Ripping mobility from the clutches of telecom
Cellular Networks and Net Neutrality
I tend to spout off about openness in the carrier networks and how I think enough applications would flourish to outweigh the downsides. So it’s always nice to see someone potentially even closer to the problem kick in a very similar set of points with even more supporting details. Check this out:
Almost all cell phones sold in the developed world have the ability to send and receive SMS (short message service) text messages. SMS is gaining popularity in the US, but only as a way to send quick messages to friends. So why aren’t there a wealth of amazing and interactive services available for mobile devices? Why is there no MySpace, Craigslist, Amazon, Flikr, or eBay accessible through this network? Why are cell phone payment systems and email systems nearly nonexistent? Why haven’t charities raised money or awareness of their causes through this system?
It’s simple. Because the cell phone carriers control what services are allowed to use their networks. There is no net neutrality on the cell phone network.
……
Other requirements are outright offensive: as of this writing, Cingular, Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile and Verizon all prohibit charities from raising money though their Premium SMS services. Too bad for the United Way, Greenpeace, and the Red Cross.
Some carriers also have “decency” restrictions that are so silly and restrictive that they make the production code that governed movies between 1934 and 1967 seem quaint. Verizon is the worst offender in this case: It prohibits dating services, images that are suggestive (the same images would be acceptable if aired on prime-time network TV), and any use of “crude” words, including such shockers as “fornicate” and “genital.”
I didn’t know about the restrictiveness of a lot of the carrier requirements. It’s like they’re all working from the same “101 Ways to be Evil Overlords” playbook. What’s the deal with Verizon?
Verizon prohibits “un-moderated chatting, flirting and/or peer-to-peer communication services”
Holy Jeebus. Somebody needs a hug.
| Print article | This entry was posted by miker on July 25, 2006 at 1:52 am, and is filed under ThisIsMobility. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
What about the costs of SMS to the users? Do phone companies charge prohibitly expensive rated for messages across networks which is slowing adoption for interactive services?
about 4 years ago
The cost of messages for the user is high for services that want to charge a “per message” cost because of the pricing restrictions that the carriers put in place. For example, you can not charge 10 cents per message because the carriers will not let you, they want you to charge much more than that. It is a sad state of affairs.
about 4 years ago
Also, it’s impossible for the sender of the message to subsidize the cost should they figure out a business model for which that’s viable. I think the US is the only place where both the sender and the receiver pay, I believe everyone else has the sender paying with no charge for receiving a message. Although that doesn’t necessarily change the cost structure for deploying a service, it does change the value proposition the service has to hit. Minimally useful notifications work in other places, as long as the sender is willing to pay people will sign up. However notifications in the US have to be mentally weighed not only against the cost of paying attention to the notifications, but also the impact on their phone bill.