Open access: everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask

The band explained
The first thing you have to understand is that this frequency represents a much broader range for wireless transmission than any we're seeing in wide use right now. The 700MHz spectrum penetrates buildings, is available in rural areas, and covers all 50 states in the good old US of A -- there's a reason why industry pundits are calling it "beachfront wireless property." The soon-to-be-vacated bands could be a gold mine to whoever owns them, and a blessing to consumers in America. Imagine having continuous, unrestricted access to high-speed data and voice connections wherever you drove in your car, in whatever building you went into, and just about anywhere else you could think of. Sounds sweet, right? Well not so fast.
Open access
In 2007, groups like Save The Internet and the ACLU, along with people like Lawrence Lessig pushed for rules to be applied to the 700MHz auction which would encourage fair competition once the bands had been sold. In all, there were four main tenets of "openness" that were being asked for; open devices, open applications, open services, and open networks. When push came to shove, the FCC decided on adopting only two out of the four: open devices and open applications. This means that the consumer experience with this new spectrum will be largely dependent on who gets control of it to begin with -- hence all the noise you've heard from companies like Verizon and Google lately.
Those two components left on the cutting room floor included provisions that would have forced the winner of the frequency to leave some of that bandwidth open to small companies and start-ups, allowing them to lease spectrum at wholesale prices for any use that wasn't harmful. Proponents say this scenario would encourage innovation and competition, driving choices up and costs down for the end user. Now that possibility hangs in the balance.
The battle for ultimate supremacy
In our current system, phone and cable companies such as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast exert more than 96-percent of control over access for residential broadband users. It's to be assumed that if an elephantine company like Verzion wins the auction and gets control over the spectrum, they're not going to suddenly start offering chunks of frequency to competitors and johnny-come-latelys. In all likelihood, Verizon would lock down the frequencies to its services -- much like it does with our phone lines -- and that will be the end of the story. We'll get a new band, but we'll still have to ask for our portion of gruel the way we do now. However, if Google wins the auction, they could take a more altruistic approach to the acquisition and adhere to all four of those open access rules, which means the frequency would be wide open for start-ups and new competition -- it would be a game changer. Some have even speculated that Google might swap part of its band for a portion of Sprint's 2.5GHz WiMAX service, extending open access rules to that spectrum as well. You can imagine the possibilities.
Verizon could build a broadband network and we'd all have to pay to get on-board, while Google might allow lots of different providers to lease out services, kind of like more versatile MVNOs.
Until the auction ends and the "secret" winning bid is revealed, we won't know where we stand, and once we do know, a whole new handful of questions will be raised.
Open devices and open applications
Regardless of who's victorious in the auction, however, we'll see half of those open access rules come to fruition. The first -- open devices -- will effect the most noticeable change in the way telcos normally do business. With that clause in place, we'll likely start to see a market of carrier-free phones and devices -- gadgets made to work in harmony with the 700MHz band, but not locked into a service provider like AT&T. The iPhone couldn't exist in a 700MHz world -- it would have to be transportable to other carriers.
The second rule is open applications. This clause essentially demands that applications created for use on 700MHz devices aren't restricted to a single carrier or provider. If you buy a phone with an IM app, and you move your service to a new provider, that application must still be accessible and useable regardless of your service. Like the open devices clause, this will likely spur a more competitive market for software and services, as designers won't have to be constantly molding applications to separate networks with their own arcane rules.
Wrap up
While the whole mess seems complicated, the potential outcomes are pretty basic; go with the old-school team, get the old-school treatment, or go with the new guys and hope they change the score. Open devices and applications sound nice, but they're not too different from an unlocked GSM phone with Google Maps on it -- you can pretty much take that anywhere and use the application. While we'll see new technologies emerge, the real sea-change needs to happen in how we get and use our broadband, and until this auction comes to a close, that's a question that will remain unanswered.


















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ellianth @ Feb 5th 2008 12:37PM
It it just me or did I read this article last week?
Michael Gillen @ Feb 5th 2008 12:38PM
Okay guys... we get it. An auction... Ebay... hilarious...
L @ Feb 5th 2008 12:53PM
My thoughts exactly :D
cynyc @ Feb 5th 2008 3:44PM
Really. At least match the font correctly next time...
Saad @ Feb 6th 2008 7:27PM
lol so tru.
Flashpoint @ Feb 5th 2008 12:42PM
I bid $4,599,999,999 and that sunuvabitch waited till the last 10 seconds and "bid sniped" me.
Rainier @ Feb 5th 2008 12:43PM
Damn....I didn't win.
Jordan @ Feb 5th 2008 12:43PM
$4,600,000,000 for light.
McYoda @ Feb 5th 2008 12:44PM
Wow, how much commission Ebay make from this auction.
PeterF @ Feb 5th 2008 4:52PM
Well, including PayPal fees, $4,600,000,000
SteveMB @ Feb 5th 2008 4:55PM
AND PayPal. They both rape you.
austin @ Feb 5th 2008 5:11PM
this comment has been said in every single article about this auction
umm....hello??? @ Feb 5th 2008 6:45PM
makes sense...especially since eBay owns PayPal...
Billy Fiul @ Feb 5th 2008 8:11PM
Ummmmm... thanks for that, mister. Like we didn't know that eBay owns PayPal...
idiot
Steve @ Feb 5th 2008 12:47PM
Anyone else not finding this on ebay? if this is an auction they like to hide it.
Jesse S @ Feb 5th 2008 12:52PM
I hope that you're kidding...
Saosin @ Feb 5th 2008 1:00PM
You made my day hahahahahh
ThomasPrescott @ Feb 5th 2008 1:39PM
Haha! Twas Photoshopped methinks.
ethana2 @ Feb 5th 2008 4:22PM
or GIMPed, dangit! Don't forget the gimp!
Jason @ Feb 5th 2008 12:53PM
Thanks for the run down Engadget!
Michael S. @ Feb 5th 2008 12:55PM
Just wanted to mention one thing that you missed out on.
Whlie the 700Mhz spectrum is indeed ideal for urban settings, it has a very high range, because of this anybody that adopts the 700MHz spectrum will be limited in the amount of cell sites they can place in a given area. Because of this, capacity becomes limited. Thats the trade-off between range and capacity, because the larger area you cover with one site reduces the ratio of available space:maximum number of sites.
So it's not really a holy grail.
john @ Feb 5th 2008 1:23PM
That can be mitigated somewhat by the shape of your cell. For example, everyone knows about the classic interlocking hexagon cell designs. That's not caused by a circular area, that's caused by the center of the hexagon having 6 outwardly facing antennas that each cover a 60 degree angle. Think of it like a pie. In the classic six sided cell, it's a pie cut into six pieces.
Most cell carriers, however, do NOT do that. They use 4 or 5 antennas (making square or pentagon shaped cells) in order to save money ... and also reducing their capacity within the square or pentagon shaped cell. The areas with really good capacity are ones where the carrier has actually gone ahead and used 6 antennas per cell. Capacity of the cell == capacity of each antenna transmitter * number of triangles in the cell (where each triangle is 1 directional antenna).
You could, in theory, though, use narrower triangles, making octagonal or other similarly shaped cells (9, 10, 12, or more, sided polygons). This would mean more triangles per cell, increasing the capacity of the cell. This might compensate for the larger radius of the cell. Obviously, though, the theory has a practical limit on how narrow the triangles can actually be. But, if I was having to deal with larger radius cells, I'd certainly look into just how narrowly I can focus my antennas.
mark @ Feb 5th 2008 2:11PM
i think your mistaken.. yes there will be fewer towers... that is the point... why would i want 5 towers to cover 5^2KM when i can use 3 towers to do the same area...
all in all less towers dont mean less signal just more overlap
Michael S. @ Feb 5th 2008 3:56PM
@mark
You are the one mistaken...you need to look into telecommunications theory. You can't have overlap like you are suggesting (not to mention that you'd be wasting money by doing so) , and a smaller coverage area means you can have more cell towers which means you can have more capacity. 5 towers covering the same area as 3 towers would prove to be superior because you have more capacity. For initial development of a network the 700Mhz spectrum is nice because you don't need as many towers to build out your network, but in the long term you lose out when you need more capacity and you can't you can't use as many towers.
But like I said, its a trade-off, and its certainly cheaper to build out the network in this case, there are just some long term issues *shrugs*.
@John
That's right, you could mitigate the problem to a certain degree by doing what you say, but there's increased cost involved and it would be cheaper/better in the long run to have more cell sites.
Robert @ Feb 5th 2008 8:08PM
If the winning bidder opens this channel for 'free' to new and current users of 'smart phones', it would add a new dimension to the mobile marketplace. Efforts to penetrate this market have not provided the anticipated results. I believe that the added costs of 'data plans' have reduced the number of users partipating users substantially. A free data service could be the 'missing link'. You asked where the money would come from... dont forget that the 'purchasing power' of the mobile community is bigger than big!
Josh @ Feb 5th 2008 12:59PM
And they CHARGED for shipping? For that much they couldn't just 'throw it in'...? Cheap bastards!
mac @ Feb 5th 2008 1:26PM
I think the better question to ask is how the FCC plans on shipping the 700mhz spectrum via the USPS? Won't it get mangled along the way?
Ghen @ Feb 5th 2008 10:06PM
I'm wondering if the 700Mhz spectrum can penetrate building walls it can surely penetrate bubble wrap and cardboard. the USPS guy delivering that is going to have a heck of a mess on his truck by the end of the first bumpy road.
Allen @ Feb 5th 2008 1:00PM
They better be kidding, but if they are not, then: its not actually for sale on eBay, engadget is just trying to be funny.
Now that that is settled, doesn't the open access rule apply to whomever bought above $4 billion? And whats more, WiMax is the way its going down in the future anyway.
Radio Matthew Dot Com @ Feb 5th 2008 1:05PM
$3.50 for shipping? Google got a good deal.
Matt @ Feb 5th 2008 1:05PM
I thought this was a great article on how this is really not as big a deal as we all think. 700 Mhz is just really not great for data and two way communication. Think about it, it said Sprint's network is at 2.5 Ghz (that's a G for "giga"!!). Read this guy's article. It makes sense. Although maybe he's just really wrong.
http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/01/700mhz-spectrum-not-so-great-for.html
Chris @ Feb 5th 2008 1:36PM
2.5Ghz is an unlicensed spectrum, this is why they choose it.
kjb434 @ Feb 5th 2008 1:46PM
The more hertz is not always better!
The lower frequency gives a stronger signal deep in buildings and far out places.
Tom Frost @ Feb 5th 2008 1:55PM
Keep in mind, though, that spectrums aren't like computer processors -- higher numbers don't necessarily mean better. Lower frequencies tend to survive for a longer range and penetrate object far, far better than higher frequencies do. As long as each cell station can handle the input from the users it covers, that spectrum will be much more reliable and much less costly to maintain due to having less towers.
Zach @ Feb 5th 2008 1:05PM
*** Thank you Engadget Editors!! ***
I requested this last week and now you deliver. You guys rock. Now I've got something to point people to to explain.
majortom @ Feb 5th 2008 1:06PM
actually the iphone could exist in the 700 club. (small joke). just pull out sim from company a and pop in sim from company b. what would not work is apple's cut from the revenue from company a. noting makes and stops progress like greed, healthy greed or not.
Kevin @ Feb 5th 2008 1:17PM
Actually the iPhone wouldn't just work by swapping out the SIM card because the iPhone's cellular radio isnt programmed to pick up that frequency in its current configuration
Randy @ Feb 5th 2008 2:02PM
To add to Kevin's comment,
The communications protocol for this Frequency hasn't been established yet. There's nothing that says that the new spectrum has to be a GSM network. It could become LTE or Wimax or something else entirely.
Another reason why the iPhone may not necessarily work as you described
majortom @ Feb 5th 2008 2:27PM
both of your statements are true. BUT since we are talking about an yet to be actually built phone for the 700mh range, the iphone, part 2, could be built to incorporate the 700mh range. Apple won't because of their present business model. More my point than talking about existing phones.
Blaktornado @ Feb 5th 2008 1:13PM
Now Google, if you'll kindly buy Yahoo!...
Grizz @ Feb 5th 2008 1:26PM
Umm, too late, read yesterdays news, MS just did.
Grizz @ Feb 5th 2008 1:27PM
..scratch that, its only a offer, not accepted yet..
NG @ Feb 5th 2008 1:19PM
maybe google couldn't get yahoo so they are angry and randomly buy stuffs..
**just like my girl
xtant21 @ Feb 5th 2008 1:51PM
I've never found myself rooting for Google more than now. I have to believe that no matter what people think of Google's true tactics with your personal data are...we BENEFIT more by Google owning the spectrum and selling it back to the providers like an MVNO rather than a provider doing business as usual and playing the game a-la AT&T and unlocked GSM. If Verizon wins you know that's exactly what they'll do...raise the bar to simply take on the current #1 in the US. They won't raise it any higher than they absolutely have to; however, Google could rake in the cash from leasing spectrum AND getting the advertising dollars over that leased spectrum. Let's just hope Verizon doesn't try to buy Google if Google wins.
Jabberwock @ Feb 6th 2008 3:20AM
Um, total value of Verizon is $106B, total value of Google is $159B. Verizon ain't buying Google anytime soon.
Phineas J. Whoopie @ Feb 5th 2008 1:56PM
A common cell phone OS and open applications are coming regardless of the 700MHz spectrum. Android will appear in phones by Sprint and TMobile first (because they have the most market share to gain), and AT&T and Verizon will begin feeling the pressure.
Aren't we all sick of Verizon crippling their phones, forcing you to use PictureMail to get a photo off? Or AT&T refusing to allow any other cell phone to have WiFi because it will cut into their iPhone sales?
There's a sea change coming this fall. AT&T and Verizon are be on notice.
MadMike @ Feb 5th 2008 2:16PM
My Blackberry 8820 has WiFi and it works fine. I have unlimited data, but the WiFi worked on my personal cellphone sim that didn't. Also my HTC rebranded cingular 8525 had WiFi and that was before the iPhone was release.
Jason @ Feb 5th 2008 2:12PM
One small step for big brother. One giant leap backward for privacy. I just love the idea of this virtual net/ eye-in-the-sky hanging over our heads which will eventually become monopolized then partnering up with homeland security for the protection of all our icecream eating children. Icecream! Mandrake, Childrens Icecream!
MadMike @ Feb 5th 2008 2:24PM
Don't believe everything that Michael Moore tells you or that you see on TV or movies. With the sole exception of the CIA and Military Intelligence all those flashy big brother gizmos you think we have, we don't. For the shear fact that they are too expensive. Even paying $10,000 for a toilet seat won't get your hands on these suckers. That and they don't actually work "perfectly", you think your consumer gadgets have flaws - these have major ones.
I spent 12 years in the Marines, and worked with a bunch of MI and CIA people types.
Besides - the government doesn't care about you and your online beastiality porn fetish. There are over 300,000,000 in this country - unless you have some nuclear warheads in your basement, I doubt they know you even exist.
jesse @ Feb 6th 2008 11:21AM
@MadMike
Thank you for explaining that! Commie conspiracy crap pisses me off!
/salute