Kevin Martin plays with my emotions (and totally screws over Skype) at CTIA

No, I wasn't there, but the FCC sent me a copy to read because they're such fantastic people. I routinely go back and forth on Martin. One minute I'm incensed at his hair-trigger indecency standards, the next minute impressed by how stubbornly he wants a la carte pricing, which might not be a bad idea, no matter what the industry says. Then, I'm totally floored by his insistence on open access for the 700mhz auction, possibly the smartest decision he's made in his tenure (and I suspect having to due with the influence of his old boss, ex-Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, whose book A Tough Act to Follow? should be required reading for anyone who wants to know about the FCC).

So, whenever I read or hear one of Martin's speeches, I never know how I'll feel afterwards. His CTIA remarks (delivered yesterday) are no different.

Here's an excerpt with an ending that you won't believe:

 

Although initially opposed by the industry, the Commission also worked to create a more open platform on a portion of the 700 MHz spectrum.  The Commission was determined to ensure that the fruits of wireless innovation swiftly pass into the hand of consumers.  A network that is more open to devices and applications can help foster innovation on the edges of the network.  As important, it will give consumers greater freedom to use the wireless devices and applications of their choice when they purchase service. 

 

I believe that putting these choices into the hands of consumers, rather than network operators, will spur the next phase of wireless broadband innovation - innovation that can make us more productive, keep us entertained, and improve our quality of life.

 

Ok, so you've got the big picture. Good. 

When adopting the open platform requirement in the 700 MHz band, we saw it as a rare chance to promote innovation and consumer choice while writing on a clean slate.  We targeted only one block of the spectrum.  And since I have been Chairman, I have opposed applying network neutrality obligations with mandatory unbundling or wholesale requirements to networks that would undermine investment incentives.  This careful balancing of spurring innovation and consumer choice while encouraging infrastructure investment is critical to the wireless industry's continued impressive growth.

 

 

So, what you're saying is if they already own it, they can use however they please, competition be damned. With wireline, you're right. Wholesale was a disaster. Wireless? We don't know yet...but wait, there's more...

 

And what we have observed since the adoption of our 700 MHz rules is quite outstanding.  The requirement for open access in the 700 MHz auction is leading carriers to recognize the benefits of a more open platform. 

 

In fact, in less than a year, many of you have evolved from vocal opponents to vocal proponents, embracing the open platform concept for your entire networks. 

 

Translation: Good job for seeing the writing on the wall before we had to smack you.

 

Verizon Wireless has committed to open its entire network to devices and applications of consumers' own choosing.  More and more wireless providers, including T-Mobile and Sprint through their participation in the Open Handset Alliance, and AT&T, are also embracing more openness in terms of devices and applications.  Indeed, in looking at the program for this conference, I was excited to see a number of educational sessions and panels focusing on the issue of openness.  This interest now appears to be shared across the industry.

 

So, Verizon is trying to catch up to GSM's convenience. They're...competing! But watch...after that eloquent pean to the glories of competition and the free market, Kevin is about to drop an anticompetitive, protectionist bombshell:

 

In light of the industry's embrace of a more open wireless platform, it would be premature to adopt any other requirements across the industry.  Thus, today I will circulate to my fellow commissioners an order dismissing a petition for declaratory ruling filed by Skype that would apply Carterfone requirements to existing wireless networks. 

 

 

Wait a minute! Whoa there! Because you've allowed open access on a network that hasn't been built yet, you're denying open access on the networks that already exist? What this means, is that Skype can't deploy an iPhone or BlackBerry application that lets you access your Skype account from your mobile device. It also means that someone like me, who only has wireless internet access (via a Sprint AirCard) could very well be denied the use of Skype (or Vonage, or any other VOIP service) through the connection that I pay for.

How is that premature? How is Carterfone (meaning that anything I can connect to the POTS network without breaking it is legal to connect) inapplicable to wireless networks? You're telling me that if I have an application that runs on my BlackBerry and uses the device's TCP/IP stack (an open industry standard since the 1970's, by the way) to provide me with a gateway to my VOIP-based phone number, it would be premature to tell my Wireless carrier that they have to let me use it even if it doesn't cause any harm to the network?

Oh, Kevin. You had me flipped. I was ready to start singing your praises to all who would listen...and now this? What are you doing to me? I hoped this was an April Fool's joke, but alas, my hopes were dashed. Even when you say things like this:

In conclusion, let me say that, at the Commission, our job is to provide ample spectrum for a range of wireless services and a regulatory framework that allows you - the entrepreneurs, engineers, and network operators of the world to provide lower prices, better and more innovative services, and more choice to wireless consumers. 

 

How, in the name of Guglielmo Marconi can you talk about the glories of competition and lower prices after you've slammed the door in the face of a service that lowers prices?

Please, Mr. Chairman. Quit playing games with my heart (and my phone). Pick a side.