Communications Insights: Trends and Cool Stuff

I finally just had a chance to read the FNPRM for the rules governing the C Block in FCC’s recently concluded 700 MHz Auction and it says “handsets”! Why is this significant?

For the C Block, comprising 22 MHz in the upper 700 MHz band, the FCC created special open access provisions. The FCC will require licensees to provide a platform that is open to third party devices and applications. Specifically, licensees must allow customers, device manufacturers, third-party application developers, and others to use any device or application of their choice on their networks in this band, subject to certain limited conditions. Licensees may not “lock” handsets to prevent their transfer from one system to another, or to other services that compete with wireless service providers’ own offerings. The FCC concluded that these rules were justified because it did not find “that competition in the [mobile] marketplace is ensuring that consumers drive handset and application choices, especially in the emerging wireless broadband market…. it is easy for consumers to differentiate among providers by price, most consumers are unaware when carriers block or degrade applications and of the implications of such actions, thus making it difficult for providers to differentiate themselves on this score.”

Insight: Beware the law of unintended consequences. Here it is not the proverbial monkey wrench, but a pair of bolts, literally, which could bring the FCC’s policy to a grinding halt. Implicit in the service rules is the assumption that the band will evolve to resemble the next generation of the current mobile market in the US. But assumptions like this never last. I wonder if it is possible for clever operator could escape the open handset requirement by providing fixed services. The 700 MHz spectrum is particularly well suited to a variety of applications, one of which might be fixed broadband. In rural and suburban areas fixed wireless broadband could be an effective competitor to wireline. Presumably these areas would be sufficiently competitive that the FCC’s finding would not hold (remember it is limited to handsets, and not even service plans). Thus, if the licensee is bolting “pizza boxes” to the side of homes, would this type of network not be subject to the open access provisions? It’s unclear, but something to think about.

My report on Public Safety and Security spectrum use in Europe publishes today. In the report, we marshal the policy and technological arguments for a reallocation of further dedicated spectrum for mission critical PSS communication from the transition to digital terrestrial television, the so called Digital Dividend. The website for the study is: http://www.public-safety-first.eu/. For the first time since I served on the FCC’s Hurricane Katrina response team, I have felt that my work has served a critical societal need. Yet, as an American who is used to being constantly bombarded with the need for homeland security, it was a bit surprising to me that PSS communications has received little attention in the discussion regarding how to redistribute this radio spectrum. So, it has been personally rewarding to influence the debate in at least some small way.

Insight: PSS service responders provide us with indispensable police, fire and other emergency services and the provision of emergency services extends beyond the social contract and invokes a moral obligation to protect life, welfare, and property. In order to enable the necessary broadband communications for next generation PSS communications, they will require two additional 15 MHz-wide blocks in the Digital Dividend bands. This allocation is on par with the 24 MHz which the US is reallocating from its DTV transition. A reallocation to PSS use cannot come soon enough since it may take more than ten years, to plan and deploy these networks.