What Ma Bell Is Really Afraid Of

When consumers purchase an Apple iPhone, a BlackBerry Storm, or other "smart" phone, why are they forced to sign up with a particular wireless carrier?

USA Today wants an answer. In a pointed op-ed on Thursday, the paper's editors wrote that carriers "squelch innovation" through such handset exclusivity deals. These deals "make about as much sense as it would have to force the architects of the computer and Internet revolutions to conform to Ma Bell."

We at the FreeMyPhone campaign couldn't agree more, which is why more than 16,000 people have called upon Congress and the FCC to free us "to use our phones as we choose -- on wireless networks that offer true high-speed Internet and real consumer choice."

America's mobile phone problem began in the mid-1990s, when Congress and the FCC sided with telecom companies that "wanted to build proprietary networks, unlike much of the rest of the world, which opted for open platforms," according to USA Today.

This corporate giveaway has proven to be a massive mistake. Wireless service and wired broadband in America lag behind those in much of Europe and Asia, while prices continue to spiral upward.

Travel overseas and you'll find that most new smart phones can be used with any service. Their handsets are not only wireless, they come with no strings attached.

The numbers speak for themselves. According to CNET, unlocked phones make up about 80 percent of handheld devices available in Asian markets; in Europe, they account for 70 percent of the mobile phones sold.

Here in the United States, however, fewer than 5 percent of mobile phones aren't shackled to particular carriers. Worse, nine of the 10 most popular phones are locked into exclusive deals with the few industry giants that dominate the wireless market.

New smart phones allow us to download applications, watch videos and use new services in the same way we access them using connected laptops and desktop computers. So why should consumers be hobbled by deals that allow carriers to tie down the hottest new devices and block our ability to use them as they're intended?

USA Today writes that providers have repeatedly slowed applications, such as cellphone GPS systems, VOIP services and wireless video players, until they could figure out better ways to thwart competitors and get the lion's share of revenues from those services.

At a time when the IT and high-tech sector is one of our best hopes to pull the U.S. economy out of its tailspin, it makes no sense to allow carriers to stifle a part of that marketplace that shows so much potential for growth and innovation.

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

Comments

[mlaiuppa]

Locked in means no competition. They don't have to provide the same quality of service you can get in Europe and Asia. And they can make a lot of the smart phone functions non-operative. So you're paying all of this money for a phone that can't do everything it's capable of. And you're paying top monthly fees for inferior service from a provider that is stifling your phone's functions.

Me? Don't own one. And I won't until phones are liberated and I can choose the best provider that will allow my phone to do everything it's designed to do.

Hear that AT&T? Verizon? Sprint? APPLE!?

[NoOneSpecial]

It's the same game of good old-fashioned American graft.

This kind of political/business mindset infects almost every major area of the USA's economy.

Just look at health insurance.

[itolduso]

I just canceled my cell phones....­.never felt so FREE

[max08]

Why is the iPhone not factory-unlocked if I pay full price for it?

France and Australia agree with me. It is illegal to sell the gadget full price without it being unlocked.

The subsidized iPhone I understand.

But for Apple/ATT to keep the lock on when there is no subsidy is criminal.

[HeevenSteven]

Europe has better and faster internet and cell phone service, more efficient cars, better and more widespread healthcare, half the per capita energy use, better and more widespread public transportation, especially rail....ne­ed I go on. Why is "the greatest country in the world" so backward??

[GardenerNorCal]

Can you spell LOBBYISTS?

[HeevenSteven]

I was thinking system of gov. Only two parties makes it too easy for the lobbyists.

[IndyReader]

I was just thinking today that for all that people extol the virtues of the iPhone, I'm not going to change the carrier I like just to have that particular phone.

[peterg76]

Because in the US "consumer protection" is about protecting corporations from consumers.

[jakiew]

very true

[blood1]

Point taken! But as long as these companies pay to play in DC, no one wants to upset the applecart.
Why should the American People want to be treated better than most 3rd world countries when instead we can be treated to all the whining and complaining by legislators that the world would come to an end without these companies?!!!

Whether true or not, this is the complaint by Pickens...­that he won't build a wind farm in TX because there is no electrical grid to support the power transmissi­on...why should we care, as we can always rely on Middle East, Canada, South America for oil...or build nuclear power plants.

For all those complaining about "socialism", isn't that exactly what we have with Big Business in control of everything (a wolf in sheeps clothing). Check out the Board of Directors of these big companies and you will see the imbreeding­...the only difference is that they are not publically elected.

[dumboldfarmer]

By jove, you just nailed it!

[hwystar]

>>>>
"For all those complaining about "socialism", isn't that exactly what we have with Big Business in control of everything?"