Thanks!

Media ownership in this country is facing the largest crisis of ownership since the era of William Randolph Hearst’s yellow journalism. Rupert Murdoch could possibly acquire the Wall Street Journal and expand his North American empire to include a national TV network, national cable news network and a national paper.

Guest Blog by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I - Vermont)

Amid all the hubbub, a more nuanced issue is slipping through the cracks. The airwaves that carry UHF in the 700 MHz range will become vacant as the U.S. transitions to Digital Television in 2009.

These airwaves could beam wireless all over the country-through mountains, forests and walls-and the auction is scheduled for next January. On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission will set the rules for the auction. Now is the time to support “open access” provisions in these rules. Without “open access” the U.S. runs the risk of handing over the Internet to corporate interests for at least another generation.

A dawning awareness of the perils of media consolidation has emerged in Congress. Legislation has been introduced challenging media ownership as well as the FCC’s devastating 2003 decision that would have expanded corporate control.

In the case of the spectrum auction the choice is clear: allowing third parties access to the network as wholesalers is the only way to break up the oligopoly telecoms hold over the Internet.

AT&T and Verizon want you to believe that “open access” provisions in the auction rules will interfere with the free market. They claim the market, left to its own devices, has produced an abundance of wireless goods and services. But in reality America’s Internet infrastructure is ailing.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we’re ranked 15th in the world in terms of broadband access. We’re limited to two choices for providers whereas Europeans have dozens. At this late date, telecom objections to “open access” don’t add up. The market has favored corporations, not consumers.

Proposed auction rules pay lip service to “open access.” True, they would allow unaffiliated devices and services to connect over networks but this neglects the vital issue of wholesale. “Open access” must mean that third parties can access the network as wholesalers to generate real market diversity.

This issue transcends corporate control. Like the auction of a rare diamond, the spectrum is a precious natural resource. Public officials have only got one shot to get the balance right between public and private interests and that means a helping hand to wholesale to generate competition.

Strengthening “open access” provisions can only reinforce innovation. When Apple’s iPhone debuted last month many consumers were disappointed because they had to switch to AT&T. The reason: an anti-competitive business deal that makes AT&T the exclusive carrier for Apple. Strong “open access” provisions ensure you won’t have to switch to an exclusive provider (on top of cancellation fees) just to use your next-generation gadget. They ensure the freedom to choose any network you like.

The definition of “open access” must also be expanded to cover content. Subscribers must be ensured unlimited access to content of their choosing.

At this pivotal moment in the history of media, Americans should demand that the FCC support “open access” in three ways in the upcoming auction. “Open access” must mean free use of devices and services over all networks. Second, it must mean unfettered access to any and all content. Finally, “open access” must mean wholesale provisions to optimize competition among service providers and break the grip that giant telecoms hold on the future of the Internet.

In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell served up the journalistic equivalent of expired lunch meat, a rancid op-ed on America’s digital decline aptly titled “Broadband Baloney.”

The article was designed to discredit a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which ranks the United States 15th in the world in broadband adoption — down from fourth place in 2001 and 12th just six months ago.

Something’s Rotten at the FCC

But McDowell’s piece is a rotten mix of industry talking points, misdirection and outright falsehoods.

For instance, McDowell criticizes the OECD for counting broadband adoption per capita rather than per household. But he neglects to mention recent data from the U.K. firm Point-Topic and the International Telecommunications Union that ranks the United States 24th in the world in the percentage of homes subscribing to broadband.

McDowell then lays the blame for poor U.S. broadband performance on geography. He claims that the United States is “75 percent rural,” but according to the Census Bureau, only 21 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas. That’s almost exactly the same level as Canada — which has a far higher level of broadband adoption.

McDowell also indicates that the European markets aren’t competitive because cable modem deployment is not widespread. But the countries ahead of us in the rankings all have vigorous competition between providers operating on the same technology platform, as well as between broadband providers using different technologies.

Whereas U.S. consumers have at best two choices of home broadband providers – the local phone or cable companies — citizens of European and Asian countries often have more than a dozen.

As a result, Europeans and Asians pay less for much faster speeds than are available here. This competitive marketplace is made possible by the use of “open access” policy — something that was invented in the United States but later abandoned under intense pressure from phone and cable lobbyists.

McDowell’s willingness to uncritically accept industry spin and ignore all the signs of failure in the U.S. broadband market is deeply troubling. And his indifference has real-world consequences: the loss of millions of jobs to overseas workers ready and able to serve the needs of the 21st-century digital economy.

If you’re looking for a meaty analysis without all the baloney, download Shooting the Messenger – a new report from S. Derek Turner of Free Press that dispels industry myths about the sorry state of the U.S. broadband market.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is opening the lines to public feedback on whether a new national broadband strategy is the right solution to America’s Internet blues.

For four nights, beginning Tuesday on the blog OpenLeft.com, Sen. Durbin will engage in a frank conversation with site visitors. According to the senator, this process will help him draft broadband legislation to be introduced this session.

The goal is to push forward policies that will make the Internet an accessible and affordable engine for free speech and innovation.

Such policies could also help return the U.S. to front-runner status against Western European and Asian countries that now offer their citizens faster speeds at lower costs.

Legislation 2.0

Durbin has publicly committed to writing broadband legislation based on the public discussion that occurs. This is a bold new direction in lawmaking and a leap of faith for any Senator — especially as it defies the conventional wisdom in Washington that media policy is best left to “experts” from the industry.

“I think we need more public participation and transparency in the way Congress crafts significant legislation,” Senator Durbin wrote about the live blogging experiment. “This is an approach to legislation that has never been tried before. If it’s successful — as I believe it will be — it may become the way lawmakers approach drafting bills on other issues like education, health care, and foreign policy.”

We certainly hope so.

By and large our legislative process has been hijacked by corporate interests. No where has this harmed and distorted public policy more than in the telecommunications sector, where large phone and cable companies have bought up legions of lobbyists to hold the line against Net Neutrality and Open Access.

Despite massive public support for these issues most of our legislators stand mute for fear of upsetting the status quo.

Meanwhile, access to this most crucial public resource slips from our hands and into those of a few corporations that seek to maximize profits by stifling competition and innovation and controlling user choice.

“[B]roadband policy is one of the most important public policy issues today,” Durbin wrote. “Frankly, America does not have a national broadband strategy, and we are falling behind.”

Washington Needs a New Boss: You

The Internet is humankind’s single most important invention. Its prospects for engaging more people in the democratic process are only now beginning to be explored. Last night’s YouTube debate opened new territory for public involvement in campaigns. The public must have a seat at the table before legislators attempt to craft any legislation that could affect this openness and accessibility.

“At stake is not a set of wonky policy details, but a fundamental vision of how Americans communicate and relate to each other,” writes Matt Stoller of OpenLeft. “With the internet, we can put everyone and every lobbyist on a level playing field, and have a genuinely open contest of ideas.”

Join the forum. Tell Senator Durbin what you think.

= = = =
UPDATE: My summary of the Tuesday night forum with Sen. Durbin. Wednesday night’s discussion is on Net Neutrality. Now would be a good time for everyone to chime in.

We were encouraged on Wednesday when Google lined up behind a real notion of an open Internet — taking a position that consumer advocates and public interest groups had long supported.

Now, the search giant is putting money — in the amount of at least $4.6 billion - behind their pledge, agreeing to buy into a plan to bring real “open access” to America’s wireless Internet.

On Friday, Google CEO Eric Schmidt sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin, stating that all companies licensed to use a soon-to-be-available chunk of the “700 MHz band” should provide (1) open applications, (2) open devices, (3) open wholesale services, and (4) open network access.

These four conditions are the true definition of open access, which has fostered innovation, competition and better user choice in Western Europe and Asia.

True Open Access

In the wireless world, open access would free millions of cell phone users to connect to an open Internet via any device or carrier. It would also blow open competition across wireless networks currently locked by a few dominant carriers.

Under such a system the new iPhone wouldn’t need to be shackled to a carrier such as AT&T, which leverages exclusive control of the network to cripple many iPhone applications, stifle new ideas and competition in the marketplace and limit what users can do on the wireless Web.

Opening the ‘Third Pipe’

Here’s the kicker. Schmidt concludes in his letter, “should the Commission expressly adopt the four license conditions requested … Google intends to commit a minimum of $4.6 billion to bidding in the upcoming auction.”

Google’s bid relates to the pending auction of a chunk of the airwaves to be returned to the public by television broadcasters in 2009. By opening these airwaves to wholesale competition the FCC would spur the creation of a wireless Internet alternative to the entrenched cable and phone duopoly that controls high-speed “wired” connections for more than 96% of residential users in America.

Opening a “third pipe” of Internet access for American consumers is especially vital given the phone and cable company plan to discriminate against content over their land lines. If this threat becomes real, AT&T could strike a deal with a major retailer that would speed connections to the online shopping site Walmart.com, while degrading user’s ability to surf to the Walmart protest site Walmartwatch.com.

By undoing Net Neutrality these Internet service providers seek to overhaul road rules that have kept the Internet a level playing field since its inception.

Calling Martin’s Bluff

Martin Now Holds the Keys

Schmidt’s billion-dollar guarantee handily erases the telco talking point that open access conditions would short the U.S. treasury billions of dollars in auction revenue — as no company would be willing to bid on spectrum that’s been tied to such requirements.

The $4.6 billion minimum likely came as a surprise to Chairman Martin who has been pushing a half-cocked notion of open access — freeing devices to operate across networks but not freeing the networks for competition beyond the few companies that control wireless access today.

Missing from Martin’s definition of open access is the provision that all license holders lease these airwaves on a wholesale basis — a model that has sparked Internet innovation in France and elsewhere.

“Google’s point is that high speed Internet access is just that — access,” explains Susan Crawford. “Google wants the pipes to be commoditized, to be as open as possible so that, like the Internet itself, this transport can make possible all kinds of innovation, economic growth, and creativity.”

If smaller companies could gain access to a slice of the 700 MHz band, they would be able to offer services rivaling those of the telephone and cable giants, resulting in a consumer market with greater choices at lower costs. “When Americans can use the software and handsets of their choice, over open and competitive networks, they win,” Schmidt wrote Martin.

Upping the Ante for a Better Internet

Google’s move ups the ante at the FCC, according to Harold Feld of Media Access Project: “In a stroke, the Google letter changes the nature of the game. Google has now guaranteed that the feds will make their auction projections — but only if they include real open access.”

This is the position that certain SavetheInternet.com members – including the nation’s leading consumer advocate and Internet rights groups — put forth months ago when we urged the FCC to structure the auction to foster the development of high-speed wireless services to compete with the telephone and cable companies.

It makes perfect sense to us that this position is gaining currency in the business world as well.

A report released today decisively shoots down many of the myths that telecommunications lobbyists and shills have manufactured about the health of America’s Internet.

The report, “Shooting the Messenger,” urges policymakers to focus on the real problems that have caused America to fall dangerously behind the rest of the world in Internet adoption – competition and availability.

Mythical Mike McCurry

The report’s authors at Free Press believe the root of the problem to be the “cozy duopoly” of cable and broadband providers that stifle competition and innovation while driving costs to consumers through the roof.

These same companies – including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast – have unveiled plans to block or degrade Internet users’ access to Web sites and services by erecting new toll booths on the Internet. This threat to Net Neutrality has compelled more than 1.6 million Americans to write Congress demanding legal protections for Internet freedom.

Earlier this week people from every corner of the country flooded the FCC with comments, twenty to one in support of full Net Neutrality protections.

Dismissing the Shills

Shooting the Messenger’s findings dismiss many of telecommunications industry’s excuses for America’s failures compared to the rest of the world – and prescribes policy solutions that would make our Internet more open, affordable and accessible to everyone.

Recent data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. 15th in the world in broad penetration per capita, down from fourth in 2001 and 12th just six months ago. The OECD data are not alone. Reports from the International Telecommunications Union, United Nations and Communications Workers of America demonstrate nationwide problems with access, speed and affordability.

The near absolute control phone and cable giants have over America’s Internet is being bolstered by a Washington establishment that’s loath to upset this imbalance of power.

Papering Over Failures with Telco Talking Points

Instead of addressing America’s digital decline, federal policymakers and industry representatives have attacked the methodology of researchers. Fully expect that they will ’shoot the messenger’ in response to Free Press’ new report or attempt to obscure the findings with a feckless veneer of telco talking points dressed up as independent research.

Report author S. Derek Turner said, “no amount of industry spin can excuse the problems caused by lack of broadband competition, or the irreparable harm to our economy if we fail to address the mounting crisis.”

The Free Press report found that the critiques leveled at the OECD report fall apart under scrutiny. No matter how one measures broadband penetration the United States still ranks 15th among the 30 OECD nations.

“There is absolutely no correlation between a country’s population density and its broadband penetration,” the report finds. Despite what telco shills have said, the geographical size of the United States doesn’t explain the poor state of broadband adoption and availability.”

According to Communications Daily, the Bush administration’s top Internet official, NTIA Assistant Secretary John M.R. Kneuer, claimed that America has already met President Bush’s goal of universal broadband access. Kneuer’s based his claim on the recent increase in the availability of data-enabled cellular networks.

But a cell phone is no substitute for a true broadband connection — “and if these phones were counted, the United States would fare even worse in the world rankings,” the report finds.

The Solution: Competition, Accessibility and Neutrality

While U.S. consumers have at best two choices for a wired broadband connection, in Europe consumers have many choices — sometimes dozens — among providers on just a single platform.

Such competition brings new innovation into the market while driving down prices to the consumer. It also safeguards against the types of Net Neutrality abuses that the phone and cable duopoly explicitly have in store for American Net users. [For an understanding of how France has outpaced the U.S., read this article published today at BusinessWeek]

“International rankings do matter,” Turner said. “This is not just a point of pride. Each spot the United States slips represents billions in lost producer and consumer surplus, and potentially millions of real jobs lost to overseas workers.”

The Prescription: Policies that Work

It’s no surprise that those selling high-cost, low-speed broadband want to defend the status quo. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and their many Washington flacks are desperate to assert that everything is peachy in broadband land.

There’s no need to upset a thriving free market, they crow, while quietly pressuring Washington to pass laws that lock in their near total control of our connections to the Net.

What’s more worrying is the near total abdication by elected and government officials, who are allegedly in place to protect the public interest.

Policymakers who are serious about America’s economic and social well-being should reject the distraction of excuses and focus on policies that bring open, affordable, high-speed broadband access to all Americans.

The public has already spoken out on the issue. We don’t need more federal handouts to industry, but policies that work for us all.

The results are in at the FCC. Tens of thousands of public comments supporting Net Neutrality flooded the agency before they closed their official inquiry on Monday.

In a landslide of public support, well over 95 percent of the comments called for rules that prohibit phone and cable companies from seeing through their plans to become the new gatekeepers to the Internet — deciding which Web sites and services users get to download before others.

Kevin Martin. Are You Listening?

Internet users from all 435 congressional districts used SavetheInternet.com’s online tools to urge the FCC to protect Internet freedom. Net Neutrality supporters include a full range of small business owners, students, churchgoers, bloggers, political candidates, educators and activists who took the time to tell the agency that protecting Net Neutrality is fundamental to their family life, work and interests.

Our Internet Runs on Neutral

“I am living the American dream because of Network Neutrality — my games have been used in thousands of schools all over the world,” says Karen Chun, a single mother and owner of a successful online educational games business. “Without Net Neutrality, my little Web site would have been consigned to oblivion because I wouldn’t have been able to pay the fees the ISPs want to charge.”

Kelly Jones of Portland, Ore., told the FCC that “corporations are not, and have never been, qualified as gatekeepers to American communication and growth. If the FCC believes in true democracy, it must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.”

Take Note Chairman Martin

Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — co-sponsors of the bipartisan “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” — sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin urging the FCC to reinstate Net Neutrality rules.

“We see that thousands of people have submitted comments describing how a free and open Internet benefits consumers and telling you the discriminatory practices planned by their Internet service providers would substantially harm their online experience,” Dorgan and Snowe wrote the chairman. “We hope you take note of these thousands of public comments urging you to protect Internet freedom.”

Since 2005, when the FCC removed Net Neutrality protections from the books, the heads of the biggest phone and cable companies have repeatedly stated plans to discriminate against Web sites that don’t pay their added tolls for access.

A Public Landslide

The Commission opened its Net Neutrality inquiry in March, asking for comment on why keeping the Internet neutral is important; how phone and cable company efforts to discriminate against content online affect everyday lives; and whether the agency should enforce rules that would prohibit such discrimination.

For every single comment opposing Net Neutrality there were more than 20 calling upon the agency to enforce rules that would stop the telcos’ gatekeeper plans.

Let’s put this into perspective: Were this a presidential campaign, one candidate would have carried at least 47 states. An outpouring like that doesn’t raise questions about where the nation stands on an issue. The FCC’s job is to protect the public good – and the public is saying decisively that we want Net Neutrality.

Once again, people have sent a clear mandate to Washington. Internet users want competitive and affordable services. They don’t want phone and cable companies to manipulate the free flow of information and distort the Web’s level playing field.

When will the FCC listen to people beyond the Beltway and enforce full Net Neutrality?

Public comments flooded the Federal Communications Commission on Monday, the final day for the agency’s Net Neutrality “Inquiry.” With very few exceptions the public voiced overwhelming support for rules to ensure that the Internet remain free of gatekeepers.

Tens of thousands of people told their own stories using SavetheInternet.com’s comment action tool.

Sen. Olympia Snowe

Earlier today, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) added their voices. In a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, the senators stated that Net Neutrality is “crucial to the democracy and economic growth of the United States.”

They urged Martin to heed the thousands of comments from small business owners, single moms, students, bloggers, concerned citizens, political candidates, social services workers, green thumbs, dog lovers, an Esperanto enthusiasts and others who are concerned that discrimination from phone and cable companies would “substantially harm their online experience.”

Snowe and Dorgan write:

“When users log onto the Internet, they take a lot of things for granted. They assume that they will be able to access whatever Web site they want, when they want to — and if they have a good broadband connection, they expect this to happen at a high speed, regardless of what Web site they choose. They also assume that they can use any feature they like, anytime they choose — watching online videos, searching for information, making purchases, and sending emails and instant messages. What they are assuming is Internet Freedom, the principle at the core of the Internet’s DNA. The idea is that the Internet should be open and free, restricted by no one.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan

According to the senators, these assumptions are no longer safe. In 2005, the FCC removed the nondiscrimination rules that had guaranteed Net Neutrality since the Internet’s inception. “We urge the Commission to take affirmative action to reinstate the rules that enabled the Internet to flourish,” they conclude.

Snowe and Dorgan are the authors of a bill in Senate that would accomplish just that. The bipartisan “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2007” would ensure that Internet users enjoy competitive and affordable services without telecommunications companies using their networks to distort the Web’s marketplace of ideas.

In their letter to the FCC Chairman Martin, Sens. Snowe and Dorgan note several instances where phone and cable companies state their intention to discriminate online — favoring the content of one business or Web site over that of others — despite their repeated claims in the media to the contrary.

“If there were a competitive broadband market we would not need to be as concerned about the discriminatory intentions of some providers,” they write. In America’s Internet marketplace, phone and cable companies have a 96 percent share of the residential market for broadband.

The senators conclude:

“Given the lack of broadband competition, the ability and incentive of broadband providers to discriminate among content providers, the public statements from executives of leading broadband providers, and the concerns of Internet users across the country, we are confident the FCC will gain a better understanding of the necessity to protect Internet freedom.”

You would think that this filing, added to the deluge of pro-neutrality comments from the public, would compel the FCC to make the right decision.

Stay tuned.

The slick ads for Apple’s “revolutionary” new iPhone promise to “put the Internet in your pocket.” But the only way to get one of these gadgets is to sign on with AT&T — which limits what you can do and where you can go on the wireless Web.

You don’t have to own an iPhone to know why this problem persists: The big mobile phone companies lock their devices so they won’t work on other networks, cripple innovative new applications, stifle competition and restrict access to their “preferred” content.

Think about it. The cable company doesn’t tell you what kind of TV to buy. You can plug any toaster into the wall at home without the power company’s permission. Whether you have a PC or Mac, you still can go wherever you want on the Web. Why shouldn’t your mobile phone work the same way?

Ma Bell Doesn’t Work

On Wednesday Professor Tim Wu testified before Congress that there’s “something weird” about America’s wireless market. “It’s not like consumer electronics or software markets. It’s not like the Internet.” Instead he compared the current wireless market to the old vestiges of the AT&T monopoly model. “It’s that model which has failed us.”

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Today, Free Press launched FreetheiPhone.org – a campaign to demand an open, competitive wireless Internet for everyone.

While the iPhone is the current fascination, this issue goes well beyond one single gadget. It’s about a dysfunctional wireless system that stifles innovation and competition across the country, while stemming the free flow of information we need.

Real Open Access

What we need is real “open access.” Real open access unlocks networks for innovation and wholesale markets for competition. Until we have this, the iPhone – and wireless handheld gizmos like it — will never reach their full potential.

Earlier this week Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin reportedly proposed something that is a small gesture towards open access. His plans would allow for device interoperability — imposing what’s known as Carterfone principles on a sliver of the spectrum. Merely unlocking devices is only a half-step in the right direction; it leaves us with the same few companies that are trying to undercut innovation and leave us with a slow, expensive network and a vast digital divide.

They can get away with this because there’s not real competition. You should be able to unlock your device and use it on any network. You should be able to choose from many providers, competing for your business with better service, lower prices and new innovations. And you should be able to access all content and services without interference from corporate gatekeepers like AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

Breaking Open the Spectrum

That’s real open access and politicians in Washington have the power to grant this wireless freedom.

Martin’s FCC is about to auction off a valuable portion of the public airwaves that could connect tens of million of Americans to a real open access Internet. This “spectrum” – the 700 MHz band – is so powerful it can carry wireless internet signals through concrete buildings and over mountains. It could connect tens of million of Americans to the new mobile Internet via cheaper gadgets that work in every corner of the country.

“I think that we have a great opportunity with the 700 megahertz to create an open platform that will make sure that we have competition and choice and innovation in the future,” Rep. “Chip” Pickering (R-Miss.) said earlier this week.

“Openness is creating a wholesale market. It is creating interoperability for devices so that you can use a device, whether it’s an iPhone or another device, with whatever function you choose. If you want to go to a Wi-Fi or WiMax spot and use it, or if you want to have the access to other networks, you can do so. That’s openness in wholesale.”

Pickering is joined across the aisle by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in support of a growing consensus for real open access in America. These two powerful congressmen sit on the subcommittee that – with the FCC — will help determine the future of the mobile Internet in America.

They need to know that the public cares.

If we open up our airwaves to new competitors, protect your freedom to go where you want online, and unchain the devices — not just the iPhone but whatever comes next — we can create a new kind of mobile Internet, one that is truly open and accessible to all.

Bipartisan members of Congress spoke out Wednesday to free the iPhone and other next generation hand-held computers from the grip of phone incumbent like AT&T and Verizon.

During the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, representatives from both sides of the aisle called for a more open wireless system where new innovations aren’t held hostage to the competition-killing carriers that control the network.

Users ‘Trapped’

In what’s been dubbed the “iPhone hearing” Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and “Chip” Pickering (R-Miss.) called for a different system – where wholesalers could compete and new applications and devices could be connected regardless of carrier.

“The iPhone highlights both the promise and the problems with the wireless industry today,” Rep. Markey said holding up before other members his newly acquired iPhone. “On the one hand, it demonstrates the sheer brilliance and wizardry of wireless engineering. On the other hand, the advent of the iPhone raises questions about the fact that a consumer can’t use this phone with other wireless carriers.”

Markey highlighted myriad problems with our wireless marketplace, where “many consumers feel trapped having bought an expensive device or having been locked into a long-term contract with significant penalties for switching.”

Representative Pickering called for more openness in the marketplace stating that “openness is creating a wholesale market” for competition between services.

“Openness is creating interoperability for devices so that you can use a device, whether it’s an iPhone or another device, with whatever function you choose,” the Mississippi Republican said. “If you want to go to a Wi-Fi or WiMax spot and use it, or if you want to have the access to other networks, you can do so. That’s openness in wholesale.”

‘Calcified’ Markets

Markey and Pickering spoke about the current dilemma in America’s wireless system. The iPhone is shackled to AT&T and won’t work on any other network. The reason? We have allowed carriers to exert almost complete gatekeeper control over all devices, services and content in the wireless sector.

This has left the U.S. generations behind other nations, a failure that prompted New York Times blogger David Pogue to call American carriers “calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts.”

Regulations That Work

“I’m a small business owner. I don’t like regulators,” Jason Devitt, co-Founder and CEO of Skydeck testified during the hearing.

“In the context of wireless spectrum I do not have a choice between no regulations and regulations. We have a choice between badly written regulations and regulations that work.”

‘Mad as Hell’

Devitt continues:

“[I] flew here from Silicon Valley to tell you that we have a regulatory system that doesn’t work and the only way we’re going to fix it is if you have some form of open access …

“I am an entrepreneur and I am mad as hell that I require permission to innovate in the wireless market. I don’t have to go to the great companies that built our public highways and ask them for their views for what kind of cars I can put on those roads…

“For some reason I have never been able to understand, I have to ask permission of Verizon Wireless to attach a computer or the computers that they now call phones to their wireless networks and I have to ask their permission to run applications and services on those phones.”

DeWitt told representatives that we can fix the problem through open access regulation. “By open access, essentially it’s what Mr. Pickering said, it is the opportunity to attach any device to the network. It is the opportunity to run any service on the network.”

Spectrum Oligopoly

Professor Tim Wu of Columbia University testified that there’s “something weird” about America’s wireless market.

“It’s not like consumer electronics or software markets. It’s not like the Internet,” he said comparing the current wireless market to the old vestiges of the AT&T monopoly model. “It’s that model which has failed us.”

Professor Wu said that the one area that America has not been a technical leader is in the wireless space. “We have allowed one way or another there to be a spectrum-based oligopoly in wireless that has controlled innovation,” he said. “This Congress and the FCC has a duty to set us back to a direction towards and open market.”

Wu recommended that the U.S. implement wireless Carterphone principles and create an open access standard across the spectrum so that the next iPhone isn’t held captive by a locked system.

Our Last, Best Chance for an Open Network

These concerns echo actions by the SavetheInternet.com Coalition to open the upcoming government auction of valuable radio spectrum.

In May, Free Press, Consumers Union, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project and others called upon the FCC to implement an “open access” model that included Net Neutrality conditions for content and applications and permitted third parties to access the network as wholesalers and provide a wide variety of wireless broadband services, devices and access alternatives.

In June, more than a quarter million SavetheInternet.com supporters put the FCC on the spot when they flooded the agency with comments and urged Chairman Kevin Martin to open these airwaves to wholesalers and Net Neutrality.

The upcoming auction has moved the debate over open networks and Net Neutrality to the wireless industry where carriers exert multiple layers of control over services, applications, devices and content. Their stranglehold on wireless has chilled innovation across the sector while shackling cell-phone users to pricey contracts, phones and termination fees — severely limiting choice across the market

The airwaves on the block are frequencies being vacated by television broadcasters as they switch to digital signals. The auction is our last, great chance to create a “third pipe” for Internet access in a wired line marketplace that is controlled by many of the same companies that hold the wireless market in their grip.

Join the Fight

Coalition groups such as Consumers Union, Media Access Project, Free Press and Public Knowledge are fighting for both wireless and wired line freedom in the broadest sense.

In the wireless world this includes the freedom to use any device on any network, the freedom to choose among competing providers and the freedom to access any content or services without gatekeeper interference.

Imagine our surprise this morning when we read that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to transform the 700MHz band into a “truly open broadband network.”

In articles seeded in both USA Today and Wall Street Journal, Martin indicated that he’s siding with consumers to bring real openness, choice and innovation to the wireless world.

Former AT&T boss Ed Whitacre chats up Martin

If true, this new position would mark a seismic shift for the chairman, who has sided routinely with the phone and cable cartel that controls wireless and wired Internet access for most Americans — and against popular public positions on Net Neutrality and “open access.”

But appearances can be deceiving.

“Whoever wins this spectrum has to provide … truly open broadband network,” Martin told USA Today Monday night, “one that will open the door to a lot of innovative services for consumers.”

According to Martin this means “you can use any wireless device and download any mobile broadband application, with no restrictions.” You know what they say about things that sound to good to be true.

Has the Public Message Finally Gotten Through?

In June, more than a quarter million SavetheInternet.com supporters put the chairman on the spot when they flooded the FCC with comments and urged Martin to open these airwaves to wholesalers and Net Neutrality.

On the surface, it appears that Martin has heard these concerns, abandoned his cozy relationship with the phone companies and sided with the public on behalf of an open Internet.

Upon closer inspection, however, Martin’s “plan” raises reasonable doubts.

Martin is reportedly going to circulate his “open access” proposal at the agency later today. But according to experts I spoke with today, Martin’s version of “open access” falls far short of the ideal.

Martin Spins ‘Open Access’

In May, Free Press, Consumers Union, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project and others called upon the FCC to implement an “open access” model that included Net Neutrality conditions for content and applications and permitted third parties to access the network as wholesalers and provide a wide variety of wireless broadband services and access alternatives.

Our open access model would foster new and non-discriminatory high-speed wireless services to compete head-to-head with the telephone companies. It would open up the network so the next generation of iPhones won’t have to kowtow to the likes of AT&T, Sprint and Verizon — companies that now seek to “cripple” any functions that compete with their entrenched business interests. True open access would allow the next Google or small company with the next big idea to offer its services on a level playing field – unencumbered by these gatekeepers.

Martin’s proposal reportedly will call for a limited “Wireless Carterfone” rule on some of the licenses in the 700 MHz band. Carterfone refers to the landmark 1968 decision that allowed competing devices to be connected directly to the AT&T network. Until then AT&T had complete control not over the telephone network itself but also over all devices (their trademark black rotary phone) that users could attach to it.

The Carterfone ruling opened up the market to numerous products, including answering machines, fax machines, cordless phones, computer modems and launched a new industry in innovative phone devices.

Such rules for the wireless network make perfect sense but they don’t solve the competition problem. They don’t address wholesaling or Net Neutrality, and are a far cry from true open access.

A Well-timed PR Offensive?

So to what extent does Martin’s plan create a “truly open broadband network”?

His may be little more than a politically calculated gesture that sounds appealing in the media but delivers little to none of the urgent reforms needed to revitalize the nation’s flagging Internet marketplace.

Public Knowledge’s Art Brodsky called Martin’s moves at USA Today and the Journal “impeccable” spin. Harold Feld of Media Access Project called it Martin’s “PR Offensive.”

“Martin and his staff made it appear as if the Commission was about to embark on a new, glorious age for consumers,” Brodsky wrote, adding that the definition Martin uses for “open access” is far different than what’s truly needed to foster real innovation and openness in the marketplace.

Martin floated his plan in advance of a Wednesday’s House Telecom Subcommittee hearing on open-access and the iPhone. It’s unclear whether this well-timed media play will derail efforts in Washington to create a network that is more open, neutral and accessible for everyone.

We certainly hope not.

= = =
UPDATE: See Harold Feld’s WetMachine for detailed analysis of Martin’s maneuver
= = =