dslreports logo
Martin Wants 'Open Access' 700Mhz
Who are you and what did you do with the FCC chief?

Kevin Martin appears poised to attach conditions to whomever nabs the highly prized 700Mhz spectrum at auction. Microsoft, Google and a group of hardware vendors and consumer advocates have been pushing the FCC to use the spectrum to create a new, inexpensive broadband option for us to play with.

A recent report (pdf) boldly suggested that every American household could see access "for as little as $10 a month" using the new spectrum.

Whoever wins this spectrum has to provide (a) truly open broadband network.
-FCC chief Kevin Martin
Martin's circulating a proposal at the FCC this week that would ensure that whoever nabs the spectrum at auction would have to provide a "truly open broadband network — one that will open the door to a lot of innovative services for consumers," according to the FCC chief.

"You can use any wireless device and download any mobile broadband application, with no restrictions," Martin explains. Obviously that's in sharp contrast to existing wireless services that frequently nickle and dime customers, while locking down phones and often prohibiting the use of third party applications and services.

As Dow Jones reports, attaching such conditions to the spectrum would challenge incumbent phone operators, something highly out of character for the FCC boss. The piece does note that he's denying most of the requests by Frontline, who wanted to build a national broadband network to challenge incumbent operators AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Martin's plan should be released within weeks, and the auction itself should occur in January of next year.
view:
topics flat nest 

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

1 recommendation

RadioDoc

Common carrier

The whole thing should operate as a common carrier. It wouldn't be a bad idea to apply that to existing wireless operations, too.
nalaregeork
join:2004-08-25
Yorktown Heights, NY

nalaregeork

Member

I hope it happens... soon

Aw da po wittle wireless carriers will have to open up their service to innovation to compete, how terwable.

It's about time hopefully this will become what it should have been a lonf time ago. Hopefully I will be looking for an Internet Tablet with a soft SIP installed to do what we should have been doing around 2000
raptor1418
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
Denver, CO

raptor1418

Premium Member

I want to see the written requirements

All sounds good as a verbal statement but I can't wait to see what pay offs are made to officials to add loop holes into the requirements.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Will existing wireless providers buy spectrum to NOT use it

If the new open access rules only apply to the newly auctioned spectrum and NOT to existing frequencies, will the current wireless providers buy up all the spectrum with the intent of never using it, keeping it out of the hands of competitors?
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

Re: Will existing wireless providers buy spectrum to NOT use it

said by FFH5:

If the new open access rules only apply to the newly auctioned spectrum and NOT to existing frequencies, will the current wireless providers buy up all the spectrum with the intent of never using it, keeping it out of the hands of competitors?
does a bear sh*t in the woods?

is the pope catholic?

Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA

Dagda1175

Member

Sell it with no restrictions

There is no reason the government should have ANY say in what a company does with what it buys. This auction needs to happen as soon as possible. A government agency should not own this in the first place.

footballdude
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

2 recommendations

footballdude

Premium Member

Re: Sell it with no restrictions

said by Dagda1175:

A government agency should not own this in the first place.
I'm about as anti big government as you'll find, but I got to disagree here. A certain level of government is necessary in certain areas. You wouldn't want private companies (or individuals) to own large rivers (like the Mississippi) which everyone around them uses. You wouldn't want a private company to own a certain section of the atmosphere. Some things are just shared by their nature. Spectrum falls into that category.

kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Annapolis, MD

kyler13

Member

Re: Sell it with no restrictions

said by footballdude:

You wouldn't want a private company to own a certain section of the atmosphere. Some things are just shared by their nature. Spectrum falls into that category.
Excellent point. But I'll claim rights to the space over my property up to a height of 250 ft. Any "owned" part of the spectrum that permeates and/or travels through my space is subject to certain access fees. I'll draft some letters tonight and send them out to the wireless carriers.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk to Dagda1175

Premium Member

to Dagda1175
Considering that companies like AT&T and Verizon buy spectrum and sit on it just so they won't have any competition, your idea is insane.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme to Dagda1175

MVM

to Dagda1175
said by Dagda1175:

There is no reason the government should have ANY say in what a company does with what it buys. This auction needs to happen as soon as possible. A government agency should not own this in the first place.
You know that they are auctioning off something that belongs to you, right?

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

1 recommendation

RadioDoc to Dagda1175

to Dagda1175
Oddly enough, they aren't "buying" it. They are being licensed to use it. Licenses can expire, be revoked, or even be modified against the holder's wishes.

Big difference.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

1 edit

KrK to Dagda1175

Premium Member

to Dagda1175
said by Dagda1175:

There is no reason the government should have ANY say in what a company does with what it buys.
Not true.

The seller of an item can choose to put conditions or restrictions on the sale all the time. If a prospective buyer refuses to comply, well, they get told to take a hike.

A classic example is a business that sells off some facilities--- BUT makes the buyer agree that they can't run a competing business in those facilities.

Example: A restaurant chain sells off some locations. As a condition of sale, they prohibit the buyer from opening a competing restaurant, or selling it to someone who would, for xx number of years.

It's perfectly acceptable for the FCC to set rules as to what spectrum is used for/how it is used. This is part of the license they draft. In fact, that's their main job, actually.

nipseyrussel
Nipsey Russell, yo
join:2002-02-22
Philadelphia, PA

nipseyrussel

Member

exceptions

sounds good....
but: "...The only exceptions would be software that is illegal or could harm a network"
what software is illegal?
"could harm a network"?? cant wait to see the list as defined by the carriers anything that uses the network could harm it

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: exceptions

Joost, Skype and others of course cause "excessive network degradation" and must obviously be banned.

Yeah, I'll believe the launching of a unhindered, robust third wireless competitive pipe that challenges the incumbent chokehold when I'm sitting in a park, sucking down coffee and 4Mbps via laptop watching streaming video.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: exceptions

said by Karl Bode:

Yeah, I'll believe the launching of a unhindered, robust third wireless competitive pipe that challenges the incumbent chokehold when I'm sitting in a park, sucking down coffee and 4Mbps via laptop watching streaming video.
Heh....

"We'll be sitting on a beach.... Earning 20 percent."


DC23
@cox.net

1 recommendation

DC23

Anon

This isn't Open Access, but "Carterfone" principles

This story is not 100 percent correct. What Martin is proposing is "Carterfone" like principles of freedom to connect devices.

"Open Access" would mean the spectrum license holder would have to provide wholesale access on a reasonably and non-discriminatory basis. If implemented, this would mean that multiple providers would offer service on the spectrum. What Martin has proposed means that only the spectrum holder will provide service, but they can't lock you into their devices.
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308

Eric Martin

Member

Re: This isn't Open Access, but "Carterfone" principles

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone

Hope Skype wins.
»www.3gnewsroom.com/3g_ne ··· 16.shtml
disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC

disc to DC23

Member

to DC23
said by DC23 :

... What Martin has proposed means that only the spectrum holder will provide service, but they can't lock you into their devices.
Reading the articles, I got the impression of net neutrality as the goal. That is, not only unhindered access to devices, but unhindered access to internet-based services as well.
jevernew
join:2007-07-12
Sedro Woolley, WA

jevernew

Member

Payoffs and loopholes

To state the obvious here; big business and big money have unlimited access to armies of attorneys whose sole purpose is to give advantage to their employees. USA tax payers have government lawyers who do a very poor job of protecting our resources.
ddpardue
Premium Member
join:2007-01-07
Hattiesburg, MS

ddpardue

Premium Member

DC43 is right

Martin is proposing CarterPhone rules. No locking or blocking devices to your own network. Phone portability across networks, instead of having to buy a new phone everytime you change carriers, or at least use a new phone which they may "give" you. Open access, such as proposed by Google's CEO and many consumer groups, would mandate that whoever won the auction would have to make spectrum available to competitors at reasonable market prices. Being a local WISP provider, I (and 3000+ local WISPs across America) would love to see this pass. It would enable us to offer broadband in much larger rural areas than is possible now using unlicensed bandwidth. Or at least make it more economical, enabling us to compete with the "BIG 4" in the cities also, and enable us to afford to expand our networks in rural areas.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

GSM CDMA

Verizon and at&t use very different systems and the phones will NEVER roam on the others system.

Verizon should let Google and MS buy it then leech off them and suck them dry. It should be cheep to buy with such restrictions.