Comments on: Carriers keeping hands on the reins

For all their talk about opening up their networks, phone companies still plan to maintain a good deal of control.

[Renegade Knight]

Open? Not at all.

The carrier with the phones I like doesn't provide service here. The carries that I do, don't have the right phones. The solution? There isn't one. I have to compromise and get a phone that won't work well, on a carrier that won't do as good a job for me as it would with the right equipment.

[chash360]

The Open Network Lie

Why was the 700MHz band sold? Why can't we have free wireless communications? The devices provide the service, not people. There is no need for a service provider, there is not 1 single human involved in making a connection anymore, and there does not have to be any wired network involved if the band was opened to unlicensed usage. We could have had the perfect start to an entirely service fee free wireless network that we would never outgrow, if the FCC would regulate ONLY at the device level (the devices can be programmed to operate following all the FCC's rules of power and spectrum usage, and you have to have a device to use the EM Spectrum), while not giving a monopoly to a particular corperation. A device standard and protocol standard was all that was needed, just like the internet only needed a few standard protocols to allow everyone to communicate freely in a multitude of ways that are still increasing today. (yes, it was too free of service fees, until the corperations got a hold of it.)

If there were anything other than print and speech when the Bill of Rights was written, do you think for 1 second they would not have simply included it as freedom to communicate? Why is electronic communication treated differently, subject to censorship, and monopolistic control?

It is this monopoly on communication that IS the primary cause of all corruption in our government and society. Politicians are spending all their time raising money for 'airtime', to get re-elected, instead of representing the people. The monopoly on communication means the amount of money involved ensures corruption, there is no legal honest way to raise that kind of money, and be an honest politician. The corperate media knows this and uses it to its advantage, to ensure its continued monopoly. You can not get elected to any public office if you oppose this monopoly, they will simply allow your competitor to overrun your ads, even if you can afford them.

Shame on you for selling out America, Kevin Martin, you are on my $h!t list, almost rivaling Bu$h!

[euspos]

Why look at Verizon?

The long posting from "chash360" is certainly interesting and challenges existing business models. Hope we can hear more on that as we progress as a society.

BUT, why look at the scummiest provider of them all, Verizon? Both at&t and t-mobile already today provide open networks. Sure, there are SOME (technical) limitations, but you can take your at&t or t-mobile SIM card and plug in to ANY (unlocked) GSM phone that supports the North American (800/1900MHz) frequencies and you'll have a GSM (or UMTS) device that WORKS.

I fully agree that it is a mystery that these carriers do not market this mere fact (and one of the great the beautis of GSM) much harder, but I suspect that the "phone subsidies" (you sign up for service, get a "free" phone) are far too profitable and far from any "subsidies. no, you pay for that cheap/low tech device many times over via your monthly bill. And, you really have no way to know, since the carrier does not have a "price" for us that are bringing our own devices. I love the freedom/flexibility and would not dream of using a device that is "locked" to one single carrier. I pay for it upfront, and switch phones as I like (sturdy for the weekend, BBerry for the office, slim small "classy" device for going out).

at&t and t-mobile: start using the GIGANTIC but dormant marketing tool you have over the guys that are stuck on Verizon or Sprint - DEVICE FLEXIBILTY on the consumers term!