I attended the Web 2.0 Conference last week and Verizon’s senior public policy executive, Tom Tauke , appeared on a panel with Ram Shriram, a venture capitalist and investor in Frontline Wireless, and Martin Varsavsky, an entrepreneur and founder of FON, a WiFi provider.

 

This discussion was supposed to be about wireless technologies and future trends but it mostly focused on the 700 Mhz auction.  Ram Shriram made opening comments stressing Frontline’s support for “open access” requirements in the auction and criticizing Verizon for opposing those requirements.   Martin Varsavsky said he was amazed at how Americans fought over issues including open networks and did not seem to find ways to focus on making the technologies work.  

 

Tom responded that Verizon did not oppose anyone’s right to bid for spectrum and use it as they saw fit, using the business model they thought would serve consumers best.  He pointed out that it is ironic that some of the high tech companies are proposing regulation of wireless because that is what imposing requirements and conditions on the spectrum and how it can be used is all about. 

 

Ram Shriram said that he is concerned that small entrepreneurs have a chance to offer new services without having to pass through a “gatekeeper”.  John Battelle, who moderated the debat,e asked Tom to respond.   Tom noted that Verizon did see the industry moving more and more towards “open” models of broadband service.  He noted that our EVDO cards for PCs already allow consumers to access Internet content of their choice and while wireless networks have limitations in terms of capacity, consumers can access a wide array of services, none of which are Verizon’s.

 

Tom also noted that we are not a content provider.  We recognize that our customers must have access to content that fills their needs so we do reach out to a wide array of content players for our wireless “Get It Now” services.  Our networks have evolved and we started with voice as the only wireless service which required careful network management.  

 

Today EVDO wireless broadband is available and it provides good high speed access to the Internet.   Consumers do see value in the “managed” network plans offered by wireless companies like Verizon but they clearly also see value in the Internet’s more open model.   Businesses should be allowed to offer services they believe fit the market demand and not be forced into services dictated by government rules.

 

The debate also focused on how competitive the wireless markets are and how the U. S. market compares to Europe and markets in the far east.   Assertions were made that the U. S. market is a duopoly and that Verizon has opposed WiFi networks deployed by municipal governments.

Tom noted that the U. S. has far more competition than Europe, with four nationwide wireless carriers an in many regional markets several more providers.  He said that U. S. consumers use their cell phones for voice calls four times more than Europeans on average, that U. S. prices for cell phone are the lowest in the world, other than Hong Kong, and that U. S. wireless networks already incorporate new applications like video while Europe is only beginning to see these services.  It is hard to see how our markets are not performing adequately when consumers have all of these benefits.  After all, isn’t usage an indicator of value?  Aren’t lower prices an important consumer value?

 

Tom also made clear that Verizon has not supported legislation banning muni networks in state legislatures over the last four years.   We have not opposed legislation in the Congress that would lift the bans that exist in some states on muni networks.  In short, the “myth that Verizon has been opposed to muni WiFi networks is just that: a myth” Tom noted.

The crowd at the Web 2.0 Conference was largely tech types, venture capitalists from Silicon Valley and tech companies.  The dialog was good but I was struck by what I think is a problem that needs to be addressed: the gap that exists between many in the “high tech community” and communications providers like Verizon.  Given how far we have come in building a nationwide 3G wireless EVDO network and in deploying FiOS fiber to the home networks – both network platforms that are ideal for high tech users – I am a little perplexed by what I detected was a high degree of skepticism in the audience towards the communications industry. 

 

A questioner at the end of the session made a very good point.  “I have come to many of these sessions and it always seems that the communications providers and the tech sector can’t see eye to eye on many things and squabble a lot.  Why can’t we find ways to work things out because both sides need each other?”  A good question and there is blame on both sides I know.  We all make assumptions about what the “other guy thinks” or what motivates others.   It is easy to make big “incumbents” into punching bags.  Yes, smaller companies and entrepreneurs do innovate and offer new ideas. But so do big firms that often have the resources to put into major projects – like FiOS –  an investment that has not only pushed fiber into more and more American homes but resulted in the patenting of dozens of new ideas.

I don’t have an answer to the question the last commenter asked but it is a good one. We should all think about it.