Verizon files suit to overturn Open Access auction of airwaves

Published on September 13th, 2007

Verizon Wireless has asked a federal court to overturn open-access rules that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is imposing on the winner of valuable wireless airwaves to be auctioned this winter.

Verizon Wireless argued that the open-access conditions are unconstitutional, and the FCC overstepped its authority when it approved them on July 31…The auction is widely seen as a last opportunity for a new player to enter the wireless market.

The open-access rules have the support of Google, a potential bidder in the auction. They also have been endorsed by many consumer advocates, who say it is needed to spur competition in the wireless business.

I once paid to rid myself of Verizon several years back. One of the best investments I ever made.

15 users responded in " Verizon files suit to overturn Open Access auction of airwaves "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 gquaglia said, on September 13th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Verizon reminds me of M$ on so many levels. Verizon knows that if 700 is open Google will step in and give them a run for their money. And just like M$, they will attempt to change the rules to keep themselves in the power seat. I would love nothing more then to see this greedy company with their retarded “can you hear me now” guy loose this one and maybe, just maybe change the half assed way cellular service is delivered in this country.

# 2 DaveW said, on September 13th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Well, I dunno. With exceptions for things like this, I’m very happy with Verizon. Of course I lived my entire life (less 1 year) with General Telephone before Verizon bought them out, so two dixie cups and a string would have been an improvement. I can’t imagine using a modem on the noise ridden lines were made to endure in the 1970s and 80s!

I’ve had 5 isps (Earthlink, AOL, the loop, Compuserve, actually, there were a couple more) over the years, and Verizon has been hands down the most reliable and had the best service. Though I don’t use them for cellular, everyone in the area that does seems to get better coverage than Cingular (now AT&T).

While I think they are wrong, I can’t really blame them for trying to make more $. Hopefully, the courts will straighten them and all the other corporate anti-free access folks out on this one. But it WILL go to the Supreme Court eventually. Bet on that.

# 3 Sagrilarus said, on September 13th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Money talks, and unfortunately for Verizon Google has scads of it. They can try to keep to gorilla out, but if the gorilla can’t come in through the front door, he’ll most assuredly find his way in through the back.

# 4 Jerk-Face said, on September 13th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Let me get this straight, a phone company known for cramming egregious and draconian terms down consumers’ throats is filing a lawsuit because it doesn’t like the reasonable and beneficial terms imposed against it?!

Oh the fricking irony!

# 5 Mr. Fusion said, on September 13th, 2007 at 3:57 pm

I don’t get it. What is unconstitutional about the government selling its property with conditions attached? This will not affect the status of the other wavelengths currently in use.

Governments often sell property with conditions attached, such as real estate where the purchaser must erect a facility within a certain time frame. Or excess military material that may not be sold or transfered outside the US.

Currently the broadcasters using these wavelengths must allow receivers to use any equipment they prefer without restriction. They must also be answerable to the oversight of the FCC. Is Verizen going to give up those regulations if they purchase the spectrum?

# 6 Misanthropic Scott said, on September 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Godwin’s Law before the first comment is posted. Nice.

# 7 hhopper said, on September 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pm

I dumped Verizon for keeps a couple of months ago. Worst phone service I ever had. I now have phone, Internet and TV on the cable.

# 8 Wayne Bradney said, on September 13th, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Ironic indeed

>>The auction is widely seen as a last opportunity for a new player to enter the wireless market

How is it unconstitutional for the government to prevent the formation of a cartel that can never be broken?

# 9 tallwookie said, on September 13th, 2007 at 5:08 pm

#2 – lol dude wtf yer crazy – verizon is the most evil fucking company ever – I know cuz Ive worked for em – not on the noob lvl of customer service but as a network technician –

I hope google buys the whole spectrum & then verizon can suck it

fuck verizon

# 10 gquaglia said, on September 13th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

How is it unconstitutional for the government to prevent the formation of a cartel that can never be broken?

Because Verizon says so! FYI, this is the same bonehead company that passed on the iphone because they couldn’t control every aspect of it.

# 11 pedro said, on September 13th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Interesting, specially #1. Why do I say this? because I was rating on another post on how MS is forcing messenger upgrades to those using version 7.5 (lower has no problem) by not letting them connect to their network until you upgrade.

Well, there a new feature in the new live 8.1 messenger. Not new really. MS used to have it before with other carriers. The feature is pc to phone calling.

Guess the carrier chosen for live messenger 8.1???

# 12 Billabong said, on September 14th, 2007 at 6:01 am

WE “the people” are supposed to own the airwaves.They should be rented with a 30 year lease.Verizon is opening a can of worms here that may just bite the whole Telco business on the ass.God I hate those bastards.

# 13 Cinaedh said, on September 14th, 2007 at 6:25 am

Did you ever wonder why you, or your ISP, doesn’t have to pay long distance charges? I mean, we do communicate all over the world by long distance wiring etcetera, so why not?

I’m no expert but I’ve been told that during the early days of the Internet, ISPs quickly realized charging each other for long distance telecom was stupid because all the charges, back and forth, pretty much balanced out in the end and the entire process would end up being nothing but an expensive, meaningless bookkeeping exercise.

Apparently the same thing is true for voice but the telcos just couldn’t imagine not charging, so they pay each other back and forth, costing customers trillions of dollars for the exchange of nothing of value – nothing whatsoever.

If it’s not true, I’d be interested to know why I get a bill for telephone long distance but no direct charges whatsoever for Internet long distance.

I’m sure there must be a knowledgeable expert somewhere out there in DU land.

# 14 James Hill said, on September 14th, 2007 at 6:43 am

Everyone here has a choice: Use a cell phone as your home phone.

# 15 Sweta-Zinok said, on December 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Hi. Sorry for my english. Happy New Year!!!!!
Good Luck!

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!