<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Communications Insights: Trends and Cool Stuff &#187; Optimal Regulation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/category/optimal-regulation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff</link>
	<description>The Musings of an Expatriate in European Communications</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:07:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Defining the Open Internet</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/11/defining-the-open-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/11/defining-the-open-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this week I was contacted by Seth Johnson who was organizing a response to the FCC’s Further Inquiry into Two Underdeveloped Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding.  Seth asked if I would consider signing on in support of joint comments which urge the FCC to consider appropriate distinction between the open Internet and “specialized services” in light of changes in the market. As I said in previous Cool Stuff, both basic packet Internet and specialized services are important components of a robust and diverse market place.  I jointed the statement along with 31 other distinguished experts in this field.

Both the open Internet and specialized services exist in the market, and have for some time.  However, this is an important juncture to define: 1) where one begins and the other ends and 2) what are the appropriate measures necessary to preserve competition and fair play.  I joined on the comments because it does not advocate a particular policy outcome.  Rather, we urge the FCC that by “addressing this distinction in itself enables the analysis and pursuit of policy goals to proceed with a profound new level of clarity.”  This is of particular national importance.  The Internet is an American invention.  It is and will continue to be an important ingredient to economic development and global competitiveness.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/11/defining-the-open-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taking the Roof off of the Internet</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taking-the-roof-off-of-the-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taking-the-roof-off-of-the-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verizon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent legislative proposal on Network Neutrality proposed by Google and Verizon would "allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today." Some critics have argued that that the deal would create a two-tiered Internet, one upper tier for differentiated services and one lower tier for commodity packets.  Google Verizon proposal is not so much a threat to network neutrality (lower case) as it is to network economics.  Part of this is the public face of a private bargaining game. Players in the value chain are using the political and regulatory process as they struggle to gain a larger share of that chain.  It is not evil, merely self-interested.  That is fine.  At some level, Google and Verizon should be lauded for working towards a compromise and to move things forward.  In the end, either competition or regulation must constrain this self-interest.  And, private actors they should not get to make public policy.  That is the exclusive domain of Congress and the FCC.  The FCC should take those views into account then offer its own independent decision to impose regulation or not.

]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taking-the-roof-off-of-the-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solving Network Neutrality</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/solving-network-neutrality/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/solving-network-neutrality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unbundling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Much has been said in regard to the recent Google-Verizon proposal on Network Neutrality and the collapse of talks at the FCC.  The rough consensus is that the deal would create a two-tiered Internet.  If a two-tiered Internet is a good thing, then a competitive market will support it.  However, there has been a reduction of competition in Internet access in the US.  This follows from a series of FCC decisions which basically eviscerated its local competition rules (mostly in the form of unbundling) in favor of “market solutions”.  There is now a unique opportunity to move beyond the Network Neutrality debate.  The FCC should take this opportunity to revisit its unbundling rules to craft rules which can enable competition in Internet access networks while mitigating disincentives to invest.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/solving-network-neutrality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An MBA’s Thoughts on Taxes and Deficits</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taxes-and-deficit/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taxes-and-deficit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:28:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don’t like paying taxes.  No one likes paying taxes.  If you like to pay taxes, you should have your head examined.  Nonetheless, we all like the benefits that taxes can buy – the common defense and the general welfare, including: police, courts, highways, national defense, etc.  What the reduce-taxes and reduce-the-deficit augment hopes to do is: 1) dispense with a liability while retaining the attendant asset and 2) achieve an objective by deliberately behaving in a way guaranteed to produce these opposite result.  To an MBA’s mind, this is illogical.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taxes-and-deficit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Twenty-Five Years of Unlicensed Spread Spectrum</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/05/twenty-five-years-of-unlicensed-spread-spectrum/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/05/twenty-five-years-of-unlicensed-spread-spectrum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 19:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Part 15]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spectrum policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unlicensed wireless devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wi-Fi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, the Wi-Fi Alliance and the Wireless Gigabit Alliance announced  an enhancement the current suite of 802.11 standards (Wi-Fi) which promises multi-gigabit wireless networking, in the 60 GHz frequency band.  However, I am not sure if the Wi-Fi Alliance or the Wireless Gigabit Alliance realize the auspiciousness of the occasion of their announcement.  The announcement comes twenty-five years and one day after the FCC adopted rules which permitted the operation of spread spectrum systems in the ISM bands (902-928 MHz, 2.4-2.48 GHz and 5.725-5.85 GHz).  This rule change enabled the commercial rise of Wi-Fi, as well as so many other products and technologies take for granted today, such as Bluetooth, cordless phones, and baby monitors.

The FCC took this decision on its own initiative, rather than relying on requests for rule changes from the industries it regulates.  In fact, many of the companies which initially opposed the rule change now earn millions of dollars of revenue from selling products that operate in these bands.  It never ceases to amaze me that a well-made decision can have exponential implications down the line.  Relying on the industry to tell the regulator can be helpful; however, this approach does not always serve the public interest.  In all instances, the regulator should exercise independent judgment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/05/twenty-five-years-of-unlicensed-spread-spectrum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Dutch Auction</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/05/the-new-dutch-auction/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/05/the-new-dutch-auction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 19:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spectrum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A week ago, the Dutch telecommunications regulator Agentschap Telecom completed a spectrum auction for licenses in the 2.6 GHz band.  Five bidders spent just over €2.6 million to acquire 130 MHz of the 190 MHz in the band, but they did so in an unusual way.  Agentschap’s auction had two parts.  In the first part, bidders vied for a certain amount of spectrum.  In the second round, the bidders competed for specific 5 MHz blocks, with the option of single 5 MHz blocks of unpaired (TDD) spectrum or 2 x 5 MHz blocks of paired (FDD) spectrum.  This determined the pairing the band.  No FDD spectrum was acquired.

In this way, the auction determined whether the spectrum would be used for cellular type uses (FDD) or for WiMax-type uses (TDD). ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/05/the-new-dutch-auction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Spoon</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/05/the-spoon/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/05/the-spoon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 19:42:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Part 15]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spectrum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Treating radio operations as spectrum or airwaves or property is a false paradigm.  Electromagnetic energy behaves simultaneously like a wave and like a particle, carried by photons.  So, while we are regulating the airwaves, who is regulating the photons?  I raise this issue now because just last week the FCC established the Spectrum Task Force.  Honestly, I am not exactly sure what implications for radio policy of considering the dually of electromagnetic radiation as both a wave and a particle might be; however, going forward perhaps the STF should undertake critical rethinking of this crucial policy area from the basics up.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/05/the-spoon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keeping up with the Jitsuzumis</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/04/keeping-up-with-the-jitsuzumis/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/04/keeping-up-with-the-jitsuzumis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:15:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiber to the House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Broadband Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NGA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy Development]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The first goal of the FCC’s recent National Broadband Plan is to ensure at least 100 million US homes have access to Internet connections with download speeds of at least 100 Mbps by the end of the decade (the year 2020).  This goal strikes me as not being a terribly ambitious.  I can’t help feeling that the FCC is trying to catch the US up in ten years to where Japan is now.  From what I have been reading on the listservs, given current pace of deployment of FiOS and DOCSIS 3.0, the market will accomplish this goal on its own.  This fact begs the question what is need for governmental intervention.  Instead, the FCC should propose a more ambitious goal (one that might have a higher risk of failure) and devise a road map necessary for achieving that goal.  Perhaps this will come out in follow on work to National Broadband Plan.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/04/keeping-up-with-the-jitsuzumis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Uncommon Unlicensed – A Licensed Commons</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/03/the-uncommon-unlicensed-%e2%80%93-a-licensed-commons/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/03/the-uncommon-unlicensed-%e2%80%93-a-licensed-commons/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TV White Spaces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kevin Werbach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Part 15]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spectrum policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unlicensed wireless devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wi-Fi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is a significant challenge to the successful opening up of the TV white spaces. Under the White Spaces order, any unlicensed device which will operate in the band has to query a database and obtain permission before it can start transmitting.  When a white spaces device has to query a database and obtain permission before it can operate, it is, by definition, no longer an unlicensed device.  Rather, the regime is a licensed commons.  This grant of permission is in fact a form of a license, albeit a light one.  

This fact is one of the reasons the unlicensed PCS was never successful.  For unlicensed PCS, the FCC created a regime under which unlicensed users had to get permission from a non-profit firm called UTAM before they could start using their unlicensed PCS devices.  In doing so, the FCC inadvertently delegated to UTAM the power to grant licenses.  

In order for the White Spaces Order to be successful must offer device manufacturer and device users more benefit than they could achieve by using the existing Part 15 rules.  Device manufacturers can make devices to operate under the less restrictive parts of the Part 15 rules (the U-NII and spread spectrum rules).  So, they never made any successful products for U-PCS.   The same will be true for the White Space rules.  In order for the White Space database system to work, it will have to offer greater flexibility, more power, wider tuning ranges, more suitable frequency bands, etc. than the current Part 15 rules allow.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/03/the-uncommon-unlicensed-%e2%80%93-a-licensed-commons/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Japan Communications&#8217; New Business Model</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/10/japan-communications-new-business-model/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/10/japan-communications-new-business-model/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:16:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Communications Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JCI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RCS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spectrum policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wholesale Access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wireles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Japan Communications Inc. just launched a new product for Hewlett-Packard. HP will now sell netbooks in Japan which come with 100 minutes of mobile wireless connectivity. Consumers can buy connectivity on a pay-as-you-go basis from Japan Communications, but branded as an HP service. While Japan Communications negotiated with DoCoMo to get on its network, it was only able to do so because the Japanese Ministry for Communications and Information created which rules opened the networks of three largest wireless operators to wholesale.

This created for Japan Communications a really cool new business model with implications for carriers, devices manufacturers, and application service providers around the world. It remains to be seen whether the Europe and the US should follow suit.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/10/japan-communications-new-business-model/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

