Judge Says 'There's An Ad For That...' And It's Ok For Now

from the let-it-play dept

Recently, AT&T sued Verizon over its "There's A Map For That" ad, that mocked AT&T's 3G network coverage, while playing on the Apple iPhone slogan of "there's an app for that." It seemed like an odd thing for AT&T to do, as it really just called more attention to the ad and the differences in 3G networks. Now, to make matters even worse, a judge has refused to issue an injunction stopping the ad. That doesn't stop the lawsuit, though, and the ad might still get taken down if AT&T wins, but it's unlikely Verizon's ad campaign is going to last until the lawsuit is finally decided, anyway. So for now, all it's done is driven a lot more attention to the ad, in which Verizon comes out favorably.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Problems Of A Legacy Business: Verizon's Union Freaks Out That Verizon Wants To Look Forward

from the what-a-shame dept

It's really sad to see some of the struggles that legacy businesses go through in trying to adapt to a more modern world, but not all of it is the fault of those businesses themselves. Look, for example, at what's happening with Verizon. Subsidiary Verizon Wireless -- which is 55% owned by Verizon -- began a marketing campaign pushing people to ditch their landline phone and go completely wireless. That's not a bad marketing campaign (and, in fact, might be a very good marketing campaign these days). So what happens? The union that represents Verizon's landline telco workers flips out and accuses the company of trying to undermine the union by helping Verizon get out of the landline business, so it can get rid of those workers. Seriously. First of all, there's little evidence to suggest that's true. Like most traditional telcos, Verizon still sees its basic landline business as a useful cash cow that I'm sure it intends to milk for as long as possible. Chances are, since VZW is a separate company, the marketing plan had nothing to do with the parent's marketing efforts. But, either way, at some point the company should be pushing customers to ditch landlines and other older technologies and embrace better solutions. Not because it puts old union guys out of work, but because it's where the market is headed.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Turns Out Verizon Wireless' Open Pledge Has Meant Almost Nothing

from the open-in-name-only dept

Over the past few years, mobile operators began to get annoyed at being called "soviet ministries" for their preference towards being extremely closed off with high garden walls. So, they suddenly started to claim they were throwing their doors wide open. Verizon Wireless kicked it off in 2007, by declaring a plan to open its network. It got a ton of press attention (especially from Verizon Wireless, who had been more closed than others). However, when the details finally came out, there was little to get excited about.

And, indeed, Broadband Reports checks in and notes that for all of the hype surrounding Verizon Wireless' declaration of openness it's meant a whole lot of nothingness in terms of actual products and services. In fact, Verizon's own phones and phone service remain pretty closed. Effectively, Verizon Wireless got a PR coup by suggesting they might possibly allow more open devices on the network -- should there actually be any businesses that wanted to offer that. It did work to stop criticisms and threats of regulatory interference, but it hasn't resulted in much in the way of actual openness.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No Surprise Here: Telco Employees Access Obama's Phone Records

from the but-of-course dept

We've pointed out plenty of times in the past, that any time there's a database of info out there, the data is almost certain to be abused. The latest example? Employees at Verizon Wireless improperly accessed Barack Obama's phone records to see who he was calling and who was calling him. The access was just for his regular phone used for voice communications -- not his Blackberry. Also, the employees had no access to his voicemail or anything -- just calling records. At least Verizon Wireless came out and admitted this, rather than covering it up, but it's yet another reminder, that data will be abused.

And, of course, Obama isn't the only one facing such an issue. Reader lavi d writes in to point out that eighteen background checks were conducted in Ohio by gov't employees on Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber. Eight of those background checks were done for no legitimate reason, including one at the request of the director of Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services (who has now been suspended). We had mentioned three such cases earlier, but even more have since come to light.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Verizon Wireless Tries To Grow The Mobile Web By Breaking It

from the frustration,-on-a-small-screen dept

Mobile data and web use has grown by leaps and bounds over the past year or two. One new stat says mobile data revenues are growing five times faster than voice (albeit from a much smaller base), while Facebook recently said it has 15 million active mobile users. Some operators are trying to capitalize on this interest by deploying transcoders that take standard desktop pages and transform them into something understood by more basic phones' web browsers and that can be displayed on their small screens. That's all well and good, since users often complain about the differences between the mobile web and the "real web", and their inability to surf the same sites on their phone as they do on their PC, although the transcoders often do a pretty poor job of making sites very friendly to mobile users.

One way around this is for web developers to create mobile-specific versions of their site, so they have more control over what's presented to mobile users, and many use auto-detection so that both mobile and PC users can access the relevant content at the same URL. So enter Verizon Wireless, with its long history of really grasping the mobile web, which has now deployed a transcoder. The problem is that the transcoder breaks much of the auto-detection used by mobile web developers, resulting in their work to create mobile sites being rendered useless for Verizon users, who are then served a transcoded version of their PC site. Verizon and its vendor, Novarra, say the transcoder partially follows guidelines being worked on by the W3C to cover transcoders -- the process for which started after another Novarra install, at Verizon parent Vodafone, caused similar problems. It's worth pointing out that Novarra has a representative on the W3C committee working on the guidelines, so they should be familiar with them. It's also worth mentioning that Sprint rolled out a similar transcoder earlier this year, however, they responded to feedback from the mobile web community and changed it to avoid breaking auto-detection and other problems.

On one hand, it's hard to get frustrated with Verizon for finally taking some positive steps to make the entire web available to its mobile users, even if transcoders don't always deliver the best results. On the other, it's particularly annoying to see them think that the way to do this is to undo much of the work done by web developers and content providers to make their content better for mobile users -- not to mention it's disingenuous for Verizon and Novarra to suggest they're following the W3C guidelines, as not only are they a work in progress, but forging user-agents and breaking auto-detection contravenes them. In any case, for Verizon, it's hard to see how providing users with a lackluster mobile web experience will help grow its data business. Frustrating users with poorly transcoded versions of sites, rather than versions that have been thought through by developers for mobile users, seems a poor choice. And if they really want to unleash the "desktop" web on their users, why not offer them something that does a good job of transforming it for mobile, like better browsers such as Opera Mini?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Verizon Wireless Massively Raises Rates For Text Messaging Services

from the margins?--you-have-no-margins? dept

It's no surprise that some things may be getting more expensive these days, especially as companies start dealing with the fallout from the financial crisis -- but it appears that some are going a bit overboard. There's a bit of an uproar among some, as Verizon Wireless is slapping a surprising 3-cents-per-text-message fee on top of every mobile terminated text message. That basically affects any company that provides some sort of SMS notification system or content service, massively increasing prices. As some have noted, most of those services bought text messages in bulk, where it cost around 1 cent per message. That means the cost of sending text messages just quadrupled. If you're already worried about the economy and working on tight margins, that could certainly put some companies out of business entirely.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Before Getting Bought By Verizon Wireless, Alltel Tried To Buy Sprint, T-Mobile And AT&T Wireless

from the merger-mania dept

After being rumored for years, Verizon Wireless finally bought Alltel earlier this month. However, Alltel's CEO has now admitted that the company wasn't just looking to be acquired these past few years. It had, itself, aggressively looked into buying Sprint, T-Mobile or even AT&T Wireless at times. In fact, it tried to buy Sprint three separate times. The other two certainly seem like longshots. Deutsche Telekom appears to have no real interest in getting rid of T-Mobile, and depending on which version of AT&T Wireless you're talking about, it would have been difficult to convince the various parent companies involved that a sale to Alltel made sense. And that, of course, ignores the fact that T-Mobile and AT&T Wireless were from the GSM camp, rather than the CDMA camp. Still, it is interesting to see that the smaller Alltel was looking at buying its way up the food chain.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Verizon Wireless Finally Buying Alltel

from the get-a-room-already dept

It's only been rumored for about four years, but it looks like Verizon Wireless is finally buying Alltel. It's yet another merger in the space, with this one letting Verizon leap over AT&T to declare itself the largest national carrier. Considering the space, I'm sure there will soon be a flurry of "who's next?" articles showing up -- though most of the big obvious mergers are now out of the way. One assumes this should also mean the end of the ridiculous lawsuit Verizon Wireless had filed against Alltel for misleading advertising.

69 Comments | Leave a Comment..

That Didn't Take Long: Verizon Wireless Trying To Get Out Of Open Spectrum Requirements

from the not-hard-to-see-that-coming dept

We noted recently that Verizon Wireless' new PR campaign around its "open" network offerings seemed open in name only, and it appears that the same concept is being expanded to cover the recently won 700 MHz spectrum, which FCC rules require to be open. Google has filed a petition to deny Verizon the spectrum, noting that the company's public position on how it will "open" the spectrum isn't really open at all. Basically, it looks like Verizon Wireless is trying to reinterpret the rules in its favor. Google isn't really asking the FCC to deny the spectrum sale, but really just wants the FCC to actually enforce the rules that were put in place. Given the FCC's friendly attitude towards telcos bending the rules, don't be surprised if that doesn't happen. Even if the FCC somehow tells Verizon to follow the rules more closely, it seems likely that Verizon will still figure out some way to wiggle out of them again.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lessons From The 700 MHz Auction? More Of The Same

from the no-surprises-here dept

So the winners of the 700 MHz spectrum auction have been announced and to say that there were no surprises would be an understatement. It played out almost exactly as most observers predicted it would. Verizon Wireless ended up with the C-block (with Google only bidding right up to the cut-off amount to force Verizon to play by "open" rules) and AT&T added some spectrum as well, which it can add to the 700 MHz spectrum it picked up separately last year. The end result? Nothing too exciting for consumers. Whether or not Verizon Wireless's required "openness" makes a difference remains to be seen. What didn't happen was someone new entering the scene -- meaning that we're not going to see anything really new come out of all this spectrum.

In fact, perhaps the most bizarre bid of all was EchoStar spending $700 million on spectrum that can only be used for one-way communication. One-way communication is less and less useful these days. EchoStar has been making some interesting moves of late, but using this spectrum to build a mobile TV broadcast solution (which is what many expect) makes little sense. It will cost the company billions, and then they'll be limited to a one-way communication system just as people are recognizing that the real value is in multi-directional communications. It may give the company another option rather than relying on satellites (which are costly and troublesome at times), but the expense is way too high considering the limitations. So, even with EchoStar, we're talking about "more of the same." That's too bad, as there was a quiet hope that someone different would step in and do something really new and interesting with this valuable spectrum.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Verizon Wireless: Open In Name Only?

from the this-is-not-the-'open'-you-were-thinking-of dept

Verizon Wireless got plenty of attention a few months back for announcing that it would be opening its network. This was a bit of a surprise, as Verizon Wireless has been among the most closed when it came to allowing anyone to do anything on its network. Of course, there were few details in the announcement. Now, the company has revealed a bit more about its "open" plans and they're incredibly underwhelming. In fact, you can almost pinpoint the problems based on the the key points Verizon Wireless chose to highlight.

First off, in order to get on the network you'll first have to get your device "certified" by Verizon Wireless. While the company insists that "the certification process won't be lengthy, costly or complicated," most people seem to think that it may be all three. It's going to take 4 to 8 weeks to get your device approved, and the expectation is that access will involve per-byte fees. It also means that if you want to use Verizon's new "open" network you have to spend all the time and effort to build a device, and then wait, hope and pray that Verizon "certifies it." Or, you can just ignore Verizon's network altogether and build a GSM-based device and pop in a SIM card and you're ready to go. So, Verizon's "open" network seems a lot more closed, annoying and expensive than the GSM networks that are more widely available.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why The Wireless Industry Is Moving To Flat-Rate Pricing

from the lower-transaction-costs dept

One of the recurring trends in high-tech markets is that as information goods get cheaper, they're increasingly sold as all-you-can-eat bundles rather than as individual units. This has been true of land-line telephone service for decades. In the late 1990s, we saw the same transition occur in Internet access. In this decade, we've seen the explosive growth of Netflix, which is an all-you-can-eat plan for video. Now it appears that cell phone companies are inching in that direction too, as Mike discussed last week. For $99/month, Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile will let you talk on your cell phone as much as you want. Sprint is apparently considering adopting a similar plan. This isn't actually all that new.

There are two fundamental economic forces at work here. First, metering imposes costs, both on consumers and on carriers. For carriers, there are the obvious expenses of keeping track of billing information, as well as the attendant support costs when an angry customer calls to complain about unexpected charges. For the customer, metering imposes the mental overhead of having to keep track of whether it's currently "peak" or "off peak" time, how many minutes are in his plan, whether he's currently "roaming," etc. A lot of customers are happy to pay a little bit extra for the peace of mind of knowing exactly how much they're going to pay each month without having to keep track of their calling activity. Second, the wireless market, like the phone, Internet, and DVD markets, is capital-intensive. Unless the network is already fully loaded, the marginal user costs wireless carriers close to nothing. As a result, metered pricing often causes under-utilization of the network because minutes are priced far above their marginal cost. Switching to a flat-rate plan can be economically efficient because it encourages greater utilization of the network without undermining the carriers' ability to recover their fixed costs. That has always been the rationale behind the free night and weekend minutes offered by a lot of cell phone companies over the last few years. They're just expanding it so it applies 24/7.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mobile Operators Go Unlimited... Just As ISPs Insist They Need To Charge Per Byte?

from the please-explain... dept

There was a ton of press coverage yesterday over the fact that one-by-one, Verizon Wireless, AT&T and T-Mobile all announced $99 "unlimited" calling plans, ahead of Sprint who had actually been rumored to be gearing up to launch just such a plan. There were a few different storylines that could make this interesting. For example, it's not clear why it's such a huge deal when regional operator MetroPCS has been offering unlimited calling for ages (at a cheaper price). Hell, AT&T Wireless (when it was run by current Sprint CEO Dan Hesse) launched a $99 unlimited calling plan almost exactly a decade ago.

However, what really struck me as interesting is seeing all of these companies rush towards "flat-rate, all-you-can-eat" pricing, just as broadband providers are insisting they need to switch from flat-rate, all-you-can eat pricing to metered pricing, which some pundits are insisting is a better system. So why is it that one group of companies is moving in one direction, while the other is going in exactly the opposite direction? There are a few factors, but the biggest is the competition issue. Mobile operators are doing so because they feel forced to by competitive pressures (which is evidence in those three companies all announcing plans on the same day, in part out of worries that the fourth would beat them to it). As has been pointed out over and over again, the same simply does not exist in the broadband world in the US to the extent that it does in the mobile space. Some might also point out that capacity questions are different for both sets of providers. Mobile phone operators likely have fewer capacity issues to deal with as a result of unlimited calling than broadband providers do with unlimited internet access plans. However, mobile operators certainly are no strangers to capacity issues -- and they mostly dealt with it by (gasp!) investing in infrastructure so they could support unlimited plans.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Verizon Wireless' Triple [Open] Play

from the competitive-pressures-at-work dept

The recent announcement that Verizon Wireless will support Android, Google’s new software platform for mobile devices, is an early warning sign that the traditional network operator model is fast becoming obsolete. To some this move seems to contradict a widely held presumption that two previous announcements (the choice of LTE with Vodafone and the inclusion of non-Verizon phones on the Verizon Wireless network) were a competitive strike at Google’s position in the upcoming 700 mHz auction. In conjunction, these three publicly declared commitments to openness are indicators that fundamental changes to the Verizon Wireless business model are set to occur over the next 3 – 5 years.

Verizon Wireless is preparing to compete in an industry that will resemble more of a free-for-all where innovation and customer value are the rule of the day. Verizon can no longer afford to maintain strict boundaries between the devices and applications “inside” and “outside” their networks. By embracing openness on several different fronts the company is seeking to offload a large chunk of the costs associated with developing devices to a wider ecosystem of participants. Inclusive device policies will retain the same effect that outsourcing the development and support costs for new phones would. It is no longer tenable to develop devices and support customer issues for every single customer on its network, so the company is looking to basically exchange network access for ownership of support issues, with a larger group of handset and application providers.

Particularly, the Android move is to ensure that an assortment of niche devices powered by Google’s platform will have a home on the Verizon Wireless network. The company should begin to feature an increasing number of programs and incentives for an increasing number of handset makers and wireless application developers. Meanwhile Verizon will begin to slash the high costs associated with developing phones with the Samsung and LG types. As a result, the number of phone models actually supported by the company (currently at around 50) is set to drop significantly by 2012 even as the total number of models running on the network will escalate.

As the most profitable U.S. cellular business, Verizon Wireless also has the most impetus to begin the process of expanding a revenue base limited to subscribers who are content to choose from 50 or so the company’s handsets. Spurred by a shrinking number of first time customers it is fast becoming critical to find ways to attract subscribers from rival carriers and open access policies are a good start towards that end. Along the same lines, the aforementioned Vodafone LTE announcement is key to the company’s strategic play for subscribers who, in the past, shunned Verizon Wireless for carriers that enable easier roaming. The goal is to extend the availability of “America’s most reliable network” to both sides of the Atlantic to boost the value proposition of becoming a Verizon wireless customer.

Verizon’s open evolution is a response to the limited growth opportunities faced by US mobile carriers in the face of market saturation (250 million across the country already have cell phones). Over the next 2-3 years what is now a rumbling from consumers will expand into smoldering demand for choices on wireless networks that reflect the nature of those provided on landlines. In effect the company realizes that it must adapt to an open-centric marketplace to compete and survive over the long haul, not just in the upcoming 700 MHz auctions. In doing so, Verizon has begun the transformation from staunch gatekeeper of a closed network into the heart of a more open wireless ecosystem.

Alex Fletcher is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Alex Fletcher and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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

from the nice-trick dept

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

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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

from the or-does-competition-work? dept

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

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

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sprint Turns Down Offer For Money, Help From SK Telecom

from the things-are-getting-interesting dept

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

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

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

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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

from the good-news dept

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

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

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

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

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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

from the add-your-0.2-cents dept

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

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

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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

from the self-realization-time dept

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

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..