New Public Media

The only thing the wireless industry is eager for is to warehouse this spectrum so they can ensure no new competition emerges. Go for unlicensed, it seems that's what AT&T has resorted to in NYC. So glad we leased you all that great spectrum and then you go ahead and rely on the spectrum so crappy the FCC decided to make an unlicensed experiment out of it.

We have been late late late to the wedding. Spectrum auctions should have been used for an assured quality funding source for permanant financing of pubbrod - radio and TV. Two sacred cows - political fear of a truly independent noncommercial program source, and the tug and the silly pull between stations
and PBS-NPR for decentralized power and dominance have stalemated the obvious use of these moneys in the dedicated public interest.
The difficulty of orchestrating a large outpouring of sentiment from the public has been the other issue. The minds of too many Americans have been conditioned to expect "fun" and "entertainment" and visceral content from commercial stations. If anyone can whip up a national movement in America, grand, but good luck on this one. Inefffective naational leadership has been the curse from the Clinton-Gore years forward. Jerry M Landay, Bristol, RI

The idea of auctioning spectrum is irrational in the extreme considering the National Broadband Plan's primary goal of “freeing up spectrum” and its estimates about future demand, to wit:
* “By 2014, Cisco projects wireless networks in North America will carry some 740 petabytes per month, a greater than 40-fold increase. Other industry analysts forecast large proportional increases.”
* The NBP predicts “a huge increase” in wireless "smart" devices such as smart meters and wireless-enabled cameras, and envisions “a world where 'smart' connected devices greatly outnumber human beings. The aggregate impact of these devices on demand for wireless broadband networks could be enormous.”

The NBP is deeply contradictory when it calls for “freeing up spectrum” for “flexible use” by privatizing – via auctions – the nation's public airwaves. The plan even notes, correctly, how previous allocations have resulted in “spectrum handcuffed to particular use cases and outmoded services, and less viable and less transferable to innovators seeking to use it for new services.”

It also acknowledges that “commercially licensed spectrum does not always move efficiently to the use valued most highly by markets and consumers.” As a result, we find portions of the public airwaves handcuffed to industries where “a megahertz-pop may be worth a penny,” though the same spectrum might be “worth a dollar” in another industry context.

In some instances, the NBP's use of classic market theory to support an auction strategy is simply naïve. Citing its goal of “freeing up” 300 MHz of spectrum, the plan claims that “the use of flexible mechanisms such as incentive auctions... ensures that the market will self correct if the [demand] forecast proves to be inaccurate.” If demand for spectrum exceeds the 300 MHz goal, the plan argues, “prices for spectrum will go up and market mechanisms will help move the spectrum to mobile broadband use.”

The NBP even cites the controversial 2008 auction of 700 MHz spectrum as an example of “freeing up” spectrum for mobile broadband, concluding that it “unlocked tremendous value for consumers and service providers.” The auction did yield $19 billion for the U.S. Treasury, but the plan omits the fact that $16 billion of the spectrum was purchased by Verizon and AT&T. The NBP blithely concludes that “the spectrum is likely to provide a launch pad for two of the largest 4G network deployments in the coming years.”

The fact that the 700 MHz auction further consolidates ownership of the nation's telecommunications industry – reducing the likelihood of competition -- is not mentioned. Nor is the possibility that these two carriers might collude to warehouse this spectrum for years to come, given their dominant market positions. Also not mentioned is that Verizon and AT&T are two of the most powerful opponents of the FCC's Open Internet protocols. How auctioning off additional swaths of the public airwaves will reverse this consolidation trend, or boost support for Open Internet protocols, is not addressed.

Moreover, the NBP cites economists' estimates that “the social value of licensed mobile radio spectrum alone” – based on “consumer welfare gains” -- could be “10 times the private value for the spectrum holder.” If these estimates are accurate, Verizon and AT&T got quite a bargain for their $16 billion investment – and the public interest was grossly shortchanged.

In summary, the NBP's faith in the “invisible hand” of the market is misplaced in light of recent abuses and market calamities in industries such as energy (Enron), finance (S&L collapse, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives trading, CEO pay), insurance (AGI, healthcare, CEO pay), and real estate (housing bubble). Add to this dismal record of market abuses, a solid majority of Supreme Court justices favoring the rights of corporations over individuals and small businesses, and it must be asked: Why wouldn't spectrum markets be subject to similar distortions, abuses, and cronyism?

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on the matter. This particular proposal is an interesting one for a number of reasons. Much of this feedback seems to be centered around the debate over how to best utilize the spectrum in the first place and whether or not any auction funds would actually be reserved for funding public media.

It is notable that the idea got attention in the National Broadband Plan, whether it is likely to happen or not. Funding public media via a spectrum auction is certainly not a new idea, but despite that it still hasn't happened. But I would say that the FCC recognizing the value of public media in their plan is very important.

If you are skeptical, why?

I'm not in any way convinced that the present public media system, which is controlled by elite trustees, professional journalists, corporations, and government, is worth giving more money to permanently. Respectfully, unless we first address the more fundamental issue of who controls "public" media, we doom ourselves to repeat the mistakes of the past, only on a bigger scale and with better technology and software.

The waste in the PBS and NPR system nationally and locally is shameful, particularly executive salaries. (We'll talk more on executive salaries in a future post.) The fact is that public access operations are able to do much more with much less money.

Let's instead make the best of the innovative, vibrant community production we already have - programming that actually serves and engages and is from, of, and by marginalized communities.

We ought to make some of the better public access and community radio programming of limited circulation available to lots more people through the respective local, larger public broadcast outlet(s). Pay these creators $10-$50,000, provide training and a little cash, pay a little to lease the community facilities where these shows are made and you make a good news or public affairs show great and available to the masses. Under this scheme, a weekly show could be brought in at maybe $200,000 - $350,000 a year. That sure beats the millions spent on "quality" "professional" shows like Moyers' replacement "Need to Know" and its local kindred. We require larger programming spaces where community groups and their needs and concerns are king.

Therefore, we first need governance structures that will permit approaches like this to happen and that don't perpetuate old, tired failures. Committed journalism workers have a limited but important role to play in station governance - don't get me wrong. But they need a lot of oversight, lest they help take us to war, misery, and ruin yet again. No, the elite at PBS and NPR outlets who call themselves professionals are not our gods, our parents, or our "partners".

We, the public, must instead, and at all times, be their bosses. Or they can hit the road.

So before we talk about money at all, we have to completely change the power relationships that determine the way decisions are made at the PBS and NPR outlets.

If it's to be more money for a programming product aimed at an advertising consultant's disappearing - dying - target demographic, count me out.

(Note: James Owens contributed some thoughts to this writing.)

Read more at www.chicagomediaaction.org

see also -- "A Neutral Network Alone Will Not Build a Just Media System for Us and Neither Will Professional Journalists: Control of Public Media as a Social Justice Issue"

http://www.truthout.org/control-public-media-a-social-justice-issue57713

Great idea. We look for the same solutions in industry I work for. The services we manage are related to financing the scientific projects. It is difficult to integrate and identify relevant investment sources and funds. The auctions' solution can help in solving the problem.
Regards, Dr. Ian Way
Scientific Sport Investments

I had no idea that U.S. spectrum policy is a sordid tale of power grabbing and industry lobbying, so I thank you for informing us, good job fox

Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement.
http://blankcomputermedia.org - http://toyhauler.org