On his blog, Peter Nowak bemoans the FCC leaving Canada in the dust, but he and a few others appear to be confused about some of the facts behind the FCC’s recent statements on wireless frequency allocations and the ability to roam between networks.

Let’s start by looking at what the FCC actually did say on on July 31. Their statements affect the 700 MHz band (currently used by UHF TV channels 60-69). This is a band that has not yet been designated for advanced mobile services internationally, but this FCC endorsement makes it highly likely that other countries will follow suit.

However, it is going to be 4 years before those frequencies are available in Canada which has set a deadline of August 31, 2011 for analog TV to vacate the band (the US will be clear just 18 months from now in February, 2009).

The current Industry Canada consultation is for a very different band – in the 2GHz Range. The FCC had no open access requirements for the spectrum that is currently under consideration.

Despite the fact that so many people (including my friend Alec Saunders) are concerned that the current (and seemingly each) auction is for “the last remaining beach-front property”, the 700MHz band is evidence that there is more spectrum continually being cleared for applications, such as mobile services, as demand warrants. [I’ll have more to say about Alec’s recent jabs in a follow-up post]

Further, the posting confuses open access with technical realities:

In other words, if a consumer buys a mobile phone, it will work on AT&T;’s network, on Verizon’s network, T-Mobile’s network, etc.

Sorry. CDMA phones will still not be able to magically operate on GSM networks and vice-versa. Further, there is nothing I have seen from the FCC that will prevent carriers from continuing to lock subsidized phones – I have written about this problem in the past and questions of who owns my phones continue to trouble me.

What the FCC actually said is that for one of bands being auctioned, customers will be able to attach the device and run the applications of their choice, subject to reasonable network safeguards:

The licensees of the Upper 700 MHz Band C Block of spectrum will be required to provide a platform that is more open to devices and applications. This would allow consumers to use the handset of their choice and download and use the applications of their choice in this spectrum block, subject to certain reasonable network management conditions that allow the licensee to protect the network from harm.

Commissioner Deborah Tate’s statement helps clarify the purpose of the these network safeguards.

We should not underestimate the value of reasonable requirements established by a network operator to protect its network and allow for compliance with its regulatory obligations, such as an obligation to provide e911 service.

None of us would want an e911 call to go unanswered because it could not find its way through a maze of movie and music downloads, or malicious software. Thus, the network operator must be able to reasonably manage the foreign applications on its network.

By the way, there is also nothing that prohibits someone from doing this to existing spectrum or using any of the other blocks in the 700 MHz band to be opened up the same way.

As attractive as an open access set-aside may be for a portion of the spectrum, Industry Canada needs to reject suggestions that it delay the AWS auction rule making.

Consumers shouldn’t have to wait.

Heritage Minister Bev Oda announced yesterday that former RDI broadcaster, Michel Morin, has been appointed as a Commissioner of the CRTC.

In the news release, he is described as having strong broadcast industry credentials:

Mr. Morin is recognized for his talent as a natural leader with remarkable skills in persuasion and delegation. He is a seasoned journalist, and his broadcasting credentials will make a strong contribution to the CRTC

The CRTC could be losing a number of Commissioners over the course of this year including Barbara Cram, Stuart Langford, and Andree Noel, all with terms expiring before the end of 2007. By mid-2008, another 3 commissioners will complete their appointments.

We are still watching for a replacement to be named for former Vice-Chair of Telecom, Rick French. That seat has been vacant since the end of June.

Consider this: almost all the Commissioners, including the Chair, could be new to the CRTC over the course of about 12 months. It is a tremendous level of turn-over.

In keeping with the teachings of Bob Dylan:

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside
And it is ragin’.
It’ll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’.

The rest of the song contains a number of other messages for the new Commissioners trying to come to grips with regulating in today’s environment.

And a message for some of us mortals: Just don’t criticize what you can’t understand.

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, Commissioners

I thought that so many people were pointing at the US as a model for Canadian wireless. So many have looked south of the border, longing for Cingular-type plans and services or Apple’s iPhone to be launched here.

But the apparently, the US wireless market is primitive, and doomed to stay that way, according to an editorial in the NY Times. [Thanks, Michael for the tip.]

An open auction means that anyone can purchase spectrum and use it in a way that allows them to determine how to best get a return on their investment. Adding rules amounts to constraining the flexibility for companies risking billions of dollars on a business plan, thereby increasing risk. Increased risk translates into an increased cost of capital.

As I wrote before, there are questions that could arise with terminology as imprecise as “open access“. It seems to me that FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell‘s July 24 “Broadband Baloney” Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal has some appropriate messages for wireless markets as well.

In the next few years, we will witness a tremendous explosion of entrepreneurial brilliance in the broadband market, if the government doesn’t micromanage. Belief in entrepreneurs and a light regulatory touch is the right broadband policy for America.

With wireless services, the grass always seems greener elsewhere.

Is there something wrong with making a buck?

A couple of weeks ago, Michael Geist pointed out that a number of submissions to the CRTC’s Diversity of Voices Proceeding provide fertile reading material on net neutrality proposals from the content sector. To date, much of the net neutrality dialog in Canada has been heard from carriers, end users and academics.

It is good to see the discussion engaged by other groups with a perspective of content production.

In the submission from the Canadian Media Guild, I think that some of their language is unfortunately chosen. For example, among their recommended measures, they are seeking:

A guarantee of “net neutrality,” by establishing a rule prohibiting internet service providers from controlling clients’ access to websites for commercial gain.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with commercial gain.

In fact, I’d like to think that the ISPs are achieving some commercial gain; unlike the model for subsidized media creation of Canadian content, ISPs have to make a profit or they will be forced to shut down. Commercial gain is necessary to ensure long term viability and ongoing investment.

Network management control is commonly invoked because of commercial issues – it allows cost effective deployment of resources. The alternative is to vastly increase the assets such that capacity is never constrained, and recover the costs from subscribers or go out of business. The Media Guild’s proposal would seem to prohibit network management.

Isn’t the real issue whether ISPs control access in an unduly discriminatory manner? Undue discrimination is very different from commercial gain. Let’s not take a stand against profit.

We’ll look more at this proceeding later on.

Technorati Tags:
net neutrality, CRTC, Michael Geist