If You Love the iPhone, Set It Free

Do you want to get the new iPhone?

If so, you're in for a disappointment. If not, you should be worried anyway.

Apple just released the new iPhone in a hail of hype, promising that it would be "the Internet in your pocket." If only. The smart phone's groundbreaking technology has been hijacked by AT&T. In a move reminiscent of old Ma Bell, the telephone giant has struck an exclusive agreement with Apple that ties the hands of all iPhone users, restricts their Internet use and prohibits access to any other network.

And the iPhone is not alone. Nine of the 10 most popular phones are locked into exclusive deals with the few wireless carriers that dominate the market. That means that as long as carriers reserve the right to cripple the phone's best features, block full access to the Internet and stick customers with astronomical bills, you're not getting the real Internet from your shiny new handheld.

Congress Examines Handset Shackling

Exclusivity Sucks

These carrier restrictions are also why there's a growing consumer revolt to free the iPhone and other "smart" phones like it from the control of AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile.

The controversy revolves around this simple question:

If we can access the free-flowing Internet via a wireless laptop or desktop computer, why can't we do the same with our new handheld computers?

These "exclusive deals" recall the days when AT&T held a monopoly over all phone communications. For decades, Ma Bell controlled every phone on its grid and banned other companies from connecting new devices or services.

A groundbreaking 1968 policy change, known among tech wonks as the "Carterfone decision," pried open the device marketplace so that numerous new phone products could be introduced -- including answering machines, fax machines, cordless phones and early computer modems. This in turn spawned a flood of innovation in services that greatly benefited consumers.

In 2009, we need to take a serious look at the ways Carterfone rules would open the wireless marketplace to the next wave of innovation. Free Press on Wednesday launched FreeMyPhone, a campaign designed to give new "smart" phone users more control over their handheld Internet experience.

The Mobile Internet

This work is vital because wireless devices are now in the hands of more than 270 million Americans -- that's 87 percent of the population. But as more phones become "Web-enabled," more users are tied to carriers that promise the Internet but don't actually deliver the openness that's its founding principle.

AT&T is a case in point. The carrier just decided to allow Major League Baseball to stream video live to the new iPhone 3Gnetwork, but is blocking consumers from accessing other video services. Had AT&T done the same via it's wired-line services, it would be a stark violation of Net Neutrality, the principle that guarantees users can access any legal application, Web site or service they choose.

Late last year, AT&T's top lobbyist told the Washington Post that open Internet principles should govern wireless communications and that consumers expect unfettered mobile access.

"The same principals [sic] should apply across the board," Jim Cicconi said. "As people migrate to the use of wireless devices to access the Internet, they... certainly expect that we treat these services the same way."

Why then is AT&T now deciding what online video its iPhone customers can and can't watch?

So here we are -- at the dawn of the era of a true mobile Internet with AT&T and the other carriers still playing gatekeepers to the next generation of innovation.

Imagine what the new iPhone would really be if we only set it free.

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr

Comments

[erikpritchard]

Carriers, Verion Wireless included, need to open up. Currently they exert a tremendous amount of control over consumer choice. Why don't all of the upper-end smartphones have wi-fi? Because the carriers want to force you to pay for their data service. Carriers will always prefer their own financial interest over fair consumer practices. It is only when they perceive that the public is mad enough to regulate them that the smarter ones will "decide" to change their practices.

[legalclubs]

Is this really a big deal? Apple and AT&T got together a signed a multi-year contract for exclusivity to the benefit of both. You really want the government to step in and prevent people from signing contracts that both parties think are beneficiarial?

And just so you know, this is coming from someone who would love to own a iPhone but can't because work pays for my service and I'm not with AT&T. So I'll have to be happy with my blackberry storm until next year when the exclusive AT&T contract is up. Then I'll buy an iPhone with Verizon's service which is much more open than AT&T.

[AmeriGus]

The telecoms will be able to restrict your wireless content as long as they have better access to elected reps than you. If you pay your elected reps more than they do, they will legislate in your favor.

In the meantime, current campaign finance structures allow big business to dictate communications policy. With a few exceptions, the US Congress responds to campaign contributions first and foremost trumping freedom, liberty, open and equal access to wireless communications.

Apple might be a little more progressive when they get out from under the yoke of the telecoms, but they will also balance profits with liberty.

[mlaiuppa]

And an excellent argument for maintaining net neutrality. I don't want AT&T deciding what I can and cannot access on my laptop.

When phones are "free", maybe I'll get one. In the mean time I have no intention of paying for services that are blocked.

[JFC03]

Maybe Apple is smarter than you think.

I think they know the future of mobile isn't with cell data services, but the Internet.

The iPod touch is exactly the same as the iPhone, except not tethered to a cell carrier. It even now supports hand-free headsets for free Skype calling.

Apple has no trouble "tethering" to a carrier because within 2-3 years, ATT will be irrelevant. Isn't Google working on universal wireless Internet coverage nationwide?

[hopefull2008]

The problem at that stage is that they end up in competition with every other wifi device in the market. Laptops, netbooks, pda's, game consoles etc. The biggest question will be where will the revenue stream come from. The financially viable life cycle of both hardware and software is getting dramatically shorter.

[GunnyJ]

I have an Iphone and love it. The wireless industry does need more freedom and less control. Be nice if some independent popped up to apply some pressure or something. Since our congress is in the pocket of the wireless companies we will continue to be taken advantage of...

[copestir]

Sigh. There I was, (I mean WAS) going to get a new iPhone. Never mind.

[BryantG]

Imagine if Honda had an exclusive agreement with Shell, such that you buy a Honda and the only nozzels that fit your tank were at Shell stations. This is basically what the telecom industry has been doing to comsumers.

[SemperVeritas]

... and consumers are getting "hosed."

I love Apple. But I hate AT&T for being complicit in the government's illegal wiretaps.

No iPhone for me, as long as AT&T is a mandatory part of the equation.

[Helzapoppin]

co-sign

[kevmark58]

ditto.... write your congressman and senators....I did. Some are working on breaking up these monopolies.

[drme]

Me too! I refuse to get one until the AT&T contract is up....but the itouch looks better all the time

[maxiw]

i'd love to buy an i-phone but at&t doesn't work where i live(malibu). somebody do something..... m

[discorati]

This has annoyed me to no end since the iPhone first came out. I'm so disappointed in Apple...and surprised that more people aren't complaining about this. I'm very happy with my current service provider (Sprint) and wouldn't switch b/c of some slimy corporate deal even if the iPhone had an app to do my dishes!

[Kevin Bradley]

I agree that we need to "cut the cord" between cell phones and the providers. Not sure why we should "cut the chord," though.

[bugsbonzai]

I noticed this when the Slingplayer for iPhone came out. SlingBox is a product that takes your tv receiver and dvr and filters it to your laptop or device in real time. Of course, this means I could watch live television or recorded shows directly on my iPhone. This is a product that has been available on other smartphones like Blackberry, etc. through AT&T's 3G network for YEARS. However, fearing that their mediocre infrastructure would be exposed and iPhone users would actually use the bandwidth THEY PAY FOR, AT&T "requested" that Apple make the Slingplayer app WIFI ONLY. Remember, slingplayer has been available on 3G for other smartphones using AT&T 3G for years. If I purchased a laptop with an AT&T aircard, I could use slingplayer through 3G. AT&T made the specific decision to bar ONLY the iPhones from the network.

It's anti-innovation, anti-consumer, anti-technology, anti-good-business, possibly anti-trust and DEFINITELY a breach of contract. I pay for "unlimited" data plan, only use a fraction of the bandwidth I supposedly have access to, yet cannot access the very items I pay for. It's truly pathetic how STUPID AT&T and other cell companies think we are. They are certain they can buy off the politicians to rewrite the laws to favor their draconian anti-competitive business plans, We must work to ensure that we do not allow this to happen, and the laws are written to favor THE PEOPLE.

[Uvula]

Well said.

[bugsbonzai]

I've been ranting about this same anti-consumer movement from the big corporations for awhile now. I hadn't been to disgruntled with AT&T since moving to the iPhone, as the number of apps and the ability of the iPhone itself had kept me busy. But last month I hit a HUGE snag that made me realize how the big phone companies are stunting innovation by tethering specific phones to their companies. It should not be forgotten that also at fault are the product manufacturers: Apple certainly could have opted to open the iPhone to numerous carriers, but instead consciously chose only AT&T. So there's plenty of blame to go around.

[Paradym]

There's a point you missed on the Apple / AT&T contract. As Apple was developing the iPhone, they wanted to include some features that would require new technology from the carrier, namely visual voicemail - being able to see a list of voicemail messages and playing them in any order. In order to accomplish this, they approached the different carriers about supporting it. This would require a huge investment by the carrier, so in return AT&T asked for exclusivity. It's my guess that T-Mobile just didn't have the infrastructure or capital to even be in the game, Sprint/Nextel appeared to be going the way of dinosaurs at that time, and Verizon (as is their usual practice) probably demanded more control and restrictions on the phone's capabilities (whereas Apple wanted all the features of the device to work unrestricted).

So, in order for Apple to include all the features they wanted to offer they needed to be partnered with a carrier willing to do their part to support the features. Yet, now that the iPhone has proven itself in the market there is a very good chance that there will be some changes in how the carriers do business. Verizon will have to loosen its restraints, AT&T will have to up their game, T-Mobile will have to get serious about the US market - all if they want to be competitive. With 4G/LTE coming in a few years the whole game will change.

[bugsbonzai]

Nice theory. Problem is, I have a friend who jail-broke her iPhone, then juiced it with T-Mobile. Works like a charm. Slingplayer is smooth in most places.

The problem is that if Apple knew that AT&T was going to be mediocre, that means they were perfectly fine with allowing the carrier GOUGE Apple customers, charging them for "unlimited" data plans which were neither unlimited nor accessible. Both AT&T and Apple knew full well that even though they were FORCING iPhone users to pay for a data plan, they wouldn't EVER have access to the bandwidth promised them. Unforgivable.

[patrickgarret]

Amen! I wouldn't mind trying an I-Phone but no way in hell I'd switch to AT&T. Let me know when they have UNLIMITED EVERYTHING for $99 like I do with Sprint.

[TheMisFit]

Amen -- I got an iphone in December. Loved it. HOWEVER, AT&T can't even cover my home where I live -- so I had to switch services, thus making my iphone useless-- though I kind of use it as an ipod now. Sucks.