It is something that has baffled me since the beginning of the digital television changeover debacle. I have done more than a little reading about this, and I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of the ostensible need for more public safety frequencies. If such a need was extant, surely someone would have jumped on it right away, without any thought of the fees that might be incurred. If the thought of fees comes into place, the need cannot be so great.

Still, the story from ComputerWorld tells of the FCC’s wish for an assessment of a dollar on each broadband user, each month of the year. That makes for two very good, and thus far unanswered questions – why is more bandwidth needed for emergency usage, and why should the funding fall only upon the users of broadband? Will the resulting services only benefit broadband users?

The FCC’s proposed monthly public safety fee of up to $1 on every broadband user in the U.S. poses a political challenge for the private wireless industry.

On one hand, the industry would like to see the FCC auction off radio spectrum in what is called the D block for private uses; the spectrum could then be shared with emergency groups, as the FCC has proposed in the National Broadband Plan.

On the other hand, the wireless industry hates the idea of adding more user fees, with one industry-backed group,, noting that the average wireless consumer already pays 16% in taxes and fees — and the average wireless household pays $350 a year in wireless taxes.

In a separate document not on the site, the group put the total of taxes and fees on the average wireless consumer at nearly $600 a year.

The public safety fee, which would be used to support a $16 billion emergency wireless network, was proposed by the FCC in its National Broadband Plan. In that plan, it is described only as a "nominal" fee, although a spokesman recently said it would probably be less than $1 a month. Other officials this week pegged the fee at closer to 50 cents, although the matter is still under discussion and Congress must grant the FCC permission to impose the fee.

Again, the want of funding without any proper explanation of the need for, or use of, this emergency service.

The main wireless industry association in the U.S., the CTIA, runs arm, which has organized a lobbying effort to oppose a bevy of state and local taxes and fees on wireless service. So far, the CTIA hasn’t taken a public position on the public safety fee, and a spokeswoman said the group is determining whether policymakers want it to replace a fee used to support emergency 911 services.

Asked whether that might happen, an FCC spokesman said today that "details are still being worked out." However, an official familiar with the discussions said the proposed new fee is likely to be separate from the E911 fee, meaning that both would be paid by consumers.

While has collected state-by-state details on wireless taxes and fees, some of the information online appears to be one or two years old when compared with printed information from the group handed out at the CTIA conference.

At its CTIA booth, handed out a chart showing taxes and fees for each state as of June 2009 that concluded that the average consumer pays nearly $50 a month in combined fees and taxes. Washington state is at the top of the list with a combined rate of 23.33%. That figure includes an 18.54% state and local wireless tax rate, plus a 4.79% rate used for the Universal Service Fund (USF), which helps cover the cost of bringing phone service to rural areas. Oregon has the lowest combined rate, 6.48%, with just 1.69% for state and local taxes on top of its 4.79% for the USF, according to the chart.

Raising the USF to help expand broadband access in the U.S. has come under fire by both Republicans appointed to the five-member FCC. But it isn’t clear how they, or Republicans in Congress, feel about a fee to fund a public safety network that has wide backing.

I’m not a Republican, and I don’t like the idea. I am sure Republicans that don’t want to fund much of anything for the public good will like it. After all, since no imminent need has been established, I can’t see many going for another tax upon consumers. This goes against the idea of letting the providers make the moves to get those last-mile customers, which will provide competition and better service (at least that’s the theory).

Part of the problem I see has to do with some erroneous data that has gotten into the public consciousness concerning the need for everyone to move large amounts of data at high speed wirelessly. Not only is it not true, it is, as we will probably see in a medical study down the road, a very bad idea.

Several visitors to the CTIA show who passed by the booth said they understand the dilemma that puts the industry and some policymakers between a rock and a hard place. "You want an interoperable network for emergencies, but yet another fee to pay for it? I don’t know," one man said.

Perhaps it would be easier to justify a new service if the reason for, and efficacy of, that service was presented in a cogent manner. Thus far, the FCC seems to be putting the cart before the horse, and the cart is large, to be pushed by a lame horse.



Marvin-the-martian Not everyone needs to call Mars on their wireless phone, or send me the scores of the latest ball games!

Opera, the fastest and most secure web browser

≡≡ Ḟᴵᴺᴵ ≡≡