What If Moving Fast Results in Unrepairable, Broken Things Like Inner Space and Earth’s Upper Atmosphere?

             Until 2014, Facebook’s official mantra was “move fast and break things” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_fast_and_break_things. Mark Zuckerberg coined the phrase https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/move-fast-break-things-facebook-motto/; to emphasize the need for speedy, first mover advantages, even if such initiatives result in harmful outcomes.  Apparently, his undoubtably biased cost/benefit analysis generated a net positive outcome, presumably for Facebook and everyone else.

            Maybe not. See, e.g., https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-era-of-move-fast-and-break-things-is-over; https://leaddev.com/velocity/why-you-shouldnt-move-fast-and-break-things.

            The lack of guard rails, of any sort, invariably results in knowable and unknowable calamities, that individually and collectively change the value proposition, particularly for non-investors.

            Just now, scientists are determining, without doubt, that low earth orbiting satellite constellations, like Starlink, have a real, quantifiable, and harmful impact on space and earth atmosphere.  See: https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-reentry-pollution-damage-earth-atmosphere;

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/03/05/satellites-are-polluting-the-stratosphere;

https://www.businesstoday.in/visualstories/news/starlink-killing-atmosphere-the-environmental-threat-to-earth-elon-musk-isnt-talking-about-214537-06-03-2025;

https://www.science.org/content/article/burned-satellites-are-polluting-atmosphere;

https://pirg.org/edfund/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/PIRG-Satellite-Letter-to-FCC-from-100-researchers.pdf;

https://abcnews.go.com/US/musks-starlink-polluting-space-researchers-call-fcc-pause/story?id=115276437

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/satellite-space-junk-havoc-stratosphere.

            Low earth orbiting satellites, like those operated by Starlink, are smaller and lighter than prior generations of telecommunications space craft.  However, operators must launch thousands of them to achieve global coverage.  Their close proximity to earth and constant motion, relative to earth, require frequent launches to replace failing and end of life units.

            The toxification of space and earth atmosphere occurs when launching satellites and when they fall out of orbit on a downward trajectory toward earth, typically after only five years of service.  Satellite launches release massive amounts of fumes, such as sulfuric acid, into earth’s atmosphere.  Individual satellite vaporization releases a far smaller volume of metallic vapors, particles, and aerosols, but the numbers add up in light of the number of spacecraft replacing or augmenting the constellation, as well as units no longer in service.  Each first generation Starlink satellite releases approximately 30 kilograms of material in its descent.  Second generation satellites are larger and accordingly will release a larger amount of particles.

            The composition of vaporizing satellites and other spacecraft includes aluminum oxide and trace minerals that are classified as pollutants:

Letting these satellites burn up in the atmosphere at the end of their lives helps keep the quantity of space junk to a minimum. But doing so deposits satellite ash in the middle layers of Earth’s atmosphere. This metallic ash can harm the atmosphere and potentially alter the climate. https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/12/09/1108076/satellite-reentry-atmospheric-pollution/. See https://research.noaa.gov/noaa-scientists-link-exotic-metal-particles-in-the-upper-atmosphere-to-rockets-satellites/; https://research.noaa.gov/projected-increase-in-space-travel-may-damage-ozone-layer/

           It should come as no surprise that Starlink, and their sponsored researchers and opinion leaders, seek limited, if any, governmental oversight and regulation of space activities.  The Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 Chapter on the FCC, written by the newly appointed Chairman, Brendan Carr, https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf Chapter 28, 845-859, recommends a most friendly regulatory environment, including expedited processing of satellite launch applications. The Heritage Foundation previously advocated for the elimination of environmental impact assessment of space activities.  See https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/keep-environmental-red-tape-out-outer-space.

            Elon Musk, has singularly advantageous opportunity to influence governmental space policy in ways that favor his ventures. In a prior blog entry, I predicted that SpaceX soon will qualify for broadband universal service subsidies worth billions.  See https://telefrieden.blogspot.com/2025/02/add-millions-more-to-musk-account.html.

            Today, I predict that at some future date, measurable, costly toxification of space and earth atmosphere will be caused by known stakeholders who succeeded in foreclosing research, harm assessment, and conservation. They probably will not even incur the cost in the determination whether and how remediation is possible.

            Thank Elon Musk for his service to our nation.

Add Millions More to the Musk Account

           A Feb. 11th New York Times article missed a sizeable subsidy from the Federal Communications Commission that will add millions of dollars more to subsidies flowing to Elon Musk’s commercial ventures.  See (Elon Musk’s Business Empire Scores Benefits Under Trump Shake-Up; https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/elon-musk-companies-conflicts.html.

            Under new leadership, the FCC will reverse a prior determination that Starlink, does qualify for universal service funding, because the low earth orbiting network has substantially higher cost of service compared to terrestrial options, and it does not meet baseline requirements on data speed and reliability. This means Mr. Musk's Starlink venture will qualify for over $800 million in subsidies aiming to bridge the Digital Divide.  

            Consistent with FCC Chairman Carr's game plan, set out in the Heritage Foundation Project 2025, https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf, the FCC will exempt Starlink from essential environmental regulations. When launching thousands of satellites, Starlink significantly adds toxic gas into the atmosphere.  These satellites have a short operational life and their descent back to earth releases more toxicity from the incomplete vaporization of aluminum and other particles.  

 

Distinguished Researcher Award

  As someone who regularly devotes hours creating a single footnote for an academic manuscript, I am grateful to get any sort of public recognition.  I received the 2025 Distinguished Researcher Award from the Pacific Telecommunications Council, a non-profit membership organization committed to advancing digital infrastructure, telecommunications, and ICT globally, with focus on the Pacific Rim.

       Best of all, I got something far better than the usual lucite tombstone or recognition award:

Two Works in Progress on Threats to Space Commerce

     My current research agenda focuses on the growing threats to space commerce from space debris, the growing risk that space will become weaponized as a new theater of warfare, anti-satellite testing, spacecraft collisions, atmospheric pollution, unenforceable treaties, and regulatory uncertainty. The papers are available at: https://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=102928

    Here are the two abstracts:

    Dangers From the Regulatory Vacuums in Outer, Inner, and Near Space

         Space, "the final frontier," has become an attractive, but increasingly risky market for both public and private investments.  Gold rush enthusiasm anticipates solutions to the Digital Divide via small low earth orbiting satellites, extraction of valuable minerals from asteroids, a vibrant space launch and tourism industry, and expanding earth observation opportunities.  Such entrepreneurial boldness juxtaposes with a severe lag in government oversight, consumer safeguards, and essential operational guardrails. The ambitious plans of Elon Musk and other space entrepreneurs could fail, despite recent market success, as SpaceX’s plans for 148 rocket launches in 2024.

    Without substantial refinement of global space treaties and effective national regulation, expanding and imprudent use of space resources could trigger "the tragedy of the commons," rendering the most valuable regions of space unusable. Satellites could collide, or strike orbiting debris at extremely high speeds.  Accidental collisions are more likely in a crowded orbital region, such as 200-1200 miles above earth where low earth orbiting satellites operate

    A much more costly calamity can occur when a valuable, fully operational satellite collides with space debris, such as a deactivated satellite, or when it becomes a target in a test of anti-satellite (“ASAT”) technology.  The likelihood of a space object collisions increases substantially when space faring nations and private ventures do not nudge no longer useful objects upward, farther into deep space, or on a downward trajectory toward earth that would guarantee complete vaporization.  The testing and future use of ASAT technology risks “weaponizing” space, despite treaty-level commitments to use it solely for peaceful purposes, benefitting everyone.

    This article explains how national governments have generated or tolerated the proliferation of space debris to potentially dangerous levels of space debris without penalty. It explains how intergovernmental agreements, such as the five space treaties administered by the United Nations, and the space/spectrum management agreements of the International Telecommunication Union, have not required space debris mitigation, nor sanctioned operators responsible for generating more space debris.

    The failure to address and resolve proliferating space debris from ASATs and abandoned space objects will increase the potential for calamities that render space access too risky. The article identifies how intergovernmental agreements can mandate space debris mitigation, impose sanctions for noncompliance, and create financial incentives for recycling and removing existing debris.

 Assessing the Impact of the Great Power Competition on Space Commerce

        Just as space commerce appears to have reached a critical mass, competing national government interests can thwart progress with strategies and tactics that increase market risk, volatility, and uncertainty. Despite universal support for a treaty-level commitment to pursue only peaceful activities, for the benefit of everyone, unilateral actions by the governments of China, Russia, the United States have the potential to disrupt markets and even weaponize space.  The five international treaties on space-related activities cannot foreclose weaponization of space as a likely new theater of warfare.

      So-called Great Power Competition has generated high stakes rivalry to retain or secure supremacy in military, political, economic, and societal spheres. The battle for a competitive advantage has the potential to reduce or even thwart continuing success in space markets, because conflict and rivalry on earth includes an increasingly volatile above ground component.

      This paper assesses two conflicting trends.  On one hand, space commerce in 2023 generated an estimated $630 billion in economic activity, rising to a potential $1.8 trillion by 2035. Low Earth Orbiting satellite constellations have the potential to bridge the Digital Divide by providing a reliable infrastructure for widely available and affordable broadband access, even in remote, rural, and impoverished locales throughout the world. Other developing market opportunities include development of a vibrant space launch and tourism industry, space exploration, colonization of the Moon and Mars and an expanded array of services via commercial satellites.

           On the other hand, longstanding and emerging challenges in outer space may shift from chronic and unresolved, to acute and potentially catastrophic. National governments and private ventures can avoid triggering worst case scenarios only if they accept compulsory limits on space weapons testing and use, coupled with effective measures to reduce the risk of collisions with discarded or active spacecraft.  

          The paper identifies the most pressing and emerging quandaries, many of which result from a nation’s failure to comply with limitations on space activity broadly framed by space treaties entered into force over 40 years ago. Because governments of the world have not reached consensus on whether and how to modernize the treaties, the currently in force agreements do not address market entry by private ventures, lack an enforcement mechanism to compel compliance, and rely primarily on the good will of all countries to support noble aspirations that increasingly deviate from individual national interests.  

          Recent deployment of unconventional space objects by China and Russia point to near term use of technologies for enhanced surveillance, and disruption, or even destruction of quite valuable in-space assets.  A national campaign to promote the acquisition of comparatively more power and leadership in space, by both the public and private sectors, can have consequences underappreciated in their severity.  

          The paper also explains how emerging technologies and business plans contribute to both revenue enhancement and greater risk of calamity. It offers specific recommendations on what unconditional and immediate commitments national governments and private ventures must make to avoid potential ruination of space.

            

The Deeply Baked First Amendment Rights and Limited Responsibilities of Information Service Providers

The network neutrality tennis match has been called in favor of the Republican Information Service team over Network Neutrality Democrats. Ventures providing broadband Internet access have no obligation to operate neutrally. And they have robust, unimpeachable First Amendment rights.

Information Service Providers, have every legal right to act as unneutral and biased as they want to be. That means no one—in a personal capacity, or on behalf of the federal government—can sanction participants in the Internet ecosystem on grounds they aren’t being fair and balanced, to repeat a past slogan.  They hold themselves out as family friendly, truth agents, and block (censor!) any content they deem harmful to children, snowflakes, wokeheads, anti-wokeheads, et al.

This may come as a newsflash to some, but it should not for anyone with a baseline sense of what the First Amendment protects. Someone surely in the know, is upcoming FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. Yet he appears to have promised President Trump and Elon Musk that the FCC, under his leadership, will push the envelope on official disregard for the First Amendment.

Surely Chairman Carr knows the FCC has no statutory authority to punish broadcasters, social networks, or broadband operators from being woke, too liberal, anti-Trump, anti-Musk and whatnot.

Back in the day, First Amendment advocates did not cleave on a Democrat/Republican fulcrum. Now it appears that people who should know and embrace the First Amendment seem clueless.

Unintended Consequences When the FCC Cannot Use Its Expertise and Respond to Changed Circumstances

          The conservative majority in the Supreme Court has worked tirelessly to prevent regulatory agencies from using their expertise to assess how changed circumstances affect statutory authority.  See, e.g., Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2266 (2024); available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf; (overruling Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984); available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/837/.       

          While I appreciate that the FCC can overreach, I worry that the Court has blithely ignored two serious problems it has created:

1)       It looks like the impact of non-deference forecloses even independent regulatory agencies, like the FCC, from interpreting laws that Congress did not, or could not future proof.  For example, the last major amendment to baseline telecommunications law occurred in 1996, with no assessment of how broadband and the Internet fundamentally change information, communications, and entertainment markets.

          Rather than defer to the FCC’s interpretation of ambiguous statutory authorization, the Court requires explicit and properly tailored legislation.  Congress has developed a loathsome reputation for not assessing what legislative amendments and additions are necessary and overdue.  If Congress predictably fails to act, then obsolete and quite probably harmful statutory language persists.

2)       Court appears more inclined to use non-deference as a basis for preventing regulatory agencies from expanding jurisdiction to address new and potentially severe quandaries.  It is easy to reverse an expansive or re-regulatory initiative as the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals did in its rejection of the Democratic majority FCC’s effort to interpret broadband access as a telecommunications service. See https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pdf.

          Going forward, will courts apply non-deference to regulatory expansion clearly responding to a problem, which not addressed would trigger severe, quantifiable harm?  

          For example, the FCC has limited and ambiguous authority to assess the environmental impacts of telecommunications service providers.  See https://www.fcc.gov/general/nepa-faq. Reviewing courts and sponsored advocates already consider the scope of FCC space environment oversight quite limited, See, e.g., https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/22-1337/22-1337-2024-07-12.html; https://techfreedom.org/fcc-lacks-statutory-authority-and-expertise-for-outer-space-activities/, despite the irrefutable fact that spacecraft reentry has significant, adverse impact on the earth’s atmosphere and the pace of global warming. See, e.g., https://indico.esa.int/event/493/timetable/?view=standard_inline_minutes.

          The vast increase in space launches and injection of toxic gases and particles, including aluminum oxide, from space objects reentering earth’s atmosphere raise questions about future sustainability of space and the impact of on earth’s atmosphere. Even the complete vaporization of space objects appears to have potentially hazardous impacts on the environment below. “In a series of high-altitude research flights over Alaska and the U.S. Midwest in March and April, researchers sampled stratospheric air using specialized mass spectrometers. They discovered surprising amounts of many metals commonly used in rockets and satellites, often in ratios mirroring those found in specific high-performance aerospace alloys. The investigation revealed that the metals are accumulating within sulfuric acid particles, which constitute most of the stratosphere’s particulates and influence our world’s ozone layer and climate.” Leonard David & Lee Billings, Space Junk Is Polluting Earth’s Stratosphere with Vaporized Metal, Scientific American (Oct. 26, 2023); https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/space-junk-is-polluting-earths-stratosphere-with-vaporized-metal/.

          Would any reviewing court affirm a decision of the FCC to expand its regulatory oversight and require space ventures to assess the environmental impact of its vastly expanded launch and spacecraft vaporization activities?  I do not think so, particularly for any venture led by Elon Musk. See https://ehtrust.org/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-fcc-space-x-can-launch-thousands-of-satellites-without-environmental-review/

          What court would risk being overturned by the Supreme Court for considering it rational and consistent with statutory authority for the FCC to make some assessment of the impact on earth from toxic emissions above? 

A Small Bucket List Achievement Courtesy of the New York Times

 Perhaps consistent with my academic and applied search for the truth, I have made it a mission to report errors appearing in the New York Times and other media.  Heretofore, no acknowledgement even for significant mistakes. 

 For example, the Times used the inter-bank currency exchange rate in Travel section estimates of costs abroad.  I tried mightily to suggest that just about every reader of the paper would never qualify for the preferred bank rate.  For years the Times significantly overestimated the U.S. dollar value in foreign transactions.

While never acknowledging this multi-year blunder, the Times simply provides a cost estimate in the local currency.

Today, I finally got an acknowledgement from the Times on a simple mistake: reporting that a Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C. is located east of the city. Of course, Vienna, VA is located westward:          

 

Here’s what a received from a Times Standards Assistant:

In these retirement days, I accept diminution and invisibility, so even small potatoes trump humble pie.

 

Prepare For a Quite Impactful New Definition of “Trace Greenhouse Gases”

           While I concentrate on finding truth affecting telecommunications and information policy, I cannot self-censor on the latest insult from a Wall Street Journal columnist. Paul H. Tice wants U.S. citizens and their elected representatives to deem carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide “naturally occurring” “trace greenhouse gases, not lawfully subject to any sort of regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency.  See Trump Can Topple the Climate-Change House of Cards; https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-can-topple-the-climate-house-of-cards-clean-energy-paris-b1b0e4f8.

          Apparently, any process that increases the volume of these gases does not matter.  If any greenhouse gas naturally occurs in the atmosphere, then apparently human generated increase in volume does not matter, no matter what harm it causes.

          Wow!  With this logic, we can rationalize further emasculation of environmental protection by looking for any naturally occurring, potentially toxic material. As oil and other petroleum compounds naturally exist underground, then might any manmade petroleum product qualify for a regulatory exemption? How about uranium, sulfur, hydrogen, any of the other elements and “naturally occurring” compounds?

          Who needs science when we can consider any naturally occurring material a gift from the Almighty and thereby exempt from regulation, no matter what we mortals do with it.

Privatizing Weather Forecasting in the U.S.: What a Wild, Wrong, and Reckless Idea

          Continuing my analysis of telecommunications-oriented play book ideas in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, I now consider the plan to “commercialize” the National Weather Service.  See https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf#page=707

          Reading between the lines, I see a future when taxpayers continue to underwrite billions of dollars in weather satellites ($19.6 billion estimated cost of launching, and maintaining six next generation satellites; https://spacenews.com/noaa-seeks-funding-increases-for-next-generation-satellite-programs/),  but the NWS cannot in-house convert basic weather data into forecasts, warnings, projections, trend detection, and public outreach.

          Simply put, commercial ventures like The Weather Channel and AccuWeather, would share a monopoly in the commercialization of weather forecasting, leaving the NWS and taxpayers with the burden of supplying and paying for creation of the data.

          Is this a Great Country or What? Commercial ventures can “have their cake and eat it too,” no longer content to provide for profit “products,” augmenting what the NWS offers.

          Who needs the NWS when commercial ventures can offer better products, albeit ones that consumers pay twice: 1) taxes to support the NWS acquisition of weather data; and 2) commercial subscriptions and higher prices for advertiser supported commercial weather services.

          For good measure, maybe Congress should outlaw municipalities from operating available to anyone within earshot, storm siren warnings, a widespread precursor and still much appreciated adjunct to cellphone, radio, and social network alerts. See https://www.weather.gov/dvn/sirenFAQ.

          In my hometown of State College PA, AccuWeather operates over a dozen satellite earth stations to receive and “add value to” weather data.  Most of the NWS satellites operate in high geosynchronous orbit so the “birds” have a large geographical “footprint.”  It costs several hundred million dollars to construct, launch, and manage each of these type satellites, a large premium over smaller, limited purpose low earth orbiting satellites that have become increasingly popular for broadband.

          As one of those far from elite academics providing unsponsored research to find the truth, I resent how sponsored research predominates. Project 2025 cites an AccuWeather sponsored advocacy document, masquerading as “research” to tout the superiority of its commercial products:

Each day, Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by local radio stations and colleges that are produced not by the NWS, but by private companies such as AccuWeather. Studies have found that the forecasts and warnings provided by the private companies are more reliable than those provided by the NWS.” Project 2025 at p. 675, citing https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/latest-study-of-120-million-forecasts-proves-accuweather-forecasts-are-most-accurate-300986848.html

          I doubt whether AccuWeather would care to showcase its superior weather satellite procurement and management prowess if it had to pony up billions for the privilege.  Better to leave that burden to the taxpayer, something the Project 2025, does not acknowledge.

          Bottom line: commercial ventures want to prevent the NWS from even participating in public outreach, apparently even for mission critical warnings that could prevent or reduce calamity. Their simple logic: everyone has a cellphone, so we will not have a digital divide separating the weather informed and uninformed. Who needs NWS competition with far superior commercial products?

          What a wild and shameless idea on the fast track.

 

         

Nine Information Economy Policy Reversals Coming to a Marketplace Near You!

          Presidential elections have real impacts arriving quickly.  I think the following changed policies and strategies will happen fast, because the glidepath is both well-lit and pre-planned.

1)       Low Earth Orbiting carriers, like Starlink, will qualify for universal service funding.  The FCC, under new management, will ignore any previous qualms about Starlink’s cost, bit rate, reliability, and other shortcomings compared to terrestrial options.  This means Starlink will qualify for over $800 million in universal service funding subsidies.  Elon Musk is getting quite a return on his presidential election investment.

2)       The FCC has a playbook it will follow to the letter. See https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-28.pdf. The Heritage Foundation has commissioned the generation of a comprehensive list of deliverables that will be implemented quickly, regardless whether President Trump has read any of Project 2025.  This executive delegates large portions of governance.

3)       The author of the FCC chapter, Commissioner Brendan Carr, will become Chairman. Just before the election, he claimed NBC had violated the statutory obligation to provide “equal time” to candidate Trump when Saturday Night Live had a skit that included a cameo appearance by Kamala Harris. 

Depending on your political preferences, Commissioner Carr effectively channels Trumpian initiatives, or seems intent on triggering headlines rather than recommending measured compliance with the law. At least for the equal time complaint, even Fox News reported that NBC quickly and fully performed its notification and time offer requirements. See https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-files-equal-time-notice-harris-snl-cameo-following-backlash.

4)       Public interest regulatory requirements will fade into the sunset.  Expect the FCC to remove “regulatory underbrush” that heretofore have established now minor limits on national and local market dominance. Broadcasting becomes a toaster with sound and pictures as suggested in 1981 by a former FCC Chairman, Mark Fowler. See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mark-Fowler.

5)       Relaxed antitrust scrutiny, possibly eliminating the FCC’s review of mergers and acquisition parallel to what the Justice Department does.

6)       I expect Executive Branch agencies, including Defense, Homeland Security, NASA, Commerce, and the FAA, to lose the upper hand in spectrum sharing and relinquishment negotiations. A visible, vocal, and provocative Chairman Carr, will be able to push back on Executive Branch agency spectrum possessiveness, perhaps with some sort of Presidential blessing.

7)       Channeling former President Richard Nixon, see https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2017/trumps-threat-to-yank-tv-licenses-looks-a-lot-like-a-nixon-move-heres-why/, President Trump already has articulated the desire to sanction broadcast networks for assorted sins.  See https://www.brookings.edu/articles/donald-trump-has-threatened-to-shut-down-broadcasters-but-can-he/.

          President Trump probably will not be able to generate a passive and pliable news media by supporting a substantial deregulatory agenda at the FCC, while preserving the chilling effect of potential regulatory sanctions.  However, this tension will generate chaos that could extend to the issue of social network regulation and government-imposed sanctions for conservative bias, notwithstanding the First Amendment.

6)       More Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt when Congress does not provide legislative specificity as required by the Supreme Court.  The abandonment of judicial deference to regulatory agency expertise, and the heightened expectation that Congress provide explicit statutory mandates, will create a backlog even a Republican managed legislature cannot avoid.

7)       The Executive Branch will embrace artificial intelligence in possibly creepy ways.  It is possible that generative AI will be used to evaluate the past performance of individual government employees in terms of “team player” affinity to the Project 2025 playbook.

8)       While previously leery of cryptocurrency, President Trump will reward his Silicon Valley benefactors with Executive Branch endorsements.

9)       Lastly, I expect Chicago School, libertarian doctrine to become gospel truth.  Even though we know free does not mean without costs, the Chicago School mandarins equate enhanced consumer welfare with reduced out of pocket costs.  The Trump administration and like-minded judges will ignore quite harmful impacts to individual and society that are not readily quantified.

         

 

 

 

        

Yet Again the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Distorts Wireless Market Reality

          The Saturday Oct. 5^th 2024 edition of the Wall Street Journal falsely claims that wireless telecommunications rates in the U.S. have remained flat despite ravenous inflation: “Even as inflation has surged, wireless prices have remained flat since 2018.” https://www.wsj.com/opinion/dish-directv-fcc-charlie-ergen-jessica-rosenworcel-c50c31b4.

          Just because the Mandarins at the Wall Street Journal offer a definitive statement about something does not make it true.  With characteristic snark and righteous indignation, the Journal polemicists want to convince readers that the reduction from 4 to 3 facilities-based wireless carriers in the U.S. achieved great things for consumers and the overall competitive and innovative health of the industry.  Two prominent researchers claim that TMobile’s acquisition of Sprint singularly enhanced consumer welfare with no apparent downside.  See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4736059.

          How do consumers allegedly benefit from further concentration of an already oligopolistic market?  It takes creative, selective, and flawed interpretations of statistical facts to pull that rabbit out of a hat.

          To show flat rates, one would have to ignore the widely used carrier tactic of sneaking in new billing line items, or increasing existing ones.  Researchers also would have to ignore clear evidence of actual rate increases by asserting that the average minutes of use and data consumption increased thereby offsetting higher out of pocket payments by subscribers. Additionally, researchers would have to ignore ample evidence that subscribers are being involuntarily migrated to higher costing rate plans.

          Here’s a credible, non-partisan assessment of wireless pricing compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, available at: https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet.  Look for 2018-present PPI Industry Data;

Series Id:	PCU517312517312
Series Title:	PPI industry data for Wireless telecommunications carriers, not seasonally adjusted
Industry:	Wireless telecommunications carriers
Product:	Wireless telecommunications carriers
Base Date:	199906

Does the line appear horizontal to you?

          There are plenty of credible reports that U.S. subscribers are paying more for wireless service and their monthly rates exceed what most subscribers pay throughout the world. See https://www.billshark.com/blogs/u-s-mobile-plans-expensive; https://www.tangoe.com/blog/prepare-for-higher-mobile-phone-bills-this-summer-att-others-are-raising-rates/; https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/05/23/t-mobile-price-hike/73818353007/;https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/verizon-price-increase-why-your-phone-bill-might-be-higher-in-march/;https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/t-mobile-is-raising-prices-on-several-cellular-plans-heres-how-much-and-when/.

          Consider this scenario.  Let’s assume a Law Vegas hotel dinner buffet is priced at $75.00 per person.  Such a deal, given the diversity of opulent menu options.  Too good to be true, because the rate increased to $100.00.  Consumers of Las Vegas hotel buffets would interpret the new $100 price as a 33.3% rate increase.  The hotel and their sponsored researchers would cast about for ways to explain that the “value proposition” of the buffet “experience” actually increased.  They determine that the average guest increased consumption of buffet items from 2 pounds to 3 pounds, despite the imposition of a 90-minute time limit!

          Here’s the mathematical proof. At the $75 price point the per pound rate of consumption amounted to $37.50 (75 divided by 2).  Despite the $25 rate increase, a 3 pound rate of consumption reduces the per pound rate to $33.33 (100 divided by 3). Apparently, the buffet deal got better, because the attributed measure of consumer welfare increased, despite the price hike.

          Such a deal.

          If wireless consumers increase their network consumption sufficiently, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and others can see this as proof positive that the market is robust, competitive, innovative, increasing investment, hiring more employees, and making every subscriber fat and happy.

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         

The Inconvenient Truth About Wireless Network Resiliency

          Rarely does a week go by without a news report of a wireless network outage.  Just now, the lack of wireless access in Western North Carolina adds insults to the injuries from massive rainfall generated by Hurricane Helene, despite being 400 miles from initial landfall and diminished in classification to a tropical depression. See, e.g, https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/2024/09/29/cell-power-outage-north-carolina-helene-att-verizon-tmobile/75441408007/.

          We reluctantly expect that it will take days or weeks for electric power restoration to millions of subscribers after an earthquake, wildfire, or other natural disaster.  Ironically, the vulnerability of wireless networks exceeds that of the electric power grid, even as most wireless subscribers appear surprised and angry that their handsets do not work.  It may take weeks before complete wireless service is restored, even in the city of Asheville, N.C.  Until then, access will remain spotty, with islands of connectivity, based on which individual tower sites regain electric access.

          “Can you hear me now” has a new meaning in the storm ravaged south.  The weak link is the vulnerability of tower sites to power cuts, coupled with a quite limited span of time during which on site backup power generation can support “emergency service.”  Just as wireless subscribers cannot charge their handsets when the power grid fails, carriers equip tower sites with a limited amount of diesel fuel to power on-site electric generators.

          Outside of urban and suburban locales, cell towers typically are located on high ground and tall towers in remote places.  Wireless carriers often had to secure a dedicated wire link to the power grid.  If that link gets cut, there is no backup for access.  Even if the link itself did not fail, the interconnection with the electrical grid might offer nothing due to outages in that network.

          Every time I experience a wireless outage, I recall how my wireline connection rarely failed.  The telephone network was self-powered, originating at facilities impervious to many harms.  Much of the wireline telephone network travels underground in urban and suburban locales offering greater reliability.  Additionally, that network has built in resiliency and redundant routing.

          I do not long for a return to tethered phone service.  But I offer this reminder that with technological innovations there are tradeoffs that reduce the much touted enhanced value proposition.

The Frequently Attempted, But Rarely Successful Identification of Causation

           First, thanks to anyone who sees a daunting title like this one and nevertheless reads on. I want to discuss whether and how researchers can correctly isolate variables and determine how impactful they are on consumers, competition, and the marketplace.

           For example, former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and others claimed in that imposing network neutrality obligations on Internet access providers created a substantial, unassailable adverse effect on carrier investment in infrastructure:

           “So what happened after the Commission adopted Title II? Sure enough, infrastructure investment declined. Among our nation’s 12 largest Internet service providers, domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6% percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016, the first two years of the Title II era. This decline is extremely unusual. It is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era.” Remarks of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai at the Newseum, “The Future Of Internet Freedom” (Washington, D.C, April 26, 2017); https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0426/DOC-344590A1.pdf.

           After relentless repetition of this assertion, it became gospel truth and expanded to become a given that a single major regulatory initiative, by itself, can trigger multi-billion dollar reductions in carrier capital expenditures.

           Never mind that this isolation of a single causal (so-called dependent) variable simplifies a quite complex issue about the many factors directly impacting a carrier’s decision to invest in plant, that may take years to recover, if at all.  Politicians and sponsored researchers like to remove complexity and identify a single cause for all types of ills, particularly ones that possibly constrain profitability of important benefactors, requiring them to work harder. 

           Regulators were presented with “proof” that their work had harmed consumers and the public interest.  Publications, like the Wall Street Journal, showcase the research followed by a strongly worded editorial castigating the FCC for its poor work product.

           Currently, another variable isolation process is underway, this time to prove that mergers and acquisitions enhance consumer welfare and promote competition.  Dr. Tom Hazlett, Hugh H. Macaulay Endowed Professor of Economics, Clemson University, and Dr. Robert Crandall, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Institute, have written a comprehensive paper concluding that TMobile’s $26 billion acquisition of Sprint in 2020 did not trigger a cascade of anticompetitive outcomes, but in fact achieved great things. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4736059 [hereinafter cited as Hazlett and Crandall 2024 Paper].

          The paper supports the premise that reducing the number of U.S. facilities-based wireless carriers from 4 to 3 did not result in a variety of terrible outcomes, predicted by the Justice Department, many state Attorneys General, and yours truly.

          In another blog entry, I may attempt to identify questionable assertions made in the paper which I suspect will get much promotion given the stature of the authors, the persuasive nature of the paper, and the ongoing campaign to shut down any initiative at the Federal Trade Commission and elsewhere to become more aggressive antitrust law enforcers.

          Right now, I would like to identify a curious and probably unanticipated result of the paper: two eminent researchers have provided ample evidence that U.S. wireless carriers always have made the necessary investments in plant to stay competitive, regardless of whether one or more regulatory initiatives might make cost recovery more difficult:

“Increases in total bandwidth and network investment accelerated in the post-merger period. These measured trends – each requiring costly actions by the competing mobile service carriers -- are the reverse of what would occur in the “cozy oligopoly” scenario predicted by opponents of the transaction.” Hazlett and Crandall 2024 Paper at p. 26.

           Simply put, wireless carriers capex invest decision are driven largely by technology cycles, whether a carrier has to invest in next generation network plant and bid billions of dollars for more spectrum to accommodate growing bandwidth demand, or not.  Wireless carrier capex has grown even after the election of President Biden and the resulting Democratic majority of FCC Commissioners starting in January 2021.

           Wireless carriers made extraordinarily high capital investments during the upcycle rollout of 5G technology, despite Covid 19 reductions in revenues and stock values, and temporary declines in average revenue per user. If Chairman Pai was correct, wouldn’t it follow that the carriers would have conserved capital during times when marketplace conditions were pointing to delayed or possibly nonrecoverable capital investment?

           Can we at least agree that there are many factors that determine marketplace outcomes? It appears quite unlikely that one event, no matter how profound, can singularly alter market-driven behavior.

Increasingly Unmeasurable Consumer Welfare When Governments Market Meddle

          Currently, both U.S. presidential candidates tout the benefits of having government intervene in commercial markets.  Former President Trump wants to impose tariffs, up to 20%, on foreign goods deemed below cost, so-called predatory pricing and dumping.  Vice President Harris wants price caps on food to foreclose gouging.

           I am skeptical whenever governments try to manage aspects of a market economy even with noble intentions, such as remedying so-called market failures.  Markets rarely fail.  Consumers and elected officials do not like certain market outcomes and unanticipated manipulations. Consumer/voter sentiment considers a market outcome wrong, unfair, or distorted and candidates for elective office better pay attention and “fight” to make thing right.

           Former President Trump wants to level the competitive playing field in a variety of markets, such as steel, solar panels, clothing, and electric vehicles, by imposing a surcharge he asserts will have to be paid by exporting companies that have achieved a lower cost of doing business advance thanks to government subsidies, cheaper labor, and other distortions. Vice President Harris wants to punish greedy corporations that have achieved high profit margins, no longer justified by higher costs and lower demand occurring during the Covid pandemic.

           Curiously, there is little analysis of what constitutes a government-imposed market intervention that can actually remedy a prior intervention (by another government) that has distorted the marketplace and created new winners and losers.  Price dumping companies acquire market share abroad, based on a price discount made possible by a government benefactor. Losers include U.S. companies without access to a government subsidy and their employees who might lose a well-paying job, and opportunity to realize the American Dream.

           Markets get distorted and lots of stakeholders have both legitimate and opportunistic reasons to complain and “vote their pocketbook.” Anyone unemployed, or no longer able to operate a profitable business, can blame imports and the arrival of illegal aliens willing to work for less pay. Anyone looking at the rising cost of food might believe corporations are gouging, despite the economic gospel that above cost pricing encouraging market entry and enhanced competition.

           It looks like there are lots of fallacies, false assumptions, and wishful thinking in play.  I have devoted a career trying to find the truth in telecommunications markets.  What enormous, distorted reality I have seen. I especially loath the gospel truth that all mergers and acquisitions “enhance competition and consumer welfare,” No one seems obligated by courts and the court of public opinion to explain how the marketplace improves.

           The Chicago School advocates point to lower prices, but often one cannot determine actual cost of doing business.  For example, how can one determine the actual cost of providing wireless broadband, when carriers bundle, “at no additional charge” streaming video.  For an industry with very high initial sunk costs, the cost of providing an additional unit of service approaches zero. Accordingly, consumers have no clue whether an attentional text message is properly priced at 5 cents by a reseller, but bundled in with unlimited voice and data.

           If an economic assertion is touted long enough and loud enough by credible speakers, then it becomes true no matter how illogical and bogus.

           For example, what happens when a market consolidation does not trigger market entry and the assumed increase in competition? In telecommunications there are extremely high barriers to market entry in light of the high sunk investment costs and regulatory decisions that often create a scarcity in a mission critical component such as radio spectrum.

           The Chicago School doctrine that mergers can enhance consumer welfare is based on the premise that a concentrated market will not result in higher prices.  But what is the correct price in a concentrated market?  Vice President Harris has generated much pushback, if not contempt, for her foolish economic thinking. Why have Chicago School mandarins avoided similar disdain when new market entry does not occur, prices exceed any measure of ongoing inflation, and there is ample proof that competitive markets in other countries offer consumers a clearly better value proposition?

           Right now, voters are told that tariffs will not raise product costs, governments can identify and sanction price gouging, and mergers are a wonderful event for consumers.

           Do these gospel truths make sense to you?

 

         

The Role of Chronic Radio Interoperability Impediments in the Butler, PA Assassination Attempt

  There are many inconvenient truths about radio spectrum sharing and transceiver interoperability that require full ventilation and resolution. Spectrum users want exclusive access and—news flash—they do not like to share!   

          Campaign events, like the Trump Bulter, PA rally, require short notice, forced cooperation between and among federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, as well as a variety of other government agencies. The radios used by onsite Secret Service and law enforcement officers operate on different channels requiring ad hoc adjustments to achieve interoperability.  Software can satisfy this mission critical requirement, but there must be an unconditional commitment to program all radios to operate on all frequencies available for use at any upcoming event.  

          While government agencies have exclusive access to more than half of all usable radio frequencies, bandwidth becomes scarce, because of the insistence on exclusivity.  Until quite recently, federal government agencies launched single user satellites, even though they could save billions of dollars and access more capacity by negotiating a public private partnership.  Innovations in spectrum sharing make it possible to share satellites and frequencies without interference.  

          But no one likes to share. It’s human nature, not technology triggering the interoperability impasse that almost killed Donald Trump.  

          Short notice, one-time events, like a campaign rally, all but guarantee that on site personnel will have transceivers that transmit and receive different frequencies.  The exclusive bandwidth allocation requires the use of devices that can be reprogrammed to use a common set of channels.  This means on-site personnel may need to use a temporary device about which they may lack full understanding on its operation. Of course, there has to be funding available for temporary deployment of these expensive, “frequency agile” handsets.  

          Spectrum interoperability is not rocket science.  Throughout the world, cellphone handsets operate on different frequencies, using incompatible operating formats.  Commercial necessity and consumer friendly regulations have achieved interoperability, including the ability of subscribers to keep their existing telephone number when changing service providers. Wireless subscribers can “roam” throughout the world using the same handset they use at home.  

          Interoperability requires ongoing commitment to pay attention to spectrum incompatibility issues.  It appears that Secret Service officials got too comfortable with their tried-and-true procedures that may not have given spectrum problems a priority.  Additionally, we should not ignore the possibility that turf concerns, envy, and resentment might surface when the feds “parachute in” and take charge.  

          Interoperability requires conscientious cooperation, despite the inclination to push back.

Maverick Capitulation: Why TMobile and Southwest Airlines Abandoned Their Core Values

     Once upon a time, TMobile prided itself as the “uncarrier” wireless company.  After acquiring Sprint, it quickly abandoned a strong commitment to innovate and enhance its value proposition.  See https://telefrieden.blogspot.com/2018/06/life-in-antitrust-wonderland-suspension.html; https://telefrieden.blogspot.com/2019/11/more-overstatements-about-lovefest.html.

          TMobile quickly realized that it did not have to spend sleepless afternoons competing with AT&T and Verizon.  The market had become so concentrated that TMobile could increase their profit margin through what antitrust experts call conscious parallelism: a go along, get along, strategy that comes close to collusion. Now, little differentiates the three national carriers aside from what “free” video streaming they offer high margin subscribers.

        Southwest Airlines, perhaps reluctantly, has followed the T Mobile strategy.  For many ears, the airline differentiated itself from the other large, legacy carriers, by offering lower fares, open seating without additional charge, and free carriage of two bags.  Eventually Southwest realized it did not have to offer the lowest rates for every route.  Recently, it announced the cancellation of open seating, disingenuously characterizing the decision as a revenue neutral response to consumer demand. See https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/business/southwest-boarding-history/index.html.

       Does anyone really believe Southwest will not monetize seat access just like the other carriers?  Southwest realized that it could eliminate this perk and convert seat access into a new profit center, just like the other airlines.  Why not make a bundle on decoupling air carriage from where a passenger sits.

         It is not rocket science to detect an obvious outcome: when markets concentrate, through mergers, acquisitions, barriers to market entry, and lax antitrust enforcement, the surviving businesses have little incentive to reduce rates and enhance the customer experience.  

          Because consumers have limited choices in airlines and wireless carriers, we cannot vote with our pocketbooks and take our business elsewhere when we suffer from bad—vary bad—customer care. 

          TMobile is not the fearless, iconoclastic uncarrier anymore and neither is Southwest. 

 

              

The We Don’t Want to Pay for Universal Telecommunications Access Litigants Finally Hit Paydirt

           For several years now, a well-funded litigation group has sought a federal appellate court decision deeming unconstitutional congressional legislation directing the FCC to establish a subsidy mechanism to achieve affordable and ubiquitous access to telecommunications and broadband.  In three appellate court districts, the litigants filed the same claims and lost. 

         Even a panel in the nation’s most conservative district, failed to buy the argument that the decades long FCC-created subsidy mechanism constituted a tax, made worse by the Commission’s delegation of administrative duties to a private company.

        The litigants finally hit paydirt in an enbanc appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled in their favor on a 9-7 vote.  See https://www.law360.com/articles/1861779/attachments/0. The litigants finally have a conflict in appellate court rulings that eventually will result in a Supreme Court appeal and the opportunity for the conservative majority there to issue yet another order framed as rightsizing the administrative state.

        The litigants ostensibly expressed concerns about constitutional rights, economic freedom, what constitutes a tax, how specific a congressional delegation of authority has to be, and the extent to which the FCC could lawfully delegate administration of the universal service program to a company.  These arguments are creative rationales to support a basic mission: to find a way for a court to eliminate an increasingly expensive subsidy burden flowing from telecommunications carriers to qualifying subscribers based on their income. Reduced to its basic premise the litigation is funded by stakeholders who do not want to pay anything to support affordable Internet for everyone, including all those Republican voters in rural America.

           Apparently jettisoning a successful, albeit expensive, subsidy program should be shut down as a unfair, and apparently unnecessary gravy train for undeserving beneficiaries, many of which happen to live in rural Red States!

           Ever since the onset of telephone service telephone companies, the FCC, and even Congress have supported a universal service mission.  For decades, no one objected to the basic premise that society benefits when as many people as possible have access to affordable telecommunications.  In light of how right-wing conservatives currently rail against universal service, historically sparsely populated Red, Republican states receive the largest share of universal service funding.  Now that universal surface funding has substantially increased to support broadband access, the right-wing rails against so-called Obama Phones and unconstitutional taxation.

           The 5^th Circuit En Banc decision reeks of partisan, doctrinal overreach.  The majority, emboldened by recent Supreme Court decisions to eliminate reliance on regulatory agency expertise, blows up a subsidy mechanism that has significantly achieved progress, and funneled billions of dollars into the coffers of telephone companies.

           The ultimate irony from this misguided mission will be a massive increase in employment at the FCC that no longer can off load administrative duties to a separate company.  Telephone companies quite likely will regret losing a generous subsidy and I expect them to lobby for a resurrection of the program, with even more explicit, unambiguous language now required by the Supreme Court.