The rules were inserted at the behest of Google, which was bidding for the spectrum but who some cynics contended got involved not to win but to ensure that whoever got the spectrum couldn’t hamper its business, which requires a free and robust internet.
Cynics? I'd have thought a cynic would accuse Google of having an ulterior motive other than wanting Internet freedom.
the “open access” rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network.
The way I read the rules, it seems like Verizon can't lock down or discriminate against devices that won't harm its network. The device manufacturer (Apple in the iPhone's case) can offer whatever functionality they want on their device.
If the interpretation from the article is used, then no specialized devices like a Skype phone or a wireless medical device could be allowed on the 4G network either, since they are not open to any sort of apps. Obviously, that makes little sense.
Yeah, they'd have to be unlocked (does it also need to be rootable?). But they already allow pretty much any app from being installed. The apple app store rules could be contrived into protecting against apps which might be dangerous for the network but that's far fetched and would soon be attacked.
It won't be hard for Verizon to find an android device to meet the rules. But iPhone is definitively a challenge if I understand how the rule is interpreted.
Nice. If this rule forced real open devices to come into existence then it would be very interesting.
To me a genuinely open device would be one where we can reasonably fork Android and make a real open source variant. The idea of a much more flexible, user modifiable device (think dynabook) is very appealing to me.
This isn't possible now because most devices are locked, and even rooting isn't an end-user operation, so it's impractical for unofficial variants to propagate. (which for my purposes means that Android may as well not be 'open')
Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones.
Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones.
I hate to break it to you, but non-enthusiasts won't be able to deal with anything that is not pre-installed. The good "mods" are typically full AOSP forks, which is as open as you can get.
And of course, you don't have to have root to download the source code of the built-in apps, edit it, and deploy to your phone.
You're not breaking anything to me. You're agreeing with me - the current situation isn't open in any meaningful way.
Given they can install apps, non enthusiasts could certainly deal with a one-click install of an alternative OS if it had compelling benefits.
I didn't think the source for the built-in apps was actually available. In any case even if it is, what possible good does it do me to fork Google's apps to make minor modifications to them? Why do you even bring that up?
I think AOSP forks are open in a meaningful way. Yes, you can't one click install an alternate Android build. But you can choose to buy handsets that have no hardware lock, or others that have trivial (intentionally?) roadblocks to installing a new ROM. CyanogenMod doesn't run on many handsets, but it does run on many others.
Linux had similar difficulties much later in its life than Android is, and *BSD still has them in terms of driver support. None of the open solutions are anywhere close to a one click install. But I wouldn't say Linux/BSD aren't open in a meaningful way.
I think you're expecting a bit too much in terms of your standard for "meaningful" openness. Granted, open Android builds still are getting their legs and have a lot of work still to do.
You're right that I'm expecting a lot. If the 'openness' that is claimed for Android is only accessible to expert enthusiasts and tinkerers, that's fine, but then those people have what they want already so why are they complaining about the iPhone?
I think the answer is that like me, they see computers and software as a medium for sharing ideas and creativity. The more people who can participate, even if just as recipients, the better.
This leads some people to be angry about the closedness of the iPhone because it's so popular.
For me, the iPhone is what it is. It solves a lot of problems for a lot of people very nicely. It ends an era of software nightmares for everyday people, but it doesn't usher in an era of true software openness for those of us who believe in the potential of software to improve our world. Personally, I don't think the way forward is to try to undo what Apple have done. You don't change the world by being 'against' something - you change it by creating the thing you think is missing.
Given this, I am disappointed with Android because I don't see it leading us in the direction of a universal medium. Its direction is controlled by a combination of Google and the Carriers, and the fragmentation (don't flame me - I'm not talking about the exaggerated hardware differences) between the levels of openness of handset to having the ROM replaced severely limits the viability of a long lived fork coming from the community.
Linux and BSD are open, but more importantly the PC is open. Even the Mac is open - I can install BSD or Linux or Windows or some homebrew OS (for which there are plenty of kits), or an Ocaml App running in Mirage on to of Xen, or whatever else I want on these computers. That's the kind of openness I believe in.
Android isn't just a source tree. It's the complete system - you can't use the source tree without hardware and a network. If these spectrum rules have any bearing on this (which I doubt), then what would be interesting is if they forced all the Android devices to be open.
Obviously it's easy to demonize Apple, and make Google into the hero in these debates. Apple isn't even pretending to be open and they don't care if they're criticized for it. If we want an open world, and Google are claiming to be part of building that, then they are the ones who should bear scrutiny.
And if we want non-geeks to switch to this amazing open world - the answer is simple too - make it easy to switch and better than what Apple offers.
"The problem is that the 'open access' rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network."
Put simply, Verizon must allow customers to use "unlocked" phones on their network.
How in the world do we go from that to "Verizon must only offer unlocked phones"? Then the author claims that the motivating actor is Google, who only sells one unlocked phone, and it only sells it in a GSM variant. Jump ahead to a quote from Markham Erickson, who just happens to be the executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. I'm sure his view is impartial and objective, right?
The biggest "tell" that this is link bait is the fact that they chose the iPhone as the headliner. News flash: every Android phone sold on Verizon is also in violation of this rule interpretation.
Apple has no qualms about selling unlocked iPhones. They do it abroad. Apple recognizes the value of a channel partner, and consumers have voted with their wallets. When given the choice between a $600 unsubsidized iPhone (which is still available, by the way) and a $200 phone with a two-year contract, customers go for the cheaper phone. Thus Apple sells phones though the channel that moves units. If Verizon is forced to open their phones, expect prices for Verizon phones to skyrocket, resulting in a significant advantage for their competitors. I find it very difficult to believe that the government would give such an unfair advantage to Verizon's competitors.
The overview on Ars Technica is much better (as usual) and doesn't attempt to sensationalize the impact of the ruling. Note that it's from 2007. There isn't much new here other than the fact that someone is attempting to troll Verizon with an old ruling.
> The problem is that the “open access” rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network.
So if the carrier CAN prove that it won't damage the network, it can block it? That can't be right.
By strict logical standards you would be right. If they can prove it won't damage then it fails the test. But if that is the case then also "if they can't prove it will damage the network" also fails the test and they could block those.
I would think if we looked at the specific ruling it would be:
can't prove it won't damage -> allowed
can prove it will damage -> can block
can prove it won't damage -> allowed
can't prove it will damage -> allowed
So it would have been clearer if they said if they can prove it will damage the network.
This is potentially great news because it reverses the recent trend that legislature is used to revoke freedom where possible.
That the iPhone 4G is hampered by this is just a pill apple has to swallow. As if there weren't more bands that could be used to serve non-free phones.
I don't exactly see how this is great news. While some may enjoy seeing Apple squirm, what about the consumers who prefer the iPhone over any android offerings?
I am all for consumer choice, but if Apple complied with the rule, that would only give consumers more choice when it comes to applications on the iPhone. Imagine people being able to install applications without Apple approving them. Yeah I know, crappy apps, security, blah blah blah. Giving people the choice to install 3rd party applications is a good thing, for consumers and app makers.
Obviously not everyone agrees that devices that can install software from anywhere would be a good thing.
Why not let the market decide? If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win?
It seems to me that using laws to force Apple to change their designs to be more like their competitors is an admission that the competition just isn't that good.
If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win?
No, because the effects of openness, or lack thereof, are very long term ... just as smoking, or lack of it, just as eating lots of candy or not. Even if "open" is so great, people choose shiny/tasty (i.e. short term gains) over "open" all the time.
This is actually the greatest example of capitalism I've ever seen or heard.
In corner A we've got companies that benefit from closed gardens. In corner B that want to keep the Internet free, because they recognize that it's an essential ingredient to their bottom line.
That's how capitalism should work, that's how consumers benefit; and YES, the market will decide. We are used to companies lobbying for their own selfish interest, but in this case we've got companies on both sides, which will make the consumers voices heard.
The only question is, what do you gain from a the closed iPhone environment? If you're an iPhone developer, why do you fear an "open model"? Wouldn't you be happier in that environment?
Myself, both as a consumer and as a developer, I know I would be happier.
I am a developer. With Apple's model I gain from having an environment where users feel safe to buy apps.
I don't fear an open model, but it has not been proven to be better for users - windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'. Seems like a pretty diseased ecosystem to me.
As a developer I want an environment where everyday users are not afraid of software. Maybe Google can create that too, but maybe not. I think it would be a disaster if we don't get to see both models tested. History hasn't shown that open is better - quite the contrary. I'd like to see the curated model get a chance to play out.
I have a feeling that in a decade's time we'll be looking at which curation model worked best - not whether open or closed was better.
What would be the alternative then? If apple can't field a 4g phone what would they have to do to get one? Relax app store standards? (That doesn't seem very likely) I seriously doubt that they will never have a 4g phone ever and not releasing one doesn't seem to be an option.
All they would have to do to comply with this rule is to allow people to install apps not served from the App Store, much like Android already does. Seems like a simple enough request, and would only benefit users.
In theory, it is a simple enough request. In practice, Apple has been doing a lot of things (e.g. the new subscription model and in-app purchasing rules) that only work because Apple is the sole source for iOS apps. Changing that is unlikely to be easy for them.
Not true. Look at the mess windows is in because of bad software.
If you've ever had to help a non-tech-savvy user who has messed up their computer by installing bad software that was recommended to them by a well meaning friend, you'll know that there are real benefits to the app store model.
Apple could allow the phone to be set up in one of two "modes" - one that allows any app to be installed from any source but does not allow connections to iTunes, app store, Game Center, notifications, subscriptions, or any of Apple's other services; and the normal mode that functions like a regular iPhone does now.
Viola, the user has a "choice" of open/crippled or locked/functional modes; they're meeting the letter of the law even if the "open" mode is practically useless.
Actually that would be a pretty interesting mode. Presumably alternative app stores would spring up - Cydia would probably be repurposed immediately. As long as there's a clear division between 'closed' and 'open' modes so that people who want the closed model still get the benefits, this would be a pretty interesting experiment.
"Why Wired Uses Titles Referencing iPhone and Verizon and ending in a Question Mark?"
As for this case, this appears entirely analogous to the Carterfone decision.
Other folks can connect FCC-approved and unlocked gear onto 700 MHz without encountering a carrier prohibition (akin to what we have with wired telephone connections) while paying the 700 MHz carrier(s) for their services.
I seriously doubt that Verizon would be denied the ability to sell locked phones out of this. There's no way Verizon lawyers would sign that one.
Cynics? I'd have thought a cynic would accuse Google of having an ulterior motive other than wanting Internet freedom.