Anti-Anti-Muni Bills Take Hold In Congress

Wed, Aug 1st 2007 10:56am

Filed Under:
fcc, telecom, wireless

Companies:
at&t, fcc, google, verizon

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Pays Open Access Wireless Networks Some Lip Service

from the appearance-of-activity dept

The FCC yesterday approved the rules for the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum license auction, scheduled for early next year. This is an important auction because of the quantity and quality of spectrum it covers, making it particularly suitable for wireless broadband networks. A coalition headed by Google has been pushing the FCC to adopt four "open access" principles for the spectrum, which would require license winners to open their networks to any compatible device, allow users to access any service they wish, and to sell wholesale access to their network to third parties. Google even said it would bid at least $4.6 billion in the auction if the FCC adopted the four principles. Unsurprisingly, the FCC didn't, instead going with rules that were largely along the lines of what Chairman Kevin Martin had earlier proposed: licenses for 22 of the 60 MHz on offer will require winners to allow any compatible device on their network and not block access to any services, but will not have the wholesale requirement that Google and its partners were looking for.

Without question, there's some gamesmanship going on here. If Google really wants to own spectrum licenses and have a network that follows its open access principles, there's nothing preventing it from bidding in the auction, winning licenses, and either running its network that way, or leasing the licenses to somebody who will. What's more likely, though, is that Google simply wants the ability to buy wholesale network access, rather than own licenses or build its own network. Again, there's nothing preventing it from entering into such a deal with any license holder, but requiring all the license holders to wholesale access would create a more competitive market and drive down prices. But perhaps the bigger game here is the political one by the FCC. These open access rules, really, are pretty toothless, and perhaps that's best illustrated by the fact that both AT&T and Verizon support them. The device requirement could easily be rendered meaningless by the winning bidder's choice of technology for their network. Using a proprietary or unpopular technology would likely mean that the only outlet to purchase compatible devices would be from the network provider. The open access to services requirement is one the operators would likely follow anyway, since blocking access to certain sites and services wouldn't make their wireless broadband services too popular with consumers.

While perhaps these rules represent a small first step for the FCC towards fostering a more competitive broadband, they seem much more like a missed opportunity to affect some real change. It seems like more than anything, this is a bit of smoke and mirrors that makes it look, to the casual observer, like the FCC's done something significant, when it's actually done very little -- and that would fit with the persistent whispering about Martin's political ambitions.

Ramblings

Mon, Jul 23rd 2007 9:04pm

Filed Under:
mobile, telecom, voip, wireless

Companies:
amp'd, at&t, sunrocket, verizon

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What Happens To Customers Whose Providers Disappear?

from the no-more-service-for-you dept

Last week, VoIP provider SunRocket pulled the plug, and it looks like it will be joined on Tuesday by mobile virtual operator Amp'd. But in addition to out of work employees and unpaid creditors, there's another group of affected people here that seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle: these companies' customers. As the comments to one of our posts about SunRocket attests, the company's customers were left hanging in the wind, with no real information about what would happen to their service, or their phone numbers. Amp'd users got a helpful text message ("AMPD MSG: Your svc may be disconnected on 7.24 @ 12:01am. Go to http://www.ampd.com or contact the location where you activated your service for further info.") and a hastily written FAQ. It's not like these companies will really care about their ex-customers, and acting in the name of morality, or even just being decent, won't pay their bills. But the bigger issue here is what this means for other upstart companies, particularly in entrenched industries like telecom. For all their faults and downsides compared to VoIP providers, it's unlikely that companies like AT&T or Verizon will go out of business and leave their customers in the lurch -- and that could make it harder for newer, smaller companies to pull in users.

Overhype

Thu, Jul 19th 2007 12:39pm

Filed Under:
telecom, voip

Companies:
ooma, sunrocket

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Another VoIP Company Makes A 'Free Calls For Life' Offer

from the don't-forget-the-asterisk dept

The buzz of the day is about new VoIP company Ooma, which promises free phone calls forever if users shell out $399 for its piece of hardware. The technology sounds interesting, as it handles some of the switching of calls in the boxes themselves, rather than in the network, but outside the hype, there's plenty to be skeptical about. On the tech side, Ooma needs users with local phone service, since that's what it uses to terminate calls. Essentially what happens when an Ooma user makes a long-distance call to a non-Ooma user is that the call is routed to an Ooma box in the corresponding area code that's connected to a standard landline, which is then used for the call to the standard phone network. While this lets the company avoid setting up some network infrastructure, it seems counterintuitive to rely on people buying Ooma for long-distance calls, but keeping their local phone service -- particularly when many VoIP services offer unlimited local and long distance for little premium, if any, over the cost of traditional local service. Ooma's timing isn't great either. It's asking people to make a considerable upfront investment for lifetime service, just a few days after the collapse of SunRocket, which had lots of users on $200 per year prepaid plans, and whose money (and phone numbers) are in limbo. Other companies have made similar lifetime calling offers as Ooma's, but given the upheaval in the VoIP space caused by falling call costs, consumers will be hesitant to shell out large upfront fees for service, lest the provider disappear.

Ramblings

Mon, Jul 16th 2007 4:07pm

Filed Under:
faa, fcc, telecom

Companies:
boeing

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Delusion About The Popularity Of In-Flight Net Access

from the uh-yeah dept

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the experience of commercial flying -- like poor service from airlines, and delays from technical glitches and systemic failures. But a Computerworld columnist is all hot and bothered because people can't get online or use cell phones while they're on planes. Frankly, the piece is so bizarre that it would make more sense as a badly written parody. It claims "Providing low-cost WiFi access in-flight is perfectly doable. In fact, an extremely good service was painstakingly rolled out, then later killed because of a lack of interest and support from the airlines and the government." This isn't strictly true: Boeing shut down its Connexion service because it didn't attract very many users. People were reluctant to pay $30 per flight for WiFi; this made airlines hesitant to spend the $500,000 per plane to equip them with the system. Still, the writer claims that US airlines "failed everyone" -- despite evidence that the real demand for in-flight internet access is nowhere near as great as many people assume.

But things take an even more bizarre turn when the writer turns his rant towards the government ban on cell phones on planes. He focuses on the FAA's ban, which is in place for safety reasons, ignoring the FCC's ban, which is based on the contention that devices on planes could interfere with ground networks. He says that the FAA ban, purportedly on safety grounds, merely exists so that planes' avionics and other equipment don't have to be shielded from interference. His demand is that the ban be lifted, and airlines forced to install shielding -- then that cell phones be banned again, but this time because they'd be annoying to many passengers. That seems rather pointless, but his claim that the current ban is helping terrorists makes it really hard to take the guy seriously: "And terrorists love the ban, because it's another potential way to crash airplanes. The cell phone ban as a substitute for shielding is clearly unacceptable. It's a trivial task for terrorists to look up public information about which phones cause the most interference, then bring dozens of them onboard and turn them on during crucial phases of flight, such as takeoff." Um, yeah. The fact remains that the real demand for in-flight internet service hasn't lived up to the expectations. Regardless of how many people say they'd use such services, there hasn't been enough actual use to sustain their operations. It remains expensive to equip planes with the necessary equipment to offer in-flight net access; given the way things are going at many US airlines, the majority of customers would probably rather see that money spent on things that would help get them and their luggage to their destination on time.

Wireless

Fri, Jul 13th 2007 2:00pm

Filed Under:
france, muni wifi, paris, telecom, wifi

Companies:
france telecom, orange