In it, a single mobile phone can make use of multiple networks.
Wouldn't it be great if Apple re-booted this plan in the wake of the the current situation with AT&T.
The system would work by iPhone consumers buying airtime and data directly from Apple. In turn, Apple would negotiate voice and data services with multiple carriers around the globe.
The benefits to Apple consumers would be huge. Coverage would improve - data roaming would finally be affordable. The phone could pick networks intelligently and perhaps even route calls via WiFi if available.
Sure, the carriers would probably hate it.... Although it would allow carriers to sell spare network capacity without the expense of any customer service and billing. Millions of customers become just one; Apple.
From a free-market perspective it would be a good thing too. Networks would compete to capture calls - and not simply compete to capture locked-in customers.
I am sure this will never happen, but having just seen my data-roaming bill. I really wish it would.
C.
I don?t see how this would be better than the current situation of going directly with carriers. Apple would have to start from scratch by making a telco and then they?d have to rent space on other carriers, like AT&T, which would give AT&T even less concern than they have now to upgrade their network to support a data heavy device.
I don’t see how this would be better than the current situation of going directly with carriers. Apple would have to start from scratch by making a telco and then they’d have to rent space on other carriers, like AT&T, which would give AT&T even less concern than they have now to upgrade their network to support a data heavy device.
First iPhones could buy calls on any network. All carriers would be able to sell unused bandwidth to Apple - making money where previously they made none. The offloading of call traffic onto multiple networks would help share-out the load and free-up space capacity.
Second - all these calls would be paid for by Apple. Network operators would be incentivised to offer that spare capacity. They'd compete for your call.
This is a big difference. The current model fails because currently AT&T gets your monthly contract dollars whether the call drops or not. They are financially rewarded for *not* upgrading the network.
First iPhones could buy calls on any network. All carriers would be able to sell unused bandwidth to Apple - making money where previously they made none. The offloading of call traffic onto multiple networks would help share-out the load and free-up space capacity.
Second - all these calls would be paid for by Apple. Network operators would be incentivised to offer that spare capacity. They'd compete for your call.
This is a big difference. The current model fails because currently AT&T gets your monthly contract dollars whether the call drops or not. They are rewarded for *not* spending on the network.
This model would actually work for the customer.
C.
That still has the same problem the iPhone has now without the added issue of being on a bottom rung supported MVNO. They?d still need multiple handsets to have CDMA and GSM devices. It?s easier and better for Apple to just have multiple carriers than to be a single MVNO that requires multiple handsets that work of disparate networks through an odd MVNO. The iPhone is a HUGE success, MVNOs simply aren?t designed for that sort of scale, especially when they use so much data.
I used to manage an ISP that also sold DSL to customers. It functioned much like an MVNO in that they leased from a larger company that owned the lines. No matter what we did to speed up the connection the primary company was always faster than ours because they had their accounts on the newer servers and used their older servers for these lower-tiered companies. Nothing illegal about it, just good business, but still a PITA.
It would be like being in a state of persistent roaming.
So would Apple send a monthly bill via iTunes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
First iPhones could buy calls on any network. All carriers would be able to sell unused bandwidth to Apple - making money where previously they made none. The offloading of call traffic onto multiple networks would help share-out the load and free-up space capacity.
Second - all these calls would be paid for by Apple. Network operators would be incentivised to offer that spare capacity. They'd compete for your call.
This is a big difference. The current model fails because currently AT&T gets your monthly contract dollars whether the call drops or not. They are financially rewarded for *not* upgrading the network.
There are rumors of a hybrid chipset coming device.
Apple's plan could be
Stage 1) Exclusive Carrier
Stage 2) Multiple Carriers (we are at this stage in the UK with 3 compatible networks offering iPhone)
Stage 3) AppleCom smart MVNO
The customer would buy the phone from Apple, and buy voice and data service from Apple.
The handset would be loaded with credits to buy network capacity from whichever carrier it chose.
The model of handsets actively bidding for each call from multiple carriers would fundamentally change the business model of mobile telephony. It would incentivise carriers to compete for calls on reliability, speed and price.
The current business model is broken, because carriers have no incentive to improve their networks.
Of course, I don't think this is going to happen for an instant.
Lol. 6 years ago, when I blogged about MVNOs of Apple or Google, I was disappointed that Apple never took the lead in that step. If they'd been discerning such a complicated MVNO plan, it is clear why they tied a knot with AT&T. Unless they bought minutes in bulk like a regular MVNO, the work is going to be stratospheric.
Presumably, they were planning on being an MNVE(enabler) and an MVNO. This will fly better in Nordic region or Europe and that is why they need to go back to Sonera in Finland for negotiations. Finland is the Mecca of MVNOs. It will be messier in the US, unless they plan to rollout dualband upgrades for iphones. I am still not clear how iphone will work on the rest of the competing networks (don't read this as a carrier).
On Verizon.....
Verizon CEO sounds so stupid when he thoughtlessly rejected Apple 5 years ago. Sure his losses can't be only attributed to iphone sales, there is something to be said about their unflappable commitment to blackberry. Now that the temporary failures (thanks to RIMs silly centralized model) will be papable and assigned as a compromise in the berry.
Comments
I have just found this old thread.
In it, a single mobile phone can make use of multiple networks.
Wouldn't it be great if Apple re-booted this plan in the wake of the the current situation with AT&T.
The system would work by iPhone consumers buying airtime and data directly from Apple. In turn, Apple would negotiate voice and data services with multiple carriers around the globe.
The benefits to Apple consumers would be huge. Coverage would improve - data roaming would finally be affordable. The phone could pick networks intelligently and perhaps even route calls via WiFi if available.
Sure, the carriers would probably hate it.... Although it would allow carriers to sell spare network capacity without the expense of any customer service and billing. Millions of customers become just one; Apple.
From a free-market perspective it would be a good thing too. Networks would compete to capture calls - and not simply compete to capture locked-in customers.
I am sure this will never happen, but having just seen my data-roaming bill. I really wish it would.
C.
I don?t see how this would be better than the current situation of going directly with carriers. Apple would have to start from scratch by making a telco and then they?d have to rent space on other carriers, like AT&T, which would give AT&T even less concern than they have now to upgrade their network to support a data heavy device.
I don’t see how this would be better than the current situation of going directly with carriers. Apple would have to start from scratch by making a telco and then they’d have to rent space on other carriers, like AT&T, which would give AT&T even less concern than they have now to upgrade their network to support a data heavy device.
First iPhones could buy calls on any network. All carriers would be able to sell unused bandwidth to Apple - making money where previously they made none. The offloading of call traffic onto multiple networks would help share-out the load and free-up space capacity.
Second - all these calls would be paid for by Apple. Network operators would be incentivised to offer that spare capacity. They'd compete for your call.
This is a big difference. The current model fails because currently AT&T gets your monthly contract dollars whether the call drops or not. They are financially rewarded for *not* upgrading the network.
This model would actually work for the customer.
C.
First iPhones could buy calls on any network. All carriers would be able to sell unused bandwidth to Apple - making money where previously they made none. The offloading of call traffic onto multiple networks would help share-out the load and free-up space capacity.
Second - all these calls would be paid for by Apple. Network operators would be incentivised to offer that spare capacity. They'd compete for your call.
This is a big difference. The current model fails because currently AT&T gets your monthly contract dollars whether the call drops or not. They are rewarded for *not* spending on the network.
This model would actually work for the customer.
C.
That still has the same problem the iPhone has now without the added issue of being on a bottom rung supported MVNO. They?d still need multiple handsets to have CDMA and GSM devices. It?s easier and better for Apple to just have multiple carriers than to be a single MVNO that requires multiple handsets that work of disparate networks through an odd MVNO. The iPhone is a HUGE success, MVNOs simply aren?t designed for that sort of scale, especially when they use so much data.
I used to manage an ISP that also sold DSL to customers. It functioned much like an MVNO in that they leased from a larger company that owned the lines. No matter what we did to speed up the connection the primary company was always faster than ours because they had their accounts on the newer servers and used their older servers for these lower-tiered companies. Nothing illegal about it, just good business, but still a PITA.
So would Apple send a monthly bill via iTunes?
First iPhones could buy calls on any network. All carriers would be able to sell unused bandwidth to Apple - making money where previously they made none. The offloading of call traffic onto multiple networks would help share-out the load and free-up space capacity.
Second - all these calls would be paid for by Apple. Network operators would be incentivised to offer that spare capacity. They'd compete for your call.
This is a big difference. The current model fails because currently AT&T gets your monthly contract dollars whether the call drops or not. They are financially rewarded for *not* upgrading the network.
This model would actually work for the customer.
C.
Apple's plan could be
Stage 1) Exclusive Carrier
Stage 2) Multiple Carriers (we are at this stage in the UK with 3 compatible networks offering iPhone)
Stage 3) AppleCom smart MVNO
The customer would buy the phone from Apple, and buy voice and data service from Apple.
The handset would be loaded with credits to buy network capacity from whichever carrier it chose.
The model of handsets actively bidding for each call from multiple carriers would fundamentally change the business model of mobile telephony. It would incentivise carriers to compete for calls on reliability, speed and price.
The current business model is broken, because carriers have no incentive to improve their networks.
Of course, I don't think this is going to happen for an instant.
C.
Presumably, they were planning on being an MNVE(enabler) and an MVNO. This will fly better in Nordic region or Europe and that is why they need to go back to Sonera in Finland for negotiations. Finland is the Mecca of MVNOs. It will be messier in the US, unless they plan to rollout dualband upgrades for iphones. I am still not clear how iphone will work on the rest of the competing networks (don't read this as a carrier).
On Verizon.....
Verizon CEO sounds so stupid when he thoughtlessly rejected Apple 5 years ago. Sure his losses can't be only attributed to iphone sales, there is something to be said about their unflappable commitment to blackberry. Now that the temporary failures (thanks to RIMs silly centralized model) will be papable and assigned as a compromise in the berry.