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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    spectrumwatcher, Aug 1st, 2007 @ 1:23pm

    Looks like more spectrum heading to the warehouse, good news for T and VZ and bad news for compitition....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2007 @ 4:37pm

    a missed opportunity

    Once it's done - it's done.

    opportunity? what will it take to have an "opportunity"?

    Why am I not surprised?

    He who has the gold makes the rules.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Jim Harper, Aug 2nd, 2007 @ 5:29am

    Government-Structured Competition? Not so sure .

    Given that no one knows what consumers will want in telecom networks - indeed, it's a guarantee that their tastes will change - I don't think the FCC is well-equipped to write rules for how networks should be managed. I agree that open networks are probably better, but an "open" mandate will lead to perverse results, including the spectrum going underutilized for decades. There's a lot of interesting discussion on this issue over at TechLiberationFront. My basic thesis: An open network would be great! And Google should pay full price for the spectrum it builds one on!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Alan, Aug 2nd, 2007 @ 11:27am

    Two Way Band

    Does anyone know if this band is conveniently two way? I spent some time dealing with Datacasting through the HDTV airwaves and that proved to be an exclusively push channel.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Robert, Jan 20th, 2008 @ 1:19pm

    google

    google bidding billions for the network, what ever happened to competition, business start ups etc. for the average amrican.
    How can jobob bid against a giant like google.
    its too bad.
    I guess ill have to build my network on an unlisenced band and hope to take off like ben and jerrys did when the big food giants refused to do business with companies who sold ben and jerrys ice cream.
    They protested the giant and became a smash success.
    (im not sure but i think the giant company which i cant remember the name of at this time bought them out for millions, after running out of room to expand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This