Connect with us

Wireless

Panelists Debate the Degree of Openness on Wireless Networks

MCLEAN, VIRGINIA, June 26 – Whether wireless networks are open or closed to competition was the subject of sharp dispute at the Digital Media Conference on “The Coming Open Wireless Network: Hype vs. Reality?”

Published

on

By William G. Korver, Reporter, BroadbandCensus.com

MCLEAN, VIRGINIA, June 26 – Whether wireless networks are open or closed to competition was the subject of sharp dispute at a Thursday afternoon panel at the Digital Media Conference here on “The Coming Open Wireless Network: Hype vs. Reality?”

There is “no openness yet” in wireless networks, said Michael Calabrese, vice president and director of the Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation. Three industry practices by carriers are preventing the opening of an era of open wireless networks, he said.

These industry practices are blocking and locking cell phones to a particular wireless network, crippling features that otherwise would be available on the handset, and discrimination in broadband service, said Calabrese. He did say that Verizon’s promise of increased openness provided some hope for the future.

Carolyn Brandon, vice president of policy at the wireless association CTIA, disputed the assertions made by Calabrese. She said that what Calabrese termed “blocking” was actually consumer-friendly “bundling” that routinely saves customers money. This practice is “not screwing the customer,” she said.

Moreover, carriers have every right to limit bandwidth based on costs, said Brandon.

Brandon said that the market should determine the fate of tiered pricing. Pointing to America Online’s decision to change from a “walled garden” of limited online options to an internet-friendly approach as a distribution hub after losing an enormous amount of paying customers, Brandon said that governmental regulation is not needed and a bad idea.

The Federal Trade Communications’ approach to internet issues demonstated that government regulation is a step that should be avoided as long as possible, especially when the market is not indicating that regulation is required, she said.

Echoing Brandon, Suzanne Toller, of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, said that carriers are usually forced to bear the brunt of the blame for failures by regulators and the courts – even though the problems are usually caused by a content provider, not the carriers.

In any case, a major problem confronting the creation of a open wireless network is the question of the appropriate business model to keep costs at a minimum for wireless clients, who are the most price-conscious buyers, according to recent surveys, Brandon said.

Rick Robinson, vice president of products and services for Sprint’s XOHM WiMax service, said that his company hopes to solve the problem of payment by utilizing a flat access fee, with a premium plan for those willing to pay more.

Spectrum

Companies Clash Over Spectrum Sharing in 12 GHz Spectrum Band

Satellite service provider Dish, which is open to 12 GHz for mobile, recently signed a network sharing deal with AT&T.

Published

on

Screenshot from Broadband Breakfast Live Online episode on July 14.

By William G. Korver, Reporter, BroadbandCensus.com

MCLEAN, VIRGINIA, June 26 – Whether wireless networks are open or closed to competition was the subject of sharp dispute at a Thursday afternoon panel at the Digital Media Conference here on “The Coming Open Wireless Network: Hype vs. Reality?”

There is “no openness yet” in wireless networks, said Michael Calabrese, vice president and director of the Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation. Three industry practices by carriers are preventing the opening of an era of open wireless networks, he said.

These industry practices are blocking and locking cell phones to a particular wireless network, crippling features that otherwise would be available on the handset, and discrimination in broadband service, said Calabrese. He did say that Verizon’s promise of increased openness provided some hope for the future.

Carolyn Brandon, vice president of policy at the wireless association CTIA, disputed the assertions made by Calabrese. She said that what Calabrese termed “blocking” was actually consumer-friendly “bundling” that routinely saves customers money. This practice is “not screwing the customer,” she said.

Moreover, carriers have every right to limit bandwidth based on costs, said Brandon.

Brandon said that the market should determine the fate of tiered pricing. Pointing to America Online’s decision to change from a “walled garden” of limited online options to an internet-friendly approach as a distribution hub after losing an enormous amount of paying customers, Brandon said that governmental regulation is not needed and a bad idea.

The Federal Trade Communications’ approach to internet issues demonstated that government regulation is a step that should be avoided as long as possible, especially when the market is not indicating that regulation is required, she said.

Echoing Brandon, Suzanne Toller, of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, said that carriers are usually forced to bear the brunt of the blame for failures by regulators and the courts – even though the problems are usually caused by a content provider, not the carriers.

In any case, a major problem confronting the creation of a open wireless network is the question of the appropriate business model to keep costs at a minimum for wireless clients, who are the most price-conscious buyers, according to recent surveys, Brandon said.

Rick Robinson, vice president of products and services for Sprint’s XOHM WiMax service, said that his company hopes to solve the problem of payment by utilizing a flat access fee, with a premium plan for those willing to pay more.

Continue Reading

Satellite

Satellite Operators and Broadband Entrants Vie for Primacy as FCC Debates the 12 GigaHertz Band

Will the 12 GHz band be opened for 5G uses or remain exclusively for satellite services?

Published

on

Visualization of spectrum from the Australian Department of Infrastructure

By William G. Korver, Reporter, BroadbandCensus.com

MCLEAN, VIRGINIA, June 26 – Whether wireless networks are open or closed to competition was the subject of sharp dispute at a Thursday afternoon panel at the Digital Media Conference here on “The Coming Open Wireless Network: Hype vs. Reality?”

There is “no openness yet” in wireless networks, said Michael Calabrese, vice president and director of the Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation. Three industry practices by carriers are preventing the opening of an era of open wireless networks, he said.

These industry practices are blocking and locking cell phones to a particular wireless network, crippling features that otherwise would be available on the handset, and discrimination in broadband service, said Calabrese. He did say that Verizon’s promise of increased openness provided some hope for the future.

Carolyn Brandon, vice president of policy at the wireless association CTIA, disputed the assertions made by Calabrese. She said that what Calabrese termed “blocking” was actually consumer-friendly “bundling” that routinely saves customers money. This practice is “not screwing the customer,” she said.

Moreover, carriers have every right to limit bandwidth based on costs, said Brandon.

Brandon said that the market should determine the fate of tiered pricing. Pointing to America Online’s decision to change from a “walled garden” of limited online options to an internet-friendly approach as a distribution hub after losing an enormous amount of paying customers, Brandon said that governmental regulation is not needed and a bad idea.

The Federal Trade Communications’ approach to internet issues demonstated that government regulation is a step that should be avoided as long as possible, especially when the market is not indicating that regulation is required, she said.

Echoing Brandon, Suzanne Toller, of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, said that carriers are usually forced to bear the brunt of the blame for failures by regulators and the courts – even though the problems are usually caused by a content provider, not the carriers.

In any case, a major problem confronting the creation of a open wireless network is the question of the appropriate business model to keep costs at a minimum for wireless clients, who are the most price-conscious buyers, according to recent surveys, Brandon said.

Rick Robinson, vice president of products and services for Sprint’s XOHM WiMax service, said that his company hopes to solve the problem of payment by utilizing a flat access fee, with a premium plan for those willing to pay more.

Continue Reading

Spectrum

Spectrum Decisions Becoming Increasingly Important for Future: FCC’s Simington

FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington said focus on spectrum decision will become increasingly important for digital success.

Published

on

FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington

By William G. Korver, Reporter, BroadbandCensus.com

MCLEAN, VIRGINIA, June 26 – Whether wireless networks are open or closed to competition was the subject of sharp dispute at a Thursday afternoon panel at the Digital Media Conference here on “The Coming Open Wireless Network: Hype vs. Reality?”

There is “no openness yet” in wireless networks, said Michael Calabrese, vice president and director of the Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation. Three industry practices by carriers are preventing the opening of an era of open wireless networks, he said.

These industry practices are blocking and locking cell phones to a particular wireless network, crippling features that otherwise would be available on the handset, and discrimination in broadband service, said Calabrese. He did say that Verizon’s promise of increased openness provided some hope for the future.

Carolyn Brandon, vice president of policy at the wireless association CTIA, disputed the assertions made by Calabrese. She said that what Calabrese termed “blocking” was actually consumer-friendly “bundling” that routinely saves customers money. This practice is “not screwing the customer,” she said.

Moreover, carriers have every right to limit bandwidth based on costs, said Brandon.

Brandon said that the market should determine the fate of tiered pricing. Pointing to America Online’s decision to change from a “walled garden” of limited online options to an internet-friendly approach as a distribution hub after losing an enormous amount of paying customers, Brandon said that governmental regulation is not needed and a bad idea.

The Federal Trade Communications’ approach to internet issues demonstated that government regulation is a step that should be avoided as long as possible, especially when the market is not indicating that regulation is required, she said.

Echoing Brandon, Suzanne Toller, of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, said that carriers are usually forced to bear the brunt of the blame for failures by regulators and the courts – even though the problems are usually caused by a content provider, not the carriers.

In any case, a major problem confronting the creation of a open wireless network is the question of the appropriate business model to keep costs at a minimum for wireless clients, who are the most price-conscious buyers, according to recent surveys, Brandon said.

Rick Robinson, vice president of products and services for Sprint’s XOHM WiMax service, said that his company hopes to solve the problem of payment by utilizing a flat access fee, with a premium plan for those willing to pay more.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

 

Trending