Slashdot Mirror
FCC Looks To Offer Consumers More Wireless Choice
An anonymous reader writes "The FCC is butting heads with wireless phone companies over 'wiggle room' the government organization wishes to allow consumers. Along with the move to the auction system, the government is removing restrictions on pieces of the wireless spectrum, which will allow a freedom of choice not usually seen with wireless communication devices. 'In the past, when the F.C.C. auctioned spectrum for cellular service, it allowed the winners to determine the equipment and applications that would run on their networks. That created the current status quo, in which a vast majority of American consumers buy a handset from a wireless service provider. The open-access rules, which will apply to about one-third of the spectrum being sold at the auction, represent a significant departure from past practice. They require the winners to let consumers use any tested, safe and compatible device or application on its network. Entrepreneurs could sell handsets with capabilities that are unavailable -- or unavailable at affordable prices -- from current carriers.'"
Sounds like good news to me, it will increase competition.
There is no place like
Well, at least it's a start. God knows we need some regulation to stop the wireless cartels from gouging the prices beyond belief. I don't know what the hell they were thinking when they sold our souls to the devil thus far.
Still, why only one third? With something so limited as a spectrum, why the hell would you license our future to corporations?
Don't answer that, unfortunately, I know all too well. Greed is a very strong part of our government.
One: The network owner can bastardize the definition of "tested, safe, and compatible" in any way they please. For example, "tested, safe, and compatible" is the excuse Verizon has for delaying the release of phones for 6-9 months past the same unit's release on other networks. (In reality, it's because they're crippling various features of the phone to make more money - see the manner in which they delayed the Treo 650 for at least six months and disabled Bluetooth DUN capability in the process.) This happens to be one of a number of reasons why I am no longer a Verizon customer.
Two: You can already use any FCC-certified GSM device on any of the GSM networks in the U.S. Just pop in your SIM and go. (Assuming that your handset itself is not locked to a different carrier.) For example, you can buy an unlocked HTC TyTn II directly from the manufacturer, pop in a T-Mobile or AT&T SIM, and be up and running immediately. Want a droolworthy device like the HTC Advantage series? Just pop in your SIM and go.
In the end, unless there's something "unusual" in the details, this doesn't appear to be much different (if at all) from the status quo.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Ok, so their idea is "help consumers" by regulating it so everyone who owns a piece of spectrum has to make acquaintance for every device and service?
so if they want IPTV over that spectrum the cell phone company must provide IPTV?
this seems a little counterproductive to me.
In fact it sounds to me like the FCC has reached a new level of regulatory bastardization.. anything which makes things as hard as possible for one, if not both sides of the table is best amirite?
note, I'm all for pro-consumer regulation, but I don't see this as pro consumer at all, just an imposition of costs which will make their way to consumers.
I know that line sounds tired because it's overused by idiots who don't understand when that dynamic actually occurs, but I actually see this in this case.
I could be reading this wrong though, in fact I must be, so someone please provide an interpretation which does not sound like a used car salesman?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
All the telcos will do is create new proprietary codecs that only they have patents to so no one can use the airwaves anyway. otherwise they get DMCA'd.
Uh-huh. Sure. And if the winners don't do any such thing, then what?
If the big telcos are the winners then I can pretty much guarantee that the FCC isn't going to do a thing to enforce this. The telcos (like the other huge corporations) own the government, and the government knows who its masters are.
So in the end, "requirements" such as this one are just free publicity and a way to calm the masses down. They mean nothing.
Just look at how well the internet "last-mile" buildout is working out here in the U.S. if you don't believe me.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
The problem is going to be that Joe Consumer wants to have his cake and eat it too...he wants his device unlocked, and also wants it subsidized by the carrier. Sure, there might be unlocked devices available that aren't tied to a specific carrier. But they will come at a premium price, something that the average American who expects a $5 top of the line cellphone will not pay.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Is this before or after you build her belgian bedroom?
never let a man put his dirty how-do-you-do into your bajingo
Well, at the very least, that was one of the most entertaining troll posts I've ever read.
This is old news. The 2 open access requirements are a result of Google demanding the auction enforce 4 open access rules on any winner. The FCC made a political move by meeting Google half-way.
That said, it's good to finally see an article about this that doesn't invoke crazy conspiracy theories and applauds the FCC for taking (some) steps to protect consumers.
How about, entrepreneurs could sell handsets with capabilities that are submarine patented by current carriers, and be sued out of existence, à la Vonage.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
In the past, when the F.C.C. auctioned spectrum for cellular service, it allowed the winners to determine the equipment and applications that would run on their networks.
Not true. If you have an account with T-Mobile or AT&T/Cingular, they do NOT restrict the handsets you can use. Any unlocked GSM handset that works with 850/1900 MHz will work. You can buy these all over the world.
I've heard of people doing that with Verizon's CDMA service, but never seen it myself.
That created the current status quo, in which a vast majority of American consumers buy a handset from a wireless service provider.
No, the vast majority of American consumers get a handset from their wireless service provider because it is quick & easy, you are guaranteed it will work with the provider, and the provider offers free/discounted handsets if you sign a contract for a year or more.
They should have just given consumers open access to the spectrum so that we could have something better than Wifi.... And why won't they just harmonize our frequencies with European carriers, or at least just pick some national broadcast standards.
I'm not so "up" on this particular subject, but I did see this fellow speak to some committee a while back [CSPAN] on The Spectrum Sale, or something related.
In this administation of incompetence, this guy is a real relief to hear speak - about what is the people's, he is the real deal.
Bill Moyers talks with FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08242007/watch.html
MICHAEL J COPPS: Now we're back at square one. It's all up for grabs. And if we are going to do better this time around, it's going to be because of input from folks like you.
MICHAEL COPPS: Well, we're going at it without a policy. We're going at it without a vision. We're going at it without realizing what these things mean to the future of our country. Whether it's broadcast or broadband.The public airwaves are to be used for serving the public interest. Expanding our cultural horizon, covering community news, enabling the democratic dialogue. Increasingly, we have moved away from that vision and they're being used for corporate profitability.
MICHAEL COPPS: Yeah. It appears 112 times in the Telecommunications Act. The term public interest convenience and necessity. So I know darn well Congress was serious about it.
BILL MOYERS: You're talking about the 1934 Act.
MICHAEL COPPS: Right.
You know it's BAD when you get excited about someone speaking "common sense" on CSPAN. The link is worth the time to view.
Where DO they hide these quality people - and who do we have to blow to get them in government?
[don't answer that]
~hylas
and why not? The days of telecom provider lock-in on subscriber equipment were supposed to have been over when old AT&T was broken up. Comcast doesn't require that I purchase my computer and operating system from them (and if they tried, their customers would scream bloody murder.) I do rent my VoIP gateway from AT&T, true ... but I can use any compatible POTS equipment with it that I want. I fail to see why the cellular companies have reacquired the privilege of screwing their customers this way (other than the same reason that dogs lick their balls.)
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I have to say, quoting Serbian epic poetry is a new one on me.
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
First off, Japanese CDMA has its Rx/Tx switched in the 800MHz band, and their EVDO runs on 2100MHz. Second, they use non-standard ESNs (5 letters A-Z followed by 6 numbers).
DoCoMo phones (the roaming-capable ones) are 2100/850 3G, so coverage would be extremely limited in the US, and they are locked down *hard*. Some Softbank phones have been unlocked, but the ones that haven't are the ones that require "phoning home" to Softbank every so often or the phone locks up. Mostly it's the older Vodafone Japan phones that have been unlocked, and yes, those have some of the innumerable unavailable features and functionality.
OSx86 FTW
Long ago, this used to be the norm. Ma Bell (and AT&T, etc) were not allowed by law to restrict what equipment could be used on "public" telephone lines. They managed to do so anyway, by insisting that if you did not use a phone made by Western Electric (a wholly-owned subsidiary), you had to pay extra fees, have an installer hook it up, and pay for an "adapter" device that supposedly made sure the equipment was compatible with the phone line.
Many people are not aware, but it was this "monopoly leverage" into the phone HARDWARE business that was the major factor behind the breakup of Ma Bell. This was one of my case studies in Business Law at university. The breakup was caused by the fact that they used their power as a semi-public monopoly on phone lines to effectively restrict the market to just their own telephones.
This kind of thing should always be and should always have been the rule of the day. They should not be allowed to use semi-monopoly in one market to force people's purchases in another market. Like, for example, iPhone and AT&T. That is not free market or "competition". It is, in some ways, the opposite.
Yes two is greater than one but then again we have two political parties, soviet russia only had one. Last I checked neither of them gave two shits about the people... Semper Fi
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"