Stewart Wolpin

Kevin Martin Is A Terrible Wife
April 15, 2008

You tell your wife you're going to complete that honey-do chore. You know she doesn't believe your bored "I'll get to it" response as you lie sleepy and askew on your sofa savoring a Bud. And she knows that you know she doesn't believe you.

So she nags … er, reminds you. Constantly. And the longer you lie on the sofa not doing what she wants you to do, the more intense and frequent the nag … er, reminding, becomes. Finally, the remind … oh, forget it – the nagging – becomes worse than the actual task. So you put the game on pause, pull on a pair of pants and sneakers and, muttering obscenities under your breath, you crankily complete your assigned task.

Kevin Martin is a terrible wife.

At CTIA earlier this month, FCC chairman Martin announced his intention to quash a year-old Skype petition demanding cellphone carriers completely open their networks.

Martin's rationale?

The carriers announced to Martin and everyone else their intention to open up their networks, thanks in part to the pressure applied by the Open Handset Alliance and Google's Android Linux-based open operating system.

Oh, well then, that's different. The carriers said they'd get to it. Then there's no reason to nag … er, remind them to do it.

Alice Kramden, please call Martin and tell him the carriers, like a slothful husband, saying they'll do it is a long way from them actually doing it. (Of course the Kramdens don't have a phone, cell or otherwise, but I digress).

So, what a shock. Free from Martin's FCC nagging, the carriers continue their couch potato ways and their networks remain bolted tight.

Okay, so the carriers won't open up their networks. What's the big deal?

You can buy any TV regardless of what cable or satellite service you subscribe to. You can buy any PC or Mac regardless of what ISP you get your Internet connection from. You can buy any telephone regardless of who your local landline phone service provider is.

It follows logically that you should be able to buy any cellphone you want to work on the wireless network you subscribe to.

But you can't. Instead, carriers preside over mini fiefdoms. No handset goes on sales and no services such as a music or video or games get installed or can be downloaded without the carrier giving their blessing and, of course, getting a piece of the action. Time and again, handset makers have shown me groovy new devices that are likely never to make it to the U.S. market because no carrier wanted to bless them.

Not only that, but an open cellphone network system, such as they have – hmmm, let's see, EVERYWHERE ELSE ON THE PLANET! – would ignite a vibrant innovation burst from handset makers and service providers no longer hamstrung by artificial carrier technology limitations. Retailers would be blessed by a cornucopia of new high-margin toys to sell. And we'd get really cool cellphones. I'd like a Homer Simpson-shaped cellphone please.

But in boring dogmatic fealty to conservative/libertarian non-governmental interference political principals, Martin opined that forcing carriers to open up their networks was "premature."

Premature? It's 35 years late and counting. Not only is keeping the carrier networks closed un-American – Apple gets more flack for its restrictive iPod/iTunes ecosystem than the carriers do for metaphorically holding the whole cellphone business hostage – but there is legal precedent for Martin and the FCC to compel carriers to open up.

The FCC's own June 26, 1968, Carterfone Decision established the right of consumers to attach any device to the Bell telephone network, as long as said device did not harm the network. No longer were we forced to rent stodgy black phones from the phone company, and a new consumer electronics business sector was born. Thank you, FCC, for giving yourself your own legal cat-o-nine-tails for use against the carriers.

But in an open network environment, Martin and the carriers argue, there'd be no incentive to invest in new network infrastructure and handset prices would double or triple without carrier subsidizing.

These arguments are belied by reality. Europeans and Asians have more advanced networks than we have here and intense competition between handset makers consumers would keep prices reasonable as they do in all consumer markets.

But why should actual evidence of the success of an open market get in the way of a good polemic?

I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on television), and I acknowledge that I may be ridiculously over-simplifying the issue, but it seems to me the FCC has even more juice to apply the Carterfone Decision to the cellphone carriers. Cellphone spectrum, after all, is public air – it's carved out of the broadcast TV spectrum – the carriers don't even pay for.

And I'm no political scientist (nor do I play one on television), and I acknowledge that I may be ridiculously over-simplifying the issue, but it seems to me if Martin really wants to rule according to libertarian political principals, forcing carriers to open up their networks is less a breach of laissez-faire non-governmental interference than the creation of that libertarian utopia, a free market.

Overly-simplistic or not, the last thing I want to hear from the chief of a federal government oversight agency is that he doesn't want to enforce its own legal precedent, push for what is good for competition, good for innovation and good for consumers. Not that he would rather mollycoddle a handful of near-monopolies.

So, Mr. Martin, grow a pair. Don't let those lazy carriers sit around the house all day chomping Cheetos and sipping suds while watching NASCAR. Strap on that apron and brandish that metaphorical Carterfone rolling pin and nag nag nag until the network opening job is done.

Posted by Stewart Wolpin on April 15, 2008 | Comments (0)