Archive for March, 2008

DoJ Paves Way for XM and Sirius Monopoly

Tuesday, March 25th, 2008

The Justice Department has approved the merger of Sirius and XM radio. DoJ reasons (and I use the term loosely) that retail prices are unlikely to rise, in part because of competition from other program sources (including hybrid digital radio [high definition, sic] and iPods), and in part because the two firms do not compete. The NY Times reported Thomas O. Barnett, assistant attorney general, as saying in announcing the decision, “In several important segments of their business, with or without the merger, the parties simply do not compete today and therefore the merger would not be eliminating any competition between them.”

Insight: To the underpaid, over worked judicial clerk reviewing the DoJ decision in some far off Circuit Court of Appeals who finds my blog on a good Google search someday, I say this: You can no doubt see the significant economies of scope and societal efficiencies generated by merging programming sources for Howard Stern, Snoop Dogg, and NPR. However, the reasoning from the DoJ is as irrelevant as it is illogical as it is factually wrong. In a two-to-one merger, the fact that there may be some areas where they DO NOT compete is utterly irrelevant. The analysis was supposed to focus on the areas in which they DO compete. Moreover, in which segments could XM and Sirius possibly not compete? They are Coke and Pepsi. It’s like saying Coke and Pepsi do not compete because if you drop Mentos into Pepsi, it does not explode. Ergo, they are in different market segments. Let’s rewind the tape for a minute and think about the alleged competition from other program sources. Imagine going into the ICC to lobby Anning S. Prall and saying that we no longer need spectrum policy since there is no longer any scarcity. After all, Mr. Edison’s Victrola competes with Mr. Marconi’s wireless apparatus.

Just because I have never read DoJ’s merger guidelines does not mean that they should not.

Better than Best Efforts

Monday, March 24th, 2008

In hearing the Network Neutrality debate, does it strike you as odd when you hear the term ‘best efforts’? Most classes of Internet service are billed as being best efforts; however, if you want guaranteed delivery of your packets, you have to pay more. Why should you have to pay for something which is better than the best?! I know what it means colloquially, but this drives me crazy. Wiktonary defines effort as: noun, 1. The amount of work involved in performing an activity; exertion. 2. An endeavour. Since best is a superlative, you cannot have really something which is better than your best exertion. Can you? Well Okay, what about endeavor? Endeavor: noun, 1. A sincere attempt. A determined or assiduous effort towards a specific goal. Ah yes, always be sincere whether you mean it or not. If your best attempt doesn’t guarantee service what would more could you do?

Insight: Isn’t false advertising, if not a grammatical impossibility, to label a lower class as being “best”?

Kudos to Jerrold Nadler

Wednesday, March 19th, 2008

In a recent Cool Stuff, I lambasted Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D. NY) for a really stupid Op-Ed on the TV White Spaces he published in the Times.  Well, the OP-ED is still stupid, but now I have to commend Rep. Nadler for his courage and leadership.   Last week, Nadler defied Bush’s fear-mongering tactics and stood up for the rule of law by not providing retroactive immunity for the telecoms companies which helped the Administration to illegally spying on Americans.

Insight:  Kudos to Nadler, the “Bulwark of Democracy”.

Next Generation Spectrum Policy

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

I am very pleased to announce that the FCC has just published a suite of papers which I worked on while I was there. This work sought to tackle some of the intractable problems facing spectrum policy. For nearly a century, spectrum policy has focused on “scarcity” and resolving “harmful interference”. This was largely due to limits of the technology of the day. Now radios fueled by semi-conductor processing power, are enabling spectrum policy to evolve. We can now focus on a much more efficient principal of “use coordination”. The first paper in the series, OSP Working Paper #41, examines the Tragedy of the Commons and how economic protocols might be employed to alleviate this problem, while preserving the openness and innovation associated with unlicensed operation. It achieves this by coordinating competing demands on the spectrum. There are several different means for assigning priority to allocate use. However, allowing would-be users to express their willingness to pay seems to be the most economically efficient. Through an economic coordination protocol, usage at any given time is awarded to those with the highest value. OSP Working Paper #43, looks at how the set of rights which underlie this regime can be assigned through auctions.

Insight: Of all the work I have done in my professional career, this is the product of which I am most proud. The future of spectrum policy will be one of “use coordination”, where the “exclusiveness” of a license will be determined at an auction along with which entities are assigned the license. We are back to First Principles. This work holds the promise to wrestle the spectrum from the hands of a few powerful entities and put it back in our hands. In addition, it is likely to increase efficiency and hence the benefit we all receive from its use. The beauty of the system is that if the current spectrum arrangement is the most efficient, then it will emerge as such. At the very least, we will have exposed society to a huge upside with very little downside risk. It also would allow us to grant priorities to those whose ability to pay is diminished, such as public safety and financially disadvantaged users.

As a body of work, it has far reaching implications. At the recent FCC field hearing on network management (viz. Net Neutrality), there was much reasonable debate on what constitutes reasonable network management. There were many views as to how to handle competing demands on limited network resources. To my mind, the most efficient way will be some variation on willingness to pay, perhaps through an economic coordination protocol.

No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to dive!

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

squba_a1_250.jpgThe other day while I was waiting for a haircut, I picked up a German auto magazine. Since I cannot read German, I figured I would get more out of it than any other magazine. At the very least I could make some sense of the classifieds. Well, I found this, the sQuba. It is a concept car from a Swiss company called Rinspeed. The car is a Lotus Elan converted with an electric motor and all the necessary gear to make it a submersible, à la James Bond in The Spy Who Loved Me.

Insight: Alright, this has nothing to do with communications; however, since I was in the third grade I always assumed that I would build one of these in my garage. This is possibly the coolest thing ever. I simply must have one.