David Brooks: Mobile Phones Are Destroying Courtship

from the why,-I-do-declare... dept

It looks like David Brooks has officially entered into the old curmudgeonly "well, back in my day" phase of his NY Times op-ed columnist career, with a rant about how mobile phones are breaking down the proper social rules of courtship between a man and a woman. What is his basis for this? Would you believe the "sex diaries" of NY Mag? Seriously. Brooks apparently has been spending time perusing the lurid details of what people send into NY Mag for its "sex diaries" feature, and decided that it's a representation of how the modern single person uses mobile phones for the process of hooking up (er... courtship):

Once upon a time -- in what we might think of as the "Happy Days" era -- courtship was governed by a set of guardrails. Potential partners generally met within the context of larger social institutions: neighborhoods, schools, workplaces and families. There were certain accepted social scripts. The purpose of these scripts -- dating, going steady, delaying sex -- was to guide young people on the path from short-term desire to long-term commitment.

Over the past few decades, these social scripts became obsolete. They didn't fit the post-feminist era. So the search was on for more enlightened courtship rules. You would expect a dynamic society to come up with appropriate scripts. But technology has made this extremely difficult. Etiquette is all about obstacles and restraint. But technology, especially cellphone and texting technology, dissolves obstacles. Suitors now contact each other in an instantaneous, frictionless sphere separated from larger social institutions and commitments.

People are thus thrown back on themselves. They are free agents in a competitive arena marked by ambiguous relationships. Social life comes to resemble economics, with people enmeshed in blizzards of supply and demand signals amidst a universe of potential partners.

The opportunity to contact many people at once seems to encourage compartmentalization, as people try to establish different kinds of romantic attachments with different people at the same time.

I have to admit, in reading this, even as he's condemning it, it sort of feels like Brooks is... envious? Does he feel like he missed out on his opportunity to have been a young player?

But, seriously, he presents no evidence other than the "sex diaries" quotes to support this. He seems to assume that, thanks to technology, suddenly everyone out there is a player with multiple partners, all lined up via mobile phone to figure out who makes the best pairing for the night. I know plenty of single people these days, and I don't know anyone who does anything remotely like this. I'm sure there are some, but is it really that different from people who went out to bars and compared their different options in the past? This has nothing to do with mobile phone technology at all.

Filed Under: courtship, david brooks, mobile phones

Is Google Going Better Than Free On Navigation? Will That Set Off Antitrust Alarms?

from the should-it? dept

A few friends have passed along Bill Gurley's excellent (as usual) analysis of how Google is disrupting the navigation market by ditching the two big players in the space (Tele Atlas and Navteq), going it alone and also (the big news) offering its navigation info for free. Gurley points out that the truly disruptive part is that Google is actually offering mobile operators a deal that is better than free, in that they get to share in some of the ad revenue associated with anyone using the services. The point is pretty clear: those who are relying on the old business model of getting paid for navigation info are likely in serious trouble.

Of course, there are some perception issues. Plenty of companies who have tried a "we'll pay you" approach to marketing often find that it actually breeds some level of mistrust, as partners/users start wondering why, and if there's some sort of nasty catch. Google, of course, has a pretty good reputation, and ought to be able to overcome that issue. However, it does make me wonder if this will set off the Justice Department (and Google's enemies) on some silly witchhunt, claiming that this is somehow "predatory pricing." That, of course, is ridiculous if you actually think it through. The only real problem with predatory pricing is if it's used purposely to drive others out of business to then jack up prices. But Google's idea is to just give it more opportunity to make ad revenue. It's not predatory, it's just smart from a business sense. However, with so much scrutiny on Google these days, you could certainly see this backfiring.

Filed Under: better than free, business models, free, navigation
Companies: google, navteq, tele atlas

Wrong Number Phone Call Results In Shooting; Some People Need To Chill Out

from the oops dept

Every so often, I get wrong number phone calls (one of my numbers is apparently listed in a LensCrafters book of other stores, so I get calls from LensCrafter stores asking if I've got things in stock). It's not that difficult to say "you have a wrong number" and everyone goes on their merry way. Apparently, not for some. In Georgia, someone accidentally dialed a wrong number, and it resulted in someone getting shot. Apparently, following the wrong number, angry phone calls and texts were exchanged between the two guys, before they agreed to meet in a drug store parking lot, where one of them got shot (and the other got arrested). The story doesn't indicate who dialed the wrong number first, but, seriously, would it have been that hard to have just said, "hey, wrong number" and left it at that?

Filed Under: shooting, wrong numbers

Canada Decides That Canadian Ownership Is More Important Than Real Telco Competition

from the regulatory-failure dept

The biggest problem in the telco world is the lack of competition. Most of the worst abuses by various telecom providers is because there really isn't enough competition to make it worthwhile to treat customers better. The best thing that governments can do to encourage better broadband/telco services is to encourage competition. Apparently, Canada has different priorities. A new mobile firm was set to open up shop in Canada, called Globalive. However, Canada apparently has some rules about how telcos need to have Canadian ownership. And while Globalive was originally judged to meet the criteria in bidding on spectrum, a different government bureaucracy has now said that it doesn't meet the Canadian ownership requirements. In other words, to the Canadian government, having local ownership is more important than real competition. This is basically a form of protectionism that (like most forms of protectionism) ends up harming consumers.

Filed Under: canada, competition, domestic ownership, mobile phone service, regulations, telcos

Why Do Some Politicians Want To Ban You From Putting New Software On A Prepaid Mobile Phone?

from the protecting-business-models? dept

The EFF points out that some prepaid mobile providers have apparently convinced some politicians to introduce a bill, The Wireless Prepaid Access Device Enforcement Act of 2009, that would ban buyers of prepaid mobile phones from installing their own software for the purpose of working on another network. Basically, this is a bill specifically to protect the business model of Tracfone, which sells subsidized phones assuming that the buyers will keep buying prepaid minutes from them. The problem is that this might just be a bad business model -- and once someone has bought a device, it should be theirs, and they should be free to do with it what they want. Congress shouldn't be protecting anyone's business model.

Filed Under: business models, ownership, prepaid mobile
Companies: tracfone

Recognizing That Voice Is Just Data (Or How Google Voice Could Be Disruptive)

from the voice-is-data-too dept

Karl Bode, over at Broadband Reports, wrote up a great article a little while back about why Google Voice was more disruptive than anyone (especially the telcos) were willing to give it credit for being. The key underlying point: voice is just a form of data. Once you realize that, you realize that no one needs to be tied to any telco's own dialing system. Your mobile phone service provider really could just be a dumb pipe.

For years, I've always felt that the calls for "triple play" or "quadruple play" was incredibly misleading. All of the different "plays" (voice, video, data) were actually all just data. And when things are all just data, and its on an open network, then anyone can provide the services on top of that data. The telcos recognize this, somewhat -- which is why they've tried to block out others from offering certain telco services (it's why Google Voice was blocked on the iPhone), but it could be really game changing. Imagine if you could just buy a mobile phone that had no calling plan at all -- but it was all in the software? You could even use different dialers (with different numbers?) depending on what made the most sense or was cheapest.

The telcos hate thinking of themselves as dumb pipes, but there's something to be said for focusing on the pipes and making them as strong as possible, while letting everyone else innovate at the service level, and just selling good data plans. The more others innovate, the more valuable those data connections become.

Filed Under: data, disruptive, google voice, voice

How To Get Spectrum Back From TV For More Useful Purposes

from the property-rights? dept

If you look at how our radio spectrum is allocated today, you discover that TV broadcasters have a huge chunk of spectrum (that chart doesn't directly display how much spectrum is actually included -- I remember seeing another chart, which I can't find now, that shows proportionally how much more spectrum broadcasters have). This was given to them -- entirely for free -- years ago, when spectrum wasn't used for much. These days, however, spectrum is precious for so many different things, and certainly much of it could be put to better use. Of course, the broadcasters aren't thrilled with giving up any of their windfall. For years, they dragged their feet, kicking and screaming, about switching from analog to digital broadcasting, which was needed to reclaim some spectrum. More recently, they've been fighting attempts to use "white space" spectrum -- which is spectrum that's unused, but close to used spectrum. The broadcasters insist there will be interference, while technologists insist the technology is good enough to block interference.

So, it's interesting that, just as we're hearing of the first tests of white space networks, the FCC is also talking to broadcasters about other ways to reclaim some spectrum and put it to use on something more useful and productive. Apparently, the plan on the table right now would be for broadcasters to give up the spectrum in return for a cut of the revenue the government would get in auctioning off the spectrum for wireless use. Of course, some may find it distasteful that public spectrum that was given to these companies for free can then get sold off with at least some of the money going to those who never bought or truly "owned" the spectrum in the first place. But, given that the FCC set things up in a way where it basically created a de facto ownership structure of the spectrum, it's difficult to see any reasonable way to get that spectrum back without paying for it.

In the link above, Adam Thierer suggests we just give the current holders property rights in the spectrum, and assume that they'll then sell it off to those who can do something more innovative with it (or change and do something more innovative themselves). I've long been a proponent of giving up the ridiculous idea of having the government decide how each slice of spectrum must be used. Why not let the companies who control the various slices of spectrum make use of it as they see fit? It seems more likely that we'd get more efficient uses of the spectrum. So, it's good to see more thinking about ways to put some of that spectrum to better use, but it would be nice if we allowed the market, rather than the government, to figure out how to best use it.

Filed Under: broadcasters, market, spectrum, tv, wireless

Nokia Getting Killed In The Smartphone Market... So Of Course It Sues For Patent Infringement

from the if-you-can't-innovate,-litigate dept

Funny how this works, right? Just a week or so after it's first ever quarterly loss and an admission that it totally screwed up in the smartphone market, Nokia suddenly sues Apple for patent infringement over the iPhone. It looks like the old adage is true again: if you can't innovate, litigate! It's the same story all over again. A company that was a leader in the market but got complacent and lazy, suddenly finds that it lost its lead to a more innovative upstart. Since it's so far behind, even scrambling around doesn't help it to catch up, so it just starts suing over patents.

This story nicely highlights a few other points as well. We keep hearing from patent system supporters how the patent system is necessary because, without it, the market leader would always just immediately copy the upstart and "steal" their idea. Of course, Nokia has had two plus years to "steal" Apple's idea, and where is it in the smartphone market? It's not so easy to just copy someone else's idea -- especially if you're a huge player like Nokia, who will often view the disruptive innovator as not being worthy of paying attention to (which basically was Nokia's reaction to the iPhone).

Separately, remember how confused we were when Steve Jobs proudly hyped up the fact that Apple had over 200 patents on the iPhone concept? We've pointed out that it's hardly done anything to stop lawsuits. Apple has been sued over and over and over and over and over and over again for patent infringement. Welcome to the tragedy of the anti-commons, where it becomes impossible to do pretty much anything innovative without facing massive legal costs. Basically, if you build anything even remotely innovative these days, you're going to get sued for patent infringement, probably multiple times. It's become a massive tax on innovation, rather than a lever for innovation.

Filed Under: innovation, iphone, litigation, patents, smart phones
Companies: apple, nokia

If Per Byte Pricing Is 'Only Fair' Why Have Telcos Ditched It For Mobile Data Plans?

from the hypocrisy-in-action dept

For the past couple of years, telcos and cable companies have been pushing for metered broadband, usually with the bogus claim that "it's not fair" for a light user to be subsidizing a heavy user. This is a neat little disingenuous trick that implies "light users" would see their bills decrease under metered billing plans. However, the same telcos pushing for metered broadband on connections are the same telcos who have wireless operators as well... and for mobile users, they're doing away with the metered billing option at the lower end, forcing everyone into a much higher priced all-you-can-eat model. Oops. Metered billing has nothing to do with fairness. It's an attempt by telcos to squeeze more money out of customers in a market where they often have little in the way of competitive options. Because, as we've seen, when there's real competition, it's a lot more difficult for providers to offer such plans.

Filed Under: metered billing, metered broadband, telcos

Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited

from the that's-not-straight-talk dept

And I thought the days of companies claiming "unlimited" data plans when they really were very very limited had died out after Verizon Wireless got fined and started backing away from claiming "unlimited" data for plans that were actually quite limited. However, with Walmart teaming up with TracFone to offer the misleadingly-named "Straight Talk" mobile phone service, some are noticing the return of very limited mobile data offers advertised as "unlimited." As is pointed out in that link, beyond simply being flat-out wrong and more than a bit deceiving, it's pretty ridiculous for a brand called "Straight Talk" to lie in its advertising, and hide the details in the very very fine print.

Filed Under: limited, straight talk, unlimited, wireless service
Companies: tracfone, wal-mart