Here in Washington, a classic way to get a bad policy passed is to attach it to the back of some unrelated “must pass” piece of legislation. Attaching one bad idea to a bill is sneaky.  Attaching two bad ideas is bold.  Attaching three?  Well, that’s what we have with a trio of horrible wireless ideas that some people in Congress are trying to attach to the upcoming Payroll Tax bill.

It is almost as if the proponents of these additions took a few years’ worth of ideas that will make wireless worse, wrapped them up in a bundle, and glued them to the underside of a bill that – if it does not pass – will raise taxes for millions of Americans.  In this case, these conditions would apply to spectrum freed up by the transition to digital TV broadcasting, and would impact some of the most useful spectrum to become available for years.  What are these conditions?

The following is attributed to Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge:

“It is unfortunate that AT&T Chairman Randall Stephenson still believes that buying out the wireless industry is the only way to improve his company’s spectrum efficiency.

“His comment in this morning’s earnings call that the FCC has made it clear the agency won’t allow acquisitions as a means of increasing spectrum holdings is inappropriate for two reasons. The failed acquisition of T-Mobile would have had far wider implications than simply a spectrum acquisition. It is unfortunate that AT&T thinks that the only way it can increase its spectrum holdings is to purchase a competitor.  Using its current holdings more efficiently would also go a long way to relieving the company’s purported spectrum shortage. In addition, the Commission did allow AT&T to purchase spectrum from Qualcomm. 

The following statement is attributed to Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge:

“We are pleased that Verizon and Comcast with its cable partners filed material today with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) explaining the details of their joint marketing and technical arrangements.

“This voluntary filing will eliminate a controversy that surely would have taken place had they not done so.

“At the same time, no one should accept the companies’ claim that the arrangement are outside of the FCC’s jurisdiction.  They clearly are.  We expect the Commission to evaluate these arrangements in the context of the spectrum deal to determine how the entire transaction will affect competition and the public interest.”

Public Knowledge was one of a group of organizations and companies which yesterday asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to require Verizon and Comcast to file more details about their proposed new business arrangements.

The letter is here.  

Verizon has agreed to pay $3.6 billion to several cable companies, led by Comcast, for spectrum those companies hold but have not developed.  In addition, there are agreements for Verizon to market cable products and to work together to develop new technology.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and AT&T in recent days have issued statements criticizing the Federal Communications Commission's conduct of spectrum auctions.

Chairman Upton's statement is here.

AT&T's is here.

The following statement is attributed to Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge:

"It is truly unfortunate that the spectrum auction authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is under attack from powerful members of Congress and from a major telecommunications company.

This week the tech world will descend on Las Vegas for the annual Consumer Electronics Show.  While there is nothing subtle about a 152-inch 3D plasma TV there are plenty of subtle forces coming from DC that shape what you see at shows like CES and at retailers like Amazon and Best Buy.  Here are just four examples.

AllVid or Why Can’t Apple, Google, Microsoft, Roku, and Boxee Boxes Get Cable Channels?

Thomas Friedman writes in his column yesterday that none of the Republican candidates has focused much on technological innovation, then proceeds to focus on the matter of “smart cities.” Friedman’s thesis is fairly straightforward: to maintain our competitive edge, we will need to keep pumping up our bandwidth, particularly in cities and towns which historically act as the incubators for The Next Big Thing and all its associated, Highly Useful Little Things. Blair Levin’s Gig U gets favorable mention, and Blair gets quoted a lot on why we want huge bandwidth in urban areas as well as making sure everyone gets access to functional broadband.