Search
Recent comments
- It's going to be a long road
2 days 13 hours ago - This is new idea for all....
6 days 1 hour ago - "The question I have for NPR
1 week 2 days ago - Thanx for sharing the new
1 week 3 days ago - Very Useful information ,
1 week 3 days ago - Broadband and digital is the
1 week 4 days ago - Very Useful information ,
2 weeks 5 days ago - Haha lol!
2 weeks 6 days ago - Lol!
2 weeks 6 days ago - Most importantly, the onus
4 weeks 3 days ago
Blog Tags
Sascha Reads...
Syndicate
Nov
27
Here's a piece of PR masterwork from the folks at Verizon. For those who have been following the Open Platform debate (an initiative to require an open platform for interconnection of any devices/applications on a small piece of the upcoming 700MHz band that's going to be auctioned in January), you know that Verizon has been 100% against the idea. Verizon has been so entirely against the idea that they contacted the Chairman of the FCC asking that he kill it while, at the same time, they sued the FCC to prevent open platform requirements from going through.
Verizon, in a nutshell, hates the idea of an open platform for the interconnection of devices and applications -- to the point that the FCC Chairman called me and Harold Feld into his office to attempt to get the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition to back off on our open platform demands.
So what's this news really about? Basically, Verizon wants to be able to charge customers (at a price and rate still to be set) to access the services and applications they want on the devices they own. Verizon is, attempting to turn the applications you have bought and paid for (or downloaded for free if you're using free open source software) into commodity so that they can charge you a second time to access them via the Verizon network. In essence, Verizon is adding a corporate tax that goes straight into their coffers for the so-called "privilege" to run the services and applications you want, on the devices you've already bought and paid for. On a digital communications network, data is data is data -- the network doesn't care if the packet is voice, video, text, or any other media -- an open platform should require that data is treated the same way as it is on a DSL line. The idea that Verizon would be able to differentiate among services (and charge users a second time to access an "open platform") is ridiculous. Yet without some sort of rule to stop this form of corporate malfeasance, it's unlikely that we'll ever see cellular DSL-esque services from Verizon.
However this plays out, it's quite likely that Verizon will now be going after the C-band in the January 2008 spectrum auction. Between this and the Android announcement by Google, we could see a fairly interesting bidding war between the two.
From money.cnn.com
Verizon Wireless to Introduce 'Any Apps, Any Device' Option for Customers in 2008
New Open Development Initiative Will Accelerate Innovation and Growth
November 27, 2007: 07:30 AM EST
BASKING RIDGE, N.J., Nov. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Wireless today announced that it will provide customers the option to use, on its nationwide wireless network, wireless devices, software and applications not offered by the company. Verizon Wireless plans to have this new choice available to customers throughout the country by the end of 2008.
In early 2008, the company will publish the technical standards the development community will need to design products to interface with the Verizon Wireless network. Any device that meets the minimum technical standard will be activated on the network. Devices will be tested and approved in a $20 million state-of-the-art testing lab which received an additional investment this year to gear up for the anticipated new demand. Any application the customer chooses will be allowed on these devices.
This new option goes beyond just a change in the design, delivery, purchase, and provisioning of wireless devices and applications.
"This is a transformation point in the 20-year history of mass market wireless devices -- one which we believe will set the table for the next level of innovation and growth," said Lowell McAdam, Verizon Wireless president and chief executive officer. "Verizon Wireless is not changing our successful retail model, but rather adding an additional retail option for customers looking for a different wireless experience."
Verizon Wireless will continue to provide a full-service offering, from retail stores where customers can shop, to 24/7 customer service and technical support, to an easy-to-use handset interface and optimized software applications.
While most Verizon Wireless customers prefer the convenience of full service, the company is listening through today's announcement to a small but growing number of customers who want another choice without full service.
Both full-service and "bring-your-own" customers will have the advantage of using America's most reliable network.
Following publication of technical standards, Verizon Wireless will host a conference to explain the standards and get input from the development community on how to achieve the company's goals for network performance while making it easy for them to deliver devices.
Verizon Wireless has a track record of listening to customers and transforming entrenched industry practices based on those customer needs. The company parted with the industry last year when it introduced pro-rated early termination fees, and in 2004 when it refused to participate in a wireless directory when customers said they didn't want one. Verizon Wireless also broke with "wireless tradition" when it supported local number portability because customers wanted the freedom to take their number if they switched service providers. Such responsiveness to customers has earned Verizon Wireless the strongest brand reputation in the industry.
This is eerily familiar. Shades of the pre-Divestiture Bell System, where it was necessary to "protect the network" by having devices installed between a company PBX and the phone network that either impaired communications or made the process so cumbersome and costly that staying with Ma Bell was the path of least resistance.
Similarly, back in the '90's, Verizon (then Bell Atlantic) was pitching the concept of an advanced intelligent network. They invited carriers and application developers to submit their new service ideas for testing in a state of the art facility (located in a converted central office in Silver Spring MD). Between the cost and delay inherent in the testing process and the other terms of the proffered contract, the concept never went very far -- except with regulators, who were able to point to the "Open Network Architecture" to further relax regulations on Bell Atlantic.
The "innards" of all cellular systems (CDMA and GSM alike) are based on standards and incorporate devices from multiple manufacturers. What exactly is the rationale for requiring that applications and devices be separately certified on a carrier-by-carrier basis? If there are legitimate concerns about the effect of foreign attachments (er, third-party applications and devices) on carrier networks, why wouldn't a "Part 68-like" one-stop shopping process be more fair and efficient?
I guess I'm missing something here. How is Verizon's charge for use of their network different than a DSL provider's monthly charge for the use of its network? Are you referring to some additional charge on top of Verizon's normal data plan fee?
Verizon would almost certainly double-charge (i.e., once for your service and a second time for running the applications you want on the devices that you already bought). The contemporary equivalent is the double charging for basic service and text messaging -- shouldn't a text message cost the same as a 1-minute call (or the few seconds it actually takes to deliver it -- i.e., essentially free with any basic plan?). The idea that this is an "added service" is ridiculous when one realizes that voice and text data packets are, in essence, the same thing on a digital cellular network.
Verizon would almost certainly double-charge (i.e., once for your service and a second time for running the applications you want on the devices that you already bought). The contemporary equivalent is the double charging for basic service and text messaging -- shouldn't a text message cost the same as a 1-minute call (or the few seconds it actually takes to deliver it -- i.e., essentially free with any basic plan?). The idea that this is an "added service" is ridiculous when one realizes that voice and text data packets are, in essence, the same thing on a digital cellular network.
Though old but very intersting scheme and i soon would get into and like offers after a massive expansion of time.
Lol!
Post new comment