Mobile Musings, Mostly

I was on a panel discussion yesterday, titled “Wireless, the Internet & Open Access Initiatives”, hosted by the New Jersey Technology Council (NJTC). It featured a presentation from Maurice Thompson who is a Director with Verizon’s Open Development Initiative (ODI), something I have touched on in a previous post.

Maurice did a good job of laying out the key components of the initiative, as also some of the potential market segments that Verizon expects to see some innovative devices and solutions emerge as part of ODI. In particular, he highlighted how ODI is also expecting activity from markets that are not considered part of the traditional cellular market e.g. AMR/AMI in Utilities, health/telemetry/wellness, M2M, etc.

In the subsequent part of the event, some of the points that were highlighted by myself and my illustrious co-panelists (Chip Cleary and Susan Brazer) as also the audience were as follows :

• The current focus on ODI on devices, although laudable, is but one dimension of driving innovation - the others being the ability to develop and market compelling applications and services, as also a clear business model on how the various participants will make money. Till the latter two are included within ODI, it will end up being a “non-stock certification program on steroids.”
• On the same thread, how is VZW going to start “opening” up to allow developers to start leveraging things like location to build applications ?
• Has VZW thought about expanding ODI to include advertising (which might be integrated with VZW’s own advertising platform) as a possible monetization model for new applications ?
• In response to a question, Maurice indicated that ODI did not care about the device platform as long as it met the RF requirements and other certification criteria

Maurice was gracious in his responses to the questions and admitted that ODI is just getting started and so all the details have not been worked out.

Kudos to NJTC for setting up the event. If you are interested in learning more about ODI, you can find information here.

So, the back and forth regarding what constitutes “open access” continues. In a recent filing with the FCC, Google has expressed concerns about Verizon’s real intentions regarding open access on the C block spectrum it has acquired as part of the 700 Mhz auction. The auction rules had specified that the winner had to support any device running any application on the network.

In the filing, Google says : The Commission’s open access rule is clear that C Block licensees “shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice….” The rule also is explicit that C Block licensees may not “disable features on handsets it provides to customers.”The rule thus plainly proscribes a C Block licensee from selling handsets to customers that hinder a customer’s ability to use applications of their choice, and applies to all customers of a C Block licensee.

Google now claims that Verizon is proceeding with its plans to create to create two separate classes of service (interestingly enough characterized as a “two-door” plan) with their part of the “C block” spectrum. According to this plan, Verizon-subsidized handsets with traditional Verizon service would be offered as part of door #1. Consumers wanting to bring their own device and applications will be part of door #2. Google’s contention is is that consumers with subsidized handsets will be offered a restricted set of applications and services (e.g. constraints on WiFi usage, ringtone options, etc.) , which is in violation of the C block licensee rules.

Reading through all the statements and petitions, two things strike me

• What Google is trying to do is have a play on potentially all of Verizon’s handsets (subsidized or not) for the C block spectrum. And trying to force the FCC to make Verizon yield on the subsidized handsets. Because, maybe they dont trust what lies behind door #2. Like say, when the Android handsets for this part of the spectrum come out, the device manufacturers just could spend a lot of time getting the devices certified, which could be a tad bit annoying. Details on the certification process for Verizon’s ODI are still vague at best.

• Verizon, having plonked down $9.6billion (yes, that’s with a B) for the C block licenses, is not going to let this go without a fight. They didn’t spend all this money to just turn it over to all and sundry to cash in. As Susan Crawford notes here, “Where’s the revenue in being a commodity transport provider? VZ is a broadcaster!” Watch for First Amendment claims from VZ in response to the Google petition.”Amidst all this talk about “open”, Verizon has announced their support for the mobile Linux effort, by joining the LiMo Foundation. For now, this is in contrast to the other N.American carriers who have hitched themselves to the Android bandwagon.

And talking about certification and interoperability testing, anyone remember OSMINE ?- No, it is not a place where you go prospecting for valuable operating systems….

If you consider yourself moderately interested in the US wireless telecommunications market, you have probably heard something about the recently concluded 700 MHz auction. This part of the spectrum is slated to become vacant with the switch to digital television, scheduled to be completed in February 2009.

And in the months leading upto, during, and after the auction; you also witnessed what could be termed as a wireless telecom version of Sturm and Drang.

Driven primarily by Google’s letter to the FCC last year, a great part of this debate focused on the concept of open - to what extent would this auction ‘open’ up the airwaves ?

It is instructive to understand that that ‘open’ can mean different things to different people. Kind of - Where you stand (on open) depends on where you sit.

• If you are a mobile device manufacturer, you would interpret open to mean the ability to offer compelling devices to end consumers without really having to go through wireless carrier’s seemingly Kafkaesque certification procedures.
• If you are a mobile applications developer, you know that getting applications ‘on deck’ is not for the faint of heart. You want open to mean the ability to spend more energy on cranking out innovative applications and not worry disproportionately about the actual process to getting the carrier to approve the application on their network. The business model for the mobile application - well, that is another issue altogether. Apple’s recent announcement in the wake of its iPhone launch is a first step in simplifying the application/content discovery and business model for mobile applications.
• And when it comes to us poor consumers, we would like to BYOD - bring your own devices (and any other software/application with it). We want to use the devices we like with the carrier+calling plan, as opposed to using only the handful of devices that are available to us under the current model of carrier-locked devices for most calling plans.

Now, lets talk about the carriers themselves. After a great deal of back and forth, including Verizon suing the FCC on its open access rules for the auction, they have now made pronouncements that indicate an opening up of their networks to some degree.

Verizon Wireless launched their ‘Open Development Iniative (ODI) ‘ with much fanfare, promising to allow any device and any application to access their network. Under this program, devices are supposed to take 4-8 weeks to be approved by Verizon - potentially a dramatic reduction in the approval process.

What the costs will be for such an approval is unknown, as is the kind of data plan such a device would need. Part of the ODI launch is the intriguing possibility mentioned by Verizon about non-traditional devices (e.g. vending machines, gaming consoles, etc.) being able to connect to their network. Seems like a good way to hedge your bets in the M2M market, something I will visit in a future post.

AT&T however, insisted that their network had always been open - i.e. you could use any GSM device on the AT&T network.

And for those of you waiting with bated breath for WiMAX, Sprint announced their plans to release an SDK and open APIs (by the end of 2008) for Xohm - their WiMAX network. They are hoping to entice developers and hardware manufacturers to tie into the hooks for things like location services, device management, identity, and QoS and build some interesting (and hopefully revenue generating) applications.

Does this mean that the open access holy grail is just around the corner ? Not so fast - the wireless stack is one that wireless carriers have a great deal of incentive to control for as long as they can. Because with the control comes a large share of the consumer’s wallet.

However, it does seem like the degree of control they have historically exercised is slowly being eroded - it is interesting to note that it took someone with the muscle of Google (although not acting in a completely altruistic fashion) to initiate this process. I think the first real test of this will be when the first set of devices based on the Open Handset Alliance platform hit the US market - sometime by the end of 2008.

May we live in interesting times..