Comments on: Driving on the right-hand side in a left-hand wireless world. http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/ A daily round table on the tech industry with experts and callers from all over the globe. Join us as we pick apart the news and get to the meat of what\'s happening out there. Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:57:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Jim http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-354860 Jim Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:54:21 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-354860 I think that "society" should be defined as the individual people of it and the good of society should therefore be defined as the good of the individual people in it. Certainly it can be argued that certain causes are not being served well by individual property rights, and if we allow those causes of the moment to be defined as the good of society, then we can run roughshod over individuals repeatedly, and in any way we like, coming up with new causes and new "goods of society" continually (over in Windsor today, peoples' homes were just taken by the government for a new border crossing. The people will basically be paid what the government says they will be paid, backed up by government police force. The people will have two years to "negotiate" a selling price for their property and homes -- with government guns as the final argument -- this is immoral!). But morality should be our first priority. We don't pollute other peoples' property here in the West, even though it might improve the economy, because it's just not the right thing to do. Similarly, we shouldn't use direct injury against individuals (defined as taking of property or threats or the use of physical coercive force), even if it might serve customers or consumers. Direct injury is still worse than companies, for example, changing their Java implementations so that programs running on other OSes won't run on their OSes, or giving away their browser for free in order to undercut the competition. We shouldn't be using direct injury to force a competitor out of the market when he is otherwise managing to remain in it; people are not for hurting. It's not right to run over peoples' bodies in search of a better tomorrow. People are an end in themselves, not the means to an end. This explains why, in the USA, which historically has a great libertarian background, the legal and governmental system tends not to dictate standards and choose who can or cannot buy and sell. The idea of libertarianism is consistent individual property rights, not the good of the economy. The direct good of identifiable individual people is the first priority, not abstract collectivism, not even in the name of the good of the economy, even though property rights in the free market has a net benefit to the economy, and is a huge selling point in favor of libertarianism; benefit to the economy is a selling point of libertarianism, not its definition. Initiation of direct injury against individuals should be considered to be immoral, and consistently prohibited. That principle should be the acid test given to all laws, policies, and actions, individual or collective. Please see http://www.geocities.com/forpropertyrights/index.html#Essays for this key principle, and http://saunderslog.com/2007/07/30/small-l-libertarian/#comments (previously) I think that “society” should be defined as the individual people of it and the good of society should therefore be defined as the good of the individual people in it. Certainly it can be argued that certain causes are not being served well by individual property rights, and if we allow those causes of the moment to be defined as the good of society, then we can run roughshod over individuals repeatedly, and in any way we like, coming up with new causes and new “goods of society” continually (over in Windsor today, peoples’ homes were just taken by the government for a new border crossing. The people will basically be paid what the government says they will be paid, backed up by government police force. The people will have two years to “negotiate” a selling price for their property and homes — with government guns as the final argument — this is immoral!). But morality should be our first priority. We don’t pollute other peoples’ property here in the West, even though it might improve the economy, because it’s just not the right thing to do. Similarly, we shouldn’t use direct injury against individuals (defined as taking of property or threats or the use of physical coercive force), even if it might serve customers or consumers. Direct injury is still worse than companies, for example, changing their Java implementations so that programs running on other OSes won’t run on their OSes, or giving away their browser for free in order to undercut the competition. We shouldn’t be using direct injury to force a competitor out of the market when he is otherwise managing to remain in it; people are not for hurting. It’s not right to run over peoples’ bodies in search of a better tomorrow. People are an end in themselves, not the means to an end. This explains why, in the USA, which historically has a great libertarian background, the legal and governmental system tends not to dictate standards and choose who can or cannot buy and sell.
The idea of libertarianism is consistent individual property rights, not the good of the economy. The direct good of identifiable individual people is the first priority, not abstract collectivism, not even in the name of the good of the economy, even though property rights in the free market has a net benefit to the economy, and is a huge selling point in favor of libertarianism; benefit to the economy is a selling point of libertarianism, not its definition.
Initiation of direct injury against individuals should be considered to be immoral, and consistently prohibited. That principle should be the acid test given to all laws, policies, and actions, individual or collective.
Please see
http://www.geocities.com/forpropertyrights/index.html#Essays for this key principle,
and
http://saunderslog.com/2007/07/30/small-l-libertarian/#comments (previously)

]]> By: Jason Yeung http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-354178 Jason Yeung Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:31:55 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-354178 And also, in a country like Hong Kong, there exists CDMA SIM cards (R-UIM cards) which enable a user to switch to another CDMA carrier by swapping the card. It doesn't matter though, as pretty much no one uses CDMA over there - it's all GSM. - Jason And also, in a country like Hong Kong, there exists CDMA SIM cards (R-UIM cards) which enable a user to switch to another CDMA carrier by swapping the card.

It doesn’t matter though, as pretty much no one uses CDMA over there - it’s all GSM.

- Jason

]]> By: Jason Yeung http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-354177 Jason Yeung Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:29:58 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-354177 Alec, There are so called "unlocked" CDMA phones, but it depends whether the carrier in question will accept th4 ESN number. I also have a Telus phone with two NAMs loaded - one for Telus service in Canada, and one for Page Plus (Verizon MVNO) for US. I can use the same phone and easily switch over to the other carrier. - Jason Alec,

There are so called “unlocked” CDMA phones, but it depends whether the carrier in question will accept th4 ESN number. I also have a Telus phone with two NAMs loaded - one for Telus service in Canada, and one for Page Plus (Verizon MVNO) for US. I can use the same phone and easily switch over to the other carrier.

- Jason

]]> By: Alec http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-354098 Alec Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:27:35 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-354098 I'm with you Brad on the notion that this is only required if you accept that governments should be selling monopolies on spectrum. As for handset protocols, at least in this country even if you had an open contract you wouldn't have the option to take the handset you purchased with your own money to another carrier. Rogers is the only GSM carrier, and Bell and Telus only sell CDMA contracts which are locked to their networks. So far as I can tell there is no such thing, anywhere in the world, as an unlocked CDMA handset. And yes, you COULD sell your incompatible equipment on EBay. It's kind of like saying that we'd all have a different kind of computer for connecting to different kinds of networks (say, Mac's for AOL, Windows for Compuserve, and Linux for the Internet), and if you decided you wanted to be on a different network, you could just go exchange the computer for one that would work on the new network you wanted to be on. VoIP did languish - lousy sound, bad user experience. Along came Skype and fixed the issues with sound quality, ease of use, cost... boom! usage exploded. It was, and still is, hardly a mature market. Cellular phones, OTOH, are mature, and customers really do want the choices being denied in this market. I’m with you Brad on the notion that this is only required if you accept that governments should be selling monopolies on spectrum. As for handset protocols, at least in this country even if you had an open contract you wouldn’t have the option to take the handset you purchased with your own money to another carrier. Rogers is the only GSM carrier, and Bell and Telus only sell CDMA contracts which are locked to their networks. So far as I can tell there is no such thing, anywhere in the world, as an unlocked CDMA handset.

And yes, you COULD sell your incompatible equipment on EBay. It’s kind of like saying that we’d all have a different kind of computer for connecting to different kinds of networks (say, Mac’s for AOL, Windows for Compuserve, and Linux for the Internet), and if you decided you wanted to be on a different network, you could just go exchange the computer for one that would work on the new network you wanted to be on.

VoIP did languish - lousy sound, bad user experience. Along came Skype and fixed the issues with sound quality, ease of use, cost… boom! usage exploded. It was, and still is, hardly a mature market. Cellular phones, OTOH, are mature, and customers really do want the choices being denied in this market.

]]> By: Blogmatic » Market Place Decisions http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353792 Blogmatic » Market Place Decisions Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:50:25 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353792 [...] as: Product Lifecycle, Business I am feeling particularly free market and feisty today. I read Alec Saunders post regarding consumers and imposed standards and thought I would take the opportunity to provide [...] [...] as: Product Lifecycle, Business I am feeling particularly free market and feisty today. I read Alec Saunders post regarding consumers and imposed standards and thought I would take the opportunity to provide [...]

]]> By: Brad Templeton http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353706 Brad Templeton Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:55:50 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353706 Your answer is only right if you accept the assumption that the government should sell monopoly rights to wireless spectrum, and that only a handful of companies can buy them. Compare instead to the formerly unwanted 2.4ghz spectrum, where we get a plethora of options, 802.11 in various forms, bluetooth, xbee, dect -- let them fight it out and see who wins. Handset protocol is a silly thing to standardize on. It's provider contracts that lock us in, not handsets. There is a healthy market in handsets on ebay even with provider contract lock in! You aren't locked into nikon, again, thanks to the ebay market. You can sell all your nikon lenses and buy other used canon lenses at only a fairly minor loss. If it were a more common thing to do, you could probably find a service to swap them for you. To give you a counter example, SIP was languishing and Skype came along and ignored the standards and got an order of magnitude more people using VoIP and using it well. Your answer is only right if you accept the assumption that the government should sell monopoly rights to wireless spectrum, and that only a handful of companies can buy them. Compare instead to the formerly unwanted 2.4ghz spectrum, where we get a plethora of options, 802.11 in various forms, bluetooth, xbee, dect — let them fight it out and see who wins.

Handset protocol is a silly thing to standardize on. It’s provider contracts that lock us in, not handsets. There is a healthy market in handsets on ebay even with provider contract lock in!

You aren’t locked into nikon, again, thanks to the ebay market. You can sell all your nikon lenses and buy other used canon lenses at only a fairly minor loss. If it were a more common thing to do, you could probably find a service to swap them for you.

To give you a counter example, SIP was languishing and Skype came along and ignored the standards and got an order of magnitude more people using VoIP and using it well.

]]> By: Dictating Standards « KnowledgeForward http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353629 Dictating Standards « KnowledgeForward Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:02:27 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353629 [...] wrote a blog entry on Picking Winners that was replied to by Alec Saunders in an entry today called Driving on the right-hand side in a left-hand wireless world. The entry is about imposing standards by wresting control of the technology from a monopoly and [...] [...] wrote a blog entry on Picking Winners that was replied to by Alec Saunders in an entry today called Driving on the right-hand side in a left-hand wireless world. The entry is about imposing standards by wresting control of the technology from a monopoly and [...]

]]> By: Alec http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353540 Alec Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:02:10 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353540 You're exactly right Mark. Corporations always act in the best interests of shareholders, and most of the time shareholder interests and consumer interests coincide. A monopoly simply distorts the gap between consumer and shareholder interests. You’re exactly right Mark. Corporations always act in the best interests of shareholders, and most of the time shareholder interests and consumer interests coincide. A monopoly simply distorts the gap between consumer and shareholder interests.

]]> By: Jason Yeung http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353494 Jason Yeung Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:40:02 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353494 Agreed. I'm currently in Hong Kong and the mobile operators over there haven't failed to amaze me yet. I signed on to a plan from one of the operators that provide 500 minutes daytime and unlimited data for about the price of a cheap lunch at a fast food joint in Canada. - Jason Agreed. I’m currently in Hong Kong and the mobile operators over there haven’t failed to amaze me yet. I signed on to a plan from one of the operators that provide 500 minutes daytime and unlimited data for about the price of a cheap lunch at a fast food joint in Canada.

- Jason

]]> By: Mark Goldberg http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353489 Mark Goldberg Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:31:43 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2007/08/14/driving-on-the-right-hand-side-in-a-left-hand-wireless-world/#comment-353489 I agree with your conclusion completely. By the way, corporations, not just monopolies, don't just TEND to act in the best interests of shareholders - they should ALWAYS act in the best interests of shareholders - it is their duty to do so. Fortunately, acting in the interests of client satisfaction is good for business and therefore the behaviour coincides with both shareholder and consumer interests. Utility monopolies get regulated to safeguard consumer interests. Our only point of discord may be in defining that "point where competition is not being served." At what point does regulation get in the way? I agree with your conclusion completely.

By the way, corporations, not just monopolies, don’t just TEND to act in the best interests of shareholders - they should ALWAYS act in the best interests of shareholders - it is their duty to do so.

Fortunately, acting in the interests of client satisfaction is good for business and therefore the behaviour coincides with both shareholder and consumer interests.

Utility monopolies get regulated to safeguard consumer interests.

Our only point of discord may be in defining that “point where competition is not being served.” At what point does regulation get in the way?

]]>