| While it's true Google seems to have won over the FCC with their request for winners of the 700 band auction to be forced to open their network to competing devices, open access isn't all it's cracked up to be. You see, the FCC has tried open access before and it hasn't worked.
When the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, local phone companies (mostly controlled by the big Bells) were forced to open up their local wires to competitors. The new companies (called CLECS) could rent access to the local wires controlled by the Bells and sell us new, supposedly better and cheaper phone services. It was supposed to be a windfall for competition and consumer satisfaction.
What happened? Well, these companies quickly went bankrupt.
Now, some say the CLECS went bankrupt because their business model was poor. While there is merit to that argument, the providers from whom the CLECS were renting access - much as Google will have to rent access from Verizon or AT&T - fought open access regulations tooth and nail. Lawsuits and complaints to the FCC about the Bells' "anti-competitive practices" such as predatory pricing, misleading fees, inaccurate billing, and other shady business dealings were rampant. In short, the FCC failed to enforce their regulations, the monopoly phone companies failed to follow the law, and open access was often little more than a catchy phrase.
The same will undoubtedly happen to this new, "open," wireless spectrum. With Verizon and AT&T executives already calling open access, "something we would not be in favor of," these giant corporations will fight FCC regulations with everything they have. The endgame is predictable:
Typically, while incumbents [like Verizon and AT&T] drag their heals, they point to the difficulties that they themselves create as proof that the "open access" concept is "unworkable." "Look,"the incumbents will tell the FCC. "No one is making these wonderful devices they promised. Maintaining an 'open access' network is an expensive pain in the neck for us. It will be ever so much more efficient - and benefit consumers too! - if you get rid of this silly 'open access' requirement." And despite the fact that would be users of open access will be jumping up and down saying "if you'd just enforce the damn law we could actually provide some new devices and services!" the FCC will decide that enforcing the law is just too much of a bother and it is much easier to give the incumbents what they want.
If we want real broadband in America, net neutrality is the only option.
Contrary to the belief that net neutrality is technically unworkable, it actually spurs innovation and infrastructure. As net-neutral web use expands and begins to outpace the bandwidth available, telecom companies will be forced to expand their pipes to handle the increased load. Net neutrality gives telecom companies an incentive to expand America's broadband infrastructure, eventually giving us the kind of speeds and prices enjoyed in net-neutral Europe and Asia.
If, on the other hand, we forgo net neutrality, telecom companies have an incentive to devise clever ways to reduce each customer's bandwidth instead of building expensive new infrastructure. The result is the slow, expensive, and duopoly controlled Internet experience we have now.
Catch phrases like "open access" are great, but there is no substitute for true net neutrality.
(originally posted at The Seminal) |
STATE BLOGS
