BusinessWeek asked my thoughts about the FCC's choices over rules in an upcoming auction for wireless licenses: I wrote this essay out the of the frustration of hearing regulators' choosing a set of rules for one chunk of the 700 MHz spectrum called "regulation" when it didn't suit the party's interest and a "lack of regulation" when it did. Google et al proposed that we have a single broad enough national spectrum (in this case, six licenses that together cover the U.S.) that had a requirement for openness. Open access for any legal device, any legal purpose, and any reseller. Instead, we have a carrier-forged policy that will ensure that it's just business mostly as usual.
The dancing rabbits reference is shorthand for the vast array of devices we have in the Wi-Fi junk band that's supposedly unusable spectrum in the eyes of cell carriers. The Nabaztag is a very weird use of Wi-Fi, but it shows how innovation isn't restricted by mere sanity.
...but you're equating a frequency with a technology standard. Even if the network was open in the sense that you're describing, it presumes that all the operators would be using the same technology, or a technology that is not proprietary to the operator.
If you want to compare the 700 MHz discussion with a beach, then part of open access would require the operators agreeing on the basic ground rules before engaging in the game. The only thing they agree on now is that we're using beach balls. There's no reason to believe that if open access happened they would be playing the same form of the game.
On a more basic level, it was never clear to me what the public policy requirement for open access is. Is it to make it more affordable or encourage more competition? I think we have that today. Most markets are served by at least, but many 3 or 4 wireless operators. And the rates, at least as a percentage of GNP, are some of the lowest in the world.
If people want open access they already have it today -- it's the ISM bands and there's lots of technology running using them today.
Frank
Frequency with technology: Not really. Wi-Fi didn't have to be the dominant standard for 2.4 GHz, but it proved itself in the marketplace (remember HomeRF?). The open resale agreement would almost certainly require an interoperable standard. Everyone would have to agree on rules that would allow different games to be played on the same beach.
Public policy: It's to build a bigger market. There's no competition today -- it's essentially a multiple party monopoly maintained through tacit collusion without any illegal intent. It's not just that prices are low (which they may be relative to elsewhere, but not relative to broadband). It's that the purposes to which the network is put are limited by the owner.
This is the equivalent of turning over your town square, the place where everyone can gather, to a commercial firm that limits speech and constricts other rights -- because they can. Think of a mall versus a park and what rights are constrained in each venue and for what reason.
The ISM bands are not adequate to provide a common medium across the country into which billions of dollars and enormous innovation would flow. Wi-Fi is an example of what you can do with very little, but imagine if we had a lot.