In a strange way, I have a certain empathy for the FCC on this 700MHz issue. With the complex interplay of all the permutations of financial and technical parameters their ruling will affect, and without knowing for sure who will really show up for the auctions and how long they will stay in the auctions (in fact their ruling will impact who shows up for the auctions), how exactly do they decide what is best?
Every issue seems to have people of at least 2 polarities, so no matter what they ultimately rule on this collection of issues, they will be scorned as being unfair and playing favorites.
If they err to the side of disfavoring incumbents in their rules, will all the rhetoric from the non-incumbents actually materialize into some meaningful turn-around in our broadband duopoly?
Let's say hypothetically that all incumbents were banned from the auction. Was the lack of tiny 700MHz channels of spectrum really the missing ingredient in the broadband equation in the US? Even if all the 700MHz spectrum was mandated to be wholesale-only, open access, and all the other things incumbents hate, does it really solve anything longer term?
Essentially that would create "dial-up internet service qualities, but at maybe a megabit rather than 56kb." Maybe up to a few megabits in rural areas where there are fewer customers vying for the limited bandwidth.
These networks won't be up and running in their initial phases for another 3 years, and won't have moderate coverage for at least another 5-7 years, and won't break 80% coverage til about 8-10 years.
So I ask this basic question: Is that really a cure for what ails us? Is a "next generation dialup network" (i.e. having all the openness qualities of dialup, except via 700MHz wireless) at about a megabit, in 7-10 years from now, really an advancement that is worth all this toil?
|
