|Government Accountability Office Requests|
|Written by Dave Burstein|
|Friday, 25 March 2011 01:17|
I wrote Julius' Scandal: Manufacturing Spectrum Crisis because the FCC is wildly off target putting a slice of broadcast spectrum the first priority while they blindly ignore issues with far more practical effect. Informed sources were devastating about how foolish the policy was, and several were angry how it was pushed through. So I went ahead despite possible political backlash. I wasn't surprised to recently get this note from from a Congressional agency.
Which I discreetly forwarded to my (now three) sources, none of whom wanted to put their career at risk by speaking publicly. The House Committee is headed by Republicans who have shown no depth or leadership on issues like this either, so the request for inside details was highly political. I replied with plenty of reasons for the committee to doubt the policy, but nothing juicy about how the FCC came to this policy.
There are far more effective ways to increase spectrum availability, starting with Adelstein's "use it or lose it" on renewal.
Far more important issues are being ignored, starting with the main requirements for affordable and improved broadband Engineers had been telling me spectrum was very minor compared to backhaul and capex. When I researched the FCC spectrum report they virtually lined to to tear it apart. Carriers have plans to handle the traffic for a decade even if they didn't get spectrum. With more spectrum, five to ten years out they save some capex, maybe 5-10%. There is no crisis.
I'm speaking firmly because in the last two weeks two other officials confirmed my analysis was on track. What I'm saying publicly is the same thing several very respected people are saying privately. Watch news reports to come.