When have any of you seen our government act so quickly, it was only a week or so ago that Apple pulled those apps and then we have the FCC filling a investigation. I highly doubt they did this because some citizen complained. Why would the FCC care all of sudden that Apple pulled some app that allow you to send voice over the internet verse the cell network.
We had Service provides blocking VOIP connections for years before the FCC step in. THE FCC never responses that fast to anything they seem to be right on top of Apple's every move.
When have any of you seen our government act so quickly, it was only a week or so ago that Apple pulled those apps and then we have the FCC filling a investigation. I highly doubt they did this because some citizen complained. Why would the FCC care all of sudden that Apple pulled some app that allow you to send voice over the internet verse the cell network.
We had Service provides blocking VOIP connections for years before the FCC step in. THE FCC never responses that fast to anything they seem to be right on top of Apple's every move.
You are right, it was awfully fast.
But it has nothing to do with calls over the data network. It is not VOIP. GoogleVoice is not a VOIP service. The calling feature is essentially an outbound call forwarding service. Exactly the way calling cards and some alternative long distance providers work. Your end of the call is just a regular, billable phone call to or from google. They then dial your party and connect the 2 calls.
Relatively lowly carriers? You mean like this one:
Verizon Communications Inc. (12 months ending 12-31-2008)
Revenue: $97 Billion
Gross Profit: $58 Billion
Employees: 235,000
Google Inc. (12 months ending 12-31-2008)
Revenue: $21 Billion
Gross Profit: $13 Billion
Employees 19,000
And even if Google was 20X bigger than Verizon, the point still stands. The carriers have consistently pushed and lobbied for anti-consumer practices. Everything from colluding to increase text messaging rates, to dictating the phones, software, and hardware features that customers can access and use on their personally-owned hardware. Additionally, they maintained a walled garden than gave them monopoly access to the software platform that stifled innovation and allowed them to extort software developers.
Google on the other hand -- while they indeed are in business to make a profit --- have continued to work towards and lobby for open information, free choice and consumer rights. In the spectrum auction, while of course open access rules would help them assuming they have the applications and services consumers most want, they were the major voice for consumers rights while using devices they own that work on airwaves OWNED by the public. The carriers believe they are the gatekeepers to everything even though they are using spectrum leased to them by the American people. It is OUR RESOURCE, and they will abide by pro-consumer rules if they want to use it.
In this case, Apple is acting just like the carriers. If they are going to be the single point of application entry, It in unacceptable for them to deny access to applications and services that compete with their own, or are otherwise a threat to AT&T's profit.
In terms of market cap, you can buy the whole Verizon company for about $85 billion dolalrs ---- or you can buy the whole Apple for $140 billion or the whole Google for $140 billion.
There is no point --- everybody is investigating on Google's monopoly status and their privacy policies. AT&T and Verizon which total about 60% of the US wireless market (so about 30% EACH) vs. Google owning 75% of the internet search market --- which one is more of a monopoly. We are talking about the Bush administration okeying every carrier mergers in the last 8 years BUT killing the Google/Yahoo merger --- Google is a lot more to worry about.
You think that there is price collusion among the carriers? Nothing compares to how Google set their prices on advertisng clicks --- they literally control the whole world price of internet advertising.
Do you want to enrich Google which is a much bigger corporate empire --- which employs very few people. Or do you want to protect the relatively smaller sized carriers --- which employs a lot of people.
Thank you for the post. I really get tired of debating the facts with all of these anti-regulation, lasissez-faire zealots who don't understand the importance of regulation to *encourage* competition and remove the abuses of large entrenched corporations. (and certainly when you are talking about publicly owned or publicly invested assets). Allowing the cellular companies to use segments of the publicly-owned spectrum is not a right.
Whether it had ultimately been CDMA or GSM, I guarantee the United States would have a far more competitive wireless environment if leased spectrum had a technology mandate attached to it. Customers would have full mobility with their devices, and so carriers would be forced to compete on service and price, and would not be able to lock-in customers with the inherent incompatibilities in cellphone hardware.
A good example is the UK, where the popular carriers are all using GSM/UMTS/HSPA, and customers are able to get the most expensive handsets (Like the Nokia N95/N97 back in the day, or the high-end Sony Ericcson models) on the market for free or very little cost on contract, depending on term and monthly spend. Even the iPhone is now free I believe.
I am a business-friendly democrat and entrepreneur, and I am far more ideologically aligned with most of the progressive technology companies than the old-guard, corporate abuses of telecommunications, energy, media, etc.
How is the US not competitive in the wireless environment?
The US enjoys the largest regular priced iphone data allowance at 5 GB, the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the world and the second best iphone plan in the G7 countries.
The only country in the G7 that has a better iphone plan than the US --- is the UK. But that has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about --- because O2 has an iphone exclusive and O2 doesn't unlock the iphone (even after your iphone contract is over).
ALL of the recent spectrum license auctions in Europe for the last 3-4 years --- have been TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL.
Show me a single thing that is different in terms of government regulations in the UK and in the US --- that leads to their "competitive" market. NOTHING. The ONLY thing is that different is that UK has FIVE national carriers and the US has FOUR national carriers.
So basically, the only thing that the FCC has to do is ---- do another round of spectrum auction that invites a brand new FIFTH national carrier.
The internet has standards, and a well established standards process, and it doesn't seem to have retarded innovation. And, yes, that's exactly the point, force them to compete in other ways: on price, on service, etc. The government track record of regulating industries is just fine. What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition and deregulation, which often fails spectacularly or leads to corporate abuses.
I fully understand that the wireless carries don't want to have to really compete against each other. I'm sure they are very happy with and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, but allowing them to do so goes against the public interest and causes continual harm to consumers. I welcome forceful government intervention in this market and we will all benefit in the long-term from it. The idea that government is not a good regulator and that government intervention typically causes more harm than good is a pernicious fiction perpetrated by people who don't believe in, or don't want, government acting for the public good.
This is silicon valley we are talking about --- if you lose money on 99 start-ups and win the jackpot with 1 single start-up --- you will still be a billionaire. If these civil servants really know how to bet on technology --- they would have left the government, join a venture capitalist firm and become billionaires.
Government track record of "BETTING" on technology sucks big time. Europe bet on 3G --- lost big time. Japan bet on analog HDTV --- lost big time. Korea bet on wimax --- lost big time.
Yes, the internet has standards --- and a lot of what you people call network non-neutrality are part of those industry standards. The industry faces a technical problem with lots of torrent traffic and not enough bandwidth. The industry sets up an IEEE working group to explore possible solutions. The industry votes and affirms the technical solution --- what, now you are telling me that we can't do that because of regulations. That's like the Bush era policies on stem cell research --- you are crippling innovations because of government regulations.
I already have an App that does that for when there is no WiFi for VOIP, it's a paid service.
Google Voice isn't available in Australia.
Is it still a beta?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
You are right, it was awfully fast.
But it has nothing to do with calls over the data network. It is not VOIP. GoogleVoice is not a VOIP service. The calling feature is essentially an outbound call forwarding service. Exactly the way calling cards and some alternative long distance providers work. Your end of the call is just a regular, billable phone call to or from google. They then dial your party and connect the 2 calls.
Government track record of "BETTING" on technology sucks big time. Europe bet on 3G --- lost big time. Japan bet on analog HDTV --- lost big time. Korea bet on wimax --- lost big time.
Well, these failures are mostly because technology was implemented before there was a market for it. However, they are not necessarily at all relevant to this issue.
Clearly, there will be wireless networks in this country, and clearly there will be some next generation wireless network always being envisioned for the future. So, something will be implemented. The point is that a) it's wasteful for wireless companies to implement conflicting technologies, and that waste ends up being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, and b) conflicting technologies restrict consumer choice and allow wireless companies to effectively lock consumers in. Neither of these is desirable, and it's in the public interest for the regulators to make the wireless companies compete on a level playing field that maximizes consumer freedom. Let the industry make the decision among themselves, with oversight, but make them come to a single decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Yes, the internet has standards --- and a lot of what you people call network non-neutrality are part of those industry standards. The industry faces a technical problem with lots of torrent traffic and not enough bandwidth. The industry sets up an IEEE working group to explore possible solutions. The industry votes and affirms the technical solution --- what, now you are telling me that we can't do that because of regulations. That's like the Bush era policies on stem cell research --- you are crippling innovations because of government regulations.
This is, quite frankly, completely ridiculous nonsense. Your point that government regulations cripple innovation isn't valid to begin with, but comparing it to, "Bush era policies on stem cell research," is utterly absurd.
I already have an App that does that for when there is no WiFi for VOIP, it's a paid service.
Google Voice isn't available in Australia.
Is it still a beta?
I think it is still beta. It is still invite only and is US only for now (unless you had a GrandCentral acct before).
The GV service adds a lot more than just outbound call forwarding. It offers what is essentially visual voicemail and transcribed voicemail. Probably it's single biggest feature is the consolidated phone numbers. You pick/get your phone number for GV and then add all you other numbers to your profile. when anyone calls you, all of your phones ring.
As has been said, all of these features are availble without a dedicated app. You call use many of the features from your landline or browser. The app(s) just put them all in a convenient package. VVM and SMS are the only features that explicitly benefit from being in an app, so you can be notified on arrival instead of waiting for an email or having to log into the web app.
Clearly, there will be wireless networks in this country, and clearly there will be some next generation wireless network always being envisioned for the future. So, something will be implemented. The point is that a) it's wasteful for wireless companies to implement conflicting technologies, and that waste ends up being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, and b) conflicting technologies restrict consumer choice and allow wireless companies to effectively lock consumers in. Neither of these is desirable, and it's in the public interest for the regulators to make the wireless companies compete on a level playing field that maximizes consumer freedom. Let the industry make the decision among themselves, with oversight, but make them come to a single decision.
This is, quite frankly, completely ridiculous nonsense. Your point that government regulations cripple innovation isn't valid to begin with, but comparing it to, "Bush era policies on stem cell research," is utterly absurd.
Chances are --- 99 times out of 100, you are going to bet on the wrong technology.
Governments will bet on technologies that have home-grown technological edge. You are always going to have separate governments betting on different stuff. South Korea is still betting on WiMax because their home grown companies have the patent edge in WiMax. That's how these government "betting" works --- if they lose in the market place, they will make laws to give their own companies an edge.
The whole Europe --- has been switching ALL their recent spectrum auctions to TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL auctions. Europe learned their lesson --- because when they hit the jackpot with GSM, so they got greedy and they bet the farm on 3G --- which bombed big time.
Somehow, the US beat the 5 largest European countries (with a total population of 300 million people i.e. same as US population) in 3G penetration, the US has the largest mobile technology firm in the world (Qualcomm), the US has the most talked about smartphones in the world (Blackberries and iPhone), the average American talks 4x more voice minutes on the cell phone than the average European.... EVERYTHING that was allegedly wrong with the American model --- turned out to be right.
Why not? Bush era stem cell research --- specifically outlawed certain technological techniques. A net neutrality regulation would specifically outlaw certain technological techniques as well.
Chances are --- 99 times out of 100, you are going to bet on the wrong technology.
Governments will bet on technologies that have home-grown technological edge. You are always going to have separate governments betting on different stuff. South Korea is still betting on WiMax because their home grown companies have the patent edge in WiMax. That's how these government "betting" works --- if they lose in the market place, they will make laws to give their own companies an edge.
The whole Europe --- has been switching ALL their recent spectrum auctions to TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL auctions. Europe learned their lesson --- because when they hit the jackpot with GSM, so they got greedy and they bet the farm on 3G --- which bombed big time.
Somehow, the US beat the 5 largest European countries (with a total population of 300 million people i.e. same as US population) in 3G penetration, the US has the largest mobile technology firm in the world (Qualcomm), the US has the most talked about smartphones in the world (Blackberries and iPhone), the average American talks 4x more voice minutes on the cell phone than the average European.... EVERYTHING that was allegedly wrong with the American model --- turned out to be right.
Why not? Bush era stem cell research --- specifically outlawed certain technological techniques. A net neutrality regulation would specifically outlaw certain technological techniques as well.
Everyone has BlackBerries...unless you mean where they are based. In that case, RIM is a purely Canadian company. Nortel also used be one the largest telecom equipment companies in the world (bankrupt now), but the Canadian tech industry does benefit from some government activity.
Everyone has BlackBerries...unless you mean where they are based. In that case, RIM is a purely Canadian company. Nortel also used be one the largest telecom equipment companies in the world (bankrupt now), but the Canadian tech industry does benefit from some government activity.
Totally bonehead on my part --- because I am a Canadian myself.
But from a policy point of view -- Canada is really close to the US: technology neutral spectrum licensing, hetero wireless network environment, no forced unlocking of simlocked phones, charging for incoming calls, most subscribers are postpaid.
For those who endlessly spout that AT&T is a private company and can do whatever they want, you should remember that they merely license the spectrum they use ... and resell services on that wireless spectrum back to the same public that owns it in the first place. That is the most fundamental reason why the FCC has not just a right but an obligation to ensure anti-competitive practices are not being used.
The attitude that any two business can negotiate and agree to whatever they want is such a patently ridiculous assertion, that it barely merits any attention whatsoever. It seems, however, that this position - along with its sister idea that intellectual property rights are absolute - has never had any foundation in either our laws or in the way we live.
For those who endlessly spout that AT&T is a private company and can do whatever they want, you should remember that they merely license the spectrum they use ... and resell services on that wireless spectrum back to the same public that owns it in the first place. That is the most fundamental reason why the FCC has not just a right but an obligation to ensure anti-competitive practices are not being used.
The attitude that any two business can negotiate and agree to whatever they want is such a patently ridiculous assertion, that it barely merits any attention whatsoever. It seems, however, that this position - along with its sister idea that intellectual property rights are absolute - has never had any foundation in either our laws or in the way we live.
No, the foundation of our system is that we should look at consumer rights as a whole.
Don't need to micro-regulate the wireless carriers --- if there are enough competition in the market. The best iphone deal in the whole world is Hong Kong --- as laissez faire as you can get. The best iphone deals in the G7 --- UK is number 1 and US is number 2.
Wow --- what a patently ridiculous idea that capitalism works.
Everyone has BlackBerries...unless you mean where they are based. In that case, RIM is a purely Canadian company. Nortel also used be one the largest telecom equipment companies in the world (bankrupt now), but the Canadian tech industry does benefit from some government activity.
Everybody is corporate environments are force-fed Blackberries.
Chances are --- 99 times out of 100, you are going to bet on the wrong technology.
The point you seem to be conveniently (for your argument) ignoring is that they are going to have to bet on some technology, so make them bet on the same one. Well, there's also your wild propensity to throw around baseless numbers like, "99 times out of 100," but since we both know that's just for rhetorical effect I won't ask for statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Don't need to micro-regulate the wireless carriers --- if there are enough competition in the market. The best iphone deal in the whole world is Hong Kong...
Wow --- what a patently ridiculous idea that capitalism works.
Yes, well, I believe Hong Kong also has the most competition in the iPhone market. Lack of competition, and carrier efforts to suppress competition in US wireless markets is exactly why government regulation is required.
Actually, the idea that capitalism works without government regulation is patently ridiculous. That's why we have antitrust laws, child labor laws, environmental laws, workplace safety laws, sex & human trafficking laws, minimum wage laws, advertising laws, food safety laws, product safety laws, and so on. That's why when the government failed to perform, or even outlawed, it's own regulatory obligations in the US, the abuses of the financial industry brought down the entire world economy. Capitalism never has and never will "work" without government regulation, and the idea that it does is as much a fantasy as Peter Pan.
The point you seem to be conveniently (for your argument) ignoring is that they are going to have to bet on some technology, so make them bet on the same one. Well, there's also your wild propensity to throw around baseless numbers like, "99 times out of 100," but since we both know that's just for rhetorical effect I won't ask for statistics.
Yes, well, I believe Hong Kong also has the most competition in the iPhone market. Lack of competition, and carrier efforts to suppress competition in US wireless markets is exactly why government regulation is required.
So what you are advocating is that the US government forces American companies in the same room and come up with the same standard --- just like how the Japanese government used to do it with analog HDTV. Governments will always try to protect their own national economic interests. What you will end up doing is having Japan coming up with one wireless standard (which they did with PHS mobile phone system in the 2G era), US having a separate wireless standard and Europe having a separate wireless standard. Next you have South Korea, rapidly becoming the next cell phone giant nation with Samsung and LG --- coming up with their national standard (wibro which is their version of wimax). And we already have the Chinese government advocating their home grown 3G standards. So we already have 5 different standards, 4 of them are going to be losers.
History is full of these failures in national technology betting. Europe hitting the jackpot with GSM is just plain luck --- you can't rely on striking the jackpot twice. Japan betting on the wrong stuff --- and you end up with Samsung being the largest TV producer in the world.
Compare to the rest of the G7 --- there is plenty of competition in the wireless carrier market. Japan, France and Canada have 3 major national carriers (Japan gave out a 4th license last year but they have less than 1-2% of the market so far). Germany and Japan still have their former monopoly carrier owned by their governments. France's and German's top carrier still have 40% of their market share, Japan's DoCoMo still have 50% of their market share. Verizon has about a 30% market share in the US.
So what you are advocating is that the US government forces American companies in the same room and come up with the same standard
Well, not just companies, but the government and other "interested parties", like phone manufacturers, but essentially, yes. It would certainly be better if these standards were agreed on internationally, but one has to start somewhere. It would certainly be better than the chaos you seem to advocate. (Sorry, but your examples speak directly against your point, not for it.)
Please explain why it's better for companies to "go it alone"? After all, if picking technologies is as risky and difficult to do as you claim, wouldn't it lessen the risk to individual companies if there is a consensus decision? Especially if everyone is on board? (At which point they can compete on a playing field that's level for everyone, including consumers.) I mean, the logical conclusion from your analysis is that, come the next shift in technology, AT&T and Verizon will basically be left in the dust because it's pretty much impossible for them to make the correct decisions individually, the most one can expect is one good decision from anyone, then they flop. I fail to see, based on your comments, how they could fail to be out of business within a couple of years, the whole thing being pretty much a crapshoot, as you outline it.
The benefits to consumers from standardization of communications technology are pretty obvious. The only benefit of your approach is to large companies who are able to use their market clout to shove whatever they want down people's throats, and stifle real competition. So, which exactly are you in favor of?
Well, not just companies, but the government and other "interested parties", like phone manufacturers, but essentially, yes. It would certainly be better if these standards were agreed on internationally, but one has to start somewhere. It would certainly be better than the chaos you seem to advocate. (Sorry, but your examples speak directly against your point, not for it.)
Please explain why it's better for companies to "go it alone"? After all, if picking technologies is as risky and difficult to do as you claim, wouldn't it lessen the risk to individual companies if there is a consensus decision? Especially if everyone is on board? (At which point they can compete on a playing field that's level for everyone, including consumers.) I mean, the logical conclusion from your analysis is that, come the next shift in technology, AT&T and Verizon will basically be left in the dust because it's pretty much impossible for them to make the correct decisions individually, the most one can expect is one good decision from anyone, then they flop. I fail to see, based on your comments, how they could fail to be out of business within a couple of years, the whole thing being pretty much a crapshoot, as you outline it.
The benefits to consumers from standardization of communications technology are pretty obvious. The only benefit of your approach is to large companies who are able to use their market clout to shove whatever they want down people's throats, and stifle real competition. So, which exactly are you in favor of?
There is no chaos at all.
There is a thing called systemic risks --- letting individual companies to die because they made the wrong technology bet is a lot BETTER than letting your whole industry to die because your government forces them to make the wrong bet collectively. You are talking about Japan being nowhere on the international market for cell phones because the Japanese government forced them to use a Japan only 2G standard. Which one is better --- individual companies like Panasonic making a mistake and losing their shirts on cell phones vs. the whole Japanese cell phone industry being a nobody in the world market.
Notice that all the recent European spectrum auctions are all TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL --- you are advocating a position that not even the Europeans are buying at the moment.
Letting either AT&T OR Verizon die is a lot better than the whole European carrier industry slowly sunk into 3G trouble for the last decade --- after their governments forced them to build out WCDMA networks that weren't ready for prime time, for a futuristic vision of video calling that never materialized.
There is ZERO consumer benefit at all --- just look at the iphone in Europe. The whole continent is GSM/WCDMA, but in a lot of the European countries, you are stuck with a simlocked iphone with a 2 year contract that you can't even get unlocking codes after your contract is finished.
There is a thing called systemic risks --- letting individual companies to die because they made the wrong technology bet is a lot BETTER than letting your whole industry to die because your government forces them to make the wrong bet collectively...
It might be if we were not talking about communications infrastructure or those were the only options.
What happens according to your theories if all of your telecom companies make the wrong choice? Isn't your industry dead then anyway? And according to your description of how perilous the process is, this seems like a likely outcome.
In reality, what happens is that the dominant companies win out anyway, because people just have to accept what they are offering, and they can afford to lose more money than the smaller companies, even if what they are offering sucks.
This isn't a desirable outcome, is it? But it's the logical outcome of your scenario.
Comments
Almost 50% of iPhones are sold outside the US.
What goes down between Apple and AT&T also affects those users.
I know the iTunes stores are separated by country; do other countries have their own App Store or is it the same one for everybody?
We had Service provides blocking VOIP connections for years before the FCC step in. THE FCC never responses that fast to anything they seem to be right on top of Apple's every move.
When have any of you seen our government act so quickly, it was only a week or so ago that Apple pulled those apps and then we have the FCC filling a investigation. I highly doubt they did this because some citizen complained. Why would the FCC care all of sudden that Apple pulled some app that allow you to send voice over the internet verse the cell network.
We had Service provides blocking VOIP connections for years before the FCC step in. THE FCC never responses that fast to anything they seem to be right on top of Apple's every move.
You are right, it was awfully fast.
But it has nothing to do with calls over the data network. It is not VOIP. GoogleVoice is not a VOIP service. The calling feature is essentially an outbound call forwarding service. Exactly the way calling cards and some alternative long distance providers work. Your end of the call is just a regular, billable phone call to or from google. They then dial your party and connect the 2 calls.
Relatively lowly carriers? You mean like this one:
Verizon Communications Inc. (12 months ending 12-31-2008)
Revenue: $97 Billion
Gross Profit: $58 Billion
Employees: 235,000
Google Inc. (12 months ending 12-31-2008)
Revenue: $21 Billion
Gross Profit: $13 Billion
Employees 19,000
And even if Google was 20X bigger than Verizon, the point still stands. The carriers have consistently pushed and lobbied for anti-consumer practices. Everything from colluding to increase text messaging rates, to dictating the phones, software, and hardware features that customers can access and use on their personally-owned hardware. Additionally, they maintained a walled garden than gave them monopoly access to the software platform that stifled innovation and allowed them to extort software developers.
Google on the other hand -- while they indeed are in business to make a profit --- have continued to work towards and lobby for open information, free choice and consumer rights. In the spectrum auction, while of course open access rules would help them assuming they have the applications and services consumers most want, they were the major voice for consumers rights while using devices they own that work on airwaves OWNED by the public. The carriers believe they are the gatekeepers to everything even though they are using spectrum leased to them by the American people. It is OUR RESOURCE, and they will abide by pro-consumer rules if they want to use it.
In this case, Apple is acting just like the carriers. If they are going to be the single point of application entry, It in unacceptable for them to deny access to applications and services that compete with their own, or are otherwise a threat to AT&T's profit.
In terms of market cap, you can buy the whole Verizon company for about $85 billion dolalrs ---- or you can buy the whole Apple for $140 billion or the whole Google for $140 billion.
There is no point --- everybody is investigating on Google's monopoly status and their privacy policies. AT&T and Verizon which total about 60% of the US wireless market (so about 30% EACH) vs. Google owning 75% of the internet search market --- which one is more of a monopoly. We are talking about the Bush administration okeying every carrier mergers in the last 8 years BUT killing the Google/Yahoo merger --- Google is a lot more to worry about.
You think that there is price collusion among the carriers? Nothing compares to how Google set their prices on advertisng clicks --- they literally control the whole world price of internet advertising.
Do you want to enrich Google which is a much bigger corporate empire --- which employs very few people. Or do you want to protect the relatively smaller sized carriers --- which employs a lot of people.
Thank you for the post. I really get tired of debating the facts with all of these anti-regulation, lasissez-faire zealots who don't understand the importance of regulation to *encourage* competition and remove the abuses of large entrenched corporations. (and certainly when you are talking about publicly owned or publicly invested assets). Allowing the cellular companies to use segments of the publicly-owned spectrum is not a right.
Whether it had ultimately been CDMA or GSM, I guarantee the United States would have a far more competitive wireless environment if leased spectrum had a technology mandate attached to it. Customers would have full mobility with their devices, and so carriers would be forced to compete on service and price, and would not be able to lock-in customers with the inherent incompatibilities in cellphone hardware.
A good example is the UK, where the popular carriers are all using GSM/UMTS/HSPA, and customers are able to get the most expensive handsets (Like the Nokia N95/N97 back in the day, or the high-end Sony Ericcson models) on the market for free or very little cost on contract, depending on term and monthly spend. Even the iPhone is now free I believe.
I am a business-friendly democrat and entrepreneur, and I am far more ideologically aligned with most of the progressive technology companies than the old-guard, corporate abuses of telecommunications, energy, media, etc.
How is the US not competitive in the wireless environment?
The US enjoys the largest regular priced iphone data allowance at 5 GB, the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the world and the second best iphone plan in the G7 countries.
The only country in the G7 that has a better iphone plan than the US --- is the UK. But that has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about --- because O2 has an iphone exclusive and O2 doesn't unlock the iphone (even after your iphone contract is over).
ALL of the recent spectrum license auctions in Europe for the last 3-4 years --- have been TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL.
http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.c...ies/2008-05-19
Show me a single thing that is different in terms of government regulations in the UK and in the US --- that leads to their "competitive" market. NOTHING. The ONLY thing is that different is that UK has FIVE national carriers and the US has FOUR national carriers.
So basically, the only thing that the FCC has to do is ---- do another round of spectrum auction that invites a brand new FIFTH national carrier.
The internet has standards, and a well established standards process, and it doesn't seem to have retarded innovation. And, yes, that's exactly the point, force them to compete in other ways: on price, on service, etc. The government track record of regulating industries is just fine. What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition and deregulation, which often fails spectacularly or leads to corporate abuses.
I fully understand that the wireless carries don't want to have to really compete against each other. I'm sure they are very happy with and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, but allowing them to do so goes against the public interest and causes continual harm to consumers. I welcome forceful government intervention in this market and we will all benefit in the long-term from it. The idea that government is not a good regulator and that government intervention typically causes more harm than good is a pernicious fiction perpetrated by people who don't believe in, or don't want, government acting for the public good.
This is silicon valley we are talking about --- if you lose money on 99 start-ups and win the jackpot with 1 single start-up --- you will still be a billionaire. If these civil servants really know how to bet on technology --- they would have left the government, join a venture capitalist firm and become billionaires.
Government track record of "BETTING" on technology sucks big time. Europe bet on 3G --- lost big time. Japan bet on analog HDTV --- lost big time. Korea bet on wimax --- lost big time.
Yes, the internet has standards --- and a lot of what you people call network non-neutrality are part of those industry standards. The industry faces a technical problem with lots of torrent traffic and not enough bandwidth. The industry sets up an IEEE working group to explore possible solutions. The industry votes and affirms the technical solution --- what, now you are telling me that we can't do that because of regulations. That's like the Bush era policies on stem cell research --- you are crippling innovations because of government regulations.
Google Voice isn't available in Australia.
Is it still a beta?
You are right, it was awfully fast.
But it has nothing to do with calls over the data network. It is not VOIP. GoogleVoice is not a VOIP service. The calling feature is essentially an outbound call forwarding service. Exactly the way calling cards and some alternative long distance providers work. Your end of the call is just a regular, billable phone call to or from google. They then dial your party and connect the 2 calls.
Government track record of "BETTING" on technology sucks big time. Europe bet on 3G --- lost big time. Japan bet on analog HDTV --- lost big time. Korea bet on wimax --- lost big time.
Well, these failures are mostly because technology was implemented before there was a market for it. However, they are not necessarily at all relevant to this issue.
Clearly, there will be wireless networks in this country, and clearly there will be some next generation wireless network always being envisioned for the future. So, something will be implemented. The point is that a) it's wasteful for wireless companies to implement conflicting technologies, and that waste ends up being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, and b) conflicting technologies restrict consumer choice and allow wireless companies to effectively lock consumers in. Neither of these is desirable, and it's in the public interest for the regulators to make the wireless companies compete on a level playing field that maximizes consumer freedom. Let the industry make the decision among themselves, with oversight, but make them come to a single decision.
Yes, the internet has standards --- and a lot of what you people call network non-neutrality are part of those industry standards. The industry faces a technical problem with lots of torrent traffic and not enough bandwidth. The industry sets up an IEEE working group to explore possible solutions. The industry votes and affirms the technical solution --- what, now you are telling me that we can't do that because of regulations. That's like the Bush era policies on stem cell research --- you are crippling innovations because of government regulations.
This is, quite frankly, completely ridiculous nonsense. Your point that government regulations cripple innovation isn't valid to begin with, but comparing it to, "Bush era policies on stem cell research," is utterly absurd.
I already have an App that does that for when there is no WiFi for VOIP, it's a paid service.
Google Voice isn't available in Australia.
Is it still a beta?
I think it is still beta. It is still invite only and is US only for now (unless you had a GrandCentral acct before).
The GV service adds a lot more than just outbound call forwarding. It offers what is essentially visual voicemail and transcribed voicemail. Probably it's single biggest feature is the consolidated phone numbers. You pick/get your phone number for GV and then add all you other numbers to your profile. when anyone calls you, all of your phones ring.
As has been said, all of these features are availble without a dedicated app. You call use many of the features from your landline or browser. The app(s) just put them all in a convenient package. VVM and SMS are the only features that explicitly benefit from being in an app, so you can be notified on arrival instead of waiting for an email or having to log into the web app.
Clearly, there will be wireless networks in this country, and clearly there will be some next generation wireless network always being envisioned for the future. So, something will be implemented. The point is that a) it's wasteful for wireless companies to implement conflicting technologies, and that waste ends up being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, and b) conflicting technologies restrict consumer choice and allow wireless companies to effectively lock consumers in. Neither of these is desirable, and it's in the public interest for the regulators to make the wireless companies compete on a level playing field that maximizes consumer freedom. Let the industry make the decision among themselves, with oversight, but make them come to a single decision.
This is, quite frankly, completely ridiculous nonsense. Your point that government regulations cripple innovation isn't valid to begin with, but comparing it to, "Bush era policies on stem cell research," is utterly absurd.
Chances are --- 99 times out of 100, you are going to bet on the wrong technology.
Governments will bet on technologies that have home-grown technological edge. You are always going to have separate governments betting on different stuff. South Korea is still betting on WiMax because their home grown companies have the patent edge in WiMax. That's how these government "betting" works --- if they lose in the market place, they will make laws to give their own companies an edge.
The whole Europe --- has been switching ALL their recent spectrum auctions to TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL auctions. Europe learned their lesson --- because when they hit the jackpot with GSM, so they got greedy and they bet the farm on 3G --- which bombed big time.
Somehow, the US beat the 5 largest European countries (with a total population of 300 million people i.e. same as US population) in 3G penetration, the US has the largest mobile technology firm in the world (Qualcomm), the US has the most talked about smartphones in the world (Blackberries and iPhone), the average American talks 4x more voice minutes on the cell phone than the average European.... EVERYTHING that was allegedly wrong with the American model --- turned out to be right.
Why not? Bush era stem cell research --- specifically outlawed certain technological techniques. A net neutrality regulation would specifically outlaw certain technological techniques as well.
Chances are --- 99 times out of 100, you are going to bet on the wrong technology.
Governments will bet on technologies that have home-grown technological edge. You are always going to have separate governments betting on different stuff. South Korea is still betting on WiMax because their home grown companies have the patent edge in WiMax. That's how these government "betting" works --- if they lose in the market place, they will make laws to give their own companies an edge.
The whole Europe --- has been switching ALL their recent spectrum auctions to TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL auctions. Europe learned their lesson --- because when they hit the jackpot with GSM, so they got greedy and they bet the farm on 3G --- which bombed big time.
Somehow, the US beat the 5 largest European countries (with a total population of 300 million people i.e. same as US population) in 3G penetration, the US has the largest mobile technology firm in the world (Qualcomm), the US has the most talked about smartphones in the world (Blackberries and iPhone), the average American talks 4x more voice minutes on the cell phone than the average European.... EVERYTHING that was allegedly wrong with the American model --- turned out to be right.
Why not? Bush era stem cell research --- specifically outlawed certain technological techniques. A net neutrality regulation would specifically outlaw certain technological techniques as well.
Everyone has BlackBerries...unless you mean where they are based. In that case, RIM is a purely Canadian company. Nortel also used be one the largest telecom equipment companies in the world (bankrupt now), but the Canadian tech industry does benefit from some government activity.
Everyone has BlackBerries...unless you mean where they are based. In that case, RIM is a purely Canadian company. Nortel also used be one the largest telecom equipment companies in the world (bankrupt now), but the Canadian tech industry does benefit from some government activity.
Totally bonehead on my part --- because I am a Canadian myself.
But from a policy point of view -- Canada is really close to the US: technology neutral spectrum licensing, hetero wireless network environment, no forced unlocking of simlocked phones, charging for incoming calls, most subscribers are postpaid.
The attitude that any two business can negotiate and agree to whatever they want is such a patently ridiculous assertion, that it barely merits any attention whatsoever. It seems, however, that this position - along with its sister idea that intellectual property rights are absolute - has never had any foundation in either our laws or in the way we live.
For those who endlessly spout that AT&T is a private company and can do whatever they want, you should remember that they merely license the spectrum they use ... and resell services on that wireless spectrum back to the same public that owns it in the first place. That is the most fundamental reason why the FCC has not just a right but an obligation to ensure anti-competitive practices are not being used.
The attitude that any two business can negotiate and agree to whatever they want is such a patently ridiculous assertion, that it barely merits any attention whatsoever. It seems, however, that this position - along with its sister idea that intellectual property rights are absolute - has never had any foundation in either our laws or in the way we live.
No, the foundation of our system is that we should look at consumer rights as a whole.
Don't need to micro-regulate the wireless carriers --- if there are enough competition in the market. The best iphone deal in the whole world is Hong Kong --- as laissez faire as you can get. The best iphone deals in the G7 --- UK is number 1 and US is number 2.
Wow --- what a patently ridiculous idea that capitalism works.
Everyone has BlackBerries...unless you mean where they are based. In that case, RIM is a purely Canadian company. Nortel also used be one the largest telecom equipment companies in the world (bankrupt now), but the Canadian tech industry does benefit from some government activity.
Everybody is corporate environments are force-fed Blackberries.
Chances are --- 99 times out of 100, you are going to bet on the wrong technology.
The point you seem to be conveniently (for your argument) ignoring is that they are going to have to bet on some technology, so make them bet on the same one. Well, there's also your wild propensity to throw around baseless numbers like, "99 times out of 100," but since we both know that's just for rhetorical effect I won't ask for statistics.
Don't need to micro-regulate the wireless carriers --- if there are enough competition in the market. The best iphone deal in the whole world is Hong Kong...
Wow --- what a patently ridiculous idea that capitalism works.
Yes, well, I believe Hong Kong also has the most competition in the iPhone market. Lack of competition, and carrier efforts to suppress competition in US wireless markets is exactly why government regulation is required.
Actually, the idea that capitalism works without government regulation is patently ridiculous. That's why we have antitrust laws, child labor laws, environmental laws, workplace safety laws, sex & human trafficking laws, minimum wage laws, advertising laws, food safety laws, product safety laws, and so on. That's why when the government failed to perform, or even outlawed, it's own regulatory obligations in the US, the abuses of the financial industry brought down the entire world economy. Capitalism never has and never will "work" without government regulation, and the idea that it does is as much a fantasy as Peter Pan.
The point you seem to be conveniently (for your argument) ignoring is that they are going to have to bet on some technology, so make them bet on the same one. Well, there's also your wild propensity to throw around baseless numbers like, "99 times out of 100," but since we both know that's just for rhetorical effect I won't ask for statistics.
Yes, well, I believe Hong Kong also has the most competition in the iPhone market. Lack of competition, and carrier efforts to suppress competition in US wireless markets is exactly why government regulation is required.
So what you are advocating is that the US government forces American companies in the same room and come up with the same standard --- just like how the Japanese government used to do it with analog HDTV. Governments will always try to protect their own national economic interests. What you will end up doing is having Japan coming up with one wireless standard (which they did with PHS mobile phone system in the 2G era), US having a separate wireless standard and Europe having a separate wireless standard. Next you have South Korea, rapidly becoming the next cell phone giant nation with Samsung and LG --- coming up with their national standard (wibro which is their version of wimax). And we already have the Chinese government advocating their home grown 3G standards. So we already have 5 different standards, 4 of them are going to be losers.
History is full of these failures in national technology betting. Europe hitting the jackpot with GSM is just plain luck --- you can't rely on striking the jackpot twice. Japan betting on the wrong stuff --- and you end up with Samsung being the largest TV producer in the world.
Compare to the rest of the G7 --- there is plenty of competition in the wireless carrier market. Japan, France and Canada have 3 major national carriers (Japan gave out a 4th license last year but they have less than 1-2% of the market so far). Germany and Japan still have their former monopoly carrier owned by their governments. France's and German's top carrier still have 40% of their market share, Japan's DoCoMo still have 50% of their market share. Verizon has about a 30% market share in the US.
So what you are advocating is that the US government forces American companies in the same room and come up with the same standard
Well, not just companies, but the government and other "interested parties", like phone manufacturers, but essentially, yes. It would certainly be better if these standards were agreed on internationally, but one has to start somewhere. It would certainly be better than the chaos you seem to advocate. (Sorry, but your examples speak directly against your point, not for it.)
Please explain why it's better for companies to "go it alone"? After all, if picking technologies is as risky and difficult to do as you claim, wouldn't it lessen the risk to individual companies if there is a consensus decision? Especially if everyone is on board? (At which point they can compete on a playing field that's level for everyone, including consumers.) I mean, the logical conclusion from your analysis is that, come the next shift in technology, AT&T and Verizon will basically be left in the dust because it's pretty much impossible for them to make the correct decisions individually, the most one can expect is one good decision from anyone, then they flop. I fail to see, based on your comments, how they could fail to be out of business within a couple of years, the whole thing being pretty much a crapshoot, as you outline it.
The benefits to consumers from standardization of communications technology are pretty obvious. The only benefit of your approach is to large companies who are able to use their market clout to shove whatever they want down people's throats, and stifle real competition. So, which exactly are you in favor of?
Well, not just companies, but the government and other "interested parties", like phone manufacturers, but essentially, yes. It would certainly be better if these standards were agreed on internationally, but one has to start somewhere. It would certainly be better than the chaos you seem to advocate. (Sorry, but your examples speak directly against your point, not for it.)
Please explain why it's better for companies to "go it alone"? After all, if picking technologies is as risky and difficult to do as you claim, wouldn't it lessen the risk to individual companies if there is a consensus decision? Especially if everyone is on board? (At which point they can compete on a playing field that's level for everyone, including consumers.) I mean, the logical conclusion from your analysis is that, come the next shift in technology, AT&T and Verizon will basically be left in the dust because it's pretty much impossible for them to make the correct decisions individually, the most one can expect is one good decision from anyone, then they flop. I fail to see, based on your comments, how they could fail to be out of business within a couple of years, the whole thing being pretty much a crapshoot, as you outline it.
The benefits to consumers from standardization of communications technology are pretty obvious. The only benefit of your approach is to large companies who are able to use their market clout to shove whatever they want down people's throats, and stifle real competition. So, which exactly are you in favor of?
There is no chaos at all.
There is a thing called systemic risks --- letting individual companies to die because they made the wrong technology bet is a lot BETTER than letting your whole industry to die because your government forces them to make the wrong bet collectively. You are talking about Japan being nowhere on the international market for cell phones because the Japanese government forced them to use a Japan only 2G standard. Which one is better --- individual companies like Panasonic making a mistake and losing their shirts on cell phones vs. the whole Japanese cell phone industry being a nobody in the world market.
Notice that all the recent European spectrum auctions are all TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL --- you are advocating a position that not even the Europeans are buying at the moment.
Letting either AT&T OR Verizon die is a lot better than the whole European carrier industry slowly sunk into 3G trouble for the last decade --- after their governments forced them to build out WCDMA networks that weren't ready for prime time, for a futuristic vision of video calling that never materialized.
There is ZERO consumer benefit at all --- just look at the iphone in Europe. The whole continent is GSM/WCDMA, but in a lot of the European countries, you are stuck with a simlocked iphone with a 2 year contract that you can't even get unlocking codes after your contract is finished.
There is no chaos at all.
There is a thing called systemic risks --- letting individual companies to die because they made the wrong technology bet is a lot BETTER than letting your whole industry to die because your government forces them to make the wrong bet collectively...
It might be if we were not talking about communications infrastructure or those were the only options.
What happens according to your theories if all of your telecom companies make the wrong choice? Isn't your industry dead then anyway? And according to your description of how perilous the process is, this seems like a likely outcome.
In reality, what happens is that the dominant companies win out anyway, because people just have to accept what they are offering, and they can afford to lose more money than the smaller companies, even if what they are offering sucks.
This isn't a desirable outcome, is it? But it's the logical outcome of your scenario.