Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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 Regulation
As 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).
> >
> > Bob
>
> That 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 with
> subsidies.
>
> 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  
> foreign
> phone 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) or
> other services the carrier sells.   Two, they just plain use a lot  
> of bandwidth
> and we know that with "unlimited" pricing the carrier wants to   
> discourage
> anything 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 few
> mhz 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 never
> need 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