Coalition for Wireless Competition

[Tom]

No choice? They still want the spectrum, it could mean much better coverage for much less cost.

[Thorin]

Because the FCC rules state that you have to provide access, not provide *free* access.  Really, if you own the spectrum and other companies use it for their customers, then you are getting revenue without having to do *any* marketing.  That's quite a cost-savings.

Same reason why Telus has no problem with Interbaun and others using Telus's hardware for Interbaun customers here in Edmonton.

[Tom]

Except now it means they can't lock you into a specific device either. They can try, but locking phones to your network is out on the new wavelength (if they do it, and it is ok, people can just choose another provider...)

[Shayne]

So lets say at&t buys the spectrum for the estimated $10B or something that I read.  Why wouldn't they just set fees to use the spectrum at $10B?  Seems like a really non-issue the FCC imposed.

[Tom]

They could, but that's going to get lawmakers upset I'm sure.

[Shayne]

How so?  Seems entirely legitimate to me.  Its open, you can run whatever you want, just pay the man.

[Tom]

Monopoly laws maybe? I bet the FCC has limits on what you can do in that regard.

[Thorin]

The FCC will likely set rules regarding "reasonable charges for access".  If and when they do that, they will use what AT&T charges its own customers as a baseline.  Again, my opinion is based on how the Province of Alberta has legislated what Telus can charge other companies such as Interbaun for access to its hardware.

[Shayne]

It could be played even more obscurely what if at&t buys the spectrum just to sit on it with no purpose?  Buy it so the competition doesn't.

If recall that type of access that Thorin speaks of with Telus recently changed in the USA.  If AOL wants to run their internet off of at&t's pipes at&t can charge whatever they want now.  http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1192525413109

[Thorin]

Well that sucks.  Go Net Neutrality!

[Shayne]

NOt much to do with net neutrality, just makes mom & pop ISPs essentially doomed.

[Tom]

Except that with net neutrality, mom&pop can just lease bandwidth from the carrier and have their own ISP.

And with the new open access rules, any device can be used, making net neutrality actually be usefull on the new wireless networks.

[Shayne]

Thats not net neutrality.  Net neutrality as far as I am aware is preventing ISPs from giving priority to websites/networks who give them money.  So if CNN pays Shaw more money then their website will show faster then Fox's.  Its a bad thing.  The above just that I pointed out was deregulation of telephone networks which makes companies who sell ISP packages now have to lease the lines from the owners of the lines.  Would be the same with an open wireless network, you can run whatever device that gets FCC approval on that spectrum but only if you pay access fees.

[Thorin]

The problem that is looming based on the judgement you pointed out is that AT&T is being considered an information provider rather than a transmission provider.  As an information provider, they no longer have to allow access to their network.  My Go Net Neutrality comment was off the mark, you're right.  However, if major telcos and cable companies become labeled as information providers, Net Neutrality will be a pipedream because they *also* control most of the transmission infrastructure.  Thus that judgement may well have dire consequences for Net Neutrality in the future.