AT&T Does Nothing, Convinces Reporter It Has Now 'Opened' Its Network

from the nice-trick dept

When Verizon Wireless announced last month its plans to "open" its network some people noticed very quickly that what Verizon Wireless was announcing didn't sound any different from what GSM operators, like AT&T and T-Mobile already had. It was just that the GSM operators hadn't come up with the PR gimmick to call it "open." Since they already had it though, it didn't take a genius to figure out that it wouldn't be long before they declared their networks open as well. And, that appears to be exactly what AT&T is doing -- but somehow, it appears that AT&T's marketers have convinced a USA Today reporter that it's somehow changed its policies and is "flinging" its network "wide open." The article starts off breathlessly announcing that "starting immediately" people can use any device on AT&T's network. Of course, the reason it's "starting immediately" is because, um, you've been able to do that ever since they launched their GSM network years ago. Basically, absolutely nothing happened here except that AT&T's marketing crew declared that AT&T's network is now open, and convinced USA Today to report it as if it were a big deal. If there was any change at all within AT&T, it's that retail store employees are now supposed to admit that you can use other devices on the network, rather than pretending you can't. Not quite as exciting as "flinging the network open," though.

Filed Under: gsm, open networks, wireless
Companies: at&t, verizon wireless

But Do We Still Need Gov't Intervention To Open Mobile Networks?

from the or-does-competition-work? dept

A month and a half ago, Walt Mossberg wrote up an article saying that government intervention was needed to get US mobile phone operators to open up their networks. I took issue with that notion, noting that it wasn't as simple as Mossberg made out, and there wasn't enough evidence that government intervention was needed or that it would help. In fact, we pointed out that competitive pressures were already pushing mobile operators, with the exception of Verizon Wireless, away from the walled garden model -- and while they hadn't adopted truly open models, it was likely to come with time and increased competition. And, in fact, as we noted last week, Verizon Wireless has responded to these competitive pressures by promising to open up (the reality of that promise remains to be seen).

With that in mind, I was a little disappointed to read Mossberg's take on Verizon Wireless' move. Mossberg cautiously commends Verizon Wireless, withholding full judgment until all the details are out -- which makes complete sense, and is a position I agree with. However, Mossberg fails to note that this (and other such moves) have all happened due to competitive pressures, rather than government fiat, and doesn't retract his call for government intervention. While it absolutely is true that the mobile operators remain too closed these days (even once Verizon Wireless details its plans), what we're seeing is how market pressures tend to drive markets toward openness in much more natural ways than by involving government intervention. The second the government got involved, lobbyists from the mobile operators would make sure that huge loopholes were slipped in that would likely make things worse for consumers, not better. Like Mossberg and many others, I'm frustrated and annoyed by the limitations put on mobile phone systems by operators, but I'm confident that pressure from within the industry and from outside of it (see the recent work of Apple and Google for a start) will eventually force the operators to open up -- and it won't take long for them to realize that the end result is better for everyone, including the operators themselves.

Filed Under: mobile phones, net neutrality, walt mossberg, wsj
Companies: verizon wireless

Sprint Turns Down Offer For Money, Help From SK Telecom

from the things-are-getting-interesting dept

It's been an interesting week in the wireless arena. First Verizon Wireless promised to tear down some of its walled garden, then it announced plans to use LTE as its next generation wireless technology... and now the news comes out that Sprint has turned down an offer of a $5 billion offer from SK Telecom and Providence Equity Partners. There were some strings attached, including bringing back Tim Donahue to run Sprint. Donahue was the head of Nextel when Sprint and Nextel merged, but left soon after the merger was done. Personality-wise, people have often noted how Donahue was different than the folks at Sprint, so perhaps it's no surprise that Sprint isn't interested, even as the company is desperately seeking a CEO following the ouster of Gary Forsee.

What's more interesting than the CEO job or the money, however, is the question of what SK Telecom is playing at here. The company has invested heavily in its US MVNO joint venture Helio, which was announced nearly three years ago to great fanfare, but hasn't lived up to the hype (though, it has managed to survive where many MVNOs have collapsed). SK Telecom, like Japan's NTT DoCoMo before it, keeps looking for investment opportunities outside their home countries, but never seem to be able to repeat the successes they've had back home. DoCoMo, you may recall, had a deal with AT&T Wireless that turned into something of a disaster for everyone, so having SK Telecom assisting Sprint is hardly a slam dunk, despite its success back in Korea. SK Telecom seemed to pitch part of the benefit of working with Sprint being its experience with WiMax in South Korea, but so far, that experience is anything but encouraging. It's also worth wondering if such an investment would eventually lead to Sprint taking over Helio to consolidate SK Telecom's focus (alternatively, some might point out that since Helio uses Sprint's network, SK Telecom's investment offer could even be seen as a way to protect Helio's network).

What is clear is that Sprint needs some leadership and some direction, and it needs it quickly. With Verizon Wireless' LTE announcement, the race for next generation wireless technologies got a lot more interesting. While Sprint may have had a pretty big head start, the more it staggers around trying to find a CEO and a plan, the more it cedes to the other players who at least have the appearance of having a comprehensive strategy in place (the reality may not match the PR spin, of course). The SK Telecom deal may have provided both a leader and some direction, but clearly the company's current board didn't appear thrilled with either. Don't expect this to end here, though. There may be additional attempts by SKT, and it may cause others to wake up and pay attention as well. Sprint may end up with a leader and a strategy thrust upon it, whether it wants it or not.

Filed Under: investments, lte, wimax, wireless
Companies: providence equity partners, sk telecom, sprint, verizon wireless

Verizon Wireless Responds To Competitive Pressures By Promising To Open Its Network

from the good-news dept

Verizon Wireless is making big headlines today by announcing that it intends to open up their network to third party devices next year. This is great news. As Columbia law professor Tim Wu documented in an excellent paper earlier this year, the mobile device market has long been hampered by the "tar pit of misery, pain, and destruction" that is the wireless carriers' process for approving mobile devices and software. Wu found that Verizon Wireless was one of the worst offenders, micromanaging which devices could be used on its networks and insisting the vendors cripple features like Bluetooth or WiFi that might undermine its own business strategies. In our write-up of Wu's paper, Carlo argued that Wu's heart was in the right place but that talk of "wireless network neutrality" regulations was premature, because sooner or later companies would be forced by competitive pressures to drop their walled gardens.

That appears to be happening surprisingly quickly. Back in February, Carlo noted that Verizon Wireless was the last hold-out for the old "walled garden" approach, with the other carriers having already taken steps to open their networks. Two recent announcements—Apple's iPhone and Google's Android—likely spurred Verizon Wireless to follow suit. The iPhone is far from an open device, but it is a clear example of what can be accomplished if a technology company is given the flexibility to design a mobile computer without having to kowtow to wireless carriers' whims. The success of the iPhone has put pressure on the other carriers to come up with a competitive response, and building a device as compelling as the iPhone almost requires that technologists be given a free hand in making design decisions Sprint and T-Mobile's support for Google's relatively open Android operating system strengthened the impression that Verizon Wireless was the last hold-out for the walled garden approach.

Today's announcement is a smart business decision for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the way to succeed in high-tech industries is to be the platform that other companies use to build their products and services. If Verizon follows through on its promises and opens up its network, it will dramatically reduce the time and frustration required to get a new device approved for use on Verizon's network. That will make it the logical partner for innovative small companies seeking to launch a new mobile device, service, or software product. It will also make Verizon Wireless an attractive partner for firms wanting to make non-phone mobile devices. This announcement also takes the wind out of the sails of advocates for government-mandated open networks. Verizon Wireless doubtless prefers to open its network on its own terms and its own schedule, instead of having its hand forced by government regulators.

There are still a lot of questions to be answered: most importantly, how much the bandwidth will cost. If it sets the price too high, it will be hard for Verizon Wireless' partners to make a profit. Additionally, we won't know until we see the exact terms how open their "open" network really will be. It wouldn't be the first time a technology company started using the word "open" to describe fundamentally non-open products. But if the terms and price turn out to be reasonable this announcement should provide a big boost to innovation in the wireless space in the coming years.

Filed Under: net neutrality, open, open access, wireless
Companies: verizon wireless

Verizon Wireless Apparently Still Can't Train Its Sales People In Basic Math

from the add-your-0.2-cents dept

You may recall the story from last year about Verizon Wireless' dubious math skills. What kicked off the story was a guy traveling to Canada with a Verizon Wireless EVDO account. He had asked how much the roaming charges would be, and was told 0.002 cents per kilobyte -- which is quite reasonable. However, when he got his next bill, it was quite a lot bigger than he expected. That's because Verizon Wireless actually charges 0.002 dollars per kilobyte. When confronted on this, hilarity (or frustration, depending on your point of view) ensued. Even when being explained the difference in dollars and cents clearly, Verizon Wireless customer service reps continued to insist that 0.002 cents per kilobyte is the same thing as 0.002 dollars per kilobyte. The publicity backlash convinced Verizon Wireless to refund the guy's money (though still demand he not use their logo on his blog about the story). Either way, you would think that this widely talked about event would have Verizon Wireless careful to train their customer service reps on the difference between dollars and cents. Not so, apparently.

Broadband Reports points us to a guy who clearly has way too much free time, who decided to check up on Verizon Wireless, calling the company 56 times to ask about two separate data rates. Out of 56 customer service reps he spoke to, a grand total of one gave him the correct info on both questions. 52% answered both questions incorrectly. All in all, he received 22 unique answers, with many underquoting the actual rate by a factor of 100. However, as he noted, that didn't stop nearly all of them from immediately then offering him a two-year contract -- which you could claim was sold to him with false data about what he'd be paying. He put together a nice video to highlight some of the incorrect statements from Verizon Wireless CSRs: So, is it reasonable to ask when Verizon Wireless is going to start teaching its customer service reps math?

Filed Under: data charges, dollars and cents, math
Companies: verizon wireless

Service Providers Can't Be Honest With Themselves, So How Can They Be Honest With You?

from the self-realization-time dept

Last week I was wondering why the various mobile operators couldn't just be honest to customers in explaining the limitations of various service plans. A report had come out saying that people were sick and tired of service providers lying about service and features -- and it seemed to me that a company that was honest would get a lot of customers as a result of that honesty. Of course, this also came only a few days after we were wondering why Comcast couldn't come out and give an honest explanation for why it was jamming certain types of packets. Blogger Tom Lee from the Manifest Density blog, has responded to both things (though, incorrectly refers to Techdirt as being anti-telco, which we're not at all -- we're anti-telco-stupidity, which is quite different), making a very perceptive point. He basically says that it's impossible for any of these service providers to be honest with customers because doing so would require them to first admit the truth to themselves: they're just commodity dumb pipe providers, and all their efforts at pretending to be something more are pretty much meaningless. Until they can admit that (and Lee's assertion is they won't admit that), they can't be honest with customers. There's definitely a large chunk of truth in there, and it explains part of what the problem is -- but I still don't think that precludes service providers from being a lot more honest, even as they try to provide additional value-added services that might not matter. Being honest and transparent with customers is a good marketing idea for these companies, especially as they're being challenged to be anything more than a commodity dumb pipe provider. Being honest can actually be a part of their differentiated appeal to customers.

Filed Under: commodities, dumb pipes, service providers
Companies: at&t, comcast, sprint, verizon wireless

Frienemies? Now Verizon Wireless And Google Will Work Together?

from the funny-what-a-little-competition-will-do dept

There's lots of talk in the news today saying that Google is pretty close on a deal to have Verizon Wireless be the first to offer Google's new wireless bundle of software that many people are referring to as the "GPhone" (which still hasn't officially been announced). This might seem like an odd pairing to some. After all, it seems like the two companies are pretty vehement in disagreeing on some key telecom issues concerning things like 700 MHz spectrum and network neutrality. Besides, Verizon Wireless is infamous for being the US carrier most focused on walled gardens, while a big part of the supposed point of the GPhone is to force more openness into the wireless arena. So why the pairing? It's actually fairly simple. Blame Apple. Verizon Wireless famously turned down the chance to be Apple's partner for the iPhone, claiming that Apple had too many strict rules to make it worthwhile. So how do you fight back against the juggernaut of the iPhone? Yup, with the GPhone. It's got nothing to do with openness, the features the Gphone provides or any of the other disputes. It's all about Google's brand and the fact that it's, perhaps, the one brand on a phone that will attract enough attention to (maybe) come close to the hype surrounding the iPhone.

Filed Under: competition, gphone
Companies: apple, at&t, google, verizon wireless

Verizon Wireless To Hand Over Your Info To Advertisers Unless You Opt Out?

from the making-friends,-pissing-off-customers dept

Jeff A. writes to let us know that Verizon Wireless is trying to change its policy on what it can do with your calling record info. Basically, it sounds like they want to start selling it to marketers, so they had to change their terms of service. What they did was send customers a letter telling them they had 30 days to call and opt-out of this new plan to hand over your calling records, or you'd have automatically accepted their changed terms of service and Verizon Wireless could hand over the info to advertisers. Of course, many people will probably just see this as junk mail and toss it out, not realizing that they've just agreed to get a lot more advertising sent their way -- and, more importantly, opened up access to (what they thought were) their own private phone records. This is doubly sneaky, because the FCC recently released new rules on how telecoms shouldn't release info to third parties without "explicit consent from a customer." Verizon Wireless seems to think that sending this letter with its fine print and demanding people opt-out within 30 days falls under "explicit consent," though some customers would likely disagree.

Filed Under: advertising, opt-out
Companies: verizon wireless

More 700MHz Auction Fun: Frontline Asks FCC To Ban Verizon Wireless From Bidding

from the ah,-the-one-up-manship dept

For something as boring as a spectrum auction, the upcoming 700MHz auction sure has its fair share of excitement. There are the rumors of Google and even Apple potentially bidding on the spectrum. Google requested that the FCC attach some specific conditions to the auction, which the FCC gave some lip service to, but hardly a full endorsement. Meanwhile, Verizon Wireless initially liked the conditions set by the FCC (meaning it thought it had a good chance of getting the spectrum) until it began to think through the scenarios (or heard more credible stories about competitive bids) and then suddenly decided to sue the FCC, claiming that the rules being set are illegal. Of course, others can play the lawsuit game too. Frontline Wireless, a new company basically built to bid on this spectrum, is now accusing Verizon Wireless of breaking the law in not disclosing the details of a recent meeting between Verizon Wireless officials and the FCC about the auction -- as required by the law. Thus, Frontline is asking the FCC to sanction Verizon Wireless, including the extremely unlikely possibility of barring it from the 700MHz auction. Of course, just imagine the resulting lawsuits should the FCC actually agree and bar Verizon Wireless. Somehow, given Kevin Martin's chummy relationship with the telcos, it seems unlikely that Verizon Wireless will be stopped from bidding.

Filed Under: wireless auctions
Companies: fcc, frontline, verizon wireless

Faking Death To Get Out Of Mobile Phone Contracts

from the you-think-maybe-there's-a-problem? dept

The introduction of local number portability was supposed to force mobile operators to improve their customer service, since now it would be easier for upset customers to simply jump to a competing carrier. Instead, it seems to have only increased the use of early termination fees that the mobile operators charge if you leave a contract early. To be fair, often these ETFs come into play when the customer has purchased a heavily subsidized mobile phone -- which sounds fair. However, the number of irate mobile users who find themselves facing huge bills just because they want to switch mobile operators suggests that the practice isn't doing much good for the reputations of mobile operators. In fact, it's so bad that some folks are willing to play dead in an effort to fool mobile operators into canceling the contract without charging the ETF -- though, as we've noted in the past, there have been times when even death wouldn't get you out of paying. It would seem to make sense for mobile operators to be a bit more understanding. Verizon Wireless, to its credit, prorates early termination fees, so the closer you are to the end of your contract, the less it costs. It's unclear why the other mobile operators haven't come up with anything similar. Perhaps they really think that locked-in but pissed-off customers are better than happy, loyal customers.

Filed Under: contracts, early termination fees, mobile operators
Companies: verizon wireless