Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules

["Dave" <dave () farber net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christian Kuhtz" <christian () kuhtz com>
To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
Cc: <ip () v2 listbox com>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules


> For IP if you wish..
>
> While that is perhaps true for AT&T Mobility and (at least on paper  for 
> T-Mobile) my experience has been a little different.
>
> I had unlocked phones on T-Mobile for years, once not sold by T-Mobile  in 
> the U.S. and while I was worried about what would happen when I  needed 
> troubleshooting with service problems or configuring, say, data  service 
> on the phone I never had any issues getting support or the  detailed 
> information necessary to configure the device.
>
> I haven't bothered myself with AT&T Mobility in a while, but it would  be 
> good to get some actual first hand experience added to this  discussion. 
> Asking for ph model doesn't necessarily equate to a  support / not support 
> screening.  Especially since non-company stores  typically can always sell 
> some flavors not available through Cingular  itself -- with subsidies 
> provided by that particular authorized  dealers operation.
>
> If you think about it, it is in any operators best interest to enable  as 
> many devices as they reasonably can. And this is not related to the 
> underlying technology either, I live this issues daily with mobile 
> devices on municipal Wi-Fi networks where try to jump through enormous 
> hoops to enable devices and invent novel authentication and billing / 
> value exchange models to capture the revenue.  But we're more hungry  than 
> most.
>
> The magnitude of this hunger determines (on a free market) the  openness. 
> Lack there of is a key indicator of lack of competition or  need to 
> compete.
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
> On Aug 3, 2007, at 7:26 AM, "Dave" <dave () farber net> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden () nokia com>
> > To: "Brad Templeton" <btm () templetons com>
> > Cc: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>; "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden () nokia com
> > >
> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 1:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules
> >
> >
> > > Brad,
> > > > > For IP.  This is good news from my point of view and will result  in a
> > > > > lot of innovation from the device vendors.  Also, in my view,  Google
> > > > > did get what they wanted (as opposed to what they were asking for).
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > That remains to be seen.  Generally, you can connect any unlocked   GSM 
> > > > phone to
> > > > the GSM providers.  However, AT&T and T-Mobile only offer certain 
> > > > blessed
> > > > models for sale, and in particular only provide subsidies on  them. 
> > > > You
> > > > can buy an unlocked Nokia E61 for $350 with wifi, and use it on 
> > > > AT&T's network
> > > > as far as I know, but you can get a Wifi-less locked Nokia E62  for 
> > > > $50 with
> > > > subsidies.
> > > That is certainly true for GSM, but it's not true for CDMA.  Last   time 
> > > I checked, US CDMA networks accounted for about 60% of the   wireless 
> > > customers (and faster data services).  The GSM operators  do  have the 
> > > capability to lock out non-official devices, even  though  they choose 
> > > to not excercise this capability.  While they  don't do  this now, they 
> > > could.  They don't offer any support for  customers  with non-officical 
> > > devices or as you point out, offer  the same  service plans.  Have have 
> > > you ever tied calling Cingular  and tell  them about a service problem? 
> > > The first thing they ask  is what model  phone you have.
> > > The overall effect is that most US wireless customers can't or  won't 
> > > buy a device from anyone except from the operator.
> > > I don't think the conditions on the wireless sale will solve all 
> > > problems, but it is a step in the right direction.  Something we 
> > > haven't seen in a while.
> > > Regards,
> > > Bob
> > > > They do however only officially offer certain data plans to  certain 
> > > > blessed
> > > > phones.  While often the other plans work, the iPhone's $60/month 
> > > > plan is not
> > > > available on many of the other phones AT&T sells and not on any 
> > > > foreign
> > > > phone you bring in.
> > > >
> > > > Now, they don't do open apps today.   They block apps for two  reasons.
> > > > One, they compete with voice services (Skype or SIP get blocked) or
> > > > other services the carrier sells.   Two, they just plain use a  lot  of 
> > > > bandwidth
> > > > and we know that with "unlimited" pricing the carrier wants to 
> > > > discourage
> > > > anything high bandwidth as much as they can.
> > > >
> > > > But will these new rules simply direct the victorious carrier to  offer
> > > > "any application" on bandwidth that is billed by the kilobyte,  but 
> > > > still
> > > > prohibit applications if you want the "unlimited" that customers   all 
> > > > love?
> > > > Or will they just change the name to call it "Unlimited web surf   and 
> > > > e-mail"
> > > > while putting per-kb charges on other apps?   That's still _open_   to 
> > > > all apps.
> > > >
> > > > This is the thing that wholesale pricing might have changed.   If  the
> > > > carrier's own services pay the same price as the resellers pay, they
> > > > you would get competition over what unlimited actually means.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course, the truth is nobody should own spectrum.  The opening  up 
> > > > of a few
> > > > mhz of spectrum where microwaves blare created the greatest period  of
> > > > innovation and price reduction in the history of radio.   Yet, even
> > > > with an example like that, people can't see it.
> > > >
> > > > Another hidden tragedy is the allocation of spectrum to emergency 
> > > > services.
> > > > What a waste.  If all that spectrum were opened up, the police  and 
> > > > fire
> > > > depts. could buy superior radios, with ten times the features, at 
> > > > 1/10th
> > > > the price, and they could all talk to each other and even to   members 
> > > > of
> > > > the public they wish to talk to.   There would be so much  spectrum 
> > > > available
> > > > they would not need a priority channel, but if they insisted on   one, 
> > > > their
> > > > radios could be given special certificates that the access towers 
> > > > which made
> > > > use of frequencies in "their" band could obey, though they would 
> > > > probably never
> > > > need to use them
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------
> > > > Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > > > RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com