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

[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.

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.