AT&T defends 'open' wireless network
Three years ago, Jason Devitt was speaking at an industry conference when he criticized a mobile application just released by a big-name wireless carrier. And the big-name wireless carrier wasn't happy. It so happens that Devitt was negotiating to get his own mobile app onto the carrier's network, and a week later, he received a …
So you won't want them interfering when I start broadcasting on your frequency then, or when I start infringing your copyrights?
When you want to profit from controlling something that belongs to the public, you'd better shut the hell up and take that government interference. Otherwise next time you don't get the lube.
This is the company who tried to ban the Hush-a-phone, right?
...That's like the catholic church saying they respect homosexuality...
iPhone only available on AT&T...enough said
He said open network, not open devices. You do know the difference right?
Can anyone explain my why the gods they wouldn't sell the SIM card separately to all comers? Doesn't make any sense to me. Is this some kind of hangover from the olden times of state-owned monopolists where you couldn't connect anything to the (landline) network and its patented wallsocket - (Euroland or Bell-land) - without having signed some EULA in triplicate and deposited a wad of cash at the operator's office (to be returned at the end of life of your subscription).
A closed network actually has some benefits. it allows you to build a better support base... If you know every single device on your network, then you can know everythiong about that device, and offer a better grade of support to your customers. If customers are going to connect with any old thing, then this limits what support you can offer some customers, meaning they get a worse experience.
This is part of the reason why most companies insist you use their PCs, not the laptop you bought from Dodgy Dave at the computer fair. That way, they know whats on it, what its made from, what can break, and hopefully how to fix it.
...is to interfere, to say "no, you can't do that, and you'd better stop it right now." Other times it's "you must do this, and no backtalk or bitching about it."
Mr. Brueggeman seems to have forgotten that government is in principle an expression of society's consensus about how things should be, society meaning the entire citizenry. He's being stupid because large corporations have by and large suborned governments all over the world at the present time, but sooner or later the pendulum will swing the other way. *Then* he'll have cause for complaints about "government interference."
Or maybe he thinks "what's good for AT&T is good for America."
Poor confused baby; maybe a night with Paris would sort him out.
AT&T and all communications giants must be kept under control simply because they are using a public resource to conduct their business. Radio spectrum is a "natural resource" regulated to assure fair play within a country's borders.
Some companies don't like the idea that they have to play by certain rules in exchange for the privilege of using the chunks of spectrum they occupy. They don't own that spectrum, thus they must abide by the terms of their lease in order to do business in the public space. Obviously some "chunks" come with different rules for different purposes and these companies can choose which "lease" suits their purpose.
We all need to keep tabs and make sure govt. keeps to it's duty to make sure telco's play by those rules.
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly mobile & wireless newsletter - click here
