- Related Stories
-
Saving the last beachfront spectrum
June 12, 2007 -
FCC to reveal spectrum auction plan
April 25, 2007 -
Public safety bids stir spectrum spat
March 2, 2007 -
Net neutrality showdown
January 2, 2007 -
Net neutrality fans rally in 25 cities
August 31, 2006 -
Without 'Net neutrality,' will consumers pay twice?
February 7, 2006
(continued from previous page)
It's unclear how those ideas will fare before the FCC. The agency's two Democratic commissioners have tended to be sympathetic to stricter regulations imposed on network operators, but the remaining three Republicans have long maintained further regulations aren't necessary. The commission has already adopted a set of four broadband connectivity principles, which state, among other things, that network operators must generally allow their subscribers to connect the devices and browse the content they wish.
The open access proposals have also encountered fierce resistance from the wireless industry and from politicians with free-market leanings.
On the eve of the Senate's hearing, six Republican senators sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, urging the regulators to resist "encumbering rules which suppress interest in the auction," such as open access and Net neutrality mandates.
"There are few markets in America that are more competitive, vibrant and innovative than wireless," said Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, which represents major wireless companies. "The last thing we need to do is upend that very successful marketplace by imposing 1970s-style regulatory mandates upon it."
Farren pointed to the example of Apple's iPhone and its collaboration with AT&T to see that the market is working just fine without added regulations. And besides, no one's stopping the companies that favor the "sandbox" idea or other regulations from bidding in the auction themselves, Farren added. (Google, for example, says it's not sure whether it will be participating in the auction.)
"Go to the auction like everybody else does, bid on the spectrum, and if you have a great business plan and if you think that plan is going to work in the marketplace, go for it," he said. "But don't try to get a government regulation passed to protect your so-called business plan. That's certainly not the free market at work."
Net neutrality through the back door
The spectrum has also generated new talk of enacting Net neutrality regulations, which would prohibit network operators from prioritizing any Internet devices or services and from making deals with outside companies to provide priority access in exchange for extra fees.
By contrast, major broadband providers in the telephone and cable industries say they deserve the right to manage their networks as they wish and to charge fees as they see fit to offset the costs of new, more advanced equipment.
But such carriers, particularly in the wireless sector, have a poor track record for giving consumers the choices they're looking for, consumer groups argue. "Absent regulatory changes that would require wireless networks to operate in a neutral manner and permit subscribers to attach devices to their networks, it seems remarkably unrealistic to assume that any of the national incumbents will change their behavior," they wrote in a letter to the FCC.
A 2008 presidential hopeful said he's also on board with the idea. In a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin late last month, former Democratic North Carolina Sen. John Edwards urged the regulators to set aside as much as half of the spectrum for wholesalers who can lease to smaller start-ups that would be willing to build broadband networks in rural and underserved areas. He also said they must require anyone who wins control of the spectrum to adhere to nondiscrimination rules, allowing consumers to hook up the devices and browse the Web sites they wish.
Google, for its part, said it's skeptical that the spectrum auction alone will assuage concerns that dominant network operators will become gatekeepers capable of squeezing out smaller or shallower-pocketed content providers. Company telecommunications and media counsel Richard Whitt argued in the search giant's most recent FCC filing that regulators shouldn't write off the need for Net neutrality rules on a broader level because of what he called "a significant lack of effective broadband competition in this country."
See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality, airwave, spectrum, broadband network, wireless broadband
Hey you hate special interest politics? Hey you think your government is out of control and only listens to lobbyists from special interest? Hey you think the corporations like that everyone has a voice on the internet.. even ones that work against their interest? Think they're OK with that? Or you think they'll do anything say anything break any law take every risk to make DAMN sure that Net Neutrality is dragged outside and shot in the back of the head...
As far as service goes, are you ahppy about the cool things your cell phone company does on your bill? Or their cool customer service? Or their pricing models or contracts or 2 year service early termination agreements or their coverage or the quality of their phones? How's all that working out for you? How about your cable? Getting value there are you?
That's what happens when you permit duopolies to exist.
Look, the tiered pricing model is just a marketing ploy to drive up the cost decent service and move competition from the provider to the consumer .
How does that work?
Simple, instead of companies competing with each other to win your dollar (which is where value comes from) by providing new, and better services and thus driving the virtuous circle of we call innovation, they create a tiered system where they split service (for no technical reason) into CRAPPY (basic cable) OK (you get it...) GOOD and EXTRA SPECIAL.
This is pure marketing. It doesn't reflect added costs being passed on. This is made possible because only a few companies control the spectrum..
Now comes the part they love. Since there are only two or at best three providers, (ATT COMCAST for cable), they can make YOU compete for the OK and above.. they price it so that only the very rich with a lot of disposable income will buy the EXTRA SPECIAL.
Believe me, there's enough people in that range, not by percentage of population, but by numbers, like 10 million, that they can ask virtually any price before THAT class of people starts saying "uh.. too much"....
And what THAT class of people will pay is what determines the price.
Then there's that big thick juicy piece of steak the industry calls "fools". These are people who give away 60 + dollars a month to watch TV but for whom that money, if it were put away from the time they were 25 to the time they retire, 40 years, would be worth, oh a quarter million or so 60 at 8% for 40 years is $229265.00
Now the cable companies aren't fools, they DO invest that money, from ALL THOSE people and THAT my friends is all for doing nothing except developing a tiered pricing model and providing NO added value ...
The thing is, in other industries, if you want top value, you have to pay more BECAUSE its cost more to create. It's materially better. A Rolls Royce is materially better than a GM. The extra cost you pay is traceable to extra cost you pay is traceable to extra cost involved in the creation. Rolls Royce has market pressures too, because car companies are NOT a duopoly... we don't auction off the one and only ability to make a car the way we auction off the ability to use our airwaves. It's completely different.
Because the one and only spectrum is OURS the Government's .. the sole possession of the US CITIZENS... and there is only ONE such spectrum, we have not just a RIGHT but a DUTY to MAKE SURE that that spectrum remains accessible to all irrespective of personal wealth.
EVERYONE should be able to access the net EQUALLY rich and poor ... these companies can make their money by providing VALUE, not through rate-limiting
Now that the rest of the 320 million people are priced out of anything decent, and they've established an artificially high "ceiling", now they can raise the price of the OK service.
Think it's time for a revolution in this country? Think that we're just about teetering on a neo-fascist regime where the corporation and the well connected dirtbags in Washington, like Powell, are just a little too cozy with corporate interests?
Remember, a CEO and the corporate officers ould give a DAMN about democracy, equality or any other freaking thing. They want their coke their mansion their prostitutes (1000 bucks an hour- can you believe that!!!) they want their private jets ad fine dining experiences and the THRILL of being powerful... and if they destroy this country or turn into into a dictatorship or whatever, who cares?? They got theirs while they were alive and that's ALL that matters to them and that' all that ever will matter to them.
Of course, people like that are called socicopaths, but when it takes the form of a corporation, somehow it's all about the free market and the free market (which in this context is a freaking joke) is a value above all others including the democratic principles that have guided this ation for 250 years... it's a new religion! Globalism.. free markets.. coke n' hos... 3rd world slave labor making the ultra-ic ultra richer....catch the wave people! It's os great when you can live life free of any values and STILL PASS YOURSELF OFF AS A SPOKESMAN FOR PRINCIPLES AND FAIRNESS...
Revolution. It's not just a Beatles song.
Can anyone read what's below and seriously maintain the idea that we're a democracy or a nation of laws anymore? It's a plutocracy.. the control of laws and outcomes by the rich for the rich.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/14/bush_shafts_enron_victims.php
Just make sure you're not
Then why do we trail Europe and Asia in rolling out 3G networks? As keeps being pointed out in articles about the iPhone, it won't be 3G capable. Most (please note the word most, not all) innovation in the handset industry seems to come from Finland, Japan & Korea, not America.
Not exactly a vibrant and innovative market.
Read it only if your doctor says you can stand the rise in blood pressure sure to follow.
http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2676
Is YOU retirement money in the hands of some coked-up Wall Street piece of garbage?
"If we do it for a baseball, we should do it for billion dollar companies:
Mandatory random drug testing for corporate CEOs, their officers and their boards."
Our symbol: an empty urine cup, waiting to be filled.
Our slogan: Shut up. Your pants are coming down.
the iPhone is the worst possible example of the free market and innovation: it's only available from AT&T and the WiFi doesn't work until you've registered for their EDGE service. innovation my ass.
only someone as greedy as the telecommunications industry could think that you need near monopoly status to innovate and profit.
This will be a titanic battle for this spectrum with the CellCO subject to being bypassed by any 3rd party gaining access to the 700Mhz on a nationwide basis-serious threat they cannot ignore.
Also create major problems for Sprint and Clearwire with their investment in the 2.5Ghz spectrum (for WiMAX) which will be left on the sideline when 700Mhz goes live in 2009-2010.
manufacturers: think how many part 15 radios you can sell compared to trying to sell to carriers
public safety: every household and carrier radio automatically becomes part of the public safety network. radio prices would be much lower.
carriers: invest in hardware and services, not spectrum. expand into new markets easily. Equal access to every entity.
everyone: bandwidth, universal coverage, the last mile is free. true competition among commercial services everywhere.
In a true-mesh environment, every radio added increases bandwidth.
Much of the technical groundwork has been done for 802.11N.
Just add:
1. Geographic routing, in which the first 64 bits of an IPV6-like address space is latitude and longitude
2. Mandatory beam forming, omni antennas parmitted on mobile devices only.
3. Mandatory true-mesh participation.
4. Cascade transmission (think: bittorrent on steroids)
The cost savings to communities for public safety buildout, and the tax revenues from profits by radio manufacturers and service providers will far exceed the short term cash from selling this public resource.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get it right. 700 MHz can be the gateway to a broadband connected society, don't sell it to greedy carriers who want to bar competition.
Kevin.Martin@fcc.gov
KJMWEB@fcc.gov
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/
- Who is in whos pocket?
- by Kosher0 July 18, 2007 12:47 AM PDT
- It all boils down to the highest bidder and you can bet that the big 4 is at the front of the line. The FCC chairman that once worked as the AT & T CEO might have a couple ideas of his own but I wouldn't count on them being stringless.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)Lets face it, the technology exists today for every individual to have their own access point to the internet with complete control over their wireless connectivity. This airwave was once used for free access to news and media content and now is being auctioned to monopolies like AT&T. Our country is selling itself to the companies that we once protected eachother from. If these airwaves were opened to the general public, each person could have their own free wireless access to the internet, which is something google has already been working to put in place in areas like SF, Mountain View, and Palo Alto (California).
Remember the old 80s movies when people in the future were talking with video over their cell phones? You know why this doesn't exist today, even though the technology does? Take one guess: the big 4 cap their features and price it so far out of range that the average consumers can't afford it.
Come on U.S.A., the consumers deserve a break.