AT&T, Verizon poised to fight FCC's net neutrality stance on the wireless front
By Chris Ziegler 
posted Sep 22nd 2009 2:25PM
posted Sep 22nd 2009 2:25PM
Verizon and AT&T, the States' number one and number two wireless carriers by subscriber count respectively, share a common bond in that they both have deep ties to the Bell System of old and have ended up running huge wireline broadband and legacy telephone businesses. That means they're liable to end up sharing a lot of common interests like candlelit dinners, walks on the beach, and a general agreement with the FCC's Julius Genachowski on new net neutrality legislation -- for wired broadband, anyhow. Both companies' wireless divisions are expressing concern that the proposed rules would apply to ISPs regardless of medium, and the argument is that while landlines (and the accompanying bandwidth) are a theoretically limitless resource, wireless bandwidth is ultimately limited by available spectrum no matter how advanced the underlying technology may be -- and if the carriers don't have authority to clamp down on certain types of heavy use, everyone loses. Though every bone in our body is telling us to vehemently disagree with the argument, they're right on the point that wireless capacity doesn't flow from an everlasting font of spectrum, and it's got to be managed. Thing is, "managed" doesn't necessarily mean "restrict." Here are the options we see at a quick glance:
- Lobby the FCC to aggressively search for and free up additional spectrum that can be safely re-purposed. The CTIA's already pursuing this angle, so it'll be interesting to see what becomes of it.
- Before raising hell, AT&T and Verizon should both consider completing their moves to LTE and coming within a stone's throw of tapping out their current spectrum allocations. Both carriers own swaths of 700MHz bandwidth that they haven't yet capitalized on, and AT&T is actively freeing up 1900MHz by moving a number of markets to 850 for 3G.
- As with everything else in a free economy, the market should decide wireless data pricing. It's a limited resource and it's in demand -- as long as the appropriate regulatory bodies are keeping a close eye on anti-competitive practices (which it seems they're looking to do a better job of), simply charge a fair market rate for usage rather than discriminating by application. We've got a long way to go from the virtually identical pricing structures and limited options that national carriers offer today.
The options you outline are all on the mark. But the problem with the last suggestion, wherein you propose letting the market decide, is that the FCC is proposing the exact opposite of that. I'm certainly not willing to argue that the free market is in action for the big two right now, but it's very much in the FCC's proposal to prevent it from ever being so. When the government starts wielding a big enough hammer, it starts seeing everything as a nail.
There's no excuse for throttling down terrestrial internet access. But there's no way you can force wireless internet wide open and not make everyone suffer for it.
At least until, as was stated, LTE spreads its wings.
They already manage access. It's called 5GB limits for flat rates and per MB rates after that. Even some terrestrial ISPs do that. Mine, in fact does, and I utilize the resource appropriately.
Restricting access is completely different and the wireless providers should be held to the same accountability as everyone else. If I got over the limits accessing the site I want, that's on me, but no provider should provide a sub-par experience because I'm not hitting a preferred site.
Besides, if AT&T was really worried about bandwidth limits, they'd stop selling iPhones.
I have a few comments:
Since ISP's/carriers mostly have caps on data, historical data on usage as well as speed cap, can they not do capacity planning to ensure they have the capacity for the number of users they sign up!!!
I am in Canada, I hope our government take similar stand with carriers
This will be a perfect example of be careful what you wish for. If made to by the Govt, we will all pay dearly for unfettered wireless access. Unlimmited data plans will be gone. We will all be charged a premium. Bandwith on wireless is finite and i for one have no issue's with the wireless ISP's managing thier networks as they see fit. If I dont like the policy's of one of the big four, its my choice to leave and take my business elsewear. Getting sick and tired of this nany Govt telling business how and what to do.
"If I dont like the policy's of one of the big four, its my choice to leave and take my business elsewear."
That's all well and good, assuming the big four's policies actually differ from one another. Where do you turn when all 4 of them decide to restrict or cripple a certain type of data?
As of today that is hardly an issue. Sprint is dropping prices and giving customers as much data as they want. As customers take them up on it and start switching the other carriers will have to follow or lose business. Thats the beauty of the free market. Let it be.
You should realize what will happen if internet T.V catches on and how it will hamper their efforts to succed in the market if they continue to throttle. I'm with you about the free market issue but when ISP are now interfering with other businesses with throttling and selective allowances of usage you are now interfering with fair competition between other sectors. A bussiness should not have to suffer because their customers are on AT&T. ISP effect the country as a whole bussiness or consumer alike. I would definitely agree with you other sectors but ISP affect way to much when they interfer with fair competition, while they should be able to do business as they want, but there are just some practices that shouldn't be allowed and especially if they effect future technology like Internet T.V where streaming video is going to damper the system even more by what they are saying.
If the current ecosystem is so favorable for Sprint, why are they the ones mildly supporting Genachowski's proposal while the other players - who you indicate stand to lose business - are against it?
http://topics.npr.org/quote/0aMXfzebPUcpI
AT&T is not turning off or giving back the 1900Mhz spectrum. It is overlaying 850Mhz spectrum in certain markets. This means it is using both frequencies. This means it is using both licenses. This means that it has paid to use that spectrum.
The newly acquired 700Mhz spectrum also cost big money. The license costs have to be recouped while building out the new network infrastruture. This all costs billions on dollars.
So who is going to front AT&T and VZW the money to build these networks out? Ideas are often good theoretically. But implementation of them involves being pratical. Mass coverage of LTE is years off for most of the country.
All it takes is a couple people using their "unlimited" connections to torrent or p2p something and the whole network slows to a crawl unless they reduce these people's bandwidth.