Slashdot Mirror
Why US Wireless Isn't Wide Open
Geoffery B tips a story in Business Week about why the US cellular carriers' talk about opening up their networks rings hollow. "Even as the wireless industry chants a new gospel about opening mobile phone networks to outside devices and applications, some of the biggest US carriers are quietly blocking new services that would compete with their own. Would-be mobile-service providers, ranging from startups to major banks to eBay's PayPal, have encountered these roadblocks, erected by the likes of AT&T and Verizon Wireless. In some cases, cellular carriers have backed down, but only after inflicting costly delays on the new services."
I don't think it's out of the norm for a business in a competitive market to create artificial barriers to entry to protect their profit margins. In a capitalist system, a business must take certain steps to "get ahead" of current and would be competition to survive. These are typical tactics.
I feel like the summary is a tad sensationalist... I don't find a business not voluntarily allowing more competition to be suprising.
Nothing to see here... Please move along.
And you're surprised at this news...why?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Very scary how much power they have. I think the FCC goes out of their way to help them out way to much. Also there is an unspoken rule on the hill that if you bring the money to economy (free the money from citizens pockets) and thus generate revenue for the government you have almost free reign on what you can do. It's looked at from a global perspective now where we as a country compete with other countries. I believe that this is way to short term solution for keeping the US powerful. If the airwaves are opened to to the public in general I think this will spur an incredible amount of innovation through the sharing of information. A knowledgeable populace and free flowing of ideas is the most powerful tool we can have as citizens.
Morality, filters both ways.
The article is about foot-dragging and rejections for some short-code services that compete with the wireless carriers.
Even if they were completely open about what phones and services you could use on their network, it wouldn't amount to much thanks to subsidized phones. How many people will really pay full retail price for a phone when they can get one that is just as good, but locked down, for "free"? Yay, I can save $2 on custom ringtones if I pay $150 more for my phone.
In my case, I would like to know whether US cell phone numbers are portable. That is to say; can one have a number say 123-456-7890 in Detroit pegged to carrier ABC switch to another carrier and still retain the same number 123-456-7890?
Your first two statements would seem to contradict the third one.
No, you are wrong. Not about the USA being run by greedy corporations but in what our response should be when a corporation steps over the line. You see it is not always the most profitable to do what is most profitable in the short term. That is the lesson we need to teach corporations. When they alienate their customers by treating them like trash or worse like criminals (RIAA can you hear me now?) then the consumers need to respond by taking business elsewhere and raising public awareness. This will ensure that such moves are not profitable and then even their stockholders will demand that they stop being such greedy bastards with a short view of the future and look more at how they can foster a good relationship with their customers in the long term.
And not leased to businesses that prices propped and want spectrum hoarded to prevent competition.
THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE.
Open the frequencies. Create a wireless open network. Install public towers if necessary.
Public deserves atleast a lowcost emergency phone which doesn't need the monthly and yearly contract slavery.
That seems to be the heart of your 'argument'. Greed is not good, Gordon.
Blar.
Anyone get Vonage's opinion on how open and fair the competition is?
carriers take about half of premium sms cost (imagine visa charging 50% on each transaction) and at the same time they are protecting themselves against competition by reducing amount of premium sms they process?? reminds me of a dinosaur munching on his left foot who doesn't feel the pain yet as it takes time to travel in his long and stupid body.
...it's called the Homersaurus IIRC
I can to some extent understand the carriers blocking alternative phone plans, that is kind of logical competitive behavior. But what on earth is AT&T doign in banking? It would seem more logical to have an open system where all banks can talk to all phones -- that is a great way to drive traffic, and traffic is what a cellular carrier should thrive on.
For someone from Europe, the idea that cell carriers do these kinds of shenanigans is just amazing. Here, you can buy a phone with no contract, pop in your SIM, and off you go. And banking is done over WAP or HTTP in the phone's browser -- which can access anything on the 'net without restrictions. If I want to get the latest Nokia, I can. And paying 600 USD for a phone makes perfect sense if you know you can keep it for a few years, have bragging rights, and choose and cheap plan for it.
The US model is just so strange, fortunately it seems like the exception from the rule.
The article is about "short codes" for text messaging (e.g., "Text 105312 to vote for the next American Idol!"). The telcos are slow to approve new short codes. This has little, if anything, to do with open network access.
Illustrative example: The wired phone network is an open-access network (i.e., you can call whomever you want using whatever phone you want and transmit whatever data you want), but that doesn't mean the phone company has to give me a 3-digit access number (ala 911, 411, etc) if I ask for one. This article is stupid.
Because the field is completely dominated by huge corporations with great influence in Washington, free markets are incapable of demolishing, and in fact work in favor of monopolies, people are too apathetic to learn, let alone do anything about it, too scared of offending the corpogoverment and worst of all, too resentful of each other to believe they can work together for their mutual benefit.
But... the future refused to change.
The truth though is that in many companies are not customer focused, but competitor focused, expending more effort in body-slamming the competition than improving their goods/services. In these cases the customers are very definitely not advantaged.
As with most ideologies, captialism is not good or bad of itself. The goodness or badness comes from how the game is played.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Here, here. I can't stand this idea that by saying "it's just business" you get to absolve yourself of any discussion of ethics. People are essentially asserting that, by saying 'it's just intelligent business' that you ought to be able to operate in an atmosphere of applied amorality.
As much as many of his stuff annoys the hell out of me, Michael Moore had a line one time about "why doesn't Chrysler sell crack?"
When a company does something unethical, they say they have not just a right but a responsibility to maximize return for shareholders. So, if that's all that matters, why not sell crack? Or heroin, or Russian hookers, for that matter?
The obvious answer is that we as a society have decided (granted this is not perfect) that certain behaviors are so harmful or immoral or unethical that we say "nobody is allowed to do this", which is perfectly reasonable in a democracy.
Now, we could have a lot of room for debate over what exactly should or should not be allowed, but I'm sick and tired of people taking the approach that businesses should operate in a morality/ethics-free zone.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Everyone knows that a market free of government interference provides the best outcome for everyone. So, what we have in the cellular industry in the United States is the optimal state. Is somebody trying to blaspheme the unseen hand of the market?
There is also a money barrier which majority occur in CDMA mobile operator areas. For example, Loopt to get access to GP Son Sprint networks including MVNOs has to give 85% of their revenue to Sprint for the honor of getting GPS access. Can you imagine the amount of the start ups that have to face this money obstacle.
On the GSM operator side its less not because they are less mean but because the GSM network is different and thus less access blocking opportunities.
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Just who's botnets are hacking my wireless two minutes after I turn it on?
Why isn't *YOUR* house open for me to use?