Developers tepid on open-access realities

THE FCC’S RULES FOR NEXT YEAR’S auction of 700 MHz spectrum could change the game substantially for wireless content owners and application developers. Then again, maybe not.
Chairman Kevin Martin last week seemed to avoid drawing the ire of any of the major players-or would-be players-in mobile, adopting some, but not all, of the changes proposed by Google Inc. and others. The commission will bar any auction winner from building a network that discriminates against devices or applications, but stopped short of mandating that the operator offer wholesale access to any wireless or broadband provider who wants to deploy service on the spectrum.
The announcement was greeted with muted enthusiasm by mobile software developers as a potential step toward a more competitive playing field.
“My feeling (about open access) is absolutely, bring it on,” said Brian Levin, CEO of Useful Networks Inc., a Denver-based subsidiary of Liberty Media Corp. that develops location technology. “But I’m a little skeptical about how long it will take, what it will actually mean.”
Indeed, many important details surrounding Martin’s plan have yet to be determined, and it appears that network operators will still have enormous leverage to control traffic on the spectrum. While the winning bidders must accept any application or device that doesn’t harm the network, they may not be forced to bill customers on behalf of third-party developers-a key component, considering that the lack of carrier-billing arrangements has effectively kept vendors of adult content from reaching the U.S. mobile market. Carriers may still enforce certification policies for phones, and while they must offer service to any supporting device, they may be able to circumvent regulations with technological work-arounds or by setting different prices for hardware or services.
“Who knows how the carriers will try to game this or how enforceable these rules will be?” Cardozo Law School professor Susan Crawford asked on her blog. “The carriers could subsidize devices that are locked to a particular network, or direct people over to other portions of their spectrum in some tricky way that (doesn’t) have these requirements, or charge more for unblocked usage. Details matter in this area.”
Then again, the details may not matter at all: the commission included a poison pill with the new rules, mandating that the auction be started from scratch without the open-access requirements if a bid of $4.6 billion isn’t submitted. The hefty price tag is enough to bar any new player from buying its way onto the wireless playground, according to Jason Devitt, founder of Skydeck, a California wireless startup. Devitt, whose startup Vindigo was among the first mobile content and application success stories, pushed for open access in an FCC hearing several weeks ago; the entrepreneur tepidly endorsed Martin’s move last week.
“It is now very likely that one of the existing carriers will win the auction, since they can afford to bid more than any new entrant,” Devitt posted on Skydeck’s site. “For the most part, it will be business as usual. But provided that the carriers can’t wriggle out of the open-device rules, I believe that today’s decision is a victory for us all.”
So while the new rules garner headlines and kudos from the more visible players in the space-Google Inc.’s Richard Whitt described the move as “real, if incomplete, progress for consumers”-content owners and developers of applications are waiting while the FCC drafts official language for the rules. And it’s unlikely that the new requirements will bring about bedlam in wireless data.
But according to Levin, who founded the Seattle startup Mobliss before moving into location-based services, they are likely, however, to create a slightly more open-and fragmented-market. But that’s likely to present headaches for developers even as it creates opportunity.
“I think between what they’re intending to do with this and what they actually achieve, there’s probably going to be a disconnect,” Levin said. “It’s going to create a lot more choice, but as far as application developers and content developers are concerned, more choice sucks.”