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."

Comments

Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Why US Wireless Isn't Wide Open Answer: Greed.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Better answer: because they can.

Banning corporate lobbying will give us a nice jolting shakeup of our government.

Re:Summary

[CajunArson]

Remember kids this is Slashdot where greed is ALWAYS EVIL.*

* Exceptions:
        1. Apple getting premium prices
        2. Any Slashdot fanboy downloading any movie/music/game for free since this it's only greedy when the creators want $$ for it, not when Slashbots want it for free
        3. The other companies mentioned in this article that are not really being banned, but may not be able to get "short" numbers. They are not greedy, since they want to make money, and get a scarce resource (short number codes). If these non-Verizon companies want to hog the short codes this is NOT greedy because they are Slashdot approved. Only the cellphone companies are greedy. Everything is purely black & white.
        4. Whenever a Slashdot approved company makes money: AMD, IBM (called an 'underdog' for unknown reasons), Google, Apple (again)
        5. Any company with a '90's style business plan that goes under due to ineptitude. They are seen as being martyrs for the religious cause of the week, and that they should have succeeded except for George Bush being evil and destroying them.

Re:Summary

[Elemenope]

Whoa! The equivocations are flying by at light speed!

For the record, trying to make money != greed. Not relinquishing a dominated holding (what they're doing is legal) is not greedy, it's intelligent business.

If one's sole concern is profit, to the exclusion of all other concerns (public health, advancement of humanity, humor value, whim, sex appeal, religious imperatives, etc.), then that's greed. It really doesn't matter *at all* if it has the sanction of law or not; law says next to nothing about ethics, and greed is primarily an ethical judgment.

Intelligent business *is* greedy. Leveraging dominant market share *is* greedy. Trying to make money (as a corporate mandate, not in general; individual moneymaking is a more complicated issue) *is* greedy.

Now, what really needs to be talked about is whether greed is at all times *good*, **bad* or something in between. That would be the moral discussion, divorced as it is nearly entirely from both law *and* ethics.

Hmm

[christus_ae]

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.

Re:Hmm

[ciscoguy01]

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.

But in the US wireless market that's hardly what's going on. The carriers keep a stranglehold on the equipment supply by being essentially the only buyer of handsets from each manufacturer. Which explains why the manufacturers have been making handsets the carriers want instead of what we want, until Apple came along that is.

They keep the prices artificially high on those handsets so they can discount them (or even give you one "free") but only in exchange for signing a long contract to pay them monthly. It's cheaper to keep a customer for a long time that to have to get another one, mostly because of all the commissions, kickbacks, etc. that pervade the US cellular industry.

In fact it's gotten so egregious that in the case of ATT, if you want an Iphone, the best way to get it is to go to a phone store, get a "free" phone, sign a 2 year contract to get it, then buy your $399 Iphone at full price. You essentially get the free phone for free, and you get the Iphone too, by paying for it. The 2 year agreement is the same.

Now if you got the discount or rebate for the Iphone this wouldn't work. But you don't, and the Iphone is the first handset that has been sold at full price but you have to sign a two year deal to get it activated. The amazing part is people don't get it and have gone along with it.
If the purpose of the subsidy lock and the contract is to make sure you pay for the subsidized phone, but that's doesn't come into the Iphones since they are not subsidized, why should you have to sign a deal to get one? But you do.

And You're Surprised?

[Nom du Keyboard]

In some cases, cellular carriers have backed down, but only after inflicting costly delays on the new services.

And you're surprised at this news...why?

Open network surcharge.

[pavon]

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.

Re:USA is owned by the corps

[Bryansix]

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.

Then why not sell crack?

[big_paul76]

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.