…the remaining three Republicans have long maintained further regulations aren't necessary. The commission has already adopted a set of four broadband connectivity principles, which state, among other things, that network operators must generally allow their subscribers to connect the devices and browse the content they wish.
The open-access proposals have also encountered fierce resistance from the wireless industry and from politicians with free-market leanings.
On the eve of the Senate's hearing, six Republican senators sent a letter to FCC chairman Kevin Martin, urging the regulators to resist "encumbering rules which suppress interest in the auction," such as open-access and net-neutrality mandates.
"There are few markets in America that are more competitive, vibrant and innovative than wireless," said Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, which represents major wireless companies. "The last thing we need to do is upend that very successful marketplace by imposing 1970s-style regulatory mandates upon it."
Farren pointed to the example of Apple's iPhone and its collaboration with AT&T to see that the market is working just fine without added regulations. And besides, no one's stopping the companies that favour the "sandbox" idea or other regulations from bidding in the auction themselves, Farren added. (Google, for example, says it's not sure whether it will be participating in the auction.)
The last thing we need to do is upend that very successful marketplace by imposing 1970s-style regulatory mandates upon it
Joe Farren, CTIA-The Wireless Association
"Go to the auction like everybody else does, bid on the spectrum and, if you have a great business plan and if you think that plan is going to work in the marketplace, go for it," he said. "But don't try to get a government regulation passed to protect your so-called business plan. That's certainly not the free market at work."
Net neutrality through the back door
The spectrum has also generated new talk of enacting net-neutrality regulations, which would prohibit network operators from prioritising any internet devices or services and from making deals with outside companies to provide priority access in exchange for extra fees.
By contrast, major broadband providers in the telephone and cable industries say they deserve the right to manage their networks as they wish and to charge fees as they see fit to offset the costs of new, more advanced equipment.
But such carriers, particularly in the wireless sector, have a poor track record for giving consumers the choices they're looking for, consumer groups argue. "Absent regulatory changes that would require wireless networks to operate in a neutral manner and permit subscribers to attach devices to their networks, it seems remarkably unrealistic to assume that any of the national incumbents will change their behaviour," they wrote in a letter to the FCC.
A 2008 presidential hopeful said he's also on board with the idea. In a letter to FCC chairman Kevin Martin late last month, former Democratic North Carolina Senator John Edwards urged the regulators to set aside as much as half of the spectrum for wholesalers who can lease to smaller start-ups that would be willing to build broadband networks in rural and under-served areas. He also said they must require anyone who wins control of the spectrum to adhere to non-discrimination rules, allowing consumers to hook up the devices and browse the websites they wish.
Google, for its part, said it's sceptical that the spectrum auction alone will assuage concerns that dominant network operators will become gatekeepers capable of squeezing out smaller or shallower-pocketed content providers. The company's telecommunications and media counsel, Richard Whitt, argued in the search giant's most recent FCC filing that regulators shouldn't write off the need for net-neutrality rules on a broader level because of what he called "a significant lack of effective broadband competition in this country".
