CircleID

Interesting post. No doubt Verizon will examine all its options. They argued against the open access provision in the first place, only giving up when it was obvious the Commission wouldn't budge. But as you note, there's always the question of what the open network provisions actually mean, and the true intentions of the Commission.

Whatever happens, Google looks to be in a strong position. Their aim is making sure they have access to consumer networks. They got the provision inserted, perhaps got Verizon to spend more for the spectrum than they would have otherwise, and are also backing the WiMax effort of Sprint and Clearwire.

Meanwhile Verizon has the regulatory and PR headache of grappling with the FCC about open access, and maybe being perceived as violating the C block terms.

Susan, stay on this! As I've expressed elsewhere, I am concerned, but less worried than you, about the wireless network operators' hope to be "broadcasters". I can't see a strategy of vertical integration into content as viable even in the imperfectly competitive market we have now, much less as we move toward a new WiMax alternative (even if that does have heavy participation from cable operators). Another point: the rules as you quote them above seem to address vertical integration into handsets but not so much into content.

There is a lot of evidence that VZ is internally conflicted on this point of integration into content. On the one hand they are talking about the vast expansion of their network market by extending the network to "any device, anywhere, any time" on the other hand they sometimes talk in 1992-vintage tones of becoming cable-like content providers. But how much real movement do you see in that direction?

Still, VZ knew the rules when they bid for the spectrum and they knew the intent of the rules and it's concerning that they might attempt to play with them now.