Today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing of the FCC and heard from Chairman Kevin Martin and the other four Commissioners. A number of topics were discussed, but the big one looming was the 700MHz auction.
Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) started the questioning with a consumer friendly question of the Commissioners, whether or not consumers should be able to take their mobile phone with them when they switch carriers. On this, Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein, Michael Copps, and Chairman Martin were in agreement, but Commissioners Deborah Tate and Robert McDowell said they were still considering the issue:
At the end of the three-hour hearing, Markey came back to the two undecided Commissioners and asked them again. After both said they were still undecided on the issue, Markey noted some 31 years ago when he first started his tenure on the Committee, he was told by AT&T that attaching a non-AT&T phone to the wire network could bring the whole thing down…
Device portability, or “open devices” are just a part of what’s needed to create a third broadband pipe. We’ve talked about here it before, but there are four principles in all that define the concept of open access in these 700MHz auctions. Each of them addresses a separate facet of the wireless market that is begging for competition and more openness. The important thing to remember is that without each of the four principles, the incumbent wireless companies will maintain the status quo.
Of course, Google’s $4.6 Billion commitment to the 700MHz auction contingent on the four-principled open access has drawn a lot of attention to the issue, perhaps it has not been in a way that the average person understands. In an effort to try to explain the four principles, we’ve created the following videos (the fourth principle is coming soon!):
Open Devices
Open Applications
Open Services
Open Networks (coming soon!)
So, have you decided what to
So, have you decided what to push next? This 700Mhz auction looks like the Martin plan with the only mystery being whether the vote will be 4-1 or 5-0 next Tuesday. Blind bids might still be up in the air, but I am hearing it looks good for the at least the “C” block. The definition of “open devices” is pretty straight forward, but the “open applications” has a lot of room for interpretation. It clearly includes being able to download any application over the Internet to an open device, but does it also include the ability to connect to any “over the top” Internet service. If “open applications” is limited to running device resident operations, then walled gardens will remain intact. You probably won’t be able get something called “wireless net neutrality,” but a “no open service blocking” condition is very much in reach. You don’t want to end up with same problems they had in Europe with consumers downloading applications, but operators blocking them.
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/05/02/vodafone-being-sued-over-voip-blocking/
TC
If "open
Open applications would also include applications that require network access. It’s hard to see, if you have a data plan, any way to justify blocking a map application’s access to the network.
High-bandwidth applications might be tricky. For instance, a network might not be capable of handling VOIP. Having an open device with open applications would mean, at least, that the VOIP application could work when the device is connected through WiFi or WiMax or other network that supports the type of connection required.
John, if you have listened
John, if you have listened to Chairman Martin speak about open applications, he talks about the open ability to “download” any application. This could be a Java, Brew, Flash or JS widget. Many of these apps can run disconneted (standalone games, downloaded media players, etc…). Running a network application (map & navagation, VoIP, P2P video, purchase transaction processing, interactive messaging, multiplayer games, video conferencing) could be blocked, degraded, or more likely charged extra for. This practice is very common place in Europe. The operator either blocks or charges an extra per byte fee even though the European customer is paying for unlimited data access.
You don’t think this can happen in the US?
Oh, it definitely could
Oh, it definitely could happen. And you’re certainly right that what we’ve been hearing from the Commission isn’t ideal.
The joint letter, at least, is careful with its definitions. The way that “Open Applications” has been described in the letter would preclude that kind of behavior.