Jim Cicconi of AT&T and David Cohen of Comcast agreed the FCC is misguided in its tack to regulate business data services (BDS). That's one area where they differed from General Counsel Craig Silliman of Verizon, which with Incompas made a BDS proposal that the commission partly agreed to (see 1604130050) and that cable contends could regulate its special access services as never before. The agency isn't accounting for cable adding competition to the special access market, said Cicconi and Cohen. BDS needs "to have a coherent regulatory framework that is technology-neutral," said Silliman: Competing providers of competing services "are regulated under completely different regimes."

"The cable industry is competing with us everywhere in this market, and that was not the case at the time the market was deregulated," said Cicconi of special access. "By many accounts, [cable] is taking share." It's "a competitive, healthy, functioning market where competition is increasing," said Cohen: Cable companies help it be "more so." Government "should step back and regulate less, and yet the general approach that the chairman appears to be taking is that this is a market which needs more regulation," Cohen said. "Intrusive price and access regulation" could affect "new entrants as well as existing" companies, he said.

The FCC also drew scorn on other broadband-related issues, including net neutrality that puts broadband service under Communications Act Title II common-carrier rules. "Light-touch" rules were the right call and "not an intrusive Title II regulatory regime," said Cohen. A favorable U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision on net neutrality would help infrastructure investment, speakers including Cohen said. Belcher has also said TIA is closely watching for a D.C. Circuit ruling. The sector, which spends "collectively as an industry billions of dollars a year advertising," is "hypercompetitive," said Silliman. The "narrative that you sometimes hear coming out of Washington and specifically the FCC that I find somewhat odd" has to do with why some households don't subscribe to broadband, which is indeed a "serious social issue," he said. The problem isn't that some may not be able to get 25 Mbps broadband but that they may lack a computer, Silliman said. "You are defining artificial speed tiers that lead to this results-oriented analysis." Not every home needs the ability to simultaneously view four 4K streams, he said.

Cicconi said some FCC rules are hurting investment. "The FCC refuses to recognize competition in any market it wishes to regulate," he said: "If there’s two competitors, you want four" in a market, and so forth no matter how many rivals exist. "They are picking winners and losers," said Cicconi. "What the FCC has really laid out is a proposition that is quite different and frankly only tangentially involves consumers, that they can intervene in a market anytime they desire to help one competitor against another competitor." He cited the BDS, ISP privacy and set-top box proceedings. "And you can name a bunch of others," he continued. "This is really rooted in the fact that any institution seeks to preserve itself and expand its authority."

The agency has gotten some parts of spectrum policy right, speakers said, with some citing Rosenworcel's remarks. Spectrum rules are an area the FCC "has largely gotten right over the last 20 years; it is an area of expertise," Cohen said. For Silliman, "it's important that we get the spectrum out there quickly" as 5G commercialization is eyed, so "keep it simple" is his advice to the agency. It needs to get high-band spectrum auctioned soon, to avoid what he called social engineering, which he said could slow down an auction.

Rosenworcel said she hopes to see FCC summer action on three high-frequency bands "and put in place a framework so the United States can lead" on 5G. The standard has been a major TIA 2016 focus (see 1606080039). Looking at spectrum below 3 GHz also is "critically important for widescale wireless coverage," and unlicensed is important, too, she said. "We need a cut for 5G in our unlicensed policy." Another band of spectrum near existing high-band unlicensed services could "create more unlicensed opportunity in 5G," Rosenworcel said. With infrastructure the "unsung hero of wireless revolution," she seeks to "support those efforts on the ground" through more efficient tower siting policies. "If we want our wireless future to be bold, we need to do more than rest on those 4G laurels," she said. "Even though 5G standardization is still under way and commercialization may not take place till the next decade, the race is on, and that’s the kind of race we want the United States to win."