Slashdot Mirror
FCC Head Wants New Wireless Devices Unlocked
[TheBORG] writes with news that FCC chairman Kevin Martin wants 700-MHz wireless devices and services to be unlocked. Spectrum auctions for the 700-MHz airwaves, being opened up for fixed and mobile broadband, are scheduled for early next year. "The proposed rules would apply only to the spectrum being auctioned, not the rest of the wireless business, which still makes most of its revenue from voice calls. But Martin's proposal, if adopted by the FCC, could reverberate through a U.S. wireless industry that has tightly controlled access to devices and services... Like most devices sold in the USA, the iPhone ... allows only features and applications that Apple and AT&T provide and works only with an AT&T contract. The FCC chairman said he has grown increasingly concerned that the current practices 'hamper innovations' dreamed up by outside developers. One example:... 'Internationally, Wi-Fi handsets have been available for some time,' Martin noted. 'But they are just beginning to roll out here.'"
Who is this guy and why hasn't Bush fired him yet?
A public official actually concerned about businesses reaming the consumer. What has become of the United States?
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
For those of you who thought aliens would take over by pretending to be human and infiltrating government, I apologize for calling you nasty names. If the Chairmen of the FCC is doing something consumer friendly, there is no other explanation. Now, I AM hardpressed to figure out who such action forwards the cause of these aliens, unless maybe they too are just sick and tired of crippled phones....
he'd come out against spectrum auctions. Is there any single policy that's proven as pernicious lately? One of the most annoying things to come out of Congress has been the forced conversion of the VHF and UHF spectrums to, well, something else, and the retirement of NTSC broadcasts, mainly because Congress is greedy and wants the money such an auction would give them. Never mind that there's no compelling reason to ditch NTSC broadcasts, or that it will cost billions for consumers to convert their TVs to HD. Those auction costs eventually get passed on to the consumers of those products, too, and that's nothing to sneeze at.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Actually he is a Bush appointee. He was one of the lawyers/advisers to Bush and Chenney in the 2000 election. He was then coat tailed into the White House as a legal aid working with the FCC and on some other telecomm/technology groups. He worked in the FCC under the previous FCC Chair before Bush nominated/appointed him to the Chair in 2005. His wife is one of Chenney's aids to boot.
My first thought is that Haliburton is getting into the wireless device industry and doesn't want to have to play nice with the existing heavily stacked market. Remember, the only thing better than big business to a Neo-Con is a big business that the Neo-Con has investments in.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Most Americans are not willing to pay the full price for a phone. As long as the networks have people hooked on subsidized phones, the phones will be feature locked down.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What is your alternative choice for deciding who gets the spectrum?
The most compelling reason to ditch NTSC is that the spectrum it occupies is very valuable, in part because it is not as impeded by obstructions as other frequencies. The switch to HDTV is a catalyst that provides an alternative. A portion of the money gained from the auction of the previous UHF/VFH space will be used for vouchers for consumers to buy conversion devices for their TVs. I suspect, though, that these will be mainly unused, as the large majority of TV viewers are on either cable or satellite, neither one of which will be directly affected.
I believe he is actually concerned with the effects on other businesses the spectrum lock is having. He sites technological advancement and sales as his concern, not the well being of the people. He believes that there is more of a profit to be made by opening the door, between new competition, new sales, and new taxes. And I agree. As an added bonus, the American people might get to see some new technology and alternative wireless communication devices.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I like this idea quite a bit, I just don't think it's far enough. It shouldn't just be the new 700MHz spectrum. If you buy ANY new space, you should have to comply with this. If you USE any space you should have to comply. No locking cells to the carrier after Dec 31st, 2007. Not 2015, not 2010, THIS YEAR. Since this is just locking and it's not a problem over seas, they have no excuse why this couldn't be done.
I'd also say contracts should be illegal (or at least termination fees) and ditto with subsidizing phones (you want to subsidize? Must be and instant rebate, none of this mail-in stuff). But I don't expect those to happen.
I'll still be surprised if this was passed.
But please, free the cell phones. Won't someone please think of the cell phones?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I love that we cannot trust our government.
I TOO had the same reaction... "Who is to benefit from this initiative? What's the catch?!"
As a people, we're just unaccustomed to anything but self-interested actions by and through government activity. It's not cynicism, it's just the plain unbiased truth. The only time any government units will feel inclined to serve the people or community is near election time... it was kind of like the mysterious way gasoline prices dropped during the last elections.
So I hope people have their thinking caps on and are considering if this may be yet another way to screw us. If they are pushing for something as simple as "no more locked devices" then I'll just be amazed.
The problem is that specific models are designed so that, even if you could unlock them, certain features will only work with a specific carrier. Even if you could buy an unlocked iPhone for example, most of its features are only going to work with AT&T.
That may be true to a certain extent, but not totally true. For example the inability to install J2ME apps straight from your computer and the inability to use Bluetooth are examples of elements that are limitations that are imposed limitations and not technology limitations. There are some features that are actually provided by the network and can be added to any phone. For example when I traveled to New Zealand I had got my cellphone unlocked in Singapore and was using a Vodaphone pay as you go SIM. I suddenly found that you get a special Vodaphone sub menu with a whole bunch of extras.
In many ways I support the move by the FCC, since it would help change the business method of cell phone carriers. It would also highlight the limitations of any given carrier, instead of making it seem to be the limitations of the cell phone. Sure it would mean that cell phone carriers would have to compete on both wireless packages and wireless phone prices, but if that helps drive the market then even better. In fact having the cell phone manufacturers play a more active role in the support of their phones would also be a welcome change, since delegating this to the carriers is usually just asking for trouble.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I really don't understand why voice data is so much cheaper than other data for a mobile phone. Voice has all sorts of guaranteed bandwidth / latency requirements, while things like HTTP can just be squeezed into spare channels and bursted when there is spare capacity without issue, yet the data used for HTTP costs more. Why not let users run whatever they want, respect QoS flags in the packets, and charge more for ones with stricter requirements?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
My (simplified) understanding is that the frequency spectrum is public property and the FCC is tasked with administering that property for the benefit of the public. The money paid is not so much a purchase of spectrum but purchase of a license to use a block of spectrum. The unlocked device restriction is a term of that license. The constitutional mandate probably comes from Congress's Article IV Section 3 powers to "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States".
The problem with that is that it makes sense to us. Most people would see that cell phone companies raising the rates of their voice service though. They had a general trend of reducing the cost of voice calls before data arrived on the spot. Now that data is here it's being treated as a separate beast to consumers even though from a technical standpoint it's just a different QoS priority.
It gives them a chance to charge more for added services which don't cost them anything additional so it's largely profit.
Of course the other side of the coin is the problems they've had with SMS and how unreliable it was when it was initially rolled out. Why could I call my friend in the UK but I couldn't SMS her? So people got used to the other idea that the quality and reliability of one service was unrelated to the other services the same company offered. That means they can charge different rates as well.
If you are over what, about 35, you remember that land line phones were heavy items you leased from the phone company. If you wanted an additional one, you called, and waited for them to bring it... People under 30 tend to be shocked by that whole concept, now you can buy a phone for a few dollars at Wal Mart or buy a complex expensive one, regardless of who you get your land line phone service from. I imagine in the coming decades, young people will be shocked that we used to be stuck getting our cell phone from the cell phone company, and didnt just buy the one we want at Wal Mart of Best Buy and get service from the company we chose...
And for more proof that things dont change- people used to have "illegal" or "Hot" phones that they got from God knows where and hooked up themselves... Just like some people crack the software in their phones and use them outside of the cell company that sold the phone...
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Well, I certainly don't care. I'm planning on putting in an order for an OpenMoko neo1973. ( details at http://www.openmoko.com/, not affiliated with them ) The cell phone guru at work has offered to help me with the connectivity side. Why should I wait on the benevolent dictator of cute to grace me with the knowledge he feels fit to bestow? I'm the kind of whacko that thinks a microwave should ship with an API CD and serial port.
I'm not an Apple basher, but definitely not a fan. It amazes me that they took a freely developed OS, used it as the foundation for their own commercial OS, used that in turn as a foundation for their proprietary locked down phone, and now won't even let the original BSD freelance guys write code for the phone! You can bet your last dollar anything I cobble together for the neo will be GPLv3.
Again, if you like Apple, go for it. I'm a utilitarian at heart and think it's perfectly OK to use technology without embracing the politics behind the scenes. But if so, you shouldn't honestly be asking for or expecting an unlock - you should take what they give you. Apple's business model is based on closed systems and keeping you locked in and everyone else locked out. If you support them then you implicitly support that philosophy.
Rather than having the FCC force manufacturers to make devices open, it would be more productive to buy from and support a manufacturer that chooses to be that way.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
Yea, I'd be amazed too, but it DOES make sense. There is a point where ALWAYS catering to big business will bite us in the ass. I feel as though one of those issues is outsourcing, and another is communication. If we, the US, fall too far behind everyone else in communication tools because of corporate greed and the government does nothing, the government is only hurting itself.
I suppose we could take this as face value for now, until special stipulations are put in place to allow Verizon, ATT, and T-Mobile to do whatever they want.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -