Not so fast
The clock is ticking faster than a heart pumped full of digitalis, and the “times, they are a-changin.” The industry is in overdrive_overheating in its efforts to bring forth new technology, services and delivery systems. Old competitors have become strategic partners. “Consolidation,” “consensus” and “contiguous” are buzz words that fly through the pages of the industry press. Industry observers have come to wonder, “what happened?”
When the shape of the industry is changing rapidly, and we are all struggling to keep up, it’s not easy to sit back and look at the big picture. Historical overview is difficult, and rarely does anyone find the time to ruminate and reflect on the effects of fifteen years of regulation of our industry. So, let’s indulge ourselves and pause to reflect for a moment. There are lessons to be learned.
* To begin, let me admit my heresy at the outset. In this day of bridges to the next century, new paradigms of regulation and competition, and emerging technology, people looking backward for reference to the future are publicly lambasted. We who seek such references are not “team players” who root for each new idea and economic model, regardless of its value. “New” and “bigger” are now equated with “better,” but the factual support for this assumed equation is often lacking. Instead, our fidelity to futuristic follies is expected and demanded.
* Consider the use of the word “digital,” which the public and our Congress are asked to equate with “better than analog.” But is it? Any honest designer will tell you that digital technology provides many benefits for many applications, but it is not the “best” system for all applications. What the technology really provides in most applications is greater system capacity, benefits for system operators with greater inventory and use of the spectrum. Regardless, have we considered the public interest in the quality of voice transmissions? Usually not.
* The introduction of narrowband technologies in conjunction with spectrum refarming is another lesson. Touted as a method of attaining greater spectrum efficiencies, narrow bandwidths, again, do not produce the same voice quality, and it will be difficult or impossible to use narrowband for high-speed data transmissions. Yet, refarming is viewed as a fait accompli, despite its obvious shortcomings.
* Questions are now being raised about time-division multiple access (TDMA) as a method of increasing system capacity. Operators report that TDMA may not produce acceptable results in a wireless environment because of varying distances between base and receivers. (“Time” will tell). Meanwhile, the Motorola IDEN system has been pared-down in capacity from 6:1 to 3:1 over analog in an effort to improve voice quality. Digital cellular systems may be using an insufficient emission mask to avoid interference to adjacent systems, a problem digital specialized mobile radio (SMR) systems have evidenced for years.
* In its efforts to assist wireless operators in building systems rapidly, Congress has pitted system operators against local zoning boards. The backlash has raised costs, slowed zoning decisions and spawned litigation, and it will likely find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the federal government can usurp local authorities in determining local land use. Bettors on the outcome should give no more than even money.
* The FCC’s decisions regarding auctioning of paging channels, to make paging licenses bigger overnight, fly in the face of UHF two-way system operators, basic exchange radio telephone service (BETRS) systems and shared spectrum use under the private radio rules. No matter, it seems. Where there might exist “white space” to sell, the agency is moving forward without regard to the effect its actions might have.
* The plan advanced by U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, to plan to sell TV channels 60-69, while earmarking some spectrum for public safety, is lauded by public safety representatives whose constituents desperately need relief. At the same time, commercial interests are beginning to bemoan the creation of a “spectrum glut” as the inflationary practices of the past few years begin to whittle down the revenue expectations of Congress. One could crow about just-deserts, if the investing public were not at such risk, as wireless companies’ (whose book values rely on the value of spectrum inventory) begin to lose the confidence of Wall Street.
* Already we are viewing the casualties of promised progress. Interactive video data services (IVDS) licensees have discovered that the FCC sold them a serv-ice without a supporting manufacturer, broadcast community or operational rules. Location-monitoring services are at a flying stop as they continue to reel under the agency’s compromised decision, a decision that pleases no one. Interconnection, universal service, and “bill and keep” rules are being debated in federal court as the agency grapples with Congress’ initiative to open the tap of competition between the largest carriers, while preserving the rights of smaller local exchange carriers (LECs) and common carriers. Billing for 800 numbers is set for review as the ramifications for paging companies are made apparent. The list goes on.
As backdrop to the chaos suffered throughout the industry, the Administration is debating whether greater foreign ownership should be allowed. Our regulatory ship is being pitched about on the winds of change and elected officials might ask foreign companies to take a cruise. Still, foreign investment guarantees bigger auction receipts, so the exploration goes on.
So, what happened? How did a stable industry that existed only a decade ago suddenly become a victim of violent upheaval? Three factors appear to have converged to create this chaos: greed by both the private and public sectors, the insupportable equation of public interest and administrative efficiency at any cost, and a lack of wisdom regarding the natural evolution of change. This final factor is, in some ways, the most vexing.
Congress and the FCC have combined to create legislative blinders that ignore the cost of change, the time necessary for change, the side effects of change and the victims of change. Progress is measured through spectrum distribution per auction dollar gained, without regard for service to the public or for the practicalities of business. Small operators are required to become large overnight to compete in auctions, large operators are required to convert billing practices overnight, local governments are required to forego zoning overnight, and private operators are required to refarm, retune and readjust overnight. Why? Because a regulator who has never operated as much as a crystal set writes a rule or law. A small child anxious for the blossoms of spring might pull a flower out of the ground to try to make it grow. A person with knowledge and experience would let the flower flourish in its natural setting. A politician will jerk the flower out, then cover the distance between the dangling roots and the ground with manure. All of this fertilizer will burn the roots and, besides, it smells bad.
