Follow this blog:
RSS

The push for wireless net neutrality

By | September 22, 2009, 1:24 PM PDT

When advocates talked about “net neutrality” during the Bush years, they were mainly trying to protect what the wired Internet had built.

Rules of the road like transparency, non-discrimination, and letting users control the hardware environment were built into the wired Internet.

Outside the “unlicensed” bands like WiFi, the wireless Web grew up with different values.

Those values include monopoly, carrier control, proprietary everything and no free bits. You can only use equipment on Verizon Wireless that Verizon approves. You can only use software from the Verizon deck. Every bit you send is monetized by Verizon. They get a cut of every transaction.

If you try to do business on Verizon’s network you find out pretty quick that those friendly crowds in its commercials are a lot like the Sopranos. For one industry trade show its executives all wore black suits, a subtle reflection of this control.

Under this model the U.S. cellular market has grown. But it has not grown as fast, or as big, as in other countries. They use a different regulatory model.

In Europe each country must have a network running with GSM encoding. This means you can move your phone from country-to-country, often from carrier-to-carrier. In the U.S. you usually change carriers only under a contract, and the phone is tied to the carrier. In Europe you buy a phone, then seek a carrier.

But to make the most of the iPhone, and its growing mobile broadband competitors, we need wireless networks to be more like those in other countries. It would be even better if they were like the wired Internet. We vote for this with our feet. A lot more bits travel, per hertz of spectrum, on WiFi than on any proprietary network.

Getting from here to there, however, will not be easy. That’s because the government sold its interest in the spectrum over the last decade, mostly to Verizon and AT&T. These companies benefit hugely from their monopoly powers, and they don’t want to give them up.

We know they benefit from monopoly based on last year’s spectrum auctions. One block, bought by Verizon, was sold with a requirement that it be open to all devices. Others, bought by AT&T, had no such requirement. Guess which sold for more?

Here’s the bottom line:

  • A monopoly is worth more than a place in a competitive market.
  • A monopolist can invest less and make more than a competitive company.
  • The monopolist’s benefits are not shared by the market.
  • People pay a monopolist more for less service.
  • A market controlled by a monopolist is less robust than a competitive market.
  • A market controlled by a monopolist is better for the monopolist.

Verizon and AT&T have spent the last decade cutting investments in wired networks, where ISPs compete fiercely and have no control over devices or services, while raising investments in wireless networks where they have this monopoly control. Now the Obama Administration wants to take that control away.

It should. We all benefit more from competitive markets than from monopolies. What’s good for the carriers is not the same as what is good for the marketplace, for customers, or the future of technology.

But after a decade of getting everything they want from Washington, don’t expect monopolists to admit that, and don’t expect them to surrender what they’ve paid for without a fight.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor, Technology

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
5
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Monopoly ?
Monopoly means one. I have US Cellular and there are plenty of cell phone providers. I don't see the problem here. No one is being forced into one provider.

I am sure we are getting scare tactics to make the excuse that the government must take this industry over too. The cellphone companies will be bullied like the other private companies if they don't play ball with this administration.

Then we will have a real monopoly called the US government and that will lead to less choices and it will go to the highest bidder and only the largest of corporations will survive. Don't dare say anything otherwise you will be subjected to new regulations or inspections. Ah yes, life in a socialist world. Isn't it great !

The only monopoly here is what they are doing with our money.
Posted by pizzaman7
23rd Sep 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: The push for wireless net neutrality
pizzaman7; if you want an iphone, you can only choose AT&T. Doesn't that soubd like a monopoly to you? Many other cell phones that you buy are locked into the provider you bought it from. Wouldn't you like to have freedom of choice like Europeans have?
Posted by dadown
23rd Sep 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
Duopoly? Nah.
Monopoly is not technically correct. The fact is that "Monopoly" and "Duopoly" as well as the other -opolies are defined by the absence of effective competition. While Europe is held up as an example to be emulated, you'll find that there are even stronger noncompetitive effects for most European operators. Multiple operators, even multiple operators of similar size do not guarantee the presence of competition. Many European ops treat their customers much more poorly than the US ops at their worst. Some European markets have very effective competition, but they are a tiny percentage of the overall.

The fact is that Verizon, AT&T, and to a lesser extent T-Mobile and Sprint *do* compete. They just don't compete enough for some folks (me included.) I find that "walled gardens" are generally of no value to me.

I believe that eventually the operators (everywhere) are going to recognize that wireless carriage is a commodity, that their services offerings are not competitive, and that they need to compete on the wider (Internet) stage to obtain a viable market share and maintain a healthy, competitive business. I hope this is caused by market forces and not regulators. Regulation will force *a* change, but will also introduce market distortions that impede the market's evolution. Look at the impact of the current tariff structure on US wireline market. What was their biggest development advantage has become a millstone preventing evolution and healthy competition in the market. With rare exception regulations need to have an exit strategy - sunset provisions, an evolution mechanism, something.

Effective competition is a balancing act. It is possible to have too much competition - with completely cutthroat competition you usually end up with no viable suppliers able to evolve the market or provide any stability.

In the end I think the big measure is the nature of product differentiation. If the differentiation offered is a pull due to an advantage offered - that's "good" for the market. If the differentiation is a push because of "market power," "monopoly," *or* regualtion - the effect is often "bad" - an unhealthy market. Neither of these are universally true, but I'd wager it's true in 99 & 44/100ths % true in mature cases.

Oz (in DFW)

Posted by ozindfw
24th Sep 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
Pizzaman, Is the Internet a monopoly?
Seriously. The government set rules of the road for the Internet, and the Internet is a wild business success.

Our mobile market is operating at only a fraction of its real potential because the people who own it -- the carriers -- are taking a cut on every bit.

Compare the Internet traffic on WiFi to the Internet traffic on any other set of comparable frequencies. Compare the value of what people do with WiFi with what they could do if they were required to pay the monopolists' prices for use of "their" spectrum.

You live in a very upside-down world. Opening the market to more competition, to more commerce, to more economic use is not ":government monopoly." It's the opposite. By the same token keeping things as they are means we continue to underperform.

Oh, and eveyr cellular carrier is a monopoly. They all "own" their frequencies -- they have monopolies on them, granted by the government. Government created that business just as the Internet was created, by setting rules for commerce.

Given that reality, rules can be changed for the benefit of interstate commerce.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
24th Sep 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
Oz
Don't bet on it. I have yet to see a monopolist willingly give up their market power even when it was in their best interest.

A few people have been wise on this. The story is told of John D. Rockefeller Sr. on the golf course when the decision came down in 1909 breaking up his Standard Oil Monopoly.

Asked for a comment he didn't hesitate in his putting stroke. "Buy Standard," he said, and if you did you became rich like Rockefeller.

The same thing happened with AT&T untl the Bush Administration allowed the old Bell System to be brought back togheter as AT&T and Verizon. Profitability is much lower now than it had been a decade ago, under competition, but you won't find the lobbyists for those outfits doing anything but demanding more monopoly.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
24th Sep 2009
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!