When the FCC kicked-off its net neutrality proceeding in 2009, it labeled the proceeding “Preserving the Open Internet.” But to “preserve” means to “make lasting” or “maintain” rather than “change,” and that’s what many public interest advocates really want to do – change the way the Internet currently operates. For them at least, renaming “change” as “preservation” is classic doublespeak designed to disguise the real intent of net neutrality regulation. Read the rest of this entry »
Smartphone OS Is Critical to the Future of the Mobile Broadband Platform
I’m not the only one that thinks smartphone operating systems (OS) are “critical to the future of the mobile broadband platform.” Fierce Wireless recently reported that “cell phone operating systems are becoming the deciding factor, not the hardware platform itself.” The article, written by Fierce Wireless: Europe editor Paul Rasmussen, also noted that “the alliance between Microsoft and Intel” produced an “utterly convincing victory [in] the desktop/laptop OS battle.” After noting that Android has surpassed the iPhone OS in global smartphone sales, Rasmussen asks whether Google is looking to achieve the same dominance in smartphones that Microsoft/Intel enjoy in the PC market. The obvious answer is “yes.” The more interesting question is whether Google will succeed – a question that yields no easy answer.
Google’s Win-Win-Win Net Neutrality Agreement with Verizon
It’s not often that a company wins the triple-crown like Google did in its recent “agreement” with Verizon regarding net neutrality. But, then again, it’s not often that the FCC is betting so publicly for a particular company’s horse as the FCC has been with Google and net neutrality. So what are the three wins for Google? Read the rest of this entry »
Would Carterfone Have Produced the iPhone?
Until recently, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibited most digital locks on copyrighted material, including the computer firmware and software in wireless handsets. Last week, the Library of Congress published an Order exempting several classes of copyrighted works from this prohibition, including wireless handset operating systems and firmware or software “locks.” (See Order at pages 4-7.) Advocates that favor a regulated broadband access device market hailed this as a victory. (See Free Press statement here and Public Knowledge statement here.) These advocates believe that imposing Carterfone and Computer Inquiry obligations on wireless devices will produce results that are superior to those consumers currently enjoy in the competitive wireless market. Unfortunately for these advocates, the actual data (as opposed to ideology) supports the opposite conclusion.
It’s usually quite difficult to prove a negative – i.e., that consumers would actually be worse-off if Carterfone and Computer Inquiry regulations had been applied to wireless devices. But, because Carterfone and Computer Inquiry regulations do apply to wireline service providers, we have an analogous market to which we can compare the development of devices pursuant to Carterfone and Computer Inquiry regulations with the market-based approach applicable to wireless devices. That comparison indicates that the lightly-regulated mobile device market is more competitive and consumer friendly than the heavily-regulated Carterfone and Computer Inquiry era wired Internet and PC markets have ever been. Read the rest of this entry »
TAGS:
carterfone competition device exclusivity Innovation smartphone
The FCC’s Section 332 Problem: Why the FCC Can’t Regulate Mobile Wireless Broadband as a Common Carrier Service
Rumack: Elaine, you’re a member of this crew. Can you face some unpleasant facts?
Elaine Dickinson: No.
Airplane (1980).
In 2007 (while I was Wireless Bureau Chief at the FCC), the FCC issued a declaratory ruling (“Classification Order”) classifying for the first time wireless broadband services as “information services.” Perhaps more importantly, the FCC found that “mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not a ‘commercial mobile service’ under section 332 of the Act.” (Classification Order at para. 1). The latter finding is likely fatal to any attempt by the FCC to reclassify mobile wireless broadband service as a common carrier service subject to Title II regulation or data roaming obligations. Why is this finding so pivotal to ongoing debates at the FCC regarding the regulatory treatment of mobile wireless broadband? Read the rest of this entry »