All Things Digital

Skip to main content.

Mossblog

Occasional musings from Walt, in text and video.

Cellphone Perestroika

As regular readers know, I have frequently attacked the U.S. wireless phone carriers for exerting near-total control over what phones, software and services American consumers can use on their networks. In fact, since 2005, I have dubbed the carriers “the Soviet ministries,” for inserting themselves between the producers of mobile hardware and software and the people who might want to use these products. My most recent essay on this topic, called “Free My Phone,” ran in The Wall Street Journal and here on Mossblog only last month. You can read it here.

So it’s only fair that I commend Verizon Wireless for its announcement this week that, starting in the second half of 2008, it will allow “any device” and “any application” to run on its cellphone network, without any restriction, or interference. The only requirement, Verizon says, will be that the devices–phones, computers, anything else–must meet a “very minimal set of technical requirements” to show that they can run on the Verizon network without damaging the network or other devices or services that run on it.

This new, open approach won’t replace Verizon’s current walled-garden system, with its heavy controls. It will exist alongside the current system, as a sort of parallel universe.

Still, this is potentially a huge step, a sign that perestroika has arrived among the Soviet ministries that rule the American cellphone industry. If Verizon Wireless does what it is promising, it could be even more significant than Google’s plan for an open cellphone operating system and its creation of a coalition of companies to support it. The reason is that anyone, not just the companies belonging to a particular alliance or group, should be able to build a phone, a data device, a software program or service, and run it on Verizon’s strong, fast, extensive network.

But, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” And there are a couple of details of the company’s plan that could diminish the sweep and importance of its new commitment to openness.

First is the question of what Verizon means when it says a product must pass a sort of certification to run on the network. In a conference call explaining the plan, Verizon officials insisted that the testing and certification process would be much simpler and less onerous than the hoops companies must now jump through to get onto its network. They also promised the certification process would be “relatively short” and that the fees for certification would be “surprisingly reasonable.”

But until we learn the details next year, we won’t know if the certification process will be a mere technical formality, or a barrier to entry.

Even more worrisome is another issue: user pricing. Verizon officials made clear that, because they won’t be able any longer to limit the types of devices and applications that will run on their network, they will be applying “usage-based” data pricing. While they said this pricing would be “competitive,” any system that charges by the kilobyte or megabyte could be a real deterrent to the blossoming of the wireless Internet that Verizon’s open plan promises.

To be sure, Verizon has real concerns here. The bandwidth available on the cellphone networks is much more limited than that on landline networks. If somebody starts running Internet TV networks, or Web servers, or massive online games over the Verizon network, it could put a serious strain on the system.

But there’s a difference between setting higher fees for truly unusually high usage and erecting a payment system where everyone pays by the byte for even simple, common tasks like email, Web browsing, casual gaming, instant messaging, or simple video or audio streaming.

Taken to its extreme, that kind of metering could–intentionally or unintentionally–kill off the kind of innovation Verizon Wireless says it wants to encourage. That’s because the kind of innovative devices, software and services people are hungering for aren’t about making better voice calls. They’re about using the Internet, consuming those bytes that Verizon wants to meter.

So, let’s give credit where credit is due, but let’s watch how those details play out in the coming months. Verizon Wireless should be praised for giving up some of the control that was stifling wireless innovation in America, in my opinion at least. But, just how praiseworthy the move will be depends on some things we don’t know yet.

Comments

  1. Verizon would likely roll out special plans for non Verizon devices, similar to their existing wireless plans. The long term idea of course would be to tie the customer into a multi year contract. IF other carriers should come up with similar altruistic ideas, then perhaps a pay by usage model would be a good way for the consumers to measure different networks performance and desirability? Probably not, that would make some sense. LOL!

    Posted by Dave Toledo at November 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
  2. It’s a small point, but in fact all data usage on Verizon is already metered. The data consumption on a plan like VCast is ‘unlimited’ but while connected, minutes are deducted from your plan — that’s what the “airtime charges apply” small text means.

    To me this makes as much sense as charging a VoIP user on a per-packet basis, but it helps Verizon mitigate against heavy usage.

    Posted by charles golvin at November 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
  3. I’m watching this with a tight grip on my lip. If you are going to be judgmental about every move someone makes, then you are more of a problem than the problem. But i think i’ve been with Verizon long enough (over a decade) to lay some claim to being suspicious. I hope i’m wrong. If this is opens other companies up benefiting all, then great. But i’m expecting Verizon has figured out another way for added charges. They are, afterall, known by we the overly loyal, as the Nickle and Dime Company. So why am i loyal? I have this thing: just because a company doesn’t appreciate it or care, I still value loyalty. They also have the best Network in my area. Look, it is a good company and their service is usually excellent. But they cripple hardware and heavily charge people piece-meal, and they have the worst selection and oldest versions of phones. Did I mention how bloody irritating those three things are? I’m finally about to jump ship for the phone I want, but my loyal-self waits for news like you’ve just mentioned, hoping, trusting, praying…..and yes, doubting. Even Mr. Jobs couldn’t get Verizon to bend.
    p.s.
    Taking into account “the Grass is Always Greener” theory, i can’t name anyone who is in love with their provider, so where’s it going to be different enough?

    Posted by David Gray at November 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
  4. I think normal market-based competition will take care of your concerns. If there is a large response to the Verizon open network, then ATT and the others WILL take note. They will eventually open their networks, and with lower fees to attract people. The fees will eventually lower themselves to be low-markup and consumers will benefit. What I fear most is that people will not jump onto this new Verizon train.

    Posted by Dennis Carachiola at December 3rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
  5. It is a good thing to see that your article has stirred up possible change. I have to set my feeling about Verizon aside since I do not trust them. I feel that if we had something like a MetroPCS plan with the availability of the big providers this may work. Imagine not being tied into a contract and using any phone that meets the minimum specs. Man I think this may work. What do you think?

    Posted by Caleb Rodriguez at December 4th, 2007 at 5:49 am
  6. I think that metered data is a great idea. When you have a “plan,” you must pre-pay for a block of minutes and data. If you don’t use it all, you’ve wasted money; if you use more than you paid for, you get hit with fees. The pre-pay model, including “unlimited access” (which, of course, doesn’t exist) favors the carriers.
    Imagine if carriers dropped all the complicated plan features that make them hard to compare and just said “we charge X per minute and Y per kilobyte.” You’d only pay for what you use, and it would be easy to see who had the best deal. Simple as buying gasoline.
    I say, bring it on. (But of course they’ll find a way to complicate it.)

    Posted by Nathan Long at December 6th, 2007 at 10:17 am

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Sign up here or log in below.

About Walt

Walt Mossberg writes two columns, and edits a third, for The Wall Street Journal. He also publishes periodic interviews for the Journal, and occasional blog posts on this site. With Kara Swisher, he co-produces and co-hosts D: All Things Digital, a major high-tech and media conference.

Read more »

Ethics Statement

Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.

Read more »