backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 32 comment(s) - last by Fusible.. on Sep 14 at 3:25 PM
Can you hear me now? We don’t want open-access wireless!

Irritated with the FCC’s open-access requirements on the upcoming 700 MHz auction, second-place mobile carrier Verizon Wireless has decided to take its grievances to court: last Monday, Verizon Wireless filed suit against the FCC at the DC circuit of the U.S. District Court of Appeals.
 
In the lawsuit, Verizon Wireless seeks a judicial review of the auction’s open-access guidelines, claiming that the FCC has exceeded the congressional authority granted to them under the Communications Act of 1934. Further, an open access requirement “violates the US Constitution, violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by the substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law.”
 
Curiously, Verizon had previously signaled some receptiveness to an open-access plan requirement. Neither Verizon Wireless nor the FCC would comment on the lawsuit.
 
The open-access requirement, which had been bounced around for a couple of months before its final approval in early August,  was heavily supported by consumer advocacy groups and Google, but heavily opposed by wireless carriers, citing a variety of different reasons. AT&T, however, recently changed its tune and softened its stance, and according to Infoworld, mentioned that it “could live with” requirements that allow consumers choice and prevent the blocking of competitor’s content.
 
Nonetheless, open-access is only mandatory for the upper half of the 700 MHz band, of which significant chunks are carved out for private use by public safety entities; the lower half is only subject to the FCC’s licensing and expansion requirements.
 
The 700 MHz auction is scheduled to take place on January 28, 2008, and carries a reserve price of $4.6 billion. If that reserve is not met, the spectrum will be placed up for bid again without the open-access requirements.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I'm no expert, but...
By JMS on 9/13/2007 11:59:40 PM , Rating: 3
Several items in this article strike me. The most glaring is that The Federal Communications Act dates back to 1934. It seems to me that legislation which long predates most of today's most important communications innovations and technologies may need to be reviewed, revised or re-drafted. (I am aware that it would be kept up to date, but surely some of the fundamental assumptions of the original legislation are not in step with the times...?)

Regardless, Verizon's move is interesting. Are they hoping to hold this auction up in the courts for as long as possible, or do they actually hope to strike down the restrictions on the auction? If so, what do they stand to gain? (This is an honest question; not a rhetorical device.)

The parties that originally petitioned for the conditions surely have their own agendas. What is most likely in the best interest of consumers? Who should we be rooting for?

JMS




RE: I'm no expert, but...
By mcnabney on 9/14/2007 12:09:34 AM , Rating: 3
Verizon (and all of the others) want to purchase this spectrum. There is damn little of this super-high quality spectrum and nothing like it is going to be sold anytime soon. The FCC is attaching an enormous caveat to the sale. If you are going to spend billions on something, it would be nice to be able to use it the way you want. If they want to add Open Access as a requirement they should give it away for free. That is how the TV Networks got their spectrum.


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By HrilL on 9/14/2007 1:16:06 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Open access is a good thing. The only reason they don't want it is so they can lock you into using their service and theirs alone as long as you have that device. I think it is a good thing to let us chose and change service carriers when we want and not have to buy a new device so that we can use a different carrier, when we already paid for a device that works fine. I believe this reason alone keeps people sticking to their current carriers even when they would like to change. I don't like the idea of having to spend another $500 on a new PDA so I can change networks.


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By 1078feba on 9/14/2007 10:29:29 AM , Rating: 1
Well said. I can think of no other industry that penalizes you for wanting to cancel a service. Not cable, not home land line phone, not credit card companies, not power (whose network is far larger and more expensive), not anyone...just the cell phone companies.

I have two phones with Verizon, mine and my wife's. They want $150 per to canx them, for a sum of $300.

JUST TO CANX?!?!

That's outrageous. I will even go so far as to submit that the only reason they are number 2 and not any lower is because of people like me who just can't stomache the thought of parting with that much money simply to discontinue the service.

I'm curious, what are some of the penalty numbers for service canx with other carriers?


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/14/2007 11:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
125 to 150 is standard for all north american carriers to cancel service, Verizon isn't unique in this.


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By Alexstarfire on 9/14/2007 11:31:06 AM , Rating: 3
They are about the same, depending on carrier of course, because they are ending a contract early. When you agreed that you would pay for 2 years they gave you a discount. Now you want to cancel out of the agreement for free. At minimum you should pay for the discount you got. I think that considering you probably got $200 off those two phones, in total, that $300 to cancel the service you previously agreed to is quite fair. No I don't work for any wireless companies, in fact I don't work ATM. The thing with the cancellation fees is that they are set in stone. They don't go down over time, which they should. People all want something for nothing, but that's not how it works in the world.

Maybe it's me, but how in the world does this open access policy "violate the US Constitution?"


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By Spivonious on 9/14/2007 1:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...it's because you're breaking the contract you signed when you cancel. There are zero fees for simply not renewing the contract.

Most other services are month-to-month and therefore don't have a cancellation fee, since there are no contracts involved.


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By Gentleman on 9/14/2007 1:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
This cancellation fee covers the discounts and deals they offered you when you got your phone on contract probably. My cell plan is from month to month, no contract and I didn't buy my phone from the carrier and I can cancel anytime with no charge.


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By Fusible on 9/14/2007 3:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
You should have never signed the contract for whatever term of time you did. I have Verizon, I buy all my phones outright, so I don't get stuck paying for 1, or 2 years. you should always read the fine print. It makes sense for them, do you realize how much money all the carriers would lose if they wouldn't.


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By energy1man on 9/14/2007 7:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
The spectrum is public property and it is not for sale. What they are selling is a license to use this spectrum. If the FCC wants to attach conditions for the public(our) good fine, if Verizon does not like the conditions then Verizon does not have to bid for a license. The license distinction is important. There are some tv stations that will no longer be able to broadcast, they are only on the airwaves, when their license to use this spectrum is not renewed. The FCC is under no obligation to renew the licenses.


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By energy1man on 9/14/2007 8:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
Also if there is a cost associated with open access,then it should be represented in the amount of the bids. The FCC will get lower amounts of money to compensate for the added requirements.


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By HueyD on 9/14/2007 8:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
The legislation was first written in 1934, but it has since been ammended to meet the needs of current technology.


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By Black69ta on 9/14/2007 10:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
Just because the Act was passed back in 1934 doesn't mean it hasn't been reviewed and amended since then unless the politicians were even better than Gene Roddenberry at predicting the future. Not even TV was invented in '34


RE: I'm no expert, but...
By JMS on 9/14/2007 1:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
Read the original post. See the parenthetical comment in the first paragraph/break? It looks a lot like what you explained in your reply. I'm sorry to be curt, but these reams of posts which don't add to the discussion actually take away from it.

What I was making an effort to point out on this technology site is that technology legislation has fallen way behind. Even evolutions/revisions of old legislation are not always enough, and there needs to be more awareness of how much the government is bogged down; both by its own processes and special interest groups (lobbies) who stand in the way of change - because the corporations behind them acquired enormous power under these same old systems/laws.

JMS


Carriers do have a reason for this
By mcnabney on 9/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Carriers do have a reason for this
By kinnoch on 9/14/2007 12:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't the responsibility of working properly on the open network fall onto the maker of the connecting device?


RE: Carriers do have a reason for this
By mcnabney on 9/14/2007 12:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
A major seller of our devices is our indirect channel. These are small businesses that often do many things like sell Dish Network and Amway products. They are also Walmarts and Best Buys. They sell our phones in markets that we may not have a store. And we are happy they are there to fill that gap. But as soon as the customer walks away from the kiosk in the mall they become someone else's problem to them. If a customer has a problem they always call the support line for the network.


RE: Carriers do have a reason for this
By Hacp on 9/14/2007 2:18:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think he means that if the customer purchased the phone, and the phone doesn't work, wouldn't that be the problem of the company that made the phone? Much like people who call dell for CS, because its dell that sells the computer, not Microsoft. Or, for example, if I have a problem with my linksys router, I wouldn't call my cable company, I would call Cisco.


RE: Carriers do have a reason for this
By Lifted on 9/14/2007 6:43:52 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I don't buy that the network is so fragile that only a few supported phones can opperate on it. This sounds like carrier propaganda to me, and either the OP has been led to believe this while working for a carrier, or he is knowingly spreading FUD.

I've been in Asia for a while, and I have had no problems with my phones or network access. I can walk into any store or mall, and choose from hundreds of models of phones, and then choose any network carrier and phone number I want with the purchase of a $10 sim card.

I have never heard of anybody having trouble with accessing a network here because they had a certain Samsung/Nokia/Motorola/other brand phone. So either the US networks are built like shit compared to Asia, or the carriers simply want 100% control over what you can and cannot do with your phone, and the money that you may spend on apps/services on it.


RE: Carriers do have a reason for this
By FITCamaro on 9/14/2007 8:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
Verizon doesn't use GSM here in the states. AT&T and T-Mobile do. Sprint and Verizon use CDMA. Both have benefits over the other. I personally prefer CDMA since I think the call quality is better. And Sprint and Verizon have far faster data access than AT&T.

It has nothing to do with the US's networks being built worse than Asias. However, remember that Asia's networks have all been built in the last 10 years or so. The US has had this stuff since the 80s.

Same with internet access. We have slower connections because a) we're a hell of a lot bigger than any European or Asian country (other than China but they have access to maybe 10-20% of their population) and b) we've had internet for a lot longer and its always harder to upgrade existing things than it is to build new stuff. It costs money and companies don't want to pay it. So they try to improve what they have.


RE: Carriers do have a reason for this
By Black69ta on 9/14/2007 10:11:34 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it does have to do with the US network being built inferior. Currently Carriers have two year agreement or semi-guaranteed income what happens when consumers demand no contracts because they know that if the carriers sucks they can just take their number and go to a different one. People are fickle they would take their phone elsewhere on a whim. When the first built their networks the Carriers were greedy and built proprietary networks and spent billions on it. But they shot themselves in the foot, since now they all have so many overlapping networks that they could be sharing costs for they all pay through the nose. Instead they could all be inter-operable, share costs and the national network could be twice as good


RE: Carriers do have a reason for this
By FITCamaro on 9/14/2007 11:37:32 AM , Rating: 2
Their networks are far from proprietary. They just program the chip in the phone to only work with their network and solder in the chips so they're not removable.

Sprint and Verizon could make their networks work together. Same as they could allow the phone manufacturers to make CDMA phones for their service with removable chips that allow you to move between their networks(provided they'll sell you their chip). They choose not too.

AT&T and T-Mobile don't share networks either. No company out there shares their network for free with a competitor unless its in the best interest of the company (such as one doesn't cover and area and the other does and vice versa). And in Asia a lot of countries governments own the network, not the company who's selling the service. There's a big difference between privately held networks and government run ones. If the government runs the network and the carriers just sell service on it, yes you can make phones that will work regardless of carrier.


By ElFenix on 9/14/2007 1:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
in fact, the networks do work together. sprint roams on verizon and vice versa. heck, in a lot of areas it isn't sprint or verizon that actually owns the network, it is another wireless provider that sells service to sprint/verizon and their cusotmers.

the whole thing goes back to how phones were sold in the early 90s. pretty much all phones were free after rebate (or $0.01) as very few people were willing to shell out several hundred for a phone. so we've all gotten used to phones for cheap, subsidized by service.

and remember back when contracts were only one year? number portability did away with that.


By HrilL on 9/14/2007 1:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Umm I believe you a wrong about the data speeds. 3G is now widely available in many areas with AT&T. Sprint might have faster speeds where they have 4G access but I don't think they have that installed anywhere yet. Verizon's and Sprint's current offering of CDMA is not faster then AT&T's 3G offerings. It all comes down to where you live and what service is available for you.


RE: Carriers do have a reason for this
By FITCamaro on 9/14/2007 8:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
Do you call Samsung or Nokia when your phone doesn't work? I didn't think so.


By Lifted on 9/14/2007 12:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, just last week I walked into a Samsung customer service shop here in Bangkok, of which there are many, and had my broken LCD replaced in 30 minutes for $40. In Asia, every major mall has shops for most of the phone manufacturers were they will sell you a phone, show you how to use the features of the phone, or fix/replace the phone.

Don't believe the US system is the only way things could be done. Instead of seeing stores for the carriers all over, you would see stores for the phone manufacturers. Both ways work, but I happen to think the way here in Asia (and probably elsewhere) works better. Who do you think knows more about your phone, the Verizon salesman, or a Motorola customer service rep who only deals with and was trained on their phones? In Asia. there are no stores for the carriers, just customer service shops where they will help you with their special services, etc. Carriers are an after thought when it comes to mobile phones out here.


By darkpaw on 9/14/2007 1:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Even in America when I've had problems with my phone *hardware* I've called Motorolla before calling Sprint. They tend to be more responsive to dealing with hardware issues and the phone has a 1yr mfg warranty compared to the 30 minutes of use warranty that Sprint gave me on the handset.


By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/14/2007 9:40:43 AM , Rating: 3
Having been a customer of verizon since cellular one crapped away in my area, I see another side of the story. They buy phones manufacturers develop for certain networks (gsm, cdma in this case), and specifically in verizon's case, pour billions into locking native features on the phone- such as SIM card access, unrestricted use of Bluetooth from phone-phone or phone-computer, and in the case of media-playing phones, restrict access to media files on memory cards for use as ringtones and the like. These business practices make the company less competitive, except they have a well-established network.

Well guess what? If the network is universal, then the network will be as good with any carrier, and verizon won't have that allure anymore. They've been screwing over customers for so long they don't know how to run a business any other way. Sure they'd save billions on not "having" to lock out phone features because it's easy to switch from one provider to another- but big bullies don't change quickly, and I'm willing to bet for a few months they'd actually try and continue their business practices...


Did anyone else get a chuckle
By Bioniccrackmonk on 9/14/2007 9:02:26 AM , Rating: 2
When they saw the picture associated with the title, I thought it was pretty funny.




RE: Did anyone else get a chuckle
By bhieb on 9/14/2007 9:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely ROFL.


Picture
By djtodd on 9/14/2007 11:47:29 AM , Rating: 3
That picture is gold. Love it.




By Slaimus on 9/14/2007 11:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
Is the FCC making the price so high so they can raise money to pay for the digital TV coverter box coupons? I believe this is the same spectrum that is vacated by analog TV.




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki