Verizon Wireless To Open Network

A number of readers are letting us know about Verizon's plans, announced today, to open their nationwide wireless network to devices that they don't sell. A NYTimes blog posting puts VZW's announcement in industry context. From the press release: "In early 2008, the company will publish the technical standards the development community will need to design products to interface with the Verizon Wireless network. Any device that meets the minimum technical standard will be activated on the network. Devices will be tested and approved in a $20 million state-of-the-art testing lab which received an additional investment this year to gear up for the anticipated new demand. Any application the customer chooses will be allowed on these devices."

Comments

Google pressure

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like they feel the heat from the big G.

No

[Jonesy69]

No, the iPhone wont work. Lets just clear that up right now.

Re:No

[BecomingLumberg]

Because a GSM phone won't work on a CDMA network.

Re:No

[timbck2]

For the iPhone to work on Verizon's network, one of two things has to happen:

(1) Apple releases a CDMA version of the iPhone

(2) Verizon changes their network over to GSM nationwide.

(2) isn't going to happen. (1) might, but not until AT&T's exclusive on the iPhone has expired (2012?)

Re:No

[DECS]

Well Verizon Wireless is almost entirely CDMA2000+ EVDO, while the iPhone uses GSM + EDGE. Unless Verizon rolls out a huge WiFi network, the iPhone won't be able to use Verizon's network. On the other hand, it appears that the move was pushed by the popularity of the iPhone, and the threat of Google. With Verizon locked out of 27% of the US mobile phone market within just a few months of iPhone sales*, it wants/needs as much telephony tied to CDMA2000 as possible as a counterbalance. If Google can buy up and deploy open networks on the old analog TV spectrum within a few years, that would leave Verizon's ~$5 billion new CDMA2000/EVDO networks a vast, unsalable investment that can't be monetized in the subsidy lock model of the 90s.

*iPhone Grabs 27% of US Smartphone Market

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

That's 27% of the *smartphone* market, which is not even close to 27% of the mobile phone market. Same article later talks about Apple having 3% marektshare overall, which is not nerely as impressive.

Re:No

[davester666]

It might just be me, but Verizon could totally kick start this by NOT CRIPPLING THE PHONES THEY SELL. Stop removing features the manufacturers already developed, that end-users might actually want and use, just so they have to download a ringtone from Verizon.com...

Re:No

[SleepyHappyDoc]

That would require AT&T to be as stupid as Apple was smart. I doubt they'd leave such a gaping hole in an exclusivity agreement.

Re:No

[Stonent1]

Verizon's biggest problem is themselves. They have the best coverage in my experience by far, but everything else about them drives customers away. They disable features on the phones, they customize the OS on the phones to ensure Verizon lock-in. They are the cellular version of the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld. "What you want extra butter for your bread?! NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

I've never been to Europe so I don't know how Vodafone treats their customers (Vodafone is part owner of Verizon Wireless) so I don't know who's influencing these decisions.

Re:No

[noc007]

(2) Verizon changes their network over to GSM nationwide.

(2) isn't going to happen. Not necessarily. Verizon has stated that it intends to move towards LTE. LTE is essentailly 4G GSM. I guess they caved to the wills of their 45% stake owner, VodaPhone.

I don't know how the hell VZW is going to migrate their customer base. I suppose they'll allot a certain amount of spectrum for LTE with the according devices, then scale back the spectrum allotment for CDMA as customers upgrade away from their broken phones to the new shiny. Mind you, I am not that intimately familiar with CDMA, GSM, or VZW's spectrum and equipment to know if that's feasible, so don't quote me.

Re:No

[Zebedeu]

I've never been to Europe so I don't know how Vodafone treats their customers (Vodafone is part owner of Verizon Wireless) so I don't know who's influencing these decisions. It's hard to tell, because if they wanted to be dicks (and I believe they would), they would get hammered by the competition.

But for reference, I just bought a Vodafone-branded phone, even though it's unlocked and I'm using it on another network.
In this phone, of the three available buttons on the home screen, one is set to access the vodafone web page (which doesn't confirm if you want to access the internet -- it just does). As you might expect, this button is used for other things, like hanging up a call, which means that you can have lots of fun closing your web browser every time the person on the other side hangs up before you do, and you press that damn "vodafone live" option by mistake.

For what it's worth, I never saw the standard software for this phone (SE W660i) so I don't know if the button always had this functionality, but I had another SE (K750i), and it didn't have this problem.

I will buy a phone with Android as soon as it's available. I hope its open nature will stop companies from being able to pull crap like this, but at least I should be able to change some option on the web browser which asks for confirmation before accessing the web.

This seems very much unlike Verizon

[yincrash]

I'm in shock. Verizon is fairly well known for locking down every phone they offer. What spurred the sudden change of heart? Google Android?

Re:This seems very much unlike Verizon

[geekoid]

Verizon has been becoming more friendly towards there customers over the last few years.
No, not perfect.
Any company that lowers the price of their product, even to people in a contract for a higher amount, is pretty good in my book.

Re:This seems very much unlike Verizon

[jtara]

I wonder how much the Amazon Kindle has to do with this? (The Kindle uses EVDO through Sprint to download books, and Amazon picks up the tab for the airtime.)

It seems to me like this is more oriented toward that type of specialized device, rather than simply a "bring your own phone" option.

I think Verizon may have realized that there is potentially a huge new market to be tapped, which could go to WiFi or other carriers if they don't provide the ability to use these type of devices on their network.

Re:This seems very much unlike Verizon

[a_nonamiss]

IMHO, that's untrue. My company has used Verizon for years, and they are NOT becoming more friendly towards us. They have better PR people now, but they are just as much on the lookout for "revenue leak" as they've always been. Any company that treats their customer as opponents in some sort of battle for cash is not customer friendly. A good business deal should benefit both parties involved. That's not done by screwing your customers.

Re:This seems very much unlike Verizon

[2PAIRofACES]

A good business deal should benefit both parties involved. That's not done by screwing your customers. Unless of course you're business is prostitution.

Holy Crap!!! I just realized I figured out the mythical step 2.

Step 1. Screw your customers!
Step 2. Make sure you're a prostitute!
Step 3. Profit!

Re:This seems very much unlike Verizon

[The_Wilschon]

Shouldn't steps 1 and 2 be switched?

Hmmm, step 1, accomplished! Now let's see about step 2... ... .... Crap. I'm not a prostitute. No Profit!!! for me after all.

Re:This seems very much unlike Verizon

[Isao]

What spurred the sudden change of heart?

Sprint. They were the first to lose the class-action lawsuit.

Unprecedented doesn't begin to describe it

[jeffmeden]

What might Verizon have up their sleeve on this one? They have traditionally been a VERY closed, clandestine network that offers no support for third party anything, and a very aggressive attitude against any efforts to open up (bluetooth lockout is one example). To see them changing their attitude is great, but what is the catch?

Re:Unprecedented doesn't begin to describe it

[kackle]

Undoubtedly it was in response to Google's bidding to make an "open spectrum".

As a person who has explored making a device for use on Ver*izon's network (job related), I tell you that there is a substantial certification fee for such devices; 2 years ago anyway I was told it was roughly a couple of hundred thousand dollars for a design. I wonder whether they are changing that too...

Let me get this straight...

[Shoeler]

The most evil of evil cellular companies, the company that replaces perfectly unacceptable, already crippled stock phone operating systems with COMPLETELY UTTERLY crippled operating systems, the same one who if you buy their Motorola RAZR and try to use MOTOROLA's OWN MOBILE PHONE TOOLS, will not allow said use. The same one who requires a USB CHARGER PURCHASED FROM THEM, when any charger will suffice, is now opening their network???!!!

'Scuse me - that sizzling sound was hell freezing over.

Any device?

[a_nonamiss]

Any device that meets the minimum technical standard will be activated on the network That's a helluva loophole. It's possible that they just want to protect their network from rogue devices, but I think they could use that clause to deny a lot of devices. Also, the article mentions fees associated with testing. Are those fees geared towards the individual consumer or phone manufacturers? Hundreds or millions of dollars?

I'd like to be optimistic, but I've (unwillingly) been a Verizon customer for years, and I'd be surprised to see a leopard change its spots...

This is non-news...

[lstellar]

...until Verizon defines "technical standards," fleshes out billing methods and joins the Google alliance (along with Sprint/Nextel and T-Mobile). Until then, this just sounds like evil Verizon trying to up their Karma modifier.

Peachy....

[wowbagger]

Peachy. So I can now get mobile devices by a wide range of vendors, and pay Verizon large amounts of money every month to use those devices. What great altruists are Verizon.

Verizon charges US$60 a month to access their data service from my computer via my phone.

I tried calling a modem under my control as a data call - while modem speeds aren't great, they are better than nothing, and I'd gladly spend minutes I wouldn't otherwise use for those rare occasions I want data access but have no WiFi.

It didn't work.

I verified that I could call the modem with a normal phone - thus the only variable left was Verizon. I contacted them, and asked them about this. I was VERY CLEAR that I was not trying to access their data service, but rather my own modem.

Their response? "Oh, you need the US$60 plan to do that." I need to pay them US$60 a month to access my own damn modem.

Sorry, but being able to access Verizon with other people's devices doesn't really thrill me - especially since every one of those devices will still have to license the CDMA patents form Qualcomm - the Microsoft of the phone industry.

Re:Peachy....

[LunaticTippy]

I am not trying to defend Verizon, a company I actively hate, but I'd like to explain why this didn't work.

Most digital voice service uses lossy compression, like the mp3 format. If you lossily compress the analog modem noise you won't have a stable signal. You would find the same problem with pretty much any cellular service and most VOIP services. Even with lossless compression you would probably have problems and end up with a low data rate.

Re:Peachy....

[wowbagger]

No, a data call initiated by Bluetooth DUN does NOT go through the vocoder - rather, it is encapsulated on a 1xRTT channel and transmitted instead of voice data. At the far end the system then takes the data out of the 1xRTT data stream, digitally modulates it into modem signaling, and injects that into the PSTN as standard PCM data.

This doesn't even tie up a "modem", as all that is happening is that the base equipment is just using a time slot on the PSTN trunk, just like a voice call.

So, this is UNLIKE using their US$60 service, as this is using a single 1xRTT voice slot (thus burdening the system no more than a voice call), instead of taking up a chunk of the EVDO channels available.

Moreover, Verizon *used* to offer exactly this sort of service: you could do a normal 1xRTT data call to their system and access the Internet at the relatively slow speeds of 1xRTT for only the cost of the minutes used..

Re:Peachy....

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yes it is. I used to work with modems extensively. I had to simulate line noise and what not to test the reliability of our custom x/z modem implementations. I spent a lot of time talking into the the line on a connected phone. I tried connecting many many times, it only happened once that actually connected. Still, one of my proudest accomplishments.

Re:Translated

[a_nonamiss]

I think you just hit the nail right between the eyes.

Ok cool, but...

[aztektum]

Competition is a good thing

However...

While most Verizon Wireless customers prefer the convenience of full service, the company is listening through today's announcement to a small but growing number of customers who want another choice without full service. Would they mind defining what "without full service" means? Also, how much more are they going to gouge "bring your own" customers? There's always a catch/hook/rub/premium for have it your way.

I never understood why the obsession with mobile companies locked phones/formats? Right, lockin so you can only buy their ringtones and use their premium services. But I worked at Sprint for a couple years and at that time they lost their asses on phone swaps. Wouldn't it be easier if they simply sold service, supported open standards and reduced operating costs by not stocking a giant cache of crappy phones they cover under replacement. That has to chew into those premium service profits really fast.

Offer a solid damn service and let people fight Motorola, Samsung, Sanyo, etc over device issues. It's like expecting the gas station attendant to fix your tranny after he tops you off.

I think we can all agree

[rehtonAesoohC]

I think we can all agree that this is definitely not Verizon lifting her skirt for us.

This is more like Verizon bringing us to her front doorstep with promises of gratification, only to slap us and call us names for even implying something might happen.

The whore.

This is what we've had in the UK for years...

[DamonHD]

...from most carriers anyway (some like Orange have a fee to get phones on or off their network).

Ie, if you have a GSM or 3G phone and a SIM card then you can just use it in the UK.

You'll have to pay the carrier for the SIM and traffic of course, but from any reasonable device you want.

Rgds

Damon

PS. I think most Europeans, used to being behind on technology, are baffled by the US phone 'notwork'...

Re:This is what we've had in the UK for years...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Ie, if you have a GSM or 3G phone and a SIM card then you can just use it in the UK.

This is exactly the way it works in the US with AT&T and T-Mobile, the two national GSM carriers in the US. AT&T offers UMTS (GSM 3G) and HSDPA, too (T-Mobile is waiting for the spectrum they purchased to become available).

PS. I think most Europeans, used to being behind on technology, are baffled by the US phone 'notwork'...

I'm not sure I'd describe Europe as 'behind on technology', but I would recommend that they learn more about the mobile phone situation in the US before judging. There are five national mobile phone networks, using three different technologies (GSM/UMTS, IDEN, CDMA2000) on four different bands (850/1900/1700/FMR). That's not even considering the hundreds of local and regional players, many of whom have more subscribers than major European carriers.

This seems typical of the "standard European comment about US mobile phone networks". The US has over 100 million GSM subscribers. You could at least bother to scan the Wikipedia article about Verizon Wireless before talking about how "poor" our mobile service is here. Yes, things are billed differently here (we pay for incoming calls but typically pay less per minute). Some things are better (unlimited EDGE/UMTS/HSDPA for $20/mo, "free" nights/weekends/in-network calling), some things are worse ($0.15 per SMS - send AND receive). But we're not some kind of mobile backwater. Evil providers notwithstanding.

Re:Any device? -Pretty much!

[appleguru]

No official word on pricing, etc, but as of now anyways it looks like it will be both affordable and not too difficult to meet the "minimum technical standard"

From ars (Emphasis mine):

All applications, operating systems, and runtime environments are supported so long as the devices connect properly to Verizon's CDMA network (they can make use of either the company's cellular and PCS bandwidth). The fee for certification of devices will be "surprisingly reasonable," we're told, and the program will be open to anyone. One Verizon exec went so far as to say that if someone builds a device in their basement on a breadboard, Verizon will test it and activate it. Smaller players will definitely be able to get in on the action, something that hasn't previously been possible.

Bait and Switch

[mpapet]

The tiger can't change its stripes and I don't expect Verizon to either.

from the summary: "Devices will be tested and approved"

This is the classic strategy whereby they get bragging rights "It's wide open!!!" and yet mysteriously few, if anything will ever get on because of the details conspicuously absent from the announcement.

1. How much does testing cost?
2. How much does approval cost?
3. Once it's approved, how much is the daily/weekly/monthly tax the device/app builder pays to Verizon?

This is Extreme Marketing 101. All the hot oil you can dream up and no popcorn.

Oblig Brannigan

[C0rinthian]

"If we hit that bullseye, then the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."

CDMA vs GSM

[chiller2]

I think the real story here is that CDMA is loosing market share to GSM. The latter is cheaper and globally widespread so Verizon are trying to bolster CDMA device usage.

VZW is gearing up for a fight.

[Alcoholic Dali]

Verizon is opening it's network up as a response to the likely chance that Google is going to win the FCC run auction for the highly discussed 700MHz spectrum.

Google is going to open up that spectrum and forcibly alter how the cell phone industry works in the United States. Verizon, not wanting to be outdone, is sort of pre-empting this by saying they will now open up their own network.

The cell phone industry in this country is going to get shaken real soon, and it's going to be nothing short of awesome.

Re:technically not possible

[m2943]

You misunderstood. You're using your phone as a modem: your phone pretends to be a serial modem and uses your data plan. I do that all the time myself.

What the GP seemed to want was to use his phone to connect to a remote analog modem without using a data plan. It's not unreasonable, but basically, it doesn't work.

Interesting timing on that

[Solandri]

The 700 MHz spectrum auction is supposed to happen before Jan 28, 2008. Verizon's announcement says the technical specifications will be released in "early 2008". Sounds to me like it's to discourage any further mandates by the FCC on the bidding process, and to provide a disincentive for any other bit players thinking of lining up behind Google. "Oh, there's no need to mandate any more openness requirements, we're already going to do it. See, look at this announcement we made. What? Of course we're going to follow through on it. Trust us." It's pretty pathetic that I'm this cynical of Verizon's motives, but that cynicism comes from 3 years experience as a customer.

Should we thank google?

[DTemp]

Based on this article over at ars, it seems like Google had a big part in this. Pushing for open access rules in the FCC frequency auction (that Verizon originally SUED OVER but relented), and creating the Android platform that Verizon KNEW it had to somehow get a piece of, after viewing AT&T laughing all the way to the bank with the iPhone deal... yeah I think this wouldn't be happening without Google.

Re:Any device? -Pretty much!

[moosesocks]

Translation:
"Nobody wants to build decent phones for our proprietary network, because we've completely destroyed our reputation among the manufacturers by intentionally crippling their phones."

Now Verizon wants smaller players to get in on the action, and hopefully fix their reputation by coming up with something innovative. I'd imagine that they're not only jealous of the iPhone, but also the amazing GSM phones that Europe's had for quite some time now. Let's face it -- the current selection of CDMA phones absolutely sucks.

I'd also imagine that the FCC (or the Boston police department...) would have a few things to say about a breadboard phone :-P