Next we'll see this for Android and hear some Droidette claim Google was planning to do this all along.
I have to wonder about the 'patent' here. SJ told us the iPhone and iOS was patented pretty well. If so, something went wrong there it seems to me, else Google are in for a nasty shock one day.
Say this takes off. Who controls your phone #? We need to let end users have control of their phone numbers else it will be used as a wedge by carriers against competitive services.
All I have to say is "Lets go Apple". If you have to take part ownership of a couple of carriers to do this in the US, lets do it. 46 billion in cash looks good about now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
A patent recently granted to Apple could wrest power away from the wireless carriers by creating a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) system that would allow networks to bid against each other over wireless services provided to iPhone users.
In just three and a half years, Apple's iPhone has brought about substantial changes in the mobile phone industry and inspired a multitude of copycat devices. Now, just days before the iPhone goes multi-carrier in the US for the first time, AppleInsider has discovered a patent awarded to Apple that could further shake up the way carriers do business.
The patent, entitled "Dynamic carrier selection," describes a method for providing wireless communication services. According to the invention, a mobile device would store a network address and communicate with network operator servers. After receiving data from available network operators, the device or user would select a carrier. AppleInsider first reported on the patent in April 2008.
"In some situations, bids are received from multiple network operators for rates at which communication services using each network operator can be obtained. Preferences among the network operators are identified using the received bids, and the preferences are used to select the network operator for the mobile device to use in conducting communications," the filing noted.
The invention would allow Apple to run a MVNO system that could collect rate information from participating wireless networks within a region and automatically select or allow users to select the best option.
Traditional MVNOs purchase wireless minutes in bulk from existing carriers and resell them to customers. Apple's system could set off a bidding war between providers, potentially driving prices down.
The patent specifically lists Verizon and Sprint as examples of carriers from which MVNOs purchase minutes.
Using Apple's proposed system, a user could specify carrier preferences for different rates, locations and times that would then be dynamically selected by the iPhone.
An additional step that would likely enrage carriers would be for Apple to handle the accounting for the MVNO service and bill iPhone users through their iTunes account. Much like the controversial in-app subscriptions on the iPad, such a system would leave valuable user information in the hands of Apple, rather than the wireless carriers.
The application was filed in October 2006, nearly a year before the introduction of the iPhone. Former Apple executive Tony Fadell, known as the 'grandfather of the iPod,' is credited with the invention.
The patent serves as additional evidence that Apple has looked into ways to reduce its reliance on carrier relationships and provide iPhone users with more choices for wireless service.
Last October, reports emerged that Apple was working on a upgradeable flash-based SIM that could allow users to change wireless networks without having to obtain a carrier-specific SIM. Within weeks, several European carriers threatened Apple that such a feature would jeopardize their willingness to subsidize future versions of the iPhone.
Initial teardown reports of the Verizon iPhone 4 indicate that the smartphone uses a world mode MDM6600 Qualcomm baseband that could pave the way for a dual CDMA and GSM iPhone in the future.
Is there a potential flip side to this? Bidding prices could send them down so significantly that it would reduce to carriers to subsistence levels. This could squeeze network development and eventually reduce the infrastructure to its knees. Without a reliable network, a good part of iphones functionality is lost.
I don't see this working out too well. Sounds great from a consumer perspective but the end game to me appears to be an overall negative.
Interesting perspective. I don't necessarily see a race to the bottom. You could see the carriers breaking up their biz models into quality strata. If you want the quality experience and the bandwidth, you pay for it. I could see this also creating premium or priority bandwidth services where your data takes priority over other network traffic. If you want to make a call that sounds like two mosquitoes talking, there will be a rate for that to.
I see this as a rare moment when a disruptive technology (or process) is introduced into a business ecosystem that changes the model. Where a stable subscription service has to evolve into a dynamic market service. There will be players that will adapt, thrive and survive and some that will not. In either case I do not see this effecting the overall expense of owning a iOS device, there will just be a more accurate relationship between the bandwidth you consume and the price you pay for it. And oh yes, a much different approach to how carriers attract you as a consumer.
Is there a potential flip side to this? Bidding prices could send them down so significantly that it would reduce to carriers to subsistence levels. This could squeeze network development and eventually reduce the infrastructure to its knees. Without a reliable network, a good part of iphones functionality is lost.
I don't see this working out too well. Sounds great from a consumer perspective but the end game to me appears to be an overall negative.
...there is a corollary to the cable industry in this? Right now, the cell industry, while competitive in public have not been "cut-throat" in trying to undermine each other. The variance in rates is negligible between the major carriers, aside from their momentary specials they throw out to the market. Regional carriers can't compete for coverage so they get relegated to under-pricing for those customers who don't need the national or global coverage. If you look at the current profitability of the carriers, they are not close to hurting from either a revenue or profits standpoint. It would take nearly a decade before they would be reduced to anything approaching "subsistence" levels and long before that they would figure out new technologies to optimize their operating costs, or conversely there could be an entirely disruptive change in technologies that would drive gradual obsolescence of the whole radio carrier framework anyway.
Essentially someone at Apple has elephant sized family jewels.
..only if you see everything that Apple (or any other corporate entity) does as personally involving ego, and completely set aside the purposeful development of technology as a product to bring to market.
You would have crapped your pants during the Industrial Revolution, where personalities held sway and it was literally all about who had the biggest and who was the most cut-throat. This is mere vapours compared to that time period, and still you react like this is all about male body parts and ego. Bill Gates was a bit of a throw-back to those giants of industry, but the rest of corporate nowadays bears little resemblance to then. Perhaps you take this all a bit too personally?
Apple should start a service like Google Voice and route voice calls and data over IP. Then set up partnerships with city governments to provide wifi though out major metropolitan areas. Once that is in place you have a minimal roaming fee that the carriers bill to Apple based on your usage outside of the metro zone, if any.
Apple bills your phone charges through your MobileMe account. Your iPhone is subsidized by Apple and they provide your phone number as well. Eventually you won't even need a number because your calls will just get routed to you much like web traffic uses DNS today.
No need to worry about the details now. It could be a nice end run around the carriers and also a way for Apple services to be sold to government contracts.
..on if you see everything that Apple (or any other corporate entity) does as personally involving ego, and completely set aside the purposeful development of technology as a product to bring to market.
You would have crapped your pants during the Industrial Revolution, where personalities held sway and it was literally all about who had the biggest and who was the most cut-throat. This is mere vapours compared to that time period, and still you react like this is all about male body parts and ego. Bill Gates was a bit of a throw-back to those giants of industry, but the rest of corporate nowadays bears little resemblance to then. Perhaps you take this all a bit too personally?
Nah, it's just a figure of speech. Apple think they don't need the carriers, so someone is making a big move. Maybe I should have said they have fortitude... courage... audacity maybe?
That's the point of this patented invention. It's for dynamic carrier switching depending on which carrier provides the cheapest bid.
Sprint & Verizon are used as examples here but one has to wonder if that is because they were 2 that the early iPhones had no chance of running on at the time this was submitted. Doesn't bode well with carriers if you single out 2 of them in active contracts on some diagram. This patent may have been primarily to target world travel, an easy way to roam without costing yourself an arm & a leg. Just a guess.
Wasn't this a story from 2006 before the original iPhone even launched? I don't remember if it was driven by a patent filing or an industry rumour, but it was definitely based on the idea of Apple creating an MVNO that would be based on an auction system. I think AI even had a diagram of the proposed bidding system.
Edit: I guess this is really just a story of the patent being awarded and the story from a few years ago was about the submission.
Say this takes off. Who controls your phone #? We need to let end users have control of their phone numbers else it will be used as a wedge by carriers against competitive services.
I am not certain we even need phone numbers.
Contacting someone via a number seems like a 19th Century solution.
Comments
It'd work great for International travel, instead of paying roaming rates you'd pay local rates wherever you go, billed via an iTunes account.
No wonder European carriers are against it, I'd say roaming charges would make a nice little earner for them.
It brings a whole new meaning to MobileMe doesn't it?
Essentially someone at Apple has elephant sized family jewels.
Well that has been the case for some time, you don't get to be (almost) the most valuable company on the planet in a decade by being reticent do you?
Next we'll see this for Android and hear some Droidette claim Google was planning to do this all along.
I have to wonder about the 'patent' here. SJ told us the iPhone and iOS was patented pretty well. If so, something went wrong there it seems to me, else Google are in for a nasty shock one day.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...s/1biggrin.gif
A patent recently granted to Apple could wrest power away from the wireless carriers by creating a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) system that would allow networks to bid against each other over wireless services provided to iPhone users.
In just three and a half years, Apple's iPhone has brought about substantial changes in the mobile phone industry and inspired a multitude of copycat devices. Now, just days before the iPhone goes multi-carrier in the US for the first time, AppleInsider has discovered a patent awarded to Apple that could further shake up the way carriers do business.
The patent, entitled "Dynamic carrier selection," describes a method for providing wireless communication services. According to the invention, a mobile device would store a network address and communicate with network operator servers. After receiving data from available network operators, the device or user would select a carrier. AppleInsider first reported on the patent in April 2008.
"In some situations, bids are received from multiple network operators for rates at which communication services using each network operator can be obtained. Preferences among the network operators are identified using the received bids, and the preferences are used to select the network operator for the mobile device to use in conducting communications," the filing noted.
The invention would allow Apple to run a MVNO system that could collect rate information from participating wireless networks within a region and automatically select or allow users to select the best option.
Traditional MVNOs purchase wireless minutes in bulk from existing carriers and resell them to customers. Apple's system could set off a bidding war between providers, potentially driving prices down.
The patent specifically lists Verizon and Sprint as examples of carriers from which MVNOs purchase minutes.
Using Apple's proposed system, a user could specify carrier preferences for different rates, locations and times that would then be dynamically selected by the iPhone.
An additional step that would likely enrage carriers would be for Apple to handle the accounting for the MVNO service and bill iPhone users through their iTunes account. Much like the controversial in-app subscriptions on the iPad, such a system would leave valuable user information in the hands of Apple, rather than the wireless carriers.
The application was filed in October 2006, nearly a year before the introduction of the iPhone. Former Apple executive Tony Fadell, known as the 'grandfather of the iPod,' is credited with the invention.
The patent serves as additional evidence that Apple has looked into ways to reduce its reliance on carrier relationships and provide iPhone users with more choices for wireless service.
Last October, reports emerged that Apple was working on a upgradeable flash-based SIM that could allow users to change wireless networks without having to obtain a carrier-specific SIM. Within weeks, several European carriers threatened Apple that such a feature would jeopardize their willingness to subsidize future versions of the iPhone.
Initial teardown reports of the Verizon iPhone 4 indicate that the smartphone uses a world mode MDM6600 Qualcomm baseband that could pave the way for a dual CDMA and GSM iPhone in the future.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Is there a potential flip side to this? Bidding prices could send them down so significantly that it would reduce to carriers to subsistence levels. This could squeeze network development and eventually reduce the infrastructure to its knees. Without a reliable network, a good part of iphones functionality is lost.
I don't see this working out too well. Sounds great from a consumer perspective but the end game to me appears to be an overall negative.
Interesting perspective. I don't necessarily see a race to the bottom. You could see the carriers breaking up their biz models into quality strata. If you want the quality experience and the bandwidth, you pay for it. I could see this also creating premium or priority bandwidth services where your data takes priority over other network traffic. If you want to make a call that sounds like two mosquitoes talking, there will be a rate for that to.
I see this as a rare moment when a disruptive technology (or process) is introduced into a business ecosystem that changes the model. Where a stable subscription service has to evolve into a dynamic market service. There will be players that will adapt, thrive and survive and some that will not. In either case I do not see this effecting the overall expense of owning a iOS device, there will just be a more accurate relationship between the bandwidth you consume and the price you pay for it. And oh yes, a much different approach to how carriers attract you as a consumer.
Is there a potential flip side to this? Bidding prices could send them down so significantly that it would reduce to carriers to subsistence levels. This could squeeze network development and eventually reduce the infrastructure to its knees. Without a reliable network, a good part of iphones functionality is lost.
I don't see this working out too well. Sounds great from a consumer perspective but the end game to me appears to be an overall negative.
...there is a corollary to the cable industry in this? Right now, the cell industry, while competitive in public have not been "cut-throat" in trying to undermine each other. The variance in rates is negligible between the major carriers, aside from their momentary specials they throw out to the market. Regional carriers can't compete for coverage so they get relegated to under-pricing for those customers who don't need the national or global coverage. If you look at the current profitability of the carriers, they are not close to hurting from either a revenue or profits standpoint. It would take nearly a decade before they would be reduced to anything approaching "subsistence" levels and long before that they would figure out new technologies to optimize their operating costs, or conversely there could be an entirely disruptive change in technologies that would drive gradual obsolescence of the whole radio carrier framework anyway.
Essentially someone at Apple has elephant sized family jewels.
..only if you see everything that Apple (or any other corporate entity) does as personally involving ego, and completely set aside the purposeful development of technology as a product to bring to market.
You would have crapped your pants during the Industrial Revolution, where personalities held sway and it was literally all about who had the biggest and who was the most cut-throat. This is mere vapours compared to that time period, and still you react like this is all about male body parts and ego. Bill Gates was a bit of a throw-back to those giants of industry, but the rest of corporate nowadays bears little resemblance to then. Perhaps you take this all a bit too personally?
Apple bills your phone charges through your MobileMe account. Your iPhone is subsidized by Apple and they provide your phone number as well. Eventually you won't even need a number because your calls will just get routed to you much like web traffic uses DNS today.
No need to worry about the details now. It could be a nice end run around the carriers and also a way for Apple services to be sold to government contracts.
..on if you see everything that Apple (or any other corporate entity) does as personally involving ego, and completely set aside the purposeful development of technology as a product to bring to market.
You would have crapped your pants during the Industrial Revolution, where personalities held sway and it was literally all about who had the biggest and who was the most cut-throat. This is mere vapours compared to that time period, and still you react like this is all about male body parts and ego. Bill Gates was a bit of a throw-back to those giants of industry, but the rest of corporate nowadays bears little resemblance to then. Perhaps you take this all a bit too personally?
Nah, it's just a figure of speech. Apple think they don't need the carriers, so someone is making a big move. Maybe I should have said they have fortitude... courage... audacity maybe?
Whatever. You get my point.
btw, I am originally from Chesterfield
The crooked spire is still standing!
Where in Florida? I am big fan of Anna Maria Island near Bradenton
C.
The crooked spire is still standing!
Where in Florida? I am big fan of Anna Maria Island near Bradenton
C.
They don't twist spires like they used to eh? Sarasota
Just bidding on service based on signal strength or reliability of signal would be a step up. Heck, I'd even pay the same price.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...s/1biggrin.gif
That's a fascinating thought ... Option ... Select "Lowest Rate" or "Strongest Signal" for the call.
That's the point of this patented invention. It's for dynamic carrier switching depending on which carrier provides the cheapest bid.
Sprint & Verizon are used as examples here but one has to wonder if that is because they were 2 that the early iPhones had no chance of running on at the time this was submitted. Doesn't bode well with carriers if you single out 2 of them in active contracts on some diagram. This patent may have been primarily to target world travel, an easy way to roam without costing yourself an arm & a leg. Just a guess.
Edit: I guess this is really just a story of the patent being awarded and the story from a few years ago was about the submission.
Say this takes off. Who controls your phone #? We need to let end users have control of their phone numbers else it will be used as a wedge by carriers against competitive services.
I am not certain we even need phone numbers.
Contacting someone via a number seems like a 19th Century solution.
C.
I am not certain we even need phone numbers.
Contacting someone via a number seems like a 19th Century solution.
C.
Now there is an interesting thought, like how someone can facetime my e-mail & it pops up on my Mac.