LTE iPhone to be an AT&T Exclusive?
Something has been really, really bothering me for a few days. Tim Cook said it and I think the rest of the world may have missed the significance of it. At the Verizon iPhone announcement press conference last week, a member of the media asked why the new Verizon iPhone lacked LTE compatibility.
http://www.cultofmac.com/tim-cook-on-why-verizon-iph ... »
Part of me said, "OK, so they realized the phone is going to have to add 3 mm in thickness to achieve LTE speeds and not suck the life out of the battery." That makes sense.
But you know what makes more sense? This line from Google, almost three years ago:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/end-of-fcc-70 ... »
I've been combing through FCC records and "open access" commentary on the web for several hours now, and I haven't been able to find the document which outlines what the C-Block specifications really are for device access, but one thing is for certain:
If there really is an "any device, any application" string attached to the Verizon LTE bands, Apple will never, ever build a device with those antennas in it- because then they have to break their App Store monopoly.
I really hope I'm wrong on this one. Verizon is going to do a much, much better rolling out the C-Block LTE then anyone else possibly could in the A, B and E blocks. But iPhones built for 4G networks on AT&T, Sprint or T-mobile are going into no-strings-attached spectrum where Apple is free to hold their monopoly on iPhone App sales until the sun runs out of hydrogen.
That seems like a much more convincing "design decision" then beefing up the internal battery to handle 10 Mbps data loads.
😢
Tim Cook said:
"Two reasons — the first gen LTE chipsets force design changes we wouldn’t make. And Verizon customers told us they want the iPhone now."
http://www.cultofmac.com/tim-cook-on-why-verizon-iph ... »
Part of me said, "OK, so they realized the phone is going to have to add 3 mm in thickness to achieve LTE speeds and not suck the life out of the battery." That makes sense.
But you know what makes more sense? This line from Google, almost three years ago:
We congratulate the winners [of the 700 MHz C-Block] and look forward to a more open wireless world. As a result of the auction, consumers whose devices use the C-block of spectrum soon will be able to use any wireless device they wish, and download to their devices any applications and content they wish. Consumers soon should begin enjoying new, Internet-like freedom to get the most out of their mobile phones and other wireless devices.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/end-of-fcc-70 ... »
I've been combing through FCC records and "open access" commentary on the web for several hours now, and I haven't been able to find the document which outlines what the C-Block specifications really are for device access, but one thing is for certain:
If there really is an "any device, any application" string attached to the Verizon LTE bands, Apple will never, ever build a device with those antennas in it- because then they have to break their App Store monopoly.
I really hope I'm wrong on this one. Verizon is going to do a much, much better rolling out the C-Block LTE then anyone else possibly could in the A, B and E blocks. But iPhones built for 4G networks on AT&T, Sprint or T-mobile are going into no-strings-attached spectrum where Apple is free to hold their monopoly on iPhone App sales until the sun runs out of hydrogen.
That seems like a much more convincing "design decision" then beefing up the internal battery to handle 10 Mbps data loads.
😢
...
I don't think the "any app" applied to the manufacturers allowing any app on their OS. I think it applied to the carriers and their ability to restrict app usage such as skype mobile, Hulu, etc.
...
texaswireless said:
I don't think the "any app" applied to the manufacturers allowing any app on their OS. I think it applied to the carriers and their ability to restrict app usage such as skype mobile, Hulu, etc.
The trouble is, I can't find any documentation to support that position. I've found nothing definitive in the literature.
...
I don't think you will. The entire argument of the time was requiring the bidding carriers to make those allowances. Apple was bidding on nothing and therefore is not subject to the requirement.
To find info on a topic that was not considered in the argument would be difficult indeed.
To find info on a topic that was not considered in the argument would be difficult indeed.
...
texaswireless said:
I don't think you will. The entire argument of the time was requiring the bidding carriers to make those allowances. Apple was bidding on nothing and therefore is not subject to the requirement.
To find info on a topic that was not considered in the argument would be difficult indeed.
Not finding info about a non-issue would be hard. What I'm surprised at is that I can't find any documentation on what the real requirements were.
...
I am sure you already found this but just in case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wire ... »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wire ... »
...
Yes, I read that one already. I'm just shocked at how impossible it has been to dig up the actual FCC "here are the guideline for the C Block winner" document.
I can't find anything actually published by the FCC that spells out what the "open access" clause really entails.
I find that odd. I'm trying to prove myself wrong, but I can't find any data to indicate that what I'm saying is far-fetched.
I can't find anything actually published by the FCC that spells out what the "open access" clause really entails.
I find that odd. I'm trying to prove myself wrong, but I can't find any data to indicate that what I'm saying is far-fetched.
...
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FC ... »
And in the surrounding pages there is no mention of regulating the behavior of any organization other than the spectrum owner.
So, it looks like Apple could still walled-garden an LTE device as well.
Page 87, paragraph 217:
"Our rules regulate the functionality of the spectrum and the conduct of the licensee –"
And in the surrounding pages there is no mention of regulating the behavior of any organization other than the spectrum owner.
So, it looks like Apple could still walled-garden an LTE device as well.
...
It looks like at least one telecom lawyer out there agrees with me:
(continues)
Google’s idea was to create an open space for innovation where a person could buy any device (including one from Google) and run any app that met open standards with no interference by the carrier....
And depending upon how you interpret the rules, which Verizon fought in court before the auction, they also required that the wireless carrier only offer devices that are open and able to run any app. That interpretation would clearly rule out the iPhone, which is locked down by design, and only apps approved by Apple can be loaded onto the device without breaking the device’s warranty.
That’s how Markham Erickson, a technology law
(continues)
...
CellStudent said:
It looks like at least one telecom lawyer out there agrees with me:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/verizon-4g-ip ... »
Well, this one is going to the courts, for sure.
I certainly hope it goes to the courts. I don't understand how people can be so against carriers controlling apps that use the network, and at the same time, not giving a sh*t if a manufacturer controls what apps you have access to on your device.
When someone does challenge Apple on this, I think the final outcome will be similar to Microsoft's antitrust case.
...
