Arbitrary Spectrum Policy

Let me be clear, I support the FCC’s approval of the  SoftBank-Sprint-Clearwire transaction.

It is more obvious proof of a vibrantly competitive U.S. wireless  marketplace that the FCC does not need to micromanage or regulate.

The FCC’s application of its spectrum screen/cap policy is so  egregiously arbitrary and capricious it does not pass the laugh test.

Let’s review the facts and laugh – or weep depending on your sense  of humor.

Sprint just outbid Dish to acquire 100% control of Clearwire.

Clearwire expands Sprint’s spectrum holdings 236% from 53 MHz to  178 MHz per the FCC’s numbers.

In applying for FCC approval, Sprint told the FCC that Clearwire’s  2.5 GHz spectrum was available, suitable, and already in use for “mobile  services.”

Last fall the FCC required Verizon’s acquisition of 1.7-2.1 GHz  spectrum to apply to Verizon’s spectrum holdings, and AT&T’s acquisition of  2.3 GHz spectrum to apply to AT&T’s spectrum holdings as well.

So here’s the FCC punch line.

The FCC exempted Sprint-Clearwire from its rules while applying  them to Verizon and AT&T.

One FCC spectrum screen/cap policy, two obviously different  outcomes.

This strongly indicates arbitrary and capricious treatment under  the law.

What makes this even more troubling is that this latest arbitrary  incident is just more evidence of a pattern of arbitrary and capricious behavior  by the FCC in picking market winners and losers.

Currently, the FCC and DOJ are signaling they will exclude Verizon  and AT&T from bidding in the upcoming FCC “incentive” auction for 600 MHz TV  broadcast spectrum.

The supposed reason is that Verizon and AT&T own more spectrum  below 1 GHz than Sprint and T-Mobile do. Tellingly, Sprint and T-Mobile did not  bid for sub-1GHz spectrum last time they could.

Presently, Verizon is also suing the FCC for being arbitrary and  capricious in its FCC Open Internet order that mandated net neutrality.

The FCC’s stated purpose for regulating the Internet — to preserve  “openness” and net neutrality — are terms, goals and authority not found in  law.

Moreover, the FCC presented no significant evidence that the  broadband companies being regulated had done anything wrong to warrant  preemptive price regulation.

Even the new Presidential Memorandum on spectrum — that recently  was issued without warning and effectively reversed U.S. spectrum policy —  is arbitrary.

It revoked the 2004 Presidential memorandum that spawned all the  wireless broadband auctions to date, and replaced it with one that favors  Government-commercial spectrum “sharing” over auctions.

This policy reversal is arbitrary because it puts the  cart-before-the-horse.

It established a de facto new spectrum policy before any of the data collection,  spectrum inventory or utilization analysis that the Memorandum ordered was even  started.

Overall the policy reversal is an arbitrary whipsawing of a  critical industry without effective public warning, consultation or due process,  and without any evidence that it is a superior approach.

For two decades the American wireless industry has been built upon  a successful foundation and trajectory of free markets, competition, auctions  and private property ownership.

Apparently the new unformed wireless policy trajectory of “sharing”  presages years of spectrum supply pipeline uncertainty.

To add insult to injury, the new policy expects businesses to  “share” spectrum with government agencies that don’t want to share their  spectrum.

The growing arbitrariness of the Government’s approach to spectrum  policy and regulation has become exceptionally troubling and profoundly  counterproductive.

If the government is not careful, and respectful of the rule of law  and due process, the government could quickly and severely screw up a critical  and successful American industry — for no good reason.