Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:22:54 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Dana Blankenhorn <dana () a-clue com> Date: August 1, 2007 11:35:05 AM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules First Principles in Spectrum RegulationAs I expected, the FCC rejected open access for the TV spectrum being recalled in 2009, merely throwing a bone to some equipment makers and setting up an auction that will only profit the monopolies.
What was most startling to me was the naked corporatism with which this was defended. It reminded me that, before the next election, we need to find some First Principles, based on Internet values, to guide future regulatory activities.
1.. The goal of spectrum regulation is to maximize use of the resource. 2.. The goal of spectrum regulation is not to maximize any license holder's financial return. 3.. The goal of spectrum regulation is not to maximize the government's financial return. These principles were, as I expected, systematically ignored. They were willfully flouted. Government officials actually said that, if open access were allowed, it might cut the value of spectrum now held by Verizon and AT&T, that it might cut the price the government could expect at its future auctions.
Well, duh! And what is wrong with that? Whose government is it? Is it Verizon's government? Is it AT&T's government? Is the government just in business to make a profit for itself?
(continued) Dana Blankenhorn http://www.danablankenhorn.com Voic.Us http://www.voic.us ZDNet Open Source http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source 404-373-7634 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net> To: <ip () v2 listbox com> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: [IP] Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules
Begin forwarded message: From: Brad Templeton <btm () templetons com> Date: July 31, 2007 6:05:43 PM EDT To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: ip () v2 listbox com Subject: Re: [IP] FCC sets wireless sale rules On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:05:32PM -0400, David Farber wrote:Begin forwarded message: From: ext Robert Hinden <bob.hinden () nokia com> Date: July 31, 2007 4:12:19 PM EDT To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden () nokia com> Subject: Yahoo! News Story - FCC sets wireless sale rules Reply-To: bob.hinden () nokia com For IP. This is good news from my point of view and will result in a lot of innovation from the device vendors. Also, in my view, Google did get what they wanted (as opposed to what they were asking for). BobThat remains to be seen. Generally, you can connect any unlocked GSM phone to the GSM providers. However, AT&T and T-Mobile only offer certain blessed models for sale, and in particular only provide subsidies on them. You can buy an unlocked Nokia E61 for $350 with wifi, and use it on AT&T's network as far as I know, but you can get a Wifi-less locked Nokia E62 for $50 withsubsidies.They do however only officially offer certain data plans to certain blessed phones. While often the other plans work, the iPhone's $60/month plan is not available on many of the other phones AT&T sells and not on any foreignphone you bring in. Now, they don't do open apps today. They block apps for two reasons. One, they compete with voice services (Skype or SIP get blocked) orother services the carrier sells. Two, they just plain use a lot of bandwidth and we know that with "unlimited" pricing the carrier wants to discourageanything high bandwidth as much as they can. But will these new rules simply direct the victorious carrier to offer"any application" on bandwidth that is billed by the kilobyte, but still prohibit applications if you want the "unlimited" that customers all love? Or will they just change the name to call it "Unlimited web surf and e-mail" while putting per-kb charges on other apps? That's still _open_ to all apps.This is the thing that wholesale pricing might have changed. If the carrier's own services pay the same price as the resellers pay, they you would get competition over what unlimited actually means.Of course, the truth is nobody should own spectrum. The opening up of a fewmhz of spectrum where microwaves blare created the greatest period of innovation and price reduction in the history of radio. Yet, even with an example like that, people can't see it.Another hidden tragedy is the allocation of spectrum to emergency services. What a waste. If all that spectrum were opened up, the police and fire depts. could buy superior radios, with ten times the features, at 1/10th the price, and they could all talk to each other and even to members of the public they wish to talk to. There would be so much spectrum available they would not need a priority channel, but if they insisted on one, their radios could be given special certificates that the access towers which made use of frequencies in "their" band could obey, though they would probably neverneed to use them ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/929 - Release Date: 7/31/2007 5:26 PM
------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules David Farber (Aug 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules David Farber (Aug 01)
- Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules Dave (Aug 03)
- Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules Dave (Aug 03)