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.'"

Comments

It's a start.

[Mikachu]

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.

Re:It's a start.

[MBCook]

The optimist part of me says they are doing this to give it a trial without going full out incase it causes unforeseen problems. In other words, it's a safer trial run. Can't move too fast, right?

The pessimist part of me says they are doing this because it should jack the price of the two closed parts of the spectrum way above what it would be otherwise. Combine that with the heat over this open part (with big pockets like Google going against incumbent telcos) should be tons of "free" money that they don't have to get from the taxpayers (directly, since we all know what will happen to our bills).

I believe the pessimist part of me is winning about 85% to 15%.

The devil is in the details.

[Andy Dodd]

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.

"Requirements" don't mean shit anymore...

[kcbrown]

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.

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.

Re:"Requirements" don't mean shit anymore...

[ChiRaven]

As one who spent most of a 30 year career in or near telco regulatory, I would respectfully suggest that you don't know what you're talking about. Even in the days of the Bell System (a giant compared to the babies of today) the companies took regulatory restrictions seriously. And since then it's been the same.

In the late '90's and beyond, for example, they worked like mad to comply with the equal access provisions of TA96, in order to avoid the potential tens of millions of dollars in monthly fines associated with non-compliance. Give any company incentives like that and they'll listen VERY closely indeed. And do as they are ordered.

Somebody suggested recently that AT&T "owned" Senator Reid because people associate with the company had contributed $22,000 to his campaign. If the majority leader of the US Senate can be bought that cheaply then we really ARE in trouble. But I think people who try to build a case for corporate interference in government based on such flimsy "evidence" are just looking for an axe to grind.

And I am not aware of any government mandate regarding last mile buildout. By policy the FCC encourages better access for everyone, but can you cite any Order that requires specific actions? I don't even recall a NPRM along those lines.

Can I get some cake with that?

[davmoo]

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.

Re:Good News

[ciscoguy01]

This will absolutely increase competition.
The current status quo where the carriers keep a stranglehold on the equipment supply and use it as a method of keeping their customers signed to two year contracts is outrageous.
We should be able to buy our equipment from any reseller and use it on any compatible network. Then there would be competition and the prices of phones would decline and the features we really want would be made available.

what BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Where are the cheap BYOP service plans?

[tepples]

You already can buy equipment from any reseller and use it on any compatible network. You just have to pay for it without the Cell company subsidizing part of the cost. In other words you won't be paying $49.99 for that cell phone, you'll be paying it's REAL cost of $349.99. So why don't retail stores across the United States sell phones separately from service plans? And why don't the four major carriers advertise bring-your-own-phone plans with a lower monthly fee than the subsidized-phone plans?

Re:Where are the cheap BYOP service plans?

[Andy Dodd]

Because the market for such phones is not sufficiently large for their to be a significant B&M presence.

That's why you only see unlocked phones from specialty online retailers such as Mobileplanet and some manufacturers, such as Motorola.

Note: This only applies (essentially) to AT&T and T-Mobile, the two major GSM carriers in the U.S. Unfortunately, while the modulation scheme and protocol suite of cdmaOne/CDMA2000 are superior to GSM, GSM has one major advantage - The use of a standardized SIM (Subscriber Identification Module) is mandatory for GSM handsets, meaning all you need is a SIM from the carrier and a phone either from the carrier or a vendor of non-carrier-locked handsets (such as Mobileplanet).

AT&T and T-Mobile allow bring-your-own-handset but don't advertise it because, in reality, there is unfortunately no market for it, and they would prefer for users to use the carrier's handsets, for two reasons:

Sometimes features of carrier-branded handsets are crippled to make the user have to pay for extra features (See Verizon and Bluetooth DUN on the Treo 650).

Sometimes carrier-branded handsets have extra marketing/"features" designed to get you to pay for services from the carrier. (Such as the built-in "XM Radio" app on AT&T versions of HTC devices.)

Those two reasons are why you never see "BYOD" discounts, similarly you don't see service discounts for non-contract-subsidized phones from the carriers. Your "discount" is the fact that you are not locked into a contract.

Re:Where are the cheap BYOP service plans?

[ciscoguy01]

There are *no* plans like that.
I tried to get a number with Cingular, now AT&T- without a contract. There was no way.
I had my own phone, I just needed a SIM and I didn't want a 2 year deal, which since they are not subsidizing my phone I should have been able to get.
NOPE. There was no way. It was not available. I went to the local store, I called their tollfree number. Went to a reseller. NOPE.

Neither Sprint nor Verizon will activate a foreign phone, and with CDMA it's not a matter of sticking your SIM in the phone. You gotta ask "mother may I" to get activated.

The best thing that could possibly happen is the carriers become pure carriers and the phone sales are through retailers. Then there would be a whole wall full of different phones at Walmart at competitive prices. There would be price rollbacks too!

The phone carriers have all their phones marked up greatly so they can give you a giant fake discount when you sign your two year deal. That all needs to go away.

It seems from the news story the FCC is going to force the carriers to open their service to whatever device you want to put on it, and that is going to be a condition of the spectrum auction.
It can't happen soon enough!

FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps

[not_hylas( )]

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]

About time ...

[ScrewMaster]

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.)

Re:Good News

[schmiddy]

I'm glad to see the FCC taking this small first step, but I don't have a lot of hope for how much this would help. When you think about it, all the sleazy monopolistic telecom companies are basically offering the exact same service: transferring bits from one end of a network to another. Of course, instead of treating this service like what it is (i.e. a commodity) and charging appropriately, the telecoms love pretending that they're offering something unique and, of course, charging excessively for it. Witness the outrageous rates for text messages (which should cost a fraction of what a voice call costs), EDGE/GPRS (voice calls are already almost always transferred digitally.. and yet the telecoms pretend they've built separate special data-only networks that you must pay an extra $50/month for), "Powerboost" from Comcast (who is RST'ing bittorrent conns to eke out the bandwidth to do this).

If the FCC really wants to help us consumers, how about freeing up a reasonable portion of the spectrum, that's not competing with microwave ovens and cordless phones, for free use in consumer devices. Maybe then we could solve the "last mile problem" our own damn selves without depending on these crooked telecoms who seem to only be concerned with merging with each other, eating up government handouts, and ignoring consumer complaints.