The Lightsquared hybrid satellite/LTE network being built by Nokia and Harbinger Capital Partners could shake up the competitive landscape by offering new players wholesale access to an entirely new LTE network. However, the project is facing several obstacles including funding and interference concerns with GPS. The company just cleared several hurdles by getting the FCC to ease a few constrictive spectrum conditions, and by launching a satellite to be used to fill in rural coverage. Lightsquared says they’ve signed at least two carrier deals already, with other talks ongoing.

One of those interested carriers is MetroPCS, whose discount almost-LTE service could certainly use the added help. MetroPCS says they’re absolutely interested, assuming the LTE network ever actually gets built. Assuming Lightsquared gets funding, builds the network, survives a likely political and PR assault by AT&T and Verizon and navigates GPS interference concerns, MetroPCS would still have to deal with a few more technical hurdles, including handset compatibility:

There’s still a significant amount of doubt in the industry about whether Lightsquared, the joint effort of a cash-strapped also ran satellite outfit and a former junk bond salesman, ever actually gets built.
read comment(s)

Last year retransmission disputes between broadcasters and cable operators grew to an entirely new level of annoying as the two sides fought over programming costs. Consumers stuck in the middle of such fights not only were bombarded with annoying efforts to get them on one side or the other, but they also missed significant programming events (including NFL football and the World Series), and briefly even had their access to Hulu disrupted.

Historically the FCC hasn’t intervened in these fights, suggesting they’re simply business disputes. But as consumers are finding themselves under the wheels of these disputes at an increasing frequency, the agency today launched a proceeding to re-evaulate current retransmission rules (pdf) that govern fee negotiations between broadcasters and pay-TV providers. They agency says they’re looking for comments in proposals that would:

• Provide more guidance to the negotiating parties on good-faith negotiation requirements
• Improve notice to consumers in advance of possible service disruptions caused by impasses in retransmission consent negotiations; and
• Eliminate the Commission s network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules, which provide a means for parties to enforce certain exclusive contractual rights to network or syndicated programming through the Commission rather than through the courts.

Note that the proposals don’t involve the FCC actually stepping in and preventing carriers from pulling the programming plug on paying customers, or providing refunds to impacted customers — because companies would yell at the FCC for daring to involve themselves in private business transactions, despite the negative impact on users. Instead, like most things the FCC does, the rules will be more timid and focus on simply giving users a heads up ahead of the next service blackout. Consumer groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge were underwhelmed, arguing that the reforms won’t do much to actually help paying consumers.
read comment(s)

We’ve talked a lot about how the FCC is kicking and screaming about how there’s a “spectrum crisis” in the States, without really acknowledging that the fact that there’s limited spectrum is because the wealthiest companies tend to squat on the public resource. An FCC insider recently called the entire idea of a crisis “manufactured,” but that hasn’t stopped FCC boss Julius Genachowski from making fixing the supposed crisis his top priority. Genachowski’s solution to free up spectrum is using voluntary incentive auctions, and as such Congress has introduced two new incentive auction bills:

Broadcasters still aren’t entirely thrilled by incentive auctions, given they fear the government’s version of “voluntary” could be a little less than voluntary. Of course if lawmakers really didn’t want special interests driving spectrum policy, they could pass “use it or lose it” spectrum rules that would limit squatting. They could also finally pass a law calling for an inventory of available spectrum, something that most everybody supports yet for some reason continues to fail in legislative form every time it’s introduced.
read comment(s)