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

[Adambomb]

Christ, one comment by an AC and already theres nothing left to be said really.

Re:Summary

[christus_ae]

I think that's an oversimplified sensational exaggeration to the notion that a business is out to make money, and would hence not readily open the market to more competition and subsequent profit loss.

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. What do the companies have to gain by allowing more competition in an already competitive market?

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.

That's not what the article is about.

[Lemmy Caution]

The article is about foot-dragging and rejections for some short-code services that compete with the wireless carriers.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over it. Bend over, take it up the dirt box and cease your moaning.

Your first two statements would seem to contradict the third one.

Re:Are US numbers portable?

[e4g4]

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.

Re:The Spectrum should be democratic and FREE

[donutello]

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.

Misleading title and summary

[Frank Battaglia]

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.