|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info
[589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos]
[407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"?
[1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games
[682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow]
[578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX
[1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow]
[409]
|
|
and getting it to work is yet another matter
What you say is true. What also is true is that getting such a phone to work on multiple providers' platforms is an even more ambitious task.
Network providers don't restrict what goes on their networks for just monetary reasons. There are serious bandwidth and interoperability issues to deal with in wireless networks. Network providers spend BIG $$$$ each year to maintain and upgrade their wireless networks.
And yes, network providers restrict what goes on their networks for financial reasons, too. They have billions of dollars invested in the spectrum and billions of dollars more in the equipment and operations. They have to show a return for their stockholders just like any other company. ROIC is a very important financial measure for capital intensive companies.
The 700 MHz spectrum auction next year should be very interesting. I think the FCC requirement to allow any phone access to 1/3 of the spectrum will be very difficult to pull off due to the issues above.
Additionally, in my opinion, the first ones to call for more open access are also the first ones to criticize network providers when their bandwidth slows down or the network doesn't work to their expectations. Watching the collision of those two opposite forces will be interestig to watch in the new 700 MHz spectrum rollout.
Full disclosure: I work for AT&T, but not in the wireless area.
Brent