stories filed under: "wireless"
Verizon Decides It Doesn't Like Open-Access Wireless Rules After All
from the damn-competition dept
Discussion of the upcoming auction for licenses for 700 MHz spectrum has been dominated by the desire of Google and other groups to have "open-access" rules put in place. These rules would force license winners to sell wholesale access to their networks, allow any compatible device to be used on them, and follow net neutrality principles. The FCC paid some lip service to the issue by attaching just two of the conditions (net neutrality and allowing the use of any compatible device) to just a portion of the spectrum, and adding that the conditions will be dropped and the auction for the relevant licenses restarted without them if a reserve price of $4.6 billion isn't met. This was a political show that made it look like the FCC was taking some action, but the likely overall impact on the market will be minimal. Perhaps what made it clear that the rules were toothless and wouldn't have much competitive impact was the fact that incumbent telcos AT&T and Verizon voiced some support for them. But it would appear Google execs' comments that the company will "probably" bid on the spectrum, even though the FCC didn't adopt all its proposed principles has spooked Verizon, as the telco is now suing the FCC, saying it overstepped its authority in putting the conditions on the licenses.When it looked like the open-access rules wouldn't have any effect, and that the auction for the licenses with them wouldn't attract enough buyers to hit that $4.6 billion reserve price, Verizon went the politically and PR-expedient route and voiced its support for them. Now that it looks like Google's going to be ready to pounce on the spectrum and pay the reserve price, Verizon contends the rules are illegal. Without the involvement of Google or another deep-pocketed bidder, Verizon could wait for the auction to restart without the rules, then pick up the spectrum free from the open-access rules. Since it looks like Google will bid up to the reserve price, Verizon faces the prospect of getting caught in a bidding war with the company, and should it win, it would have to operate any network in the spectrum with the open-access rules -- which it clearly doesn't want to do.
Filed Under: fcc, open access, spectrum, wireless
Companies: at&t, fcc, google, verizon
Developers Keep Cracking Away At Mesh Networks
from the maybe-you-can-hear-me-now dept
Mesh networks have been talked about for many years as a wireless networking technology for the future. The basic idea is that instead of having every individual access point or cell site backhauled to a larger network (like the internet or the PSTN), access points can talk to one another, and traffic can hop from one AP to the next, until it reaches one with a backhaul connection. This sounds great, in theory, since it makes it much easier to deploy wireless networks, but mesh networks haven't proven easy to get going in the real world. Still, researchers continue to push forward, with the latest development coming from a Swedish company that says it's got a way for mobile phones to communicate directly with others up to a kilometer away, bypassing a centralized mobile network. While the direct range is limited, the mesh functionality can expand the coverage area.Assuming the technology actually works well in the real world, it could be a useful way to allow communications in remote areas without mobile networks, while the company behind it says it could also be used to allow for free calls. It doesn't sound as if they have things completely sorted out on the technology front yet, but the bigger problem with getting the technology adopted in the developed world, where traditional mobile networks are common, is that coverage can't be guaranteed. Instead of plunking down a base station (or WiFi access point, etc.) and knowing it will cover a certain area, this sort of mesh network requires that there be a chain of users, each no more than 1km apart, between the two people who wish to communicate. If any part of that chain breaks, the network has to try route around it and hope that there's another way to connect the two parties. This can be a problem, particularly when networks are first launching and there aren't a lot of users around. It's also a hurdle that users in developed nations, where mobile networks are already plentiful -- and relatively cheap -- won't be very willing to overlook.
Filed Under: mesh networks, wireless
Companies: terranet
FCC Not Convinced To Just Hand Over Spectrum To Startup In Exchange For Potential Future Profits
from the FCC-prefers-its-money-upfront dept
In May of 2006, a VC-backed startup called M2Z petitioned the FCC to hand over some spectrum for free in exchange for a cut of future potential revenues. As you're probably quite aware, the FCC has been focused lately on auctioning off slices of spectrum to private companies for use in various wireless projects. The spectrum seems to only be getting more and more valuable as demands for potential wireless applications and services increase. Of course, as we've seen in the past, these spectrum auctions don't always work out so well, with companies overbidding and being unable to actually do much with the spectrum. Part of the problem is that the FCC wants to put all sorts of rules on the spectrum usage, rather than letting it be used for whatever makes the most sense, like some other countries.However, the M2Z proposal seemed pretty questionable in its own way, promising nothing up front, and then making plenty of promises on the backend. The company claimed it would cover 95% of the country in broadband in 10 years, would have a "free" tier that was relatively slow and filtered, a more expensive upper tier, as well as offering priority for public safety uses. It may have been intriguing simply for the fact that it was different, but the FCC wasn't convinced. As has been expected for quite some time, the FCC has rejected the proposal, though some believe that the debate over this topic may eventually lead to good things from the FCC with the spectrum it's going to release in the near future. Of course, in the end all this really highlights is that the FCC still is focused on dribbling out bits and pieces of spectrum using different rules and regulations each time -- rather than coming up with a truly comprehensive spectrum allocation plan. Of course, some of us have been pointing this out for years, and the FCC never seems to get any closer to a comprehensive spectrum allocation policy -- and the country continues to suffer for it.
Filed Under: fcc, spectrum, spectrum auction, spectrum policy, wireless
Companies: fcc, m2z
Palm Figures Out A Way To Spare The Foleo From A Poor Launch Reception -- Kill It Off Beforehand
from the how-to-avoid-failure dept
Palm tried its best to whip up a ton of hype around the Foleo, the "smartphone companion" it announced at the end of May. Unfortunately for the company, the reaction was overwhelmingly negative. The device itself seemed fairly pointless, and its main function seemed to be to highlight the poor user experience of the aging Palm OS platform on its Treo smartphones. Well, Palm's gone and saved itself from having to deal with the terrible reaction the Foleo was pretty certain to get when it hit the market -- by canceling the device completely (via Engadget). The blog post from Palm's CEO says the decision was made so that the company would only have one internal software platform, in addition to Windows Mobile, and that it plans a "Foleo II" when that internal platform is ready (if ever, since the platform in question's been talked about since 2004 or so). Killing the device is a pretty extreme course of action, particularly if the Foleo was, as the Palm announcement claims, "nearly at the point for shipping." If that were true, the company had almost certainly begun manufacturing them already, but given Palm's track record for moving very slowly on the product front, it seems more likely that the Foleo was fatally flawed. There were rumors several days ago that the Foleo had been delayed because of software bugs, including a pretty significant one that kept the device from syncing with Treo smartphones -- giving further credence to the theory that this decision was taken because the device was screwy and destined for failure, rather than as a matter of platform strategy. If that is indeed the case, it merely raises further questions about Palm and its viability.iPhone Supposedly Gets Unlocked, AT&T Apparently Freaks Out
from the on-what-grounds dept
There were several reports last week that the operator lock on the iPhone had been broken, meaning that people might be able to use the device with service from a company other than AT&T. The first to emerge was from a New Jersey teenager, who came up with a complex method involving soldering and software; then two separate companies later said they had software-only unlocking methods. To be sure, these unlocking methods and services will only ever appeal to a small number of users, as most general consumers won't really care, or won't want to go to the trouble. With that in mind, it really doesn't seem like AT&T has much at stake financially, but that apparently hasn't stopped its lawyers from threatening one of the software providers. The company claims it got a call from a law firm representing the company, tossing around things like copyright infringement and "illegal software dissemination" in what appears to be an attempt at intimidating the company to keep them from releasing the software (particularly since the DMCA doesn't cover phone unlocking). It's worth reiterating that these are supposedly AT&T's lawyers, not Apple's -- but it's not clear what standing AT&T would have to sue, making this look like little more than a SLAPP situation. Apple's remained quiet on the matter, but it wouldn't be surprising to see the company close the loophole or re-lock the phones with one of its software updates, since it has a financial stake in iPhone buyers activating and using their phones on AT&T thanks to its revenue-sharing deal with the operator. Of course, it could take the more enlightened view that it doesn't want to frustrate and annoy the customers who would go to the trouble of unlocking their iPhones -- but if it were going to do that, it wouldn't have locked the device to AT&T in the first place.Filed Under: iphone, slapp, unlocking, wireless
Companies: apple, at&t
Jury Out On The Impact Of 700 MHz Spectrum Auction Rules
from the new-spectrum-same-players dept
The talk around the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum license auctions continues. After Google's CEO earlier this week said the company would "probably" bid in the auction, even though the FCC didn't implement the open-access provisions Google wanted, a couple of divergent opinions on the auction's impact on the telecom landscape have come out. On the one hand, former FCC bigwig Blair Levin says the auction isn't likely to result in a new nationwide mobile operator; on the other, a "source at a major cellular company" says the auction isn't attractive for incumbent operators. Who to believe? As usual, the truth in somewhere in the middle, but we're more inclined to take Levin's view of things. Incumbent operators will likely shy away from the 22 MHz of spectrum with open-access rules -- not just because they don't want to operate under the restrictions, but also because if the auction for those licenses fails to generate $4.6 billion, the open-access rules will be lifted, and the auction will start over. Once it hits $4.6 billion on that first go-around, though, operators will bid because there's simply too much spectrum on offer to ignore it. Their choice of technology could render the open-access rules useless, really -- after all, if they pick a proprietary or unpopular technology for their network, they'll be the only people selling compatible devices for it. When you get down to brass tacks, the incumbent operators are going to spend whatever's necessary to acquire the spectrum, despite what anonymous sources within them say. Spectrum in general is their lifeblood, and this 700 MHz spectrum in particular has too many positive attributes for mobile broadband for them to pass up. They'll bid aggressively to defend their turf, and if anybody is going to unseat them, it's going to take a hell of a lot of investment.Filed Under: fcc, open access, spectrum, wireless
Companies: at&t, frontline, google, sprint, t-mobile, verizon
Google CEO Says It Will 'Probably' Bid On Spectrum Licenses
from the here-comes-the-cash dept
Google has been making noise for some time about getting its hands on some wireless spectrum licenses. It's been behind a push to get the FCC to institute "open access" rules for license winners in the upcoming auction of 700 MHz spectrum, and the FCC implemented a couple of rather meaningless conditions to certain licenses in the auction. Google's main goal was to get the FCC to force license winners to offer wholesale access to their networks to anyone who wanted to buy it -- making it clear that Google's real interest isn't in acquiring spectrum licenses and building a network of its own, but rather having the ability to buy wholesale network access, and to do so in a competitive market. Google's push to get the FCC to create this market for free failed; now, Google's CEO says the company will "probably" bid in the auction. If Google were to win some licenses, it could choose to lease them to network operators in exchange for network access, with whatever conditions it wants to attach. This could achieve the same end result -- a marketplace with several bidders competing for Google's business -- as the getting the FCC to mandate open access. Obviously Google would rather have gone down that route than having to shell out several billion dollars for the licenses. Either way, don't expect Google to begin building its own physical network, but its motives in acquiring and redistributing access either as a virtual operator or in some other way are clear.Filed Under: fcc, open access, spectrum, wireless
Companies: fcc, google
Not Only Is Ricochet Still Around, But It's Been Sold, Yet Again
from the how-do-they-do-it dept
When Ricochet was launched in the late '90s, its cellular modem service for laptops was pretty unique. However, services from major mobile operators quickly passed it in terms of data speeds, coverage and price, and Metricom, the company behind Ricochet, eventually went bankrupt in 2001. Since then, it's traded hands several times, but its owners have never had much success with it -- which is hardly surprising, again, given the way it's been surpassed in nearly every aspect by other mobile broadband services, as well as the proliferation of WiFi hotspots. The surprising part is that Ricochet still exists at all, but it does, and -- brace yourself -- it's been sold again. It looks like the company only offers low-speed mobile service in the Denver area at this point, but it appears to be trying to expand into the WiFi market as well. We would say that it's probably not long for this world since it still doesn't offer much (if any) benefit over other services, but with the way it's managed to bounce around and stay afloat, perhaps we shouldn't.FCC Pays Open Access Wireless Networks Some Lip Service
from the appearance-of-activity dept
The FCC yesterday approved the rules for the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum license auction, scheduled for early next year. This is an important auction because of the quantity and quality of spectrum it covers, making it particularly suitable for wireless broadband networks. A coalition headed by Google has been pushing the FCC to adopt four "open access" principles for the spectrum, which would require license winners to open their networks to any compatible device, allow users to access any service they wish, and to sell wholesale access to their network to third parties. Google even said it would bid at least $4.6 billion in the auction if the FCC adopted the four principles. Unsurprisingly, the FCC didn't, instead going with rules that were largely along the lines of what Chairman Kevin Martin had earlier proposed: licenses for 22 of the 60 MHz on offer will require winners to allow any compatible device on their network and not block access to any services, but will not have the wholesale requirement that Google and its partners were looking for.Without question, there's some gamesmanship going on here. If Google really wants to own spectrum licenses and have a network that follows its open access principles, there's nothing preventing it from bidding in the auction, winning licenses, and either running its network that way, or leasing the licenses to somebody who will. What's more likely, though, is that Google simply wants the ability to buy wholesale network access, rather than own licenses or build its own network. Again, there's nothing preventing it from entering into such a deal with any license holder, but requiring all the license holders to wholesale access would create a more competitive market and drive down prices. But perhaps the bigger game here is the political one by the FCC. These open access rules, really, are pretty toothless, and perhaps that's best illustrated by the fact that both AT&T and Verizon support them. The device requirement could easily be rendered meaningless by the winning bidder's choice of technology for their network. Using a proprietary or unpopular technology would likely mean that the only outlet to purchase compatible devices would be from the network provider. The open access to services requirement is one the operators would likely follow anyway, since blocking access to certain sites and services wouldn't make their wireless broadband services too popular with consumers.
While perhaps these rules represent a small first step for the FCC towards fostering a more competitive broadband, they seem much more like a missed opportunity to affect some real change. It seems like more than anything, this is a bit of smoke and mirrors that makes it look, to the casual observer, like the FCC's done something significant, when it's actually done very little -- and that would fit with the persistent whispering about Martin's political ambitions.
Filed Under: fcc, telecom, wireless
Companies: at&t, fcc, google, verizon
