IP Democracy: Does "Open Access" Equal "Net Neutrality?"

Kim Hart fronts The Washington Post’s business section today with this article on FCC Chairman Martin’s idea about setting aside some spectrum in the upcoming 700 MHz auction for “open access” broadband wireless services. Ever since Martin dropped this bombshell, confusion has reigned about just what Martin intends to do with this “open access” idea.

Martin sees this set-aside spectrum as being used by the license holders for services that operate on any handset, freeing consumers to switch over to that service providers’ options even with handsets that were originally handcuffed to another providers’ offerings. Consumer groups and tech giants such as Google welcome Martin’s idea but say it doesn’t go far enough — the licensee should be able to resell spectrum to third-party service providers, which is not part of Martin’s plan.

Incumbent providers, such as Verizon Wireless, think Martin’s idea goes too far and call the proposed “open access” rules the “Google Block” rules, arguing that they tilt the auction in favor of specific companies. Moreover, the rules aren’t necessary because license winners are free to operate their spectrum in an open manner if market forces warrant it, they argue.

The really interesting part of this debate, however, is whether “open access” is just another form of “net neutrality,” a policy push that reached its zenith last fall and has since receded into relative political obscurity. As Hart’s article points out, if open access in the 700 MHz auction isn’t exactly the same thing as net neutrality, it’s a kissing cousin.

Analysts say the open network question has revived the debate over network neutrality on the wireless front. Net neutrality, a hot issue on Capitol Hill a year ago, concerns the ability of Internet service providers to give preferential treatment to certain content providers.

However, applying net neutrality to the wireless industry raises new questions, and opinions differ on the meaning of an “open” network.

“Definitions are blurry at best, even in the broadband world,” said Jon M. Peha, associate director of the Center for Wireless and Broadband Networking at Carnegie Mellon University. Strict requirements around an ambiguous concept might “make a number of carriers much less likely to bid,” he said.

In many respects, then, “open access” is “net neutrality” except it applies only in the 700 MHz world. Moreover, traditional incumbents may have a hard time dodging this new concept of net neutrality. During hearings held on Wednesday in the House, lawmakers embraced Martin’s idea and don’t seem loathe to expand the concept to satisfy the concerns of tech and consumer groups. (But, Congressional sentiment isn’t one-sided: a group of 38 lawmakers did send a letter to Martin opposing the idea, suggesting that the open access requirement would “dictate” how carriers should use their spectrum.)

On a related note, Frontline Wireless, which is purportedly shut out of the auctions even though its idea of reserving priority spectrum for public safety purposes has been embraced in the draft auction rules, is trying to save its chances of survival. Frontline has hired former FBI Director Louis Freeh to lobby for its proposal. Frontline also has a “net neutrality” or “open access” idea — spectrum owners would be free to lease out capacity to interested service providers when that spectrum is not needed for public safety reasons.

Posted by Cynthia Brumfield on July 13, 2007 11:24 AM to IP Democracy