The open access hum - why?
Harold Feld has pointed out that AT&T hasn't completely rejected the idea of bidding on spectrum whose use is conditioned on compliance with open access rules.
One of the most interesting things about that 10MHz block, if it gets auctioned in the manner Frontline suggests, is that it will be a huge national license. Google has filed comments saying very interesting things about ensuring that the holder of that huge national license could run dynamic auctions for its use. This would be like turning the market for spectrum into the market for pay-for-click search — you run the auction among competitive retail providers of transport, automatically, when they need access.
It would be quite a thing to see how the Google model actually worked. It could end up being much more efficient in its use of spectrum than the command/control model we have now.
How much would it be worth to AT&T and Verizon to ensure that this dynamic auction model never gets tried? Would it be worth bidding for, and winning, this 10MHz even though they already have enough spectrum? Will they be willing to pay more for this blocking opportunity than the new entrants (whoever they are) are willing to pay to start up their own network provision?
We're all waiting, as Harold says, to see what rules the Commission comes up with. He notes that AT&T says it hasn't changed its position. But I think things are looking good for open access — and good for a blocking manuver on the part of the incumbents.
Happy Fourth, a day late.