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.
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."
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.
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.
Under the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) "local number portability" (LNP) rules, so long as you remain in the same geographic area, you can switch telephone service providers and keep your existing phone number. If you are moving from one geographic area to another, however, you may not be able to take your number with you. These rules have applied for some time to wireless and most traditional, wireline telephone companies. In addition, the FCC recently extended the LNP rules to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers and determined that the rules would also apply to small wireline telephone companies that have not been granted waivers from the rules by their state public utility commissions. Therefore, subscribers remaining in the same geographic area can now switch from a wireless, wireline, or VoIP company to any other wireless, wireline, or VoIP company and still keep their existing phone numbers.
No they ALL have to
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Umm - as of ~3 years ago, all cell phone carriers operating in the US are required by the FCC to allow numbers to be ported to and from other providers. The same is true of local (landline) phone numbers as of ~10 years ago. It is not yet true of VoIP. Mind you the cell carriers don't actually have to implement it until someone asks for a port - but when they do, they must comply.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
Public deserves atleast a lowcost emergency phone which doesn't need the monthly and yearly contract slavery.
This already exists. Pick up any used cellphone from any carrier. They will always allow you to make 911 calls regardless of whether or not you are under contract. If you mean emergencies that don't involve calling 911, you can buy a prepaid phone card which will allow you to do the same without having any sort of contract or annual fee.
You should try to gain a better understanding of the problem before you try to propose solutions to it.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Please point me to a prepaid plan where the minutes don't expire. Every one I have found expires after a few months, creating a de-facto annual fee.
Do you have the better understanding you said the OP did not have?
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
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.
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".