(panel L-R: Calabrese, Knapp, Brandon, Wilkie with moderator Chong at podium)
Former FCC Commissioner and California Public Utilities Commissioner Rachelle Chong moderated a panel on the future of Wireless, but started by asking for comments on the Comcast-Vuze settlement.
Caroyn Brandon of CTIA started off by nothing that the market will figure out problems and the settlement is "fantastic."
Michael Calabrese of the Wireless Future Program pointed out that protocol-agnostic management is a good thing, and was quite happy to hear that Comcast will be working with the IETF, but it remains to be seen "whether it will go far enough."
Brandon asked him what that meant, to which he replied a "common sense non-discrimination principle."
Brian Knapp from Loopt noted that collaborative efforts were the only solution. Of course, Chong correctly noted that the "devil is in the details." There's a meeting next month at Stanford, we'll see if it happens.
With regard to wireless open access, Chong asked of the panel agreed with McD's assertion that Open Access discouraged bidders.
Calabrese immediately disagreed, noting that his organization asked for wholesale access, not the "wireless carterphone" and that wholesale would have helped those smaller providers. (note, Google originally wanted wholesale, not Carterphone-style regs). Calebrese said that Verizon or AT&T would have won regardless, and that Open Access was a "nice regulatory nudge" as noted by Verizon's "preemptive strike."
Ms. Brandon jumped back in on open access and said that it defeated the FCC's own objectives, and that the market demonstrated that the requirements were irrelevant.
Chong asked Mr. Knapp about loopt, where they allow people to "share their location." and what difficulties they had getting adopted by carriers, and if they expected regulatory problems. He responded that he didn't want to have all six carriers rolling out at once, and that they are still very much a "start-up." They're on Sprint-Nextel and Boost, and their cooperative partnership has been beneficial, regardless of Open Access because it allows them to hold each other to high standards.
Next question from Chong: does Wireless have enough spectrum? She brings up White Spaces, and that Sprint and AT&T wanted White Spaces licensed, while others want them to be left open on an unlicensed basis. What is better? Unlicensed, or auctions?
Simon Wilkie responded to the previous question that he isn't allowed to express his opinion on it. On White Spaces, he thinks we should "Split the Baby" and that in response to NAB opposition, we should make use of it. He also noted that licensing it would lead to less use based on economic principles, and pointed to the 700mhz auction as an example. It would be a bad idea to allocate all that spectrum to one provider, especially considering how useful it is.
Calabrese agreed, saying that "the greatest innovation and consumer welfare results from diversity in technology and business models" and that he believes that a mixture of licensed and unlicensed spectrum will lead to the best space for innovation. He says that we need good spectrum available for multiple uses.
Chong moved onto municipal Wi-Fi, noting that Earthlink has killed its' municipal Wi-Fi operations, but Comcast might invest in that sector. She asks if the movement will survive.
Brandon (CTIA) jumped in quickly and noted that the problem is not technological, but a failure in business models.
Another question concerned "all you can eat programs" and whether they would take over for voice and replace "minute" charges and many wired services. The panel seemed to agree that this would be a positive movement. On the other hand, Wilkie asked if wireline services could respond and innovate and converge more.
One question from the audience was on mobile advertising, and was is the "holy grail" in that regard. Brandon said that many advertisers want mobile eyeballs, and advertisers' frustration is with purposing the ads to be consistent across platforms, and what is the right revenue model? She noted that it's important that customers not pay for ads.
Knapp said that ads could be a fantastic development allowing for lower cost service. He expressed sympathy for Facebook's Beacon, and noted that advertising to phones are coming, but they have to be provided as part of a service and that user experience with the ads is key. He's very excited about the potential for mobile advertising.
When a Tony Wasserman from CMU described the U.S. as a "third world country" wirelessly w/r/t location based services, Loopt's Knapp replied that location based services were coming. Brandon blamed the problem on the FCC's E911 rules. Simon Wilkie noted that much of the 3G spectrum is still tied up in Government users who won't say when they're giving up the spectrum they've been required to have vacated for years.
Robert Pepper from Cisco jumped in to quickly note that despite the lack of a D block auction success, there is a large block reserved for public safety.
Larry Magid asked why people should trust companies to make agreements vis-a-vis Comcast-Vuze, and Brandon noted that FCC should be a last resort, and there are not just two companies involved, that there would be a whole consortium. Calabrese pointed out that the complaint is still before the FCC, and that they still may act.
