Re: FCC sets wireless sale rules

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

----- 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