FCC spectrum changes: Cell Phone Companies vs. free public WiFi

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I had the opportunity to use one of these fancy new iPhones--two of them, actually. They really are amazing little pieces of technology--though I confess that, when holding one, my first question was what I should do with it. I didn't need to call anyone and I had little inclination to look something up on the web. Being with other people, surfing the web or watching videos seemed a little anti-social--though during the holidays, being anti-social is a very practical defense mechanism. Since I was mostly in homes that had upwards of 2 different internet connected computers--usually closer to 3 or 4--or well within a few hundred yards of a terminal I could access if really necessary, the idea that it was imperative to have this gadget to get something done was mostly the result of advertising hype and the experience of the technological sublime--only instead of being horrified, you're just smitten. I know I could do it on that computer over there, but it is so much cooooler to do it on this one. In any case, after handling the thing for a few minutes, I could understand why the apps are so popular (and why Apple likes to highlight them in its commercials): it gives you something, anything, to do with the thing. It makes it a use value, one, according to my wife, that you MUST have.

We'll be putting off that kind of purchase for a while. We could probably afford to buy the phone--it is, after all, the holidays--but getting service for it (or one of the similar devices like the Sprint network's Instinct) would double our monthly cellular bill for the indeterminate future. Within a year the $300 phone would have cost us an additional $600 in phone bills. I suppose that is an expense we are really supposed to be able to overlook for the tremendous power we are given by the AT&T or Sprint networks. Recent advertisements have highlighted this--both competing to claim they have "The Nation's Fastest 3G network."

This is important because, it seems, anyway, the network is somewhat separate from the devices themselves. Yes they are phones, so having a phone service is useful. But they are basically handheld computers that are being plugged into the already computer-saturated lifeworld of the contemporary, North/Western bourgeoisie. I noticed this as I was trying to search using the iPhone, in one of these computer hotspots, and it offered to connect me to two of the local WiFi networks. I confess I don't know exactly how this works or what degree of functionality the device would have using only this kind of connection--I suppose that's why I'm encouraged by ads to think mostly about the 3G network speed. Still, it seems feasible that you could buy the device--which is still less than even the cheapest laptop--and not connect it to Sprint, AT&T or whoever was the proprietary owner of the network service for that device (a problem in itself, as far as I'm concerned.)

This got me thinking about these devices in relation to another big story in the news--the switch to digital TV, which will leave wide swaths of public airwaves open for future use, determined in part by the rules the FCC will decide later this month. The future of communications networks, especially in relation to the role the current incumbents will play, will likely be determined by rules made before Christmas.

The current proposal, which is championed by Republican (!) chairman Kevin Martin (who will be replaced when Obama takes office) is similar to the plan advocated by a venture capital firm M2Z, which includes CEOs of Google. It would require whoever wins the spectrum auction to provide free WiFi access at a speed of at least 768 kbps downstream. According to ars technica, over ten years it would provide service to 95% of the US population. On the downside, the proposal says it would also have to include some sort of filtering mechanism to keep out the pron, an almost unworkable feature, which, of course, will likely the be death knell of the whole proposal as it is implemented. Still, The Washington Post overplays the resistance of the plan for this reason, citing Ben Scott from the communication activist org Free Press as if he is an opponent of the plan on free speech grounds (I don't have any word from Scott on this either way, but the Free Press statement of support for the plan says nothing about these issues.)

The real opponents are some current incumbents (which the Post says "question whether investors are willing to create the needed infrastructure for free Internet access in the recession-hit economy) as well as T-Mobile, which claims free WiFi will interfere with its ability to use the spectrum it just bought in 2006.

Google, on the other hand, is a very vocal advocate of the plan--and for good reason. In 2006 it launched a free WiFi service in San Francisco and later filed three patents related to the provision of free, but advertiser supported, WiFi (the patents related to being able to subsidize the service using geo-specific, user-oriented advertising on a dynamic browser platform that would change based on the above specifications. It has long been building a network of not only WiFi but wired capacity, as reported in 2005:

For the past year, it has quietly been shopping for miles and miles of "dark," or unused, fiber-optic cable across the country from wholesalers such as New York's AboveNet. It's also acquiring superfast connections from Cogent Communications and WilTel, among others, between East Coast cities including Atlanta, Miami, and New York. Such large-scale purchases are unprecedented for an Internet company, but Google's timing is impeccable. The rash of telecom bankruptcies has freed up a ton of bargain-priced capacity, which Google needs as it prepares to unleash a flood of new, bandwidth-hungry applications.

I don't know the status of this infrastructure, but I do know that Verizon's chairman got pissed off about it shortly afterwards, though he phrased it as if the problem was Google using existing lines. Here the issue was basically one of net-neutrality--he wanted Google to pay extra to use the internet. At the moment Google seemed poised to create it's own network, bypassing these majors. It's recent patent filing on "Flexible Communication Systems and Methods" seems to confirm that this is eventually its intent, especially with regard to the somewhat fabled (though evidently in existence for almost six weeks now) Google Phone.

Google’s filing describes cellular, WiFi and WiMAX networks as all being potential routes, with the technicalities invisible to the user; their example is a mobile handset that works on home WiFi then seamlessly transitions to a WiFi hotspot or cellular network when outside.

As WIRED put it, this could kill off cell phone contracts as we know them. Interestingly, the GooglePhone is currently supported by T-Mobile, the company rejecting the current FCC proposal.

In relation to the FCC wireless WiFi bid, however, this seems to make sense. If you had a device that could move from cellular network to WiFi hotpot--which, though I admit I'm not exactly clear on the technology, the iPhone seems to be able to do--then using the 3G network would be just one way to use this device. Of course this is not just about internet service: as VOIS services--and even free video chatting via services like Skype--have shown, the internet is more efficient at providing phone service than the phone companies. If this is true of land lines, why not cell phones? Sure, the iPhone is marketed as if the nifty thing about it is that it could provide internet access at your fingertips--the cool thing about Blackberries, etc. as well. But this supposes that it is just a layer of gravy that you pay extra for in your cellular phone bill. What if the device, using free (even if ad supported) WiFi, was able to provide not only Internet capabilities, but phone service? Evidently, this idea is not lost on Google (or T-Mobile) as in NYT's review of what could be called the "Google Phone" they explicitly mention it:

Google insists that its store will be completely open. Unlike Apple, it will not reject software submissions if they don’t serve the mother ship’s commercial interests. For example, Apple rejects programs that would let you make phone calls over the Internet, thereby avoiding using up cellular airtime. Google and T-Mobile swear they would permit such a thing

This would create an incredible devalorization of the investments Sprint, AT&T and others have sunk into building these networks--but it would also erase two of my most significant monthly costs--cell phone and Internet service (I no longer pay for a land line). This is especially significant since it would likely reduce my costs while giving me more services. I know that is the promise of modernity and the supposed productivity revolution technology is claimed to catalyze, but neither of these are usually the goal of capitalist organizations.

Google is certainly one of these organizations, but it seems more able to look at the long term as a space of new possibilities rather than simply amortizing investments and raking in profits. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop--for Google to announce that, from here on out, they will begin to "do evil." As for who would pick up the tab on this public WiFi or its infrastructure, especially, as the Post speculates, "in a recession-hit economy:" Nancy Pelosi, the Representative of California's 8th district, where Google has had much trouble getting a proposed free-wifi system launched, has proposed that building this infrastructure be part of the bailout plan. If this sounds socialistic, it should be noted that, as NPR reported earlier this week, the US is well behind most countries in Europe, where WiFi provision is much cheaper and infrastructure publicly subsidized.

In any case, the possibility of this framework for communication is there and the devices are probably well within reach. A big piece of the puzzle about the future of wireless communication in the US is the way the legislation is written to allow Google and its venture capitalist pals to use this area of the spectrum for broadband--oh and whether the legislation favors incumbent providers or not.

Interestingly, AT&T--which could have much to lose--favors the Martin proposal, as does Verizon, which famously tried to scuttle a public WiFi system in Phili a few years back; while Google phone partner T-Mobile opposes it. So much for seeing clearly where these lines of interest are drawn (I'm sure someone with more information on the background relationships could help me understand it). In the meantime, I'm most taken by the fact that the two most established industries of spectrum use--TV and radio--seem only as involved in resisting the plan as Broadway theatres. Again, the supposed reason for this is that the use of the white space for anything else would cause potential interference. I'm more partial to Martin's claim that the real interference they fear is with their business model:

“We’re being very cautious about protecting the broadcasters, but at the same time making sure the technology allows us to make greater use of this invaluable resource,” Mr. Martin said. He added that he thought some opponents, like the broadcasters, were fighting the proposal because they were unnerved by the rise of interactive tools that offered a less passive media experience. “The empowerment of consumers is threatening,” he said

On this point, I am forced to recall Michael Power, the former FCC chair, and to say that I too hastily judged him. He was in charge of trying to push through the ownership changes that led to a broad public backlash in 2003--an event which formed the backbone of Free Press' advocacy and sits as a central event in Robert McChesney's The Problem of the Media. At the time, I thought Powell was being cavalier and somewhat utopian when he claimed that the FCC had little Constitutional right to regulate spectrum because,

Moreover, unique scarcity as a justification for lesser constitutional protection for broadcasters is demonstrably unsupportable. Technology makes ever more efficient use of spectrum. Broadcast channels are continually increasing. Cable, internet, and VCRs provide an untold number of outlets for speech. We must admit to these realities and quit subverting the Constitution in order for the government to be free to impose its speech preferences on the public. [. . . .] The fact is that spectrum is not really scarce. It may actually be infinite, dependent only on advances in technology that can make ever-increasing efficient use of it.... Perhaps, it is uniquely abundant rather than uniquely scarce.

At the time I didn't doubt the technological possibilities--and still don't--but the institutional possibilities within the current media oligopoly. Here I think the major difference between the way principled libertarians and principled leftists see the relationship between the state and the market is that "freedom" in libertarian terms is always mediated by the immense power of control over monetary resources. I still basically believe that as well (and the proposed changes could just as easily lead to the kind of concentrated, media monopoly, Google(dis)topia that all of us should fear), but I suppose Powell is sort of being proven right in the sense that these changes are taking place so rapidly it is hard to retain a monopoly. So increases in technology may, indeed, allow for more space for competition--and that could have undermined the concentration that would have followed the 2003 changes he advocated. 2003 is ages ago in terms of the media (there was no bittorrent, at least in widespread use; no flash video; etc.). It is hard to imagine what would have happened had the public protest not prevented those changes taking place. Still, in so far as the new changes might make that more efficient spectrum available for other uses, Powell has been vindicated in what appears, in retrospect, as a principled stand. Only time--and the Dec. 18 FCC meetings--will tell just how true this is. Like the iPhones and Google Phones that will likely pop up if the changes are approved, after that it will be up to the rest of us to figure out what we're going to do with it.