How the Net Neutrality Movement
Pertains to the U.S. Cellular Industry
If the early development of the Internet can be compared to the American Wild
West, then the rise of the U.S. cellular industry can be likened to Stalin's
Soviet Union. Carrier networks rule developers, device manufactures, and consumers
with an iron fist, allowing only the services and features of their
choice on their networks.
To be sure, there are some major differences between the Internet and cellular
networks. U.S. carriers have spent billions for their share of the wireless
spectrum, and maintain the right to determine what features are available to
the consumer. Corporate executives contend that the fierce competition
in the cellular industry, not government regulation, should be the determining factor of what technologies are available.
Whereas the early days of the Internet witnessed massive technological innovation
from developers and manufacturers due to its inherent openness, American cellular
networks were from the beginning proprietary and self serving.
The Net Neutrality concept sprung from a grass roots movement when cable and telco executives started talking about charging high bandwidth users such as Google, Vonage, and YouTube, for using their pipes. The fear that these companies could thus control what content would be available to consumers threatened the very foundation of a free and open Internet.
The cellular phone companies on the other hand, were from their inception businesses operating in a free enterprise society, and as such, have every right to dictate what services to offer. Absent any public outcry from consumers for the right to choose, regulation of the industry would seem to be anything but a foregone conclusion.
That said, the implementation of the Carterphone principals would seem to be a logical step to prevent monopoly like tactics from an industry that is entrusted with the public airwaves. The other players in the telecommunication industry, including the cable companies, must and do abide by the ruling.
What is puzzling is that cellular companies could actually open up more revenue streams by offering services that consumers would gladly pay extra for. Downloading music and video from iTunes for example could be charged by bandwidth usage, and cellcos could implement calling plans that would include minutes used to make calls over the Internet.
Of particular interest to the business community is the concept of Fixed Mobile Convergence, having one phone with one phone number that can traverse cellular and WiFi networks, allowing calls to be made through VoIP and traditional landlines in addition to the cellular air waves.
Nokia's E65 has WiFi
and IP/PBX integration
Device manufacturers like Nokia already make handsets that integrate with corporate IP/PBX systems from Cisco, Avaya, Siemens and others, and will route calls over the best network available. While much progress in this technology is being made in Europe and other regions, the American market remains stifling for developers and manufacturers both.
It will be interesting to see how the Skype petition plays out with the FCC. Applying the Carterphone ruling could conceivably open up the floodgates for new development and technological innovation. If not, the U.S. cell phone industry will have to depend on sluggish market forces to catch up with the rest of the world.
