What a Shame of US Closed Mobile Communication Market?

What a Shame of US Closed Mobile Communication Market?

Now, everyone is talking about the 700Mhz UHF band for wireless and mobile communications. UHF may not be as good as VHF, which operates on even lower-frequency spectrum. But it has the ability to carry information through forests, buildings, even mountains, regardless of the weather, and that makes it ideal for broadband wireless, or for mobile-phone service. Ever wonder why AT&T and Verizon, the biggest and most successful U.S. carriers, can offer more reliable service than Sprint or T-Mobile? Because the big boys already own a large band of spectrum near the UHF band, while the little guys are stuck with spectrum that operates at double the frequency and is far less powerful as a result.

For the same reasons, a broadband wireless network operating in the UHF range would be far more powerful than the municipal Wi-Fi and WiMax networks now being built by Google, EarthLink and other companies. Such a network would be cheaper to build as well. Because radio waves in the UHF band travel much farther than the high-frequency signals used for Wi-Fi and WiMax, a single tower could cover as much as 10 times the area. Of course, nothing is perfect and free. UHF is good for penetration, mobility and large area coverage, but the bandwidth and transmission speed is limited as the frequency-over-bandwidth rate is limited in implementation. High frequency band can provide very high-speed transmission, but lost seamless mobility, coverage, etc.

And because this will be the last auction of unused spectrum for the foreseeable future, it represents the final opportunity to create an alternative to the major carriers. The FCC grants auction winners a license to use spectrum for a number of years, but as these licenses are almost invariably renewed at no additional cost, they are effectively deeds of ownership for the winning bidders. No surprise, then, that the fight has already gotten intense.

But, it is not just spectrum fight, it is more beyond that. Strong pressure from the consumers and users (or I should say General Public), the government is testing the water to open up the US mobile communication market which US has been lagged very much behind the international average. Back to 1998, China law had forbidden any service provider to lock any mobile phone and there are only very few countries still locking users' phone, and most are in Africa. Same as Tobacco industry, the AT&T spent huge dollars in lobbying the congress to monopolize its telecom kingdom. However, I believe it is just a matter of time when locking a mobile phone becomes a public joke on the street.

The real target of such diatribes is Carterfone, the 1968 FCC ruling that opened the wire-line telephone networks to outside devices. Before Carterfone, AT&T -- then the nation's monopoly telephone company -- refused to allow consumers to attach any other company's equipment to its lines. After Carterfone, people were free to plug in all kinds of things, such as fax machines, answering machines and eventually modems and computers. Left to its own devices, AT&T would have strangled the internet in its crib, just as its offspring are trying to stifle wireless broadband.

The movie is just starting! More openness will be on the way. After opening the terminal access to the wireless network (or called unlocking the mobile phone), the wireless architecture will be open which means the user can asemble or upgrade his/her mobile phone by buying different modules from Fry's (someone call it DIY - Do It Yourself), the same way we take care of our PC or Laptop now. It is a very important movement, because currently, the phone architecture is very closed, and you have no other choice but to recycle it or put into trash if it becomes out-of-date.

This OWA (open wireless architecture) technology was invented from a small garage in silicon valley, and deem to be a revolutionary approach to rewrite the mobile communication textbook.

After this important system architecture openness, the final step is to open the spectrum management. UC berkeley, Stanford and other leading Universities in Europe already started this project in integrating the digital GPS map with the digital spectrum map in specific service area, and manage the digitalized spectrum dynamically and flexibly. Spectrum, same as land resource, is very limited and very expensive with at least 50% increase in price every year. I would very much to invest in spectrum property if the law allows. But, spectrum is like a kid who needs education and guidence. If we use it wisely, it will benefit the community, the society and the public. If we ruin it or misuse it, it will become pollution which includes radiation pulluation and distructive pollution, etc.

Both ITU and OECD warned that we must do something to manage the spectrum wisely and dynamically, otherwise all the worldwide mobile phones will stop communicating by year 2050. It becomes the global critical issue and a big challenge for the ICT administration and authority. In other words, spectrum is like air, we need to have it clean, open and green to our environment.

US invented the mobile phone technologies by bell labs, but eventually we are one of the few last ones to use it wisely, because the industry is fully monopolized by AT&T, etc. It is now the time up to the government to rethink about it: Do you want American people buy an unlocked legal iPhone overseas and bring back to the country for service? just an example.

by Willie W. Lu, Palo Alto, CA