Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Requires Data-Roaming Agreements

Posted by Unknown on from the intravenous-data-feed dept.

itwbennett writes "The FCC has voted to require data roaming agreements between carriers in a move largely targeting AT&T and Verizon, the two largest mobile carriers in the US. 'What good is [a] smartphone if it can't be used when a subscriber is roaming across the country or even across the county?' said Commissioner Michael Copps. 'Our regulations must reflect today's reality and not make artificial distinctions between voice and data telecommunications.'"

8 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. "Unknown Lamer" by oldhack · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stop posting stories with summaries that actually make sense. You're confusing us.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  2. LOLWUT?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not sure how my Verizon CDMA phone is going to roam its data on over to AT&T's GSM network.

    1. Re:LOLWUT?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You missed the point. Verizon and AT&T would be forced to make agreements with CDMA and GSM providers respectively, not with eachother.

    2. Re:LOLWUT?! by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes have to admit, not sure how much difference this will make in the US market where there is already an incredlibly small choice of carriers compared to most other markets. How many of those little 'city-wide' or 'statewide' local carriers really still exist in the US? Most seem to have been swallowed up by AT&T (if GSM) or Verizon or Sprint (if CDMA).

      Normally the US leans away from regulating such things and forcing businesses to make agreements with each other. So it says a lot about the lack of competition in the US cellular market that they are considering such a move. By comparison, here in Australia (which is an "OMG socialist' country by comparison to the US) doesn't force carriers to have roaming agreements (even though as a whole there is much more government regulation of industry here than in the US). But we have at least 6 or 7 major nationwide carriers here, so roaming isn't really even necessary in the first place.

      I visit the US regularly (am there for several months a year) and the state of the mobile telephony and ISP industries in the US is frankly, awful. Australia is generally way more expensive in most areas of life ... but not in Internet/phone. In Australia I can pick from 30+ ISPs and a dozen cellular carriers (all GSM) at any point and most offer contract-free service. In the US most places have 1 choice of cable ISP, 1 choice of DSL ISP, and maybe 2 or 3 cellular networks (which aren't even interoperable with each other, i.e. once you pick a GSM/CDMA phone you are stuck with those carriers).

      So here's hoping this opens the door for some smaller carriers in the US to increase their market share and get some competition back into the market. It's sorely needed.

    3. Re:LOLWUT?! by soupforare · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless it's a quad-band phone, he'll have limited coverage in the US. The Americas don't primarily use the same bands for GSM.

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
  3. Re:No artificial distinctions, BS! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why do cellular providers get to make artificial distinction within the data service.

    Email to you phone included in data plan. Phone mobile hotspot so your laptop can get email... EXTRA $$$

    It's all just 1s and 0s, so stop dicking us with "unlimited" data plans that have limits and advertised service speeds that are far from approachable.

    Well, my T-Mobile plan is pretty good. I have a 5 Gig "cap", which isn't a hard cap, it just means that I get throttled if I go over it. I don't, however, ever lose connectivity or get extra charges. I pay for HSUPA speeds, and I actually get about 7-8 mbits/sec out of it (that's using a USB tether to my laptop and running a bunch of speedtests, including broadbandreports.com.) I have a G2, and I track my usage (T-Mobile's site gives you that info as well, and they match up pretty well) and I've never gone above about 1.5 gigs in a month. That's just me ... obviously your mileage will vary. I can tether and use VoIP software without getting yelled at (or charged.) And yes, I'm thoroughly pissed off at AT&T for screwing up a good thing by buying my provider. Fuckers.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  4. Re:Not everyone's rich by thetartanavenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Jesus I forget how much us carriers screw their customers. Mobile internet costs me £60 for the year (less than $100) here in the uk! Up to 5 GB per month with a gradually slower connection if you go over and no overage fees. We have real pay as you go options where you put credit on your phone and it only goes down if and when you use it. Or internet for only the days when you use it for £1/day (~$1.50). It's insane how much you guys are forced to pay. No charges for incoming calls or messages. The ability to switch between any network if you have an unlocked phone and at least 5 major carriers to choose from with many many resellers with their own deals. The legal requirement to be able to unlock your phone (for a fee) if you want. Seriously, how do you all let them get away with it? And now with the possibility (probability) that t-mobile and at&t will merge taking away the only large carrier that seemed to not completely screw over their customers.

    --
    Who need's speling and grammar?
  5. It is the people's bandwidth, clueless! by bussdriver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How many people are going to feel bad for poor ATnT or Verizon? I don't know anybody who doesn't have some hate for ATnT.

    I still find it amazing how well the corporate propaganda has worked to brainwash so many people into screwing themselves; I'm sure I'll be surprised if we ever find out how many fake online identities marketing firms are using to spew more BS.

    To put this into proper perspective, traditional phone companies have had to share their networks for a long time without huge marketplace disasters, they simply get a small break using their own network and pay a small fee to use another's network. All the DSL and dial-up providers have been sharing networks in various ways thanks to the FCC requiring them to do so. Yes, the private monopolies would have banned dial-up internet providers if they could have. (AOL wouldn't have existed so 1 good thing would have come out of that.)

    LIMITED RESOURCES:
    It is OUR airwaves they buy monopolies on and our institutions manage them - if they do so poorly its because we the people are incompetent. We currently have a system which sells off bandwidth to the highest bidder and barely regulate the monopolistic usage; this is about as free-market as it can get without the costly chaos of letting anybody make radio noise. I suppose we should allow Verizon to install signal jamming devices or should we regulate that nobody can jam the competition? What constitutes jamming? Who decides? What if two providers bump heads over bandwidth-- the stronger signal and client hardware wins... a temporary battle...

    People seem to forget that something as basic as FIRE and POLICE have been privatized in the past and that insanity resulted-- in something that is morally simplistic and necessary; yet they somehow other areas are going to be more civil and more effective by introducing free market anarchy??

    Anarchy has a PR man and its the US Chamber of Commerce. "Free market" is just a PR creation.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news