FCC Head Wants New Wireless Devices Unlocked

[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?

[jollyreaper]

It sounds good but I have a sneaking suspicion something in there is going to bite us in the ass. What is it?

If he were really interested in helping consumers

[Scareduck]

he'd come out against spectrum auctions. Is there any single policy that's proven as pernicious lately? One of the most annoying things to come out of Congress has been the forced conversion of the VHF and UHF spectrums to, well, something else, and the retirement of NTSC broadcasts, mainly because Congress is greedy and wants the money such an auction would give them. Never mind that there's no compelling reason to ditch NTSC broadcasts, or that it will cost billions for consumers to convert their TVs to HD. Those auction costs eventually get passed on to the consumers of those products, too, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[jollyreaper]

It sounds good but I have a sneaking suspicion something in there is going to bite us in the ass. What is it?

Off-topic? What the hell? This is one of the few frist prosts that's actually on-topic. Do you people mod the first dozen posts down as force of habit?

Don't get to excited

[TubeSteak]

"Whoever wins this spectrum has to provide ... truly open broadband network - one that will open the door to a lot of innovative services for consumers," Martin said in an interview Monday.

What this would mean in practice: "You can use any wireless device and download any mobile broadband application, with no restrictions," Martin explained."

Unless he makes "in practice" the official FCC rule, I can't imagine that the networks are going to anything other than provide network unlocked phones. Just because a phone is network unlocked doesn't mean it will not have shitty firmware that locks out features.

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.

WTF

[Orig_Club_Soda]

While I'd love for my iPhone to be unlocked, I am wondering what authority does the Constitution give the government to mandate unlocking.

Not Far Enough

[MBCook]

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

[dada21]

It sounds good -- use the force of the law to regulate businesses to provide unlocked devices "for the consumer's rights." But the idea of locking a device is irrelevant to this discussion, Mssrs. FCC, because it isn't the provision of locking a device that is anti-consumer.

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 device is the equivalent of removing a feature from a product, but the idea of locking a device may allow a manufacturer to offer better service because they won't have to pay for the support of third party hardware and software. In the print industry, I get significant breaks on same-day warranty service if I buy my toner and ink from the manufacturer (generally at a fairly competitive price, these are industrial machines).

So what is the anti-consumer situation here? Again, it isn't locking the device. The biggest anti-consumer provision in the communications market is also one that is anti-competition (amazing). It is called the Patent. In a market where almost every product is seemingly identical, we still see each product having patents or patents pending on the devices. Yes, the iPhone seems unique, but it really isn't. Apple just realized that the interface is more important than other features -- and they're proven correct so far in the short run. Yet the market is artificially disturbed because of the force of law (patents, copyrights, trademarks), and the FCC wants to patch the Congressional error by adding more regulation to the market?

Actually, this struck me as pro-business in a way

[PIPBoy3000]

If the auction grants exclusive rights, that means other businesses can't develop the spectrum even further. Sure, the consumers get extra gizmos, but it'll be other businesses that are making those gizmos to sell.

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.

It's a good thing I'm not that cynical.

Re:If he were really interested in helping consume

[RingDev]

Uhg, do we have to choose between the Republicrat and the Neo-Con? Can't we just get Nader or someone to drop a loaf on the spectrum and call it a day?

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 just closing rather than dealing with the financial risk. Tack on to that the direct cost to the consumer of HD tuners, converters, or new TVs, and the indirect cost through advertising and taxes. Personally, I agree with the auctions to some extent. I do not have the knowledge to make a well qualified statement on the decision, but there are many trade offs between licensed and open frequencies. Just imagine if you had to file with the FCC just to plug your WiFi router in. ;)

And feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the initial move to retire NTSC start under Clinton's presidency?

-Rick

Re:Say it ain't so!!

[paulthomas]

Why more consumers aren't demanding this, I have no idea.

I would guess it has something to do with intellectual laziness, in which a subsidized phone from a provider is considered "free." I think a lot of people do not think of a phone as something that they can purchase from someone outside of their service provider.

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.

Re:Whoa...

[Etrias]

You're assuming Bush fires anyone. If it's good for us, just wait for the eventual announcement saying he's retiring to spend more time with his family.

Re:Say it ain't so!!

[nine-times]

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 an increased price and/or cease penalizing customers who buy unlocked phones. If carriers want to subsidize phones, it should be enough that the consumer is required to enter into a contract. Locking the phone shouldn't be necessary.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[TheRaven64]

This only applys to a newly auctioned off part of the spectrum

True, but how long until the market ensures that it happens in other parts? At the moment, mobile providers don't offer this kind of service because it would cut their voice and SMS profits. If one provider did, then how long could the others remain competitive? These rules would force one provider (whoever buys the new frequencies) to, which should have a knock-on effect on the other parts of the market.

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:Say it ain't so!!

[TheRaven64]

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.

Devil's Advocate

[snilloc]

So, the US market just released the Holy-friggin'-grail Jesus phone, the iPhone, and the problem is lack of innovation?

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).

Re:Actually, he is a Bushite

[MarsDefenseMinister]

More often than not, decisions which are good for business are good for the American people if those decisions lead to more products or more uses for existing products. If this opening up of the handset is good for the phone companies, they might expand their business and hire more people. And maybe there'll be new companies starting up to take advantage of the new opportunities, thus hiring more people. And maybe those new companies will get some venture capital, making the money circulate around instead of sitting in someone's pockets.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[Brigadier]

not all government. I seem to recall the Clinton erra doign quite a bit to open up the internet, thus bringing us broadband at a pretty decent price. Now if your referring to teh bush regime I understand completely. Though it woudl seem the ragime is so bad back pedaling public service officers are doing anything anti-bush to stop there heads from also going onthe chopping block of public oppinion.

Re:Locking is not the problem, FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't the patent monopoly that is the problem here(that is a different problem)WIFi on a phone isn't patented neither is using you own apps.

The problem is competition, or rather lack thereof. The US cell phone industry is an oligopoly. High barriers to entry ( FCC fees, network roll out costs, and limited spectrum) give these few big players the power to do just about whatever the hell they want. More players with full access to the network would solve this if consumers really do want the ability to use new features. Similar to broadband, it access and choice and competition that solve monopoly problems.

Re:Say it ain't so!!

[Oldsmobile]

I find it interesting, that the US has probably the most liberalized mobile communication market out there -and is always lagging behind the rest of the world in mobile phone technology.

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!

Re:What we really want to know...

[ZeroPly]

How long before Apple unlocks the iPhone?

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 definitely not a fan. It amazes me that they took a freely developed OS, used it as the foundation for their own commercial OS, used that in turn as a foundation for their proprietary locked down phone, and now won't even let the original BSD freelance guys write code for the phone! You can bet your last dollar anything I cobble together for the neo will be GPLv3.

Again, if you like Apple, go for it. I'm a utilitarian at heart and think it's perfectly OK to use technology without embracing the politics behind the scenes. But if so, you shouldn't honestly be asking for or expecting an unlock - you should take what they give you. Apple's business model is based on closed systems and keeping you locked in and everyone else locked out. If you support them then you implicitly support that philosophy.

Rather than having the FCC force manufacturers to make devices open, it would be more productive to buy from and support a manufacturer that chooses to be that way.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[cbreaker]

Yea, I'd be amazed too, but it DOES make sense. There is a point where ALWAYS catering to big business will bite us in the ass. I feel as though one of those issues is outsourcing, and another is communication. If we, the US, fall too far behind everyone else in communication tools because of corporate greed and the government does nothing, the government is only hurting itself.

I suppose we could take this as face value for now, until special stipulations are put in place to allow Verizon, ATT, and T-Mobile to do whatever they want.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[jessecurry]

what specifically did the Clinton-era government do? It seemed to me that he rode the prosperity of the Internet boom and left our economy in shambles(relatively speaking, of course).

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[Eunuchswear]

I imagine in the coming decades, young people will be shocked that we used to be stuck getting our cell phone from the cell phone company, and didnt just buy the one we want at Wal Mart of Best Buy and get service from the company we chose...

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 on? Has the universe been replaced by a poor parody of itself?

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[erroneus]

Okay, my intended meaning was different, I'm sure you knew, than the "correct" meaning you are expressing. I do agree that at NO time should we simply "trust" our government or the judgment of the people making decisions on our behalf. I wish that were the FIRST thing stated in elementary school government/civics classes. (Do they even have those classes any longer?) After all, the US was founded on the notion that the government cannot be trusted and so checks and balances were installed everywhere they could think of.

But as shown, the Bush administration claims executive privilege at every turn and the vice president claims he's not in the executive and so doesn't have to follow the rules governing the executive branch... and really, I blame all the "better behaving" presidents before them as it's clear that part of the reason that the senate and house of representatives aren't fighting these outrages harder and faster is that they are simply unprepared to deal with such misbehavior. There was a way things were done and Bush and co. have really shaken things up and it seems like they really don't know what to do.

I wish I had mode points ...

[Bearpaw]

... although one could say that it's not so much that one should distrust the government, but instead be able to apply the "trust, but verify" approach.

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:Is this as good as it sounds?

[erroneus]

Correction friend: Bush et al have consistently ignored legal instruments such as subpoenas presently and in the past. Further, while he cites many executive privileges, there are many that come encumbered by due diligence procedures that have also been ignored such as commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby. Bush and company are consistently acting as if they are above the law and are persistently ignoring legal measures directed against them. There's only one measure they will not be able to resist and I pray it starts soon -- Articles of Impeachment. And they SHOULD act against Cheney first, otherwise impeaching Bush would place Cheney in the president's seat allowing him to create all manner of complications and impediments to justice. Frankly, I don't see why they don't order impeachment of both simultaneously.