Early this year, the FCC focused much of its attention on overtly public-safety issues, initiating proceedings regarding the implementation of text-to-911 functionality and improving location accuracy associated with 911 communications from wireless devices. On Thursday, the FCC will consider a couple of items that appear to be commercial in nature, but both could have significant impacts on public-safety communications.

One of these items calls for commissioners to vote on rules that could limit the ability for large wireless carriers, like AT&T and Verizon, to bid on 600 MHz spectrum in next year’s incentive auction because of those carriers’ already-significant holdings of sub-1 GHz frequencies. While there are nuances in the proposal, the idea of such rules is to prevent AT&T and Verizon from dominating the incentive auction in the manner that they did in the 700 MHz auction a few years ago, thereby allowing smaller carriers to grab the licenses to the valuable airwaves.

From a public-safety perspective, the key issue is that the incentive auction generate enough revenue to pay for the relocation of TV broadcasters to clear the spectrum and leave enough money to ensure that the U.S. Treasury can deliver the $7 billion earmarked for FirstNet. Completely unfettered bidding by all providers theoretically should generate the most revenue for FirstNet, according to most analysts.

On the other hand, there is a thought that public-safety agencies would benefit from having as many choices as possible until FirstNet is deployed in their areas (and as many potential roaming partners as possible after FirstNet is deployed), so rules designed to enhance competition to AT&T and Verizon might not be all bad.

Another item on Thursday’s agenda revolves around the notion of “Net Neutrality” and “open Internet”—a controversy surrounding the notion that broadband providers should be prohibited from reducing data speeds for certain applications, particularly those that have not paid extra fees to ensure prioritized transmission. Past efforts by the FCC to establish such a legal regime have been struck down by the courts.

This is largely a consumer-oriented question, so we’re not going to address the legal ramifications involved in this (and there are tons). However, the FCC is expected to ask whether broadband should be treated and regulated like a utility, such as electricity and water providers.

From a usage standpoint, an argument certainly can be made that broadband is a utility—it is no longer a simple luxury; it is a core service for many Americans. However, in a legal sense, broadband does not meet the normal criteria typically associated with a regulated utility: the existence of only one physical way to get the service.