Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Google's big win -- and big loss -- in a bid for the open wireless Web
The FCC rules that consumers can use any device or application they want on upcoming wireless networks. But it denies Google's most sweeping reform efforts.
By Farhad Manjoo [2007-07-31]
The letters thread is now closed.

  • Big Loss, Absolutely

    Big win? Not so much.

    What I understood Google wanted was to bring competition (other than big telecoms) in the hope of better access (lower prices). But as money and influence rule the day in our government now, this was to be expected.

    Another win for big business, another loss for consumers.

    -- Stagger Lee
    [Read Stagger Lee's other letters]
    Tuesday, July 31, 2007 01:07 PM

  • Win for device manufacturers

    While this isn't nirvana, it's pretty good from an administration that champions monopolies. It is a definite win for device manufacturers and software developers. If Nokia were to provide a CDMA card for it's Nokia N800 it will allow phones similar/superior to the iPhone to be much more common. We will, however, still suffer the ridiculously high rates.

    -- sunwalker
    [Read sunwalker's other letters]
    Tuesday, July 31, 2007 02:19 PM

  • All or Nothing?

    So, what is Google's response? Are they pulling their 4+ billion dollar bid? And, goddamnit, how the fuck are these guys allowed to have such a monopoly??? As far as I'm concerned, these half-concessions mean nothing to the majority of Americans who would be most effected by proper reform. ARRRGGGHHH.

    -- Ktwdawg
    [Read Ktwdawg's other letters]
    Tuesday, July 31, 2007 02:47 PM

  • I guess it's not *any* device...

    Rather, it would still have to be a device that obeys the protocols selected by the band owner. You couldn't, for example, set up your own set of WiFi-like repeaters that do their own thing in that frequency, totally disregarding the phone company's signals. That would just lead to a battle based on broadcast power. So such devices must still be forbidden by the FCC.

    -- dcmeserve
    [Read dcmeserve's other letters]
    Tuesday, July 31, 2007 03:12 PM

  • CB radios?

    Open unregulated bandwidth? That didn't turn out so well, or perhaps it turned out as well as anyone could expect.

    --Anonymous
    Tuesday, July 31, 2007 04:11 PM

  • Subtle bits in the interpretation

    Ok, here's a tricky question. When the rules force the carrier who has leased the spectrum to allow consumer supplied devices, does it in effect force them to open the spectrum up in order to do this?

    If this is worded just right, it prevents incumbents from paying the 'blocking premium' to obtain the spectrum and leaving it fallow. If they leave it fallow, then customers cannot supply their own devices and connect and they are in violation. Whether or not the rules work this way would depend heavily on their exact wording.

    I appear to be the lone Canadian arguing this point for our spectrum. Industry Canada recently completed a round of comments on upcoming spectrum auctions [1], and my comments are in the very bottom of the initial comments page [2]. Everyone else wanted to talk about setasides for new bidders. In reviewing the comments, I appeared to be the only one suggesting consideration of the economic effects of carrier device lock-in.

    [1] http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/h_sf01714e.html

    [2] http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/dgtp-002-07-chris-smith.pdf/$FILE/dgtp-002-07-chris-smith.pdf

    -- Chris S
    [Read Chris S's other letters]
    Tuesday, July 31, 2007 08:18 PM

Letters Help