I was going to head over to an Apple store and get a new iphone today, since my current blackberry is clearly dying and the new iphone is out. I called up the store and apparently the lines are three hours long, not because of demand but because the servers that activate the phones are down. And unlike the initial release of the iphone, which let you sign in through itunes, you must activate your phone in-store. My guess is that this is because the control freaks at Apple and AT&T did not like all the hacking of iphones, but regardless, the lines are moving verrrry slowllly.
... for more on the politics of the iphone, check out this video I did with Ben Scott of Free Press discussing the iPhone and its iron chains to AT&T and a closed mobile web.
So I left my iPod on a plane about a month ago, and I was about to replace it when I got wind that a new product line would be coming out today. As you may know, they released what amounts to an iPhone without the phone part, with a touchscreen, wi-fi, 16 gigs of storage for audio, video and photos, etc., for about $200 less than what they were selling the iPhone for. Thinking this is a great deal, I jumped on it, only to find out minutes later that they also cut the iPhone price by $200, which is just beyond bizarre. Apparently, people at the product launch thought so too:
The decision to cut the price of its most expensive iPhone to $399 from $599 - and phase out an entry-level iPhone that had sold for $499 - was clearly a shocker. Barron's tech writer Eric Savitz, who was in SF for Apple's product announcement, said "this was a move that no one in the room expected; people were truly stunned; and I mean jaw-dropping, mouths agape, stopped in their tracks stunned. The news almost erased all the good feeling in the room from the day's various product announcements, and replaced it with a sense of shock. You'd think a dementor had flown into the room." Why all the fuss? Well, how would you feel if you had spent hours, even days, waiting in line for a $599 iPhone just two months ago - and now find that it's being priced at $399?
The FCC today announced terms for the upcoming 700mhz wireless spectrum auction, setting the minimum bid price of $4.6 billion for the prime block to which they've also attached two of the four proposed open access provisions. $4.6B is coincidentally the exact number Google said they'd put up if four out of four provisions were in place.
The take from Wired's Bryan Gardiner is that this is a "put up or shut up" move from the FCC to the industry. He may be right, especially considering this:
If the reserve price isn't met, the auction will be rerun without these two conditions in place, according to the FCC.
So the stage seems to be set for the spectrum to be sold with no open access provisions at all, if that's what it takes to get the FCC their asking price. Hopefully Matt will have some first-hand information on what's going on here, but I've got a baaaaad feeling about this.
The short story is that we got some of what we wanted, but not enough. While there are some open access requirements on a piece of the spectrum, the rules aren't strong enough and there's a lot of room for cheating. Google might still bid, of course, though that's somewhat unlikely.
There will not be a wireless third pipe through this spectrum, but key concepts have been advanced and conceded in public discourse, like open access. There was a potential 3-2 majority for what we wanted, but the strong pressure from Congressional Republicans and relative silence from Congressional Democrats meant we just weren't able to get there. Significant exceptions were Byron Dorgan, Chip Pickering, Ed Markey, and John Dingell. Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns were silent, while Edwards was great.
The telecom and cable companies have longterm relationships with lots of members, and they own the Republican Party. The free media movement is getting there, but it takes time to build a network of staffers, members, and regulatory allies. The other side had eighty years, but the logic and coalition for this kind of eventual policy change is too strong, and the business case for openness is clear.
Health insurers block progress toward universal health care. Big Oil corrupts our energy policy. Banks and lenders make money on the backs of college students forced to repay huge loans. Agribusiness benefits from government subsidies at the expense of small farms.
This was Barack Obama's populist message this morning at the Adeline C. Marston Elementary School here, one of three public campaign stops in the last two days in New Hampshire. To Republicans, casting business as an enemy of change may sound like a tired trope of the left. But Obama laid the blame for inertia on health care, energy independence, and other issues squarely at the feet of select industries and their lobbyists.
On health insurance, for example, Obama repeated his pledge to sign a universal health care bill by the end of his first term, saying, "I shouldn't have better health insurance than you since you're paying the bill for my health insurance."
This is very different than the call for universal health care in January. Today, he's directly blaming the lobbyists and industries. In January, he was blaming cynicism and unnamed skeptics. Here's a representative passage:
Back in April, I wrote a post on MyDD titled 'Why You Can't Get Your iPhone', basically laying out the dynamic that's at work in the spectrum fight I've been blogging about since then. My interest in telecom policy comes from 2000, when I first read Larry Lessig and his work on free culture. I started blogging on net neutrality in 2005, and working against the COPE Act in the House led to a much richer understanding of how the right exercises power. It also led to the primary campaign against Al Wynn by progressive challenger Donna Edwards.
Free Press just launched Free the iPhone. Now, I know this blog has been telco-heavy this week, and I want to explain what I'm trying to do by writing so much about the intricacies of internet and wireless policy. What does this have to do with building a more progressive America and a more functional progressive movement?
I'll have more on the hearings shortly in terms of their overall meaning. I have been blogging about telecom policy since 2005, and collectively we've been involved in an amazingly effective coalition that will be a model for progressive politics and governance for the next twenty years. If we're going to solve big problems like global warming, this is how we're going to have to do it
We had some big events happen yesterday. Here's Free Press lobbyist Ben Scott explaining them.
I spent all day producing and editing this video to make it as clear as possible. Let me know what you think, both on the issue and in terms of the video style. Ben's first video is here. Be gentle, I'm new to this video thing.
There's lots and lots of stuff that happened over the last few days with regards to spectrum. Apparently today in the hearing Dingell, who just bought an iPhone, got angry when he learned he's locked into AT&T. Nothing is better for your position than when a Chair of a powerful House Committee gets mad on behalf of your position due to personal experience with a policy outcome, so it shouldn't surprise you that the hearing today was spectacular for our side. Tim Karr has a good update. The big news is Bush appointee FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's supposed embrace of some form of openness in the wireless spectrum. It's entirely unclear to me what kind of game he's playing. This post at Obsidian Wings has a very cynical but credible view, one Art Brodsky explains in simpler language. And if you want a less cynical but very good explanation of all the dynamics, Harold Feld has a great post.
Basically, the gist is that Martin is making some tentative moves towards openness in devices, which is far from openness in the network itself. But that is huge progress and much further than the smart money thought just a few months ago. Rick Whitt at Google and Susan Crawford have more.
I know this is a bit wonky, so I'm going to have Ben Scott stop by tomorrow to explain what happened. His video generated around 3000 views, and was featured on Youtube, which is remarkable for a video blog of a lobbyist discussing telecom policy details for four minutes.
I'm honestly kind of stunned how much progress we've made. The massive grassroots campaign to the FCC put this issue on the radar for the Commission and for Congress, leading to John Kerry's statement. Both Google and Citigroup have played huge roles in this, as have a number of other large corporations, or so I'm told. Lots of Republican Senators and House Commerce Committee members are fighting us publicly, and our Presidentials have been rather weak, with the significant exception of John Edwards.
So to those who participated in this campaign, you are part of a massive coalition with large businesses, intellectuals like Tim Wu and Susan Crawford, public interest groups like Public Knowledge and Free Press, progressive companies like Working Assets, and advocacy groups like Moveon. This is a multibillion dollar fight over the nature of democracy, and you're having a real impact.
This internet's pretty wild. Stay tuned for some more Ben Scott tomorrow.
Powerful Democratic Congressman Ed Markey is holding a hearing on Wednesday titled 'Wireless Innovation and Consumer Protection'. But really, the hearing should be titled 'the iPhone Hearing', because that's what this is about. The launch of the iPhone is not just a consumer landmark, it's a significant moment in internet politics. Working Assets has already pointed this out with an action campaign, and their CEO Michael Kieschnick has a thoughtful post on the reactionary nature of the iPhone's locked in contract with AT&T.
Rather than explaining the situation myself, I'm going to turn to an expert, Ben Scott, the policy director for Free Press. Ben's a public interest lobbyist, and someone who has taught me a tremendous amount about telecom policy. Right now, there are a few confluent events that are inspiring a lot of debate around the public airwaves, and it all hinges on the iPhone and its immense significance.
I taped Ben's explanation of the situation in his office earlier today.
If you enjoyed this video, I'll try to tape other lobbyists and organizers in DC representing our interests. And don't forget to send a message to the FCC.
UPDATE: There's a potentially very important story out on the 700 spectrum auction, the massive airwaves being auctioned off this summer. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is reportedly circulating rules that would force an open wireless network for the spectrum being sold off. If this is true, and I'm working to verify the story with some sources, it means a number of things. Well first and foremost, it means that we took an unexpected big step towards an open internet. Two, our grassroots pressure, combined with the business pressure, really showed regulators that there was a hunger for a different type of communications structure, and they are responsive. Three, someone must have convinced Kevin Martin that an open network is a profitable and sustainable model for business operators. Once again, I'm working to verify this, but it could be a very big deal.
photo by 