CircleID

Dear Prof. Crawford:

In what way is this different than the situation TODAY on AT&T;, T-Mobile, or any international GSM provider?

I'm an AT&T;customer and Palm Treo user, so I'll use them as an example:

Freedom of choice, devices:
I can purchase any GSM device I want, including devices that the folks at AT&T;have never heard of. I pop in AT&T;'s SIM card, and, voila, I'm using the device of my choice, on AT&T;'s network, without requiring their prior blessing or permission.

Freedom of choice, applications:
AT&T;provides me with a flat rate TCP/IP connection. I purchased a Palm Treo and I can install and use any application that I want. As a matter of fact, I'm using a bunch of internet applications from independent software vendors, including a nifty shareware that allows me to check flights status, written by… a high-school student.

Now granted, to buy an UNSUBSIDIZED, unlocked Treo, I had to pay more. I could have chosen to buy a subsidized, locked, Treo from AT&T;’s store and it would have worked only on AT&T;’s network. The choice was mine: want flexibility: pay more; want subsidies: accept restrictions.

Palm has chosen to offer unlocked devices. Apple has decided (in return for AT&T;commitments) not to. Will this 700 MHz regulation apply to the next iPhones? Can Apple be forced to manufacture devices that would work on just any network? Or is it only AT&T;that can’t prevent other devices from working on their network. It’s the latter, isn’t it?

So, apparently, what this regulation will do is limit consumer choice. Would a carrier subsidize devices if there is no guarantee they will generate operational revenues? Probably not. Most consumers will pay more for the handsets they purchase. Will they pay less for the service? Maybe.

Regards,

Daniel Dreymann