Apple's Google Voice Rejection Wakes Up A Dormant FCC; Investigation Begins

from the whoops dept

We've had a bunch of stories about Apple's rather arbitrary nature in rejecting iPhone apps it doesn't like -- including ones where it claims that they're not allowed because they compete with Apple. However, Apple's recent decision to reject Google's Voice application didn't just attract general public interest in Apple's policies, it appears to have awoken the latest crop of FCC bosses. Yes, the FCC has requested more info from Apple, AT&T and Google concerning Apple's rejection of the Google app. I wonder how the random Apple drone who made that decision is feeling right now?

Either way, this isn't good for anyone. The FCC's reasoning is that it:

"has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment."

That's actually a bit of a stretch on the FCC's actual mandate. And as ridiculous as I think Apple's actions are here, having the FCC get involved doesn't seem good for anyone either. The FCC shouldn't be involved in deciding what applications get put on phones. Apple's decision has angered a bunch of people, with some swearing off the iPhone because of it. In those cases, those people have other options and other phones to go to. The situation doesn't require the FCC to get involved. It should just require Apple coming to its senses and getting rid of its silly policy of outright rejections of apps it doesn't like.

77 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If You Have WiFi, a Cell Phone, Or Lots Of Other Things, The FCC Thinks It Can Search Your House

from the respect-my-authoritah dept

Part of the Federal Communications Commission's job is to regulate the airwaves, ensuring that radio devices don't unduly interfere with each other and turn the spectrum into a morass of noise. Generally this entails making sure that licensed radio and TV stations are staying within the frequencies they're assigned and within certain power levels, and also cracking down on people broadcasting in licensed frequencies without licenses. One tool in the FCC's investigative arsenal is the ability to inspect radio gear, like TV stations' transmitters, but the Commission also says that this extends to things like WiFi routers, cordless and cell phones, remote garage door openers, TV remotes, or "anything using RF energy." This means that if you have any of those products, or anything with a radio, the FCC thinks it has the right to search your house (via Boing Boing). The FCC contends the authority stems from the Communications Act of 1934, but as Threat Level points out, it's never been challenged in court, mainly because it's a relatively recent phenomenon for essentially every American household to have so many radio devices. While it's unlikely that the FCC will begin raiding homes to confiscate WiFi routers and garage door openers, there is speculation that should FCC agents enter a home and see evidence of unrelated criminal behavior, that evidence can be used for criminal prosecution. This could give law enforcement a potential back door around search and seizure laws, a move which certainly merits some concern.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

55 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Does The CDC Have Better Data On Mobile Penetration Than The FCC?

from the that's-what-we-call-regulatory-capture dept

It's well known that the FCC has long had incredibly bogus data when it comes to broadband and mobile penetration in the US. In many cases, this is due to efforts from legacy providers who don't want accurate penetration info to get out there, because that might lead the government to realize how little actual competition there is in the market. Kevin Werbach points us to the fact that it appears that when people are interested in mobile phone penetration in the US, it's not the FCC who has the data, but the Center for Disease Control (CDC), who went out and collected their own damn data because it needed to know that data to make sure its phone surveys remained accurate. It's quite telling of the state of the FCC when it's the CDC that has better data about the industry the FCC regulates.

65 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Says Not So Fast To TV Stations' Itchy Switch Fingers

from the not-completely-surprising dept

The digital TV transition mess rolls on. After lots of TV stations said they planned to move ahead with the shutdown of their analog broadcasts, as the recently passed delay allows them to do, the FCC is now telling more than a quarter of them they can't do so without first meeting a number of regulations. The FCC contends (PDF alert, thanks to Fat Tony for sending it in) that 123 stations' plans to switch their analog signals off soon pose "a significant risk of substantial public harm," not because people who haven't figured out the switch was coming will miss Judge Judy and Wheel of Fortune, but because they need their TVs for access to "local news and public affairs."

The regulations say that one station in the broadcasters' metro areas must maintain analog service until at least the middle of April, but also that the stations must increase their "educational" programming about the switchover, and also provide both "local or toll-free telephone assistance, including engineering support" and "provide a location and staff for a consumer 'walk-in' center to assist consumers with applying for coupons and obtaining converter boxes, to demonstrate how to install converter boxes, to provide maps and lists of communities that maybe affected by coverage issues, and to serve as a redistribution point for consumers who are willing to donate coupons, converter boxes, televisions and for those in need of these items."

If this didn't involve the government, it would almost be remarkable. The government botched the converter coupon program, has caused more confusion with the delay, and now wants TV stations to set up call centers and walk-in locations to deal with it. What's even more galling is that stations will be forced to toss resources at an issue that effects a small sliver of the population: take the small subset of Americans that watch TV, but don't have cable or satellite, then the subset of those that haven't yet gotten with the program. From those few people that are left standing, will they be any more ready in June than they would be on the 17th, when the switchover was supposed to happen? And why should broadcasters have to devote so many resources to them, particularly when it's the bungled coupon program that's largely to blame?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New FCC, Telecom Committee Chairs: What's In Store?

from the predicting-politicians dept

As the new Presidential administration gets settled in, it's worth taking a look at some of the leadership changes that will affect the technology and communications spaces. First, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has announced he's stepping down on Jan. 20 (not that we'll be too upset), and he'll be replaced by Julius Genachowski, pending confirmation hearings. Genachowski is a long-time friend of Barack Obama, dating back to their time together at Harvard Law School; he was also chief counsel of the FCC during the Clinton administration. But he's also most recently worked in venture capital, and was also an executive at IAC, giving some hope to the idea that he's well-tuned to the needs of web startups, entrepreneurship and new media, and will give them a voice in Washington. Many stories have noted that Genachowski's positions on many issues aren't widely known, but he did chair the advisory group that delivered Obama's Technology and Innovation Plan, which he summarized in a blog post as "Open Government. Open Networks. Open Markets." GigaOM came up with a nice wish list of tasks for Genachowski, and also reports that telcos can expect their influence at the FCC to wane from Martin's era, that cable companies can expect a slightly better environment, and that wireless companies can expect to see their broadband plans promoted. Like us, they're optimistic that Genachowski's leadership will see the FCC adopt policies that benefit consumers, rather than telcos and other providers, but we'll wait for his confirmation hearings for more details.

Over in the House of Representatives, Congressman Rick Boucher, a Democrat from Virginia and a leading proponent for consumer rights on the House intellectual property subcommittee is taking over the Communications, Technology and the Internet Subcommittee. Boucher's swapping places on another committee with former chair Rep. Ed Markey, who's introduced net neutrality legislation in the past. In an interview with the WSJ, Boucher laid out some of his views: he says net neutrality isn't a top priority for him, but that forcing wireless operators to open their networks and allow consumers to access any type of service could be. He also wants to try and reform the Universal Service Fund, an enormous telco boondoggle that really does little to advance its goal of building out telecom service in rural areas. That all sounds good, generating further optimism that things telecom-wise could be taking a turn for the better under the new administration. Still, it bears repeating: hopefully both Genachowski and Boucher will understand that what's really needed in the telecom space is real competition, and that they'll work towards crafting solutions that engender it.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Just Couldn't Stop Voting

from the election-day-festivities dept

Well, it's election day and apparently the FCC commissioners liked voting so much they took votes on just about everything. Amazingly, it looks like they even made some good decisions. The big one, of course, and the one that will get the most press, is the unanimous vote to free up television "white space" spectrum. While the NAB made a last ditch effort to stop this, the FCC made the right call here. This spectrum can be put to much better use, which can have a huge impact on increasing innovation and wireless technologies. This is a big win. The FCC also approved Sprint and Clearwire's deal to set up a joint venture for their WiMax operations, as well as allowing Verizon to buy Alltel. Both of those deals make sense as well, so it's good to see them approved.

Other than that, the FCC said that it's going to start looking into the pricing policies of cable companies... and Verizon. Who's missing? FCC boss Kevin Martin's best friends over at AT&T. To be honest, while it's quite likely that the cable companies and the telcos (yes, including AT&T) are abusing their oligopoly position, the answer shouldn't be having the FCC act as a watchdog over pricing policies, but for a better system to be set up that encourages real competition. In the meantime, though, can someone explain why AT&T was left out of the bunch?

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kevin Martin In Favor Of Freeing Up White Space TV Spectrum

from the good-news dept

While there's been a ton of propaganda from TV broadcasters (and, oddly, wireless microphone vendors) concerning requests from tech companies to make use of the so-called "white space" spectrum that surrounds the spectrum the TV broadcasters use, it appears that FCC boss Kevin Martin is now prepared to support freeing the spectrum for other uses. This isn't all that surprising, given that the FCC has been pushing to free up such spectrum for years, but it is very good news. While there were some early test device failures, the problems were with the devices themselves, not in creating any interference, as the critics claim. This totally unused spectrum could open up all sorts of interesting new wireless technologies that could be tremendously useful in many different ways.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Wants To Throw Some FCC Roadblocks Into Sprint, Clearwire Joint Venture

from the good-luck-with-that dept

In a move that is clearly designed to just piss off and waste the resources of a competitor, AT&T has filed papers with the FCC opposing Sprint and Clearwire's plan to merge their WiMax divisions, which was announced a few months ago (found via Broadband Reports. Of course, AT&T has a chummy relationship with the FCC, who has allowed it to merge with telco after telco without many real conditions (and even telling it that it can ignore some of the conditions it agreed to to get those mergers approved).

In this case, AT&T claims that it isn't really opposed to the merger, but it's filing opposition papers because it feels that Sprint and Clearwire aren't receiving the same level of scrutiny that AT&T received in its mergers, specifically with regards to it spectrum holdings. This seems like grasping at straws by AT&T just to throw some sort of extra paperwork roadblock in the path of the new Clearwire, which is an obvious competitor.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is The FCC Subsidizing The Least Efficient Providers Of Rural Telco Services?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a huge boondoggle for telcos, who keep getting more and more money out of it, with almost no oversight into what's done with that money. And, the way it's set up, it actually blocks more innovative (and cheaper!) services from being used to improve connectivity in rural areas. It's good to see others are beginning to notice this. News.com is running an article from Gregory L. Rosston at Stanford who points out that the USF rewards companies for being the least efficient providers. That is, by showing how much more it costs the telcos to provide for rural users, the FCC grants them even more money. In other words, the less efficient they are, the more money they get. Not exactly the type of incentives the FCC should be setting up -- but given FCC chair Kevin Martin's super chummy relationship with the telcos, perhaps it's no surprise.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cablevision Caught Blatantly Lying To Customers About Digital TV Switch

from the don't-blame-us,-blame-the-fcc dept

As you probably have heard, in early 2009, over-the-air TV stations will no longer be broadcasting analog signals to those who receive television over-the-air (with an antenna). This is part of a necessary effort to reclaim valuable wireless spectrum that the broadcasters have held (for free) for many years, and put it to much better use. This change only impacts those who watch TV over-the-air. That means it has no impact whatsoever on anyone who receives their television via cable or satellite TV (representing the majority of TV viewers out there). Yet, this apparently didn't stop at least one cable company from claiming otherwise.

Consumerist has caught Cablevision telling customers that they need to upgrade to a digital cable box by order of the FCC. This is simply untrue. Cablevision is upgrading many of its channels to digital format from analog, and those channels will no longer be available to customers who don't have a digital cable box. But, that's entirely a business decision made by Cablevision, and has absolutely nothing to do with the the FCC-mandated switch for over-the-air broadcasts. It's just that Cablevision timed this deal to coincide with all the stories about the over-the-air switch, and is using that to make people think that it's the FCC's fault. Cablevision responded to Consumerist admitting that the change has nothing to do with the FCC's mandated change -- but refused to explain why every customer support person Consumerist spoke to gave the FCC as the reason, even after they specifically went to check their training notes. It's a rather sneaky (and likely illegal) move to claim that people need to upgrade due to the FCC when the FCC has nothing to do with it.

81 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kevin Martin's Latest Gift To Telcos: Dismissing Skype Petition

from the we-don't-need-no-discussion-at-all.. dept

A little over a year ago, Skype filed a petition with the FCC asking to extend the Carterfone decision to mobile networks. The Carterfone ruling was what allowed people the opportunity to connect non-AT&T telephones to the phone network, and kicked off an awful lot of innovation in the telephone arena (getting everyone past the black rotary phones). The Skype petition was a bit misguided, because the situation in the mobile world was quite different than the AT&T telephone monopoly of the 1960s. In fact, there is a lot more competition and openness in the mobile world -- and that competition has pushed many of the players to continue to open up at a greater rate, knowing they need to in order to compete.

So, it probably doesn't come as much surprise to find out that telco buddy Kevin Martin is dismissing the Skype petition outright. He announced this at the CTIA conference, where it was greeted by applause -- suggesting that it was mostly employees from mobile operators in the room. Martin pointed out that there was a lot of competition in the mobile space and also noted Verizon Wireless' move towards openness. Of course, it may be a bit early to declare Verizon Wireless truly open, and it seems a bit odd to dismiss the Skype petition out of hand without any public discussion. While it's probably true that the Skype petition was asking for unnecessary regulations, you would think that at least a discussion could have been held around questions of openness on mobile networks before the petition was totally dismissed.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lessons From The 700 MHz Auction? More Of The Same

from the no-surprises-here dept

So the winners of the 700 MHz spectrum auction have been announced and to say that there were no surprises would be an understatement. It played out almost exactly as most observers predicted it would. Verizon Wireless ended up with the C-block (with Google only bidding right up to the cut-off amount to force Verizon to play by "open" rules) and AT&T added some spectrum as well, which it can add to the 700 MHz spectrum it picked up separately last year. The end result? Nothing too exciting for consumers. Whether or not Verizon Wireless's required "openness" makes a difference remains to be seen. What didn't happen was someone new entering the scene -- meaning that we're not going to see anything really new come out of all this spectrum.

In fact, perhaps the most bizarre bid of all was EchoStar spending $700 million on spectrum that can only be used for one-way communication. One-way communication is less and less useful these days. EchoStar has been making some interesting moves of late, but using this spectrum to build a mobile TV broadcast solution (which is what many expect) makes little sense. It will cost the company billions, and then they'll be limited to a one-way communication system just as people are recognizing that the real value is in multi-directional communications. It may give the company another option rather than relying on satellites (which are costly and troublesome at times), but the expense is way too high considering the limitations. So, even with EchoStar, we're talking about "more of the same." That's too bad, as there was a quiet hope that someone different would step in and do something really new and interesting with this valuable spectrum.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Forget Google, Watch Out For Chevron In The 700 MHz Auction

from the my-ISP-is-Chevron? dept

Everybody's been buzzing about the likelihood of Google bidding on the 700 MHz spectrum that's up for auction in a few weeks, that's allowed a few other interesting characters to get in on the auction below the radar. The FCC has now announced that 266 separate entities have filed to take part in the auction, so it's quite a long list. So far, only 96 applications have been accepted, but the others have until January 4th to get their applications in order. Everyone knew Google was on the list, and it's no surprise to hear names like Verizon Wireless, Alltel, MetroPCS, Vodafone and AT&T (who already got a head start buying some other spectrum in the 700 MHz realm earlier). There was some speculation about cable companies participating, and sure enough, Cox and Cablevision will show up at the auction. Then there are a few surprises. Qualcomm is planning to bid -- which could upset some of the US carriers who consider Qualcomm more of a partner than a competitor.

In a list of 266 companies, there are always going to be some long shots -- but it still doesn't hurt to point out some of the more interesting bidders. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen plans to bid via his Vulcan Spectrum LLC (reusing his favorite "Vulcan" name for companies). It's unclear what he would do with the spectrum. Perhaps even more surprising is the news that oil giant Chevron is planning to participate. What the company would do with the spectrum should it win (and it certainly has the money to win) is an open question, but there are a few intriguing ideas. As for Google, don't hold your breath for a win here. It has seemed pretty clear from the beginning that the company is only in the auction to bid $4.6 billion -- the lowest point necessary to force open access rules to kick in. It would be a huge surprise if the company bid much more than that, and it would be an even bigger surprise if no one outbid Google.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Releases Its Bogus Broadband Data Once Again

from the must-be-that-time-of-year dept

By this point, everyone knows that the FCC's data on broadband penetration in the US is totally bogus. Early in 2006, a GAO report slammed the FCC for using such bogus data. It uses a very low hurdle for what counts as "broadband" and then measures broadband based on zipcodes only. So if one broadband provider provides 200kbps service to a single house in that zipcode, the FCC considers broadband to be available to everyone in that zipcode. That, of course, is ridiculous -- as even right here in the heart of Silicon Valley it's difficult for some people to get broadband. When the FCC did little to respond, the GAO came out with a second report slamming the FCC again. When the FCC still did nothing, Congress got into the act, pushing forward a bill that would require the FCC to more accurately count broadband penetration. How did the FCC respond? By writing an editorial insisting that there's competition... even if it doesn't have any numbers to back it up.

With all that as background, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that the latest FCC report on broadband penetration appears to use the same bogus methodology. It makes you wonder who they think they're fooling. With such a pointless methodology the results are pretty meaningless. After all, it suggests that 80% of zipcodes have at least four broadband service providers. Those who want to say that there's strong competition in broadband will falsely assume this means 80% of households have four providers to choose from, but it would probably be pretty difficult to find very many people who have four different providers available. There is one amusing point in the report. The FCC used to insist that after handing over monopolies to incumbents, new broadband options would come from other technologies, with broadband over powerlines being the "great hope" for broadband competition despite years and years of failed trials. It seems the FCC isn't talking much about broadband over powerlines any more... perhaps because its own report shows fewer subscribers than at the beginning of the year. So much for that plan.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

GAO: FCC Gives Preferential Treatment To Lobbyists, Company-Sponsored Data

from the par-for-the-course dept

It's well known that folks at the FCC have a rather chummy relationship with the telco industry. After all, many of them either worked in the industry at one point or (more importantly) expect to get lucrative jobs in the industry after they leave the FCC. So it probably should come as no surprise to find out that the FCC tends to favor industry lobbyists and industry data to that of the consumers whose interests the FCC is supposed to be safeguarding. This is according to the GAO who has been doing a fantastic job highlight questionable government activity -- specifically with the FCC. In this latest report, there are two key things, both of which are quite troubling. First, the FCC often reveals important information to industry lobbyists, including information on new rulemaking efforts, votes and even how Commissioners intend to vote. This information is often not equally shared with consumer advocates, leaving them at a tremendous disadvantage. Second, in doing research for rulemaking, the FCC often relies on the data submitted to them, by industry representatives. And we all know how trustworthy that is likely to be. It's also probably worth pointing out that the GAO provided a draft of the report to the FCC and asked for comment, to which the FCC replied "no comment." Indeed. It appears no comment is really needed.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Verizon Decides It Doesn't Like Open-Access Wireless Rules After All

from the damn-competition dept

Discussion of the upcoming auction for licenses for 700 MHz spectrum has been dominated by the desire of Google and other groups to have "open-access" rules put in place. These rules would force license winners to sell wholesale access to their networks, allow any compatible device to be used on them, and follow net neutrality principles. The FCC paid some lip service to the issue by attaching just two of the conditions (net neutrality and allowing the use of any compatible device) to just a portion of the spectrum, and adding that the conditions will be dropped and the auction for the relevant licenses restarted without them if a reserve price of $4.6 billion isn't met. This was a political show that made it look like the FCC was taking some action, but the likely overall impact on the market will be minimal. Perhaps what made it clear that the rules were toothless and wouldn't have much competitive impact was the fact that incumbent telcos AT&T and Verizon voiced some support for them. But it would appear Google execs' comments that the company will "probably" bid on the spectrum, even though the FCC didn't adopt all its proposed principles has spooked Verizon, as the telco is now suing the FCC, saying it overstepped its authority in putting the conditions on the licenses.

When it looked like the open-access rules wouldn't have any effect, and that the auction for the licenses with them wouldn't attract enough buyers to hit that $4.6 billion reserve price, Verizon went the politically and PR-expedient route and voiced its support for them. Now that it looks like Google's going to be ready to pounce on the spectrum and pay the reserve price, Verizon contends the rules are illegal. Without the involvement of Google or another deep-pocketed bidder, Verizon could wait for the auction to restart without the rules, then pick up the spectrum free from the open-access rules. Since it looks like Google will bid up to the reserve price, Verizon faces the prospect of getting caught in a bidding war with the company, and should it win, it would have to operate any network in the spectrum with the open-access rules -- which it clearly doesn't want to do.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Not Convinced To Just Hand Over Spectrum To Startup In Exchange For Potential Future Profits

from the FCC-prefers-its-money-upfront dept

In May of 2006, a VC-backed startup called M2Z petitioned the FCC to hand over some spectrum for free in exchange for a cut of future potential revenues. As you're probably quite aware, the FCC has been focused lately on auctioning off slices of spectrum to private companies for use in various wireless projects. The spectrum seems to only be getting more and more valuable as demands for potential wireless applications and services increase. Of course, as we've seen in the past, these spectrum auctions don't always work out so well, with companies overbidding and being unable to actually do much with the spectrum. Part of the problem is that the FCC wants to put all sorts of rules on the spectrum usage, rather than letting it be used for whatever makes the most sense, like some other countries.

However, the M2Z proposal seemed pretty questionable in its own way, promising nothing up front, and then making plenty of promises on the backend. The company claimed it would cover 95% of the country in broadband in 10 years, would have a "free" tier that was relatively slow and filtered, a more expensive upper tier, as well as offering priority for public safety uses. It may have been intriguing simply for the fact that it was different, but the FCC wasn't convinced. As has been expected for quite some time, the FCC has rejected the proposal, though some believe that the debate over this topic may eventually lead to good things from the FCC with the spectrum it's going to release in the near future. Of course, in the end all this really highlights is that the FCC still is focused on dribbling out bits and pieces of spectrum using different rules and regulations each time -- rather than coming up with a truly comprehensive spectrum allocation plan. Of course, some of us have been pointing this out for years, and the FCC never seems to get any closer to a comprehensive spectrum allocation policy -- and the country continues to suffer for it.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Cracks Down On E911 Violations? Yeah, Right

from the the-best-kind-of-deadline dept

The FCC has announced that it wants to fine three mobile operators a total of $2.825 million (a staggering figure, we know) for their continued failure to meet E911 standards. The rules said that by the end of 2005, operators had to be able to locate 95% of their subscribers within a certain distance when they called 911, and these operators still haven't met the standard, apparently -- thanks in part to their use of handset-based location technology, and a good number of users who haven't upgraded their phones. Surely the FCC fines will make them move, right? Because all the other meaningless fines the FCC's doled out have really worked. While the FCC tries to look tough by "cracking down" on the operators, plenty of places still don't have 911 call centers that can actually use the location information -- in part because they frittered away the funds that were supposed to pay for call center upgrades on ballpoint pens and winter boots.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jury Out On The Impact Of 700 MHz Spectrum Auction Rules

from the new-spectrum-same-players dept

The talk around the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum license auctions continues. After Google's CEO earlier this week said the company would "probably" bid in the auction, even though the FCC didn't implement the open-access provisions Google wanted, a couple of divergent opinions on the auction's impact on the telecom landscape have come out. On the one hand, former FCC bigwig Blair Levin says the auction isn't likely to result in a new nationwide mobile operator; on the other, a "source at a major cellular company" says the auction isn't attractive for incumbent operators. Who to believe? As usual, the truth in somewhere in the middle, but we're more inclined to take Levin's view of things. Incumbent operators will likely shy away from the 22 MHz of spectrum with open-access rules -- not just because they don't want to operate under the restrictions, but also because if the auction for those licenses fails to generate $4.6 billion, the open-access rules will be lifted, and the auction will start over. Once it hits $4.6 billion on that first go-around, though, operators will bid because there's simply too much spectrum on offer to ignore it. Their choice of technology could render the open-access rules useless, really -- after all, if they pick a proprietary or unpopular technology for their network, they'll be the only people selling compatible devices for it. When you get down to brass tacks, the incumbent operators are going to spend whatever's necessary to acquire the spectrum, despite what anonymous sources within them say. Spectrum in general is their lifeblood, and this 700 MHz spectrum in particular has too many positive attributes for mobile broadband for them to pass up. They'll bid aggressively to defend their turf, and if anybody is going to unseat them, it's going to take a hell of a lot of investment.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google CEO Says It Will 'Probably' Bid On Spectrum Licenses

from the here-comes-the-cash dept

Google has been making noise for some time about getting its hands on some wireless spectrum licenses. It's been behind a push to get the FCC to institute "open access" rules for license winners in the upcoming auction of 700 MHz spectrum, and the FCC implemented a couple of rather meaningless conditions to certain licenses in the auction. Google's main goal was to get the FCC to force license winners to offer wholesale access to their networks to anyone who wanted to buy it -- making it clear that Google's real interest isn't in acquiring spectrum licenses and building a network of its own, but rather having the ability to buy wholesale network access, and to do so in a competitive market. Google's push to get the FCC to create this market for free failed; now, Google's CEO says the company will "probably" bid in the auction. If Google were to win some licenses, it could choose to lease them to network operators in exchange for network access, with whatever conditions it wants to attach. This could achieve the same end result -- a marketplace with several bidders competing for Google's business -- as the getting the FCC to mandate open access. Obviously Google would rather have gone down that route than having to shell out several billion dollars for the licenses. Either way, don't expect Google to begin building its own physical network, but its motives in acquiring and redistributing access either as a virtual operator or in some other way are clear.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..