Comments on: FCC Handcuffs U.S. Mobile http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:01:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: McGuire’s Law » Blog Archive » Big Bell Dogma: April 2008 http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/#comment-198332 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:14:24 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=12036#comment-198332 [...] “FCC Handcuffs U.S. Mobile” [...]

]]> By: Amitabh Kumar http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/#comment-198331 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:46:21 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=12036#comment-198331 That’s Why Mobile WiMAX will show the way!
The users have lived too long with walled garden approach which is usually provided by mobile networks. Despite many claims for open access ( the users can access any website), the launch of applications on handsets needs native applications rather than through we access.
It is obviously not in the interest of mobile companies if users having an unlimited internet connection stop paying for any voice calls by using Skype ( for example). Hence it is not surprising that they would tend to oppose any such moves. However what is surprising is that FCC, known to be in favor of open access would stop short at making this possible.
However this is where mobile WiMAX is set to score. Mobile WiMAX is an extension of the internet to the mobile domain without the restricting boundaries. Any application meant for the internet is available in the mobile domain.

]]> By: Robb Topolski http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/#comment-198330 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:19:12 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=12036#comment-198330 I gotta agree with you, from a totally different angle.

The network provided by these wireless carriers would have provided a much needed choice for those currently offered broadband by 0, 1, or 2 carriers.

… AND THE FCC PASSED ON THE OPPORTUNITY.

I couldn’t believe it!

The average American already knows we’re behind the world-wide curve. They don’t understand the differences that answer the question, “why?”

Robb Topolski

]]> By: Fight the Good Fight, with iSkoot | iSkoot Blog http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/#comment-198329 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:03:54 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=12036#comment-198329 [...] players expressing heated disapproval towards Martin’s out-of-hand dismissal, asserting in a GigaOM editorial yesterday, “This decision demonstrates nothing less than a failure on the part of a U.S. government [...]

]]> By: charlie http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/#comment-198328 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:28:04 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=12036#comment-198328 umm, this article is wack. Skype is not carterfone. If you don’t understand why wireless carriers are worried about VOIP — and every reason to be — then you are crazy. Skype is an application that runs on phones and computers — and it not any part of the FCC’s mandate to police that stuff. Why don’t they open up Windows why they are at it.

Not to mention Skype is a red herring. Look at the battery life of dedicated 802.11 skype phone and see how many consumers would be happy having two hours of battery life on their mobile. Truphone on my nokia drains the battery in about the same time. That’s why we don’t see Skype/VOIP on mobile — not just the carriers blocking it.

The Skype decision is not the reversal of carterfone. As hard it is for engineers to understand, the FCC is based on LAWS — and when something is outside their power, they can’t do much (and when they do, courts will strike them down). Applications running on phones are not what the FCC should be regulating.

]]> By: Jahangir Raina http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/#comment-198327 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:54:35 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=12036#comment-198327 Shocking to hear the FCC comment. Reminds me of that ATCA petition in nineties to ban PC-to-PC VoIP. While the US is becoming increasingly protectionist across a few industries, the problem with mobile VoIP is that there are no solid parties there that could give MNOs run for their money. Unlike in fixed VoIP, there are no triple play ISPs in mobile VoIP. The fixed VoIP offering of incumbents was driven mainly by competition from the triple play ISPs like Free and ASPs like Vonage. That kind of breed, we do not have in mobile VoIP.

]]> By: Matti http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/#comment-198326 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:04:16 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=12036#comment-198326 The real difference is not between the “Stokholm model” and models used in the US.
The Stockholm model would never had happened had the Swedish government not mandated that all of its citiziens needed to have equal and cheap high speed access to Internet.

Stockholm just happens to be the capital city with the highest population density in the kingdom and also, because of the fierce winters, with a well thought out and built underground tunnel network which made it relatively easy to pull the fiber to every building in the city. So it was the natural starting point for country-wide implementation. Most of the back country will have theirs probably not by fibre but by satellite, a couple of years from now. Again, an undertaking which would not have started without the government mandate.

Will such mandate with sufficient teeth ever emerge from the US government? I seriously doubt it. It would probably be seen as the government tampering with competition.

]]> By: FCC Handcuffs US Mobile - GigaOm · recursosvoip.com news http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/#comment-198325 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:14:27 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=12036#comment-198325 [...] Fuente original [...]

]]> By: Peter http://gigaom.com/2008/04/07/fcc-handcuffs-us-mobile/#comment-198324 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:08:28 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=12036#comment-198324 I’m always amazed at how the U.S., the self-assumed leader of free enterprise and democracy,

Read Chomsky.

p.s. who is ‘Guest Column’?

]]>