釋放我的電話
假設您擁有DELL計算機，并且您決定用索尼替換它。 您不必須得到您的網絡服務提供戶允許如此做，甚至告訴提供者對此。 您能包裝老機器和設定新的。
現在，假設您新的計算機來了以一項特殊瀏覽器或網上音樂服務，但您會更喜歡一另外一個。 您能下載和安裝新的軟件，并且卸載老一個。 您能為一項新的音樂服務簽字和取消老一個。 并且，再次，您不需要甚而通知您的互聯網提供者，更不用說尋求它的允許。
噢和開發商的這樣計算機、軟件和服務可能提供您他們的產品直接地，无需審閱互聯網提供者，沒有得到提供者的認同和沒有給提供者便士。 互聯網提供者為它的對混合的貢獻簡單地得到報酬： 提供您的互聯網連接。 但，為所有實用目的，它不控制什麼連接到網絡，也沒有把網絡轉入。
這是數字式資本主義應該運作的方式，并且，在大量經營個人計算機的產業和現代互聯網情況下，它創造了其中一次最了不起的技術革命在人類歷史，並且其中一財富創建最巨大的噴射和消費者援權。
如此，它是難容的生產所有此的同一個國家在一個落後，窒息的系統，當它來到下個巨大技術平臺時， cellphone設了陷井它的公民。
近視和經常簡單的愚笨的聯邦政府允許自己由幾名大無線電話操作員現在脅迫和唬弄數十年。 并且結果是個人計算機模型的直接反對的一個移動電話系統。 它嚴厲地限制消費者選擇，抑止創新，擊碎企業精神和做了美國。 流動技術世界的笑柄，作為cellphone變體入一臺強有力的手搖計算機。
您是否是消費者、硬件製作者、軟件開發商或者涼快的新的服務的提供者，採取行動在美國cellphone世界沒有擁有管子公司的允許是堅硬的。 當力量在其他技術部門流動到消費者和靈活企業家時，在cellphone競技場它在巨型載體的手方形地依然是。
蘇聯部模型
That’s why I refer to the big cellphone carriers as the “Soviet ministries.” Like the old bureaucracies of communism, they sit athwart the market, breaking the link between the producers of goods and services and the people who use them.
To some extent, they try to replace the market system, and, like the real Soviet ministries, they are a lousy substitute. They decide what phones can be used on their networks and what software and services can be offered on those phones. They require the hardware and software makers to tailor their products to meet the carriers’ specifications, not just so they work properly on the network, but so they promote the carriers’ brands and their various add-on services.
Let me be clear: Any company that spends billions to build and maintain a wireless network deserves to be paid for its use, and deserves to make a profit and a return for its shareholders. Not only that, but companies like Verizon Wireless or AT&T Inc. should be free to build or sell phones or software or services.
What Is Needed
But, in my view, they shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose what phones run on their networks, and what software and services run on those phones. We need a wireless mobile device ecosystem that mirrors the PC/Internet ecosystem, one where the consumers’ purchase of network capacity is separate from their purchase of the hardware and software they use on that network. It will take government action, or some disruptive technology or business innovation, to get us there.
To my knowledge, only one phone maker, Apple Inc., has been permitted to introduce a cellphone with the cooperation of a U.S. carrier without that carrier having any say in the hardware and software design of the product. And that one example, the iPhone, was a special case, because Apple is currently the hottest digital brand on earth, with its own multibillion-dollar online and physical retail network.
Even so, Apple had to make a deal with the devil to gain the freedom to offer an unimpaired product directly to users. It gave AT&T exclusive rights to be the iPhone’s U.S. network for an undisclosed period of years. It has locked and relocked the phone to make sure consumers can’t override that restriction. This arrangement reportedly brings Apple regular fees from AT&T, but penalizes people who live in areas with poor AT&T coverage.
Apple has also, so far, barred users from installing third-party programs on the iPhone, though the company announced last week it will open the phone to such programs early next year. (Web-based iPhone programs–those that run inside the Web browser–have been available from day one.)
These restrictions have rubbed some of the luster off the best-designed handheld computer ever made.
A few other “smart phones” sold primarily to businesses have been freer of carrier restrictions on third-party software and services than typical cellphones. But even these handsets, such as Palm Treos, Windows Mobile devices, and BlackBerrys, have been partly crippled by carriers in some cases.
As a technology reviewer, I have met with multiple small companies that had trouble getting their programs onto consumers’ phones without the permission of the carriers; getting that permission often requires paying the carriers. Sure, there are some clumsy workarounds that can evade the carrier barrier, but it’s nothing like the ability small software companies have had for decades to offer their products for installation on Windows or Macintosh computers.
We also need much greater portability of phone hardware. Because the federal government failed to set a standard for wireless phone technology years ago, we have two major, incompatible cellphone technologies in the U.S. Verizon Communications Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. use something called CDMA. AT&T and Deutsche Telekom AG’s T-Mobile use something called GSM. Except for a couple of oddball models, phones built for one of these technologies can’t work on the other. So that limits consumer choice and consumer power. If you want to switch from AT&T to Verizon, you have to swallow the cost of a new phone.
But the problem is even worse. The government didn’t require the CDMA companies to include a removable account-information chip, called a SIM card, in their phones. So, unlike people with GSM phones, Sprint and Verizon customers can’t keep their phones if they switch between the two carriers, even though they use the same basic technology. And, the government allows the GSM carriers to “lock” their phones, so a SIM card from a rival carrier won’t work in them, at least for a period of time. Techies can sometimes figure out how to get around this, but average folks can’t.
The carriers defend these restrictions partly by pointing out that they subsidize the cost of the phones in order to get you to use their networks. That’s also, they say, why they require contracts and charge early-termination fees. Without the subsidies, they say, that $99 phone might be $299, so it’s only fair to keep you from fleeing their networks, at least too quickly.
But this whole cellphone subsidy game is an archaic remnant of the days when mobile phones were costly novelties. Today, subsidies are a trap for consumers. If subsidies were removed, along with the restrictions that flow from them, the market would quickly produce cheap phones, just as it has produced cheap, unsubsidized versions of every other digital product, from $399 computers to $79 iPods.
The Federal Communications Commission is selling some new wireless spectrum that will supposedly lead to fewer restrictions for technology companies and consumers, but it’s far from certain that the carriers, with their legions of lobbyists and lawyers, will allow such a new day to dawn. Google Inc. is making noises about trying to bust open the cellphone prison, with new software and services, but that’s no sure bet either.
Remember Landlines?
We’ve been through this before in the U.S., though many younger readers may not recall it.
Up until the 1970s, when the federal government intervened, you weren’t allowed to buy your own landline phone, and companies weren’t able to innovate, on price or features, in making and selling phones to the public. All Americans were forced to rent clumsy phones made by a subsidiary of the monopoly phone company, AT&T, which claimed that, unless it controlled what was connected to its network, the network might suffer.
Well, the government pried that market open, and the wired phone network not only didn’t collapse, it became more useful and versatile, allowing, among other things, cheap connections to online data services.
I suspect that if the government, or some disruptive innovation, breaks the crippling power that the wireless carriers exert today, the free market will deliver a similar happy ending.
- Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.
Written by John Sullivan. Read more great feeds at is source WEBSITE
with no comments.
Read more articles on Apple and BlackBerry and DELL and Dell and Hardware and Macintosh and Microsoft and Mossblog and Phone and Software and Treo and Verizon and Walt Mossberg and Web and Windows and at&t and browser and cellphone and handheld and handsets and iPhone and internet and network and online and palm and sony and wireless.- [+] Digg: Feature this article
- [+] Del.icio.us: Bookmark this article
- [+] Furl: Bookmark this article
