Verizon's open door policy all hype, no change?

[Dust N Bones]

I think you have to mail your phone off for 3 weeks before it can be activated on VZW now. There was a list of compatible phone that were the exact same phone on Verizon and Alltel like LG AX or VX 8600, but the phone's ESN has to be loaded into the database and certified.

I thought I remembered hearing this when Verizon first announced that they would allow CDMA handsets from other carriers on their network. Didn't they state that they first would have to load VZW firmware on a phone before they would activate it?

[wnrussell]

Nobody said that they will activate phones from other carriers. They only said that customers can use non-Verizon phones that were certified by Verizon.

That isn't happening either! You can buy the exact same model, like a V9m from Alltel or Telus, or Motorola for that matter and still be denied from activating your ESN.

Is there still a reason why we still can't buy the same phones directly from the OEM and activate them on the VZW network?

[huntm856]

Verizon's whole 'any apps, any device' stance was just gamesmanship in the face of all of Google's noise about forcing an open access requirement in part of the 700 MHz auction. Since then, there's been almost no word from Verizon, and next to no action -- I think they've certified one device, and it isn't widely commercially available.

The bottom line is, well, the bottom line. The carriers (except for Sprint, maybe, with its stake in Clearwire) are deathly afraid of becoming 'dumb pipe' service providers without their little walled gardens inside of which they can control their customers, control the amount and type of data their customers can access, and offer 'premium' services -- at a premium.

Someone at CTIA spoke very well for the industry this week at CTIA (see here):

But John Stanton, who founded Voicestream and Western Wireless, cautioned these CEOs in a later panel discussion with Craig McCaw, the current chairman of Clearwire and founder of McCaw Cellular Communications, that moving too far toward an open network will commoditize the wireless industry and significantly drive down profits. He said that operators need to focus on developing innovative services themselves. And they need to own content instead of letting others like Google or Yahoo do it for them.

"When you become a pure access provider in a saturated market, you grow at the rate of the economy," he said. "U.S. operators are running the risk of turning into commodity businesses instead of global content businesses with innovation that delivers higher profits."

So I would expect, in the face of the open-access requirements, watered down as they were, that did get into the 700 MHz auction, that we will see some minor, slow improvement in this area in the years to come (expect perhaps to see some small selection of 'open access' devices allowed to connect to VZW's network at a highly inflated tariff rate); but it's not going to be much unless some open platform like Android takes off, or the Clearwire thing comes off.

They're not going to open up unless and until the market forces them to. Especially VZW. And it's hard to see where that market force is going to come from, when the most successful mobile device in history operates in an environment that is very closed even by wireless industry standards.

The iPhone has convinced the carriers that subs don't mind walled gardens if they can give them shiny toys to play in with in them. And they are probably right. So don't expect to see the end of them any time soon.

[kbman]

Which is exactly why we do what we do over in the VZW Moto forum...making it possible to run many other carrier's firmware on compatible devices on Verizon's wonderful network.

Looks like we'll be at it for a while longer...

[vaxick]

The tech is definitely not being fully truthful here.

I have a SE T607, a phone that says "Verizon" on it, and yes, supports E911, GIN, etc. However, VZW refuses to activate it. My guess is that mostly because there were so very few of them, it has fallen off their lists. But that does not change the fact that it says "Verizon" on it.

I even offered to fax to the VZW tech, a few select pages out of the T607's manual to support what I was saying. He flatly refused. Which tells me a lot about VZW, because here is VZW clearly wanting to bury its head in the sand and not wanting to simply clarify a situation.

Holy crap, I never knew Verizon had a Sony phone. Sure wish Sony would make another CDMA phone.

[samab]

That isn't happening either! You can buy the exact same model, like a V9m from Alltel or Telus, or Motorola for that matter and still be denied from activating your ESN.

Is there still a reason why we still can't buy the same phones directly from the OEM and activate them on the VZW network?

Same hardware, different firmware --- means they have to be certified by Verizon.

The OEM's don't care about the few thousand people that might visit the flagship store in NYC and buy a full priced handset. If the OEM's really care, then you would be companies across the US selling real North American Nokia N-series phones --- not some grey goods parallel import from Europe.

[MasonDoctorJT]

I am glad they don't allow non-VZW equipment and I hope they never do.

Because when the non-VZW equipment doesn't work, the hobbyists will be calling Care and going to the store, and clogging up the system because they don't know the WAP settings or whatever. It's a nice idea, but when it doesn't work, they will come out of the woodwork expecting support

GSM Networks allow any phone on them and don't have a problem with people clogging up the Customer care, you know why? because on their websites they have setting configurations for just about any phone. So IMO that is not a valid reason for not activating a phone. Not to mention with the exorbitant prices Verizon charges, they can afford a few extra CS reps for this purpose.

[samab]

GSM Networks allow any phone on them and don't have a problem with people clogging up the Customer care, you know why? because on their websites they have setting configurations for just about any phone. So IMO that is not a valid reason for not activating a phone. Not to mention with the exorbitant prices Verizon charges, they can afford a few extra CS reps for this purpose.

They do have a problem with people clogging up the customer care --- that's why most of the European carriers have call centers in India.

It is a valid reason enough --- to get Verizon into the number 1 spot for customer satisfaction. Verizon doesn't strive to be average --- they want to be the best. Instead of spending money of CS reps --- Verizon is spending money on network upgrades.

I really like to see you people when you were young and in high school --- good solid B- is enough to be on the fat part of the bell curve, don't need an A.

[wnrussell]

Same hardware, different firmware --- means they have to be certified by Verizon.

The OEM's don't care about the few thousand people that might visit the flagship store in NYC and buy a full priced handset.

Then why do they have online stores like this one: http://www.store.motorola.com/mot/en...irect/motorola

You can get the Verizon certified software there too!

Unfortunately, Verizon still won't accept unbranded ESNs. WHY??

[samab]

Then why do they have online stores like this one: http://www.store.motorola.com/mot/en...irect/motorola

You can get the Verizon certified software there too!

Unfortunately, Verizon still won't accept unbranded ESNs. WHY??

Motorola's cell phone business has been driven into obscurity.

Maybe if Motorola is more concern about their carrier partners --- they won't have to try to sell their cell phone division.

[WaltA]

Since then, there's been almost no word from Verizon, and next to no action -- I think they've certified one device, and it isn't widely commercially available.

VZW certified the phone for a third party. Why do you think it is VZW responsibility to what the third party now does, or doesn't do? Why do you think VZW is responsible for how widely that third party makes that phone available, or not?

IMHO, VZW only responsibility is to certify the phone, and they did that.

[wnrussell]

VZW certified the phone for a third party. Why do you think it is VZW responsibility to what the third party now does, or doesn't do? Why do you think VZW is responsible for how widely that third party makes that phone available, or not?

IMHO, VZW only responsibility is to certify the phone, and they did that.

How about allowing that certified phone onto their network!

[huntm856]

VZW certified the phone for a third party. Why do you think it is VZW responsibility to what the third party now does, or doesn't do? Why do you think VZW is responsible for how widely that third party makes that phone available, or not?

IMHO, VZW only responsibility is to certify the phone, and they did that.

My point is that so far only one obscure customer device by an obscure company has been approved by VZW.

Surely, given the size of VZW's customer base and network, it would benefit a company to try to get its devices certified for use with them. But so far, two devices (the aforementioned and a machine-to-machine device), and not a peep from any big mfg.

Why do you think that is?

This whole thing is a sham, I'm telling you.

[samab]

My point is that so far only one obscure customer device by an obscure company has been approved by VZW.

Surely, given the size of VZW's customer base and network, it would benefit a company to try to get its devices certified for use with them. But so far, two devices (the aforementioned and a machine-to-machine device), and not a peep from any big mfg.

Why do you think that is?

This whole thing is a sham, I'm telling you.

There is no money to be made by selling full price handsets.

[WaltA]

How about allowing that certified phone onto their network!

Is VZW not allowing customers who buy that certified phone, to now activate them? I haven't heard anything about that yet.