I have been thinking some more about the various calls for Open Access requirements to be imposed on at least a portion of the spectrum in the AWS consultation. I had suggested that it may be an interesting compromise to consider for a set-aside, available to all bidders, not just new entrants.
That said, I disagree with the people (such as the Ottawa source who told reporter and blog writer, Peter Nowak) that:
Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier could not add similar rules to the auction without first asking for public consultation on them.
I think the subject is open for consideration by Industry Canada and therefore needs to be considered a real possibility. The issue was raised in the first round of comments, not by a company, but by an individual, Chris Smith, who wrote:
As a condition of spectrum licencing, Industry Canada needs to require that licencees establish and publish reasonable rules that allow consumers to independently acquire safe equipment to connect to the licenced spectrum.
So the door has been opened for Industry Canada, if it wants, to rule on the issue. But I think there is a problem in the arguments for open access, despite the FCC adopting it as a principle for an unrelated auction in the 700 MHz band.
When I look at what is being asked for, I don’t think people are really looking for their mobile access to be any more open. Already, people can buy unlocked phones and open access mobile devices on eBay or at Pacific Mall or on trips to Europe.
I have written about using my carrier-locked Blackberry 8800 as a modem and I was able to successfully run every application on my PC. So I don’t think the mobile internet service I am getting is restricted in any way. Further, if a carrier starts to block or degrade access to a particular application, site or service, there are regulatory remedies available.
So what is meant by Open Access? Some of the complaints suggest that some people want carriers to sell unlocked, open devices. People want the prices for open internet access to be lower. Some people want to be able to access any application, without any carrier involvement.
But I am coming to believe that these aren’t calls for open access on mobile. Open Access is asking for significant government manipulation of a market.
Think about it. We are looking for a government rule that will tell a retailer to stock ‘open devices’.
Which devices? Who will produce the list?
As an example, Alec Saunders wants Rogers to sell the Nokia N95. Look at what he said a few weeks ago:
My current favorite phone is the Nokia N95 with it’s 5 megapixel camera and fabulous media capabilities. Not available in Canada. In fact, you can already buy unlocked phones (including the N95) without contracts from TigerDirect and other retailers. It’s just not widely known.
Which is it, Alec? Is the N95 available in Canada or not? In the next sentence in his own posting, Alec himself acknowledges the N95 really is available in Canada (from TigerDirect, among others). Is his issue that Rogers retail stores don’t carry the phone?
Are we supposed to have some government agency maintain the list of devices that retailers associated with spectrum licensees must carry? Will government regulations require that they also advertise these? We wouldn’t want them hidden behind the counter, after all.
How many ads? Let’s be reasonable. Who is going to run the Department of Official Devices? What’s next? Do we tell Future Shop which brands and models of any other appliances have to be in their inventory? If they are sold out, will the Ministry of Inventory and Supply launch an investigation? Are we really suggesting that we want the government to intervene in telling stores what devices have to be sold?
Companies, whether telcos or general merchants, get to decide which things they carry after figuring out the size of the market for it, how do they sell it, how do they support it, who will fix it, is there a reasonable margin.
No matter what people may say to the contrary, when applications or customer-supplied devices have problems, it is the carriers that will get the complaint call. Who pays for those inquiries?
Look at the number of service calls to ISP’s that end up being problems with routers, PCs or software applications. Managing costs for customer service will be a challenge for carriers that exclusively offer wide open access, especially since people are looking for discounted access rates.
Which gets to the core of what I think people want with Open Access. I suspect most people are really talking about is price. People who want open access want cheap bits per second.
Don’t we all?
How do we link open access with lower prices? People have issues with System Access Fees, with length of contracts, with prices for data plans and prices for long distance. But those aren’t issues of open access.
Is Open Access more than just a slogan?
