FCC Head Wants New Wireless Devices Unlocked 221
[TheBORG] writes with news that FCC chairman Kevin Martin wants 700-MHz wireless devices and services to be unlocked. Spectrum auctions for the 700-MHz airwaves, being opened up for fixed and mobile broadband, are scheduled for early next year. "The proposed rules would apply only to the spectrum being auctioned, not the rest of the wireless business, which still makes most of its revenue from voice calls. But Martin's proposal, if adopted by the FCC, could reverberate through a U.S. wireless industry that has tightly controlled access to devices and services... Like most devices sold in the USA, the iPhone ... allows only features and applications that Apple and AT&T provide and works only with an AT&T contract. The FCC chairman said he has grown increasingly concerned that the current practices 'hamper innovations' dreamed up by outside developers. One example:... 'Internationally, Wi-Fi handsets have been available for some time,' Martin noted. 'But they are just beginning to roll out here.'"
Is this as good as it sounds? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This only applys to a newly auctioned off part of the spectrum. So in other words, it's business as usual if you don't purchase that spectrum space. My guess would be this is to try to artifically charge the cell-phone companies more (in terms of lost revenue), so that some other type of company can outbid them in the auction.
Re:Is this as good as it sounds? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand why voice data is so much cheaper than other data for a mobile phone. Voice has all sorts of guaranteed bandwidth / latency requirements, while things like HTTP can just be squeezed into spare channels and bursted when there is spare capacity without issue, yet the data used for HTTP costs more. Why not let users run whatever they want, respect QoS flags in the packets, and charge more for ones with stricter requirements?
Re:Is this as good as it sounds? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with that is that it makes sense to us. Most people would see that cell phone companies raising the rates of their voice service though. They had a general trend of reducing the cost of voice calls before data arrived on the spot. Now that data is here it's being treated as a separate beast to consumers even though from a technical standpoint it's just a different QoS priority.
It gives them a chance to charge more for added services which don't cost them anything additional so it's largely profit.
Of course the other side of the coin is the problems they've had with SMS and how unreliable it was when it was initially rolled out. Why could I call my friend in the UK but I couldn't SMS her? So people got used to the other idea that the quality and reliability of one service was unrelated to the other services the same company offered. That means they can charge different rates as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you mean. Superficially, it sounds like a good idea, but based on Kevin Martin's track record, I've gotta believe there's a worm in this apple somewhere....
Re:Is this as good as it sounds? (Score:5, Interesting)
I TOO had the same reaction... "Who is to benefit from this initiative? What's the catch?!"
As a people, we're just unaccustomed to anything but self-interested actions by and through government activity. It's not cynicism, it's just the plain unbiased truth. The only time any government units will feel inclined to serve the people or community is near election time... it was kind of like the mysterious way gasoline prices dropped during the last elections.
So I hope people have their thinking caps on and are considering if this may be yet another way to screw us. If they are pushing for something as simple as "no more locked devices" then I'll just be amazed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose we could take this as face value for now, until special stipulations are put in place to allow Verizon, ATT, and T-M
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish I had mode points ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The double threat of the current Admin is that not only have they repeatedly shown themselves to be not worthy of trust, they've gone to unprecedented lengths to block verification as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this as good as it sounds? (Score:5, Informative)
And for more proof that things dont change- people used to have "illegal" or "Hot" phones that they got from God knows where and hooked up themselves... Just like some people crack the software in their phones and use them outside of the cell company that sold the phone...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Young people? I'm 48 years old and I'm still in shock about the way the US replaced the USSR as the horrible anti-free-market economy.
I still can't get my head around the idea that French telephone regulators are doing a better job than the FCC. What the fuck is going
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I dunno... Either a lobby of an ATT competitor is involved, or the FCC head wants an iPhone without changing carriers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My guess is some cell company might decide to charge for unlimited wifi calls, even though you're not using they're network.
I'm cheating 'cause I already saw the t-mobile ad.
As I understand it, though, the T-Mobile WiFi handset actually does have a fairly significant added value over most generic WiFi SIP or Skype handsets.
/T-Mobile/, and your cellular number suddenly becomes your VoIP number. People call the same number, but it now rings over your WiFi connection and you talk without using minutes. Plus, the report I read on it suggested you could transition se
With T-Mobile's proposed service, if you find a WiFi hotspot it automatically logs into a VoIP service provided by
Whoa... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, he is a Bushite (Score:4, Informative)
My first thought is that Haliburton is getting into the wireless device industry and doesn't want to have to play nice with the existing heavily stacked market. Remember, the only thing better than big business to a Neo-Con is a big business that the Neo-Con has investments in.
-Rick
Re:Actually, he is a Bushite (Score:4, Funny)
It could happen.
Re: (Score:2)
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
True as far as it goes, but nothing anything like that happens too often around here.
Mostly things touted as "good for business" are good for some particular business but bad for everybody else.
Things like trying to give the oil companies multi billions of dollars in free money when they're already getting record profits, or farm subsidies, D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYTHING this administration has touched either dies or is bastardized to ill gotten gains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry,... he'll be gone by September,...
Say it ain't so!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Say it ain't so!! (Score:4, Informative)
Aside from this, I agree with the premise that phones shouldn't be artificially locked to a network, but I think that this is an issue for customers of cell phone manufacturers and not an FCC issue. I can buy and use an unlocked phone right now and use it with my current AT&T plan. I just won't have AT&T subsidizing the purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Say it ain't so!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting points about the need for standards. Hopefully we'll see standards evolve over time to incorporate things that aren't currently standard, like visual voicemail.
To a certain extent (Score:5, Interesting)
That may be true to a certain extent, but not totally true. For example the inability to install J2ME apps straight from your computer and the inability to use Bluetooth are examples of elements that are limitations that are imposed limitations and not technology limitations. There are some features that are actually provided by the network and can be added to any phone. For example when I traveled to New Zealand I had got my cellphone unlocked in Singapore and was using a Vodaphone pay as you go SIM. I suddenly found that you get a special Vodaphone sub menu with a whole bunch of extras.
In many ways I support the move by the FCC, since it would help change the business method of cell phone carriers. It would also highlight the limitations of any given carrier, instead of making it seem to be the limitations of the cell phone. Sure it would mean that cell phone carriers would have to compete on both wireless packages and wireless phone prices, but if that helps drive the market then even better. In fact having the cell phone manufacturers play a more active role in the support of their phones would also be a welcome change, since delegating this to the carriers is usually just asking for trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can buy and use an unlocked phone right now and use it with my current AT&T plan. I just won't have AT&T subsidizing the purchase.
I don't know what the exact policies on these things are, but I've run into trouble with this. T-Mobile wouldn't sell me data services because I had an unlocked phone, and a friend of mine had the same problem with Verizon.
Therefore, I don't believe it's as simple as you imply. The government might have to step in and require carriers to offer unlocked phones for a
Re: (Score:2)
And good luck trying to bring your existing equipment to a any new provider without signing up for the same
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it ain't... sorry. (Score:4, Interesting)
-Rick
Actually, this struck me as pro-business in a way (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, it does suggest a shift away from monopoly business practices and more towards competitive business practices. I did read that Republican money-raising efforts are floundering, so perhaps it's a way to either shake down the AT&Ts of the world, or get money from smaller businesses.
Re:Say it ain't so!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you name a single American computer company that owns a significant global market share? What about a software company?
Now fast forward ten years; the desktop era is over, the ubicomp era is starting.
Now backtrack to the present, and look at the companies poised to take control of that market. How many successful mobile phone companies are based in the USA?
It's simple economics; there's an important technology market that is likely to grow enormously in the next few decades, and the USA is well behind the rest of the world. Why? Because US mobile phone networks are less regulated than those in other countries, and so lock down the hardware more. It doesn't make sense to develop a mobile phone in the USA, because the networks won't let you use the most innovative features, and who wants to develop a consumer product they can't use and get their friends to use? Look at the iPhone; it's got a nice UI, but to anyone outside the USA its feature set looks like something from 3-5 years ago (more if you're in Japan).
In summary, the neo-cons want the next Microsoft, IBM, Intel and Dell to be US companies, not Finnish or Japanese (and I don't blame them). The only surprising thing is that someone in power is thinking further forwards than the next election.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This even though it's one of the top economies in the world.
Most popular phones are old fashioned, the service is lacking, spotty and uses several standards and only in the US could they come out with a brand new smart phone and NOT feature 3G on it -and sell a shitton of them anyway!
The aliens have landed (Score:4, Funny)
What we really want to know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, other manufacturers will have added support for AT&T's new visual voicemail system, and other providers will have added support for those phones. They'll all include either Opera Mobile or Minimo, to compete with Safari on the iPhone. You'll still be able to get
Re: (Score:2)
Bull, the phone wouldn't cost that much. The reason is that now instead of select phones working on one carrier, every phone could work on every carrier... in other words, we'd have a flood of phones to choose from (more than today) and prices would drop in the face of this new competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I bet somebody with a good set of programming skills could write a visual voicemail app for any smartphone...
From what I have observed, visual voice mail works by downloading a copy of the voicemail message to your iPhone, which then pairs up the caller ID phone number to your address book. When you play the message, it plays locally (I put my iPhon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I certainly don't care. I'm planning on putting in an order for an OpenMoko neo1973. ( details at http://www.openmoko.com/ [openmoko.com], not affiliated with them ) The cell phone guru at work has offered to help me with the connectivity side. Why should I wait on the benevolent dictator of cute to grace me with the knowledge he feels fit to bestow? I'm the kind of whacko that thinks a microwave should ship with an API CD and serial port.
I'm not an Apple basher, but defi
If he were really interested in helping consumers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If he were really interested in helping consume (Score:5, Interesting)
The most compelling reason to ditch NTSC is that the spectrum it occupies is very valuable, in part because it is not as impeded by obstructions as other frequencies. The switch to HDTV is a catalyst that provides an alternative. A portion of the money gained from the auction of the previous UHF/VFH space will be used for vouchers for consumers to buy conversion devices for their TVs. I suspect, though, that these will be mainly unused, as the large majority of TV viewers are on either cable or satellite, neither one of which will be directly affected.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Congress, now guarante
You fail the common sense test. (Score:2)
The price paid for the spectrum indicates that it must be scarce. If it wasn't scarce, nobody would be paying big dollars for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for this is that nearly 100 years ago, radios were primitive and c
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the GP, but I'll attempt an answer anyway.
One solution would be to allocate spectrum in the same way as land is already allocated; namely, homesteading and contractual transfer (i.e. private ownership). Anyone can transmit whatever they want, provided it doesn't interfere with the reception of an existing signal (or cause other side effects, e.g. cancer). Interference at a historical reception point is treated as a trespass aga
Re:If he were really interested in helping consume (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In all seriousness though, spectrum auctions cut both ways. Getting rid of NTSC over UHF/VHF will open up tons of new opportunities. But at the same time the cost to each and every station has been millions of dollars. A lot of the smaller/NFP organizations (like PBS stations) have had a hell of a time pulling off the change over, and a number of stations are
Hillary vs. Bush (Score:2)
Re:If he were really interested in helping consume (Score:2)
Well, in theory the freed up spectrums might result in additional wireless services that consumers will want.
I think it's also fair to say that there is no compelling reason to keep NTSC broadcasts, which is using technology over 50 years old. Consumers do not have to convert their TVs to HD. All they need do is buy a conversion box and Uncle Sam is supposed to
Re:If he were really interested in helping consume (Score:2)
NTSC is very old, wasteful technology. Once freed up, new technology will able to make much more efficient use of the same frequencies. Much like how digital mobiles are more efficient that the small car sized devices we had 15 years ago.
Re:If he were really interested in helping consume (Score:2)
And from an economic view.. auctions are very efficient. With all that unused spectrum, would you prefer to have more TV channels, or more (hopefully) interesting wireless services? Let the market decide.
Now it's up to the regulators to figure out how to make the auction fair. I don't know h
Re:If he were really interested in helping consume (Score:2)
Re:If he were really interested in helping consume (Score:2)
Never mind that there's no compelling reason to ditch NTSC broadcasts
There's a very good reason to ditch the NTSC broadcasts-- when all those broadcasts are being broadcast on another spectrum of frequencies, it's a waste of a very useful range of frequencies to continue the duplicate broadcasts. It may be that HD hasn't rolled out as quickly as many people hoped, and therefore it makes sense to delay "ditching" NTSC broadcasts, but that's been going on for years. They keep delaying it (for good reason),
NTSC sucks (Score:2)
There plenty of compelling reason to ditch NTSC. There has been for decades. It's only in the past several years that a substantially better approach is available. ATSC (as well as DVB where that is used) allows the spectrum to be more efficiently used. If you look at a spectrum analyzer plot of an NTSC signal in a 6 MHz channel, it's totally dominated by the carrier that is 1.25 MHz above the lower edge of the channel. Video information looks like some grass growing along the bottom edge (especially i
fcc vs private industry (Score:2)
But...but... (Score:2, Funny)
My world is shaken to its core.
they only ACT evil (Score:2)
Oh, fooey (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I pay PLENTY of taxes. If approx. 30% of what I make isn't enough (not even factoring in double taxation such as sales tax paid with income taxed money), then they need to cut spending.
Really now...that is ENOUGH!.
"Everyone always bitches about their taxes but then when a hurricane wipes out their house and they have no insurance - waaaaa! You want Uncle Sam to fix your boo-boo."
Nope...I live in NOLA. While I feel bad for the people that lost their homes and
Don't get to excited (Score:4, Insightful)
Most Americans are not willing to pay the full price for a phone. As long as the networks have people hooked on subsidized phones, the phones will be feature locked down.
We need competition in mobile phones and homebrew (Score:3, Interesting)
We need to be able to home build cell phones. Personally I'd assemble myself a cell phone with a 3.5" (maybe only slightly higher) touchscreen 800 px wide display, 3G, Live Video Share and GPS. I'd run my own distro of Linux or OpenMoko on it.
if iPhone was truly open (Score:3, Interesting)
WTF (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyhow; try:
Article I, Section 8 [usconstitution.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not Far Enough (Score:4, Insightful)
I like this idea quite a bit, I just don't think it's far enough. It shouldn't just be the new 700MHz spectrum. If you buy ANY new space, you should have to comply with this. If you USE any space you should have to comply. No locking cells to the carrier after Dec 31st, 2007. Not 2015, not 2010, THIS YEAR. Since this is just locking and it's not a problem over seas, they have no excuse why this couldn't be done.
I'd also say contracts should be illegal (or at least termination fees) and ditto with subsidizing phones (you want to subsidize? Must be and instant rebate, none of this mail-in stuff). But I don't expect those to happen.
I'll still be surprised if this was passed.
But please, free the cell phones. Won't someone please think of the cell phones?
Locking is not the problem, FCC (Score:2, Insightful)
The best situation for any consumer of a given market product is competition -- the ability for newcomers to a given market to try to provide better features at a lower cost and a higher quality. This gives consumers choice. Locking a
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to provide fewer features, put few
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to prevent your customers from taking your subsidized handset to another carrier, don's subsidize them.
I might be paranoid, but it seems to me that locking phones to a given carrier should be grounds to investigate the major carriers for anti-trust violations. Maybe I just don't get it, but the major benefit I see to this lock-in is for the other carriers, so I've always assumed that the carriers got together and agreed to lock phones in order to all benefit each other to the detriment of all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So...you develop some fancy wizbang gadget, brand new, totally innovative, breaking new barriors. The moment you sell the first one, MegaTechCorp will purchase one, use its highly paid engineers to disassemble it, maybe make a few 'enhancements', bundle it back up, mass market it, and totally screw you out
Re: (Score:2)
So...you develop some fancy wizbang gadget, brand new, totally innovative, breaking new barriors. The moment you sell the first one, MegaTechCorp will purchase one, use its highly paid engineers to disassemble it, maybe make a few 'enhancements', bundle it back up, mass market it, and totally screw you out of business. You will have sold 1 at incredible personal cost in R&D and MFG, MegaTechCorp will have bought 1, mass produced them, mass marketed them, and made millions. You on the other hand are left wimpering about how the rich have an unfair advantage because they can just snatch up the little guys inventions and call them their own and push the little guy out of business. Which ironically is what the primary complaint about patents is now...except if they go away the problem gets worse and becomes 100% legal. At least with the undestanding that patents are imporant there is some hope of fixing the patent system to allow fewer abuses.
Since when is MegaTechCorp that observant and efficient? The more likely scenario goes like this:
You develop something new and innovative. You put it together, get some made, start selling them. MegaTechCorp doesn't even notice your puny business. You sell some more. MegaTechCorp notices now, but is heavily invested in their own solution and, given the massive inertia of large corporations, does nothing but spew marketing spin that your clever little gadget is lame (maybe it lacks wireless and has less
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Patents , Copyright, and trademarks are not the (Score:2)
Re:Patents , Copyright, and trademarks are not the (Score:2)
Without Trademarks, there would be nothing stopping me from opening up the Disney Pornography store.
I guess trademarks do have some unfortunate consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
What does this prove? (Score:2)
Oh, wait. That's right! This guy will be two years out of office before this is even a bill. He can demand anything he wants now, and so can any other department head becasue they won't be around to put it through congress.
Gosh, I wonder what the FCC head will be doing AFTER he gets booted by the next pres. (or this one). Could it be consulting for some group/company that would be
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC is responsible to Congress and either house can advise the FCC through their Telecommunications subcommittees, can override any new or existing FCC rule or can even change the legislation that enables the FCC, but they are only involved in the process of creating new rules if they choose to be.
We Win! (Score:3, Interesting)
Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, but what allows Apple to bring the iPhone to market is Apple's ability to lock-in with AT&T in order to maximize profits for a 5 year clip. Without lock-in, there wouldn't be an iPhone, or it would be much more expensive (even after you factor out the ATT contract).
Except those are windows devices (Score:2)
700Mhz Pffft (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
(head by a former AT&T lobbying professional, what can possibly go wrong?)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Computers and the internet are the 2 greatest inventions in the last 100 years and both are the fruits of the US military/industrial complex. In addition, the innovations and progress in the field is faster than any other field in the history of