Is Verizon Feeling the WiMax Heat?

"In early 2008, the company will publish the technical standards the development community will need to design products to interface with the Verizon Wireless network. Any device that meets the minimum technical standard will be activated on the network. Devices will be tested and approved in a $20 million state-of-the-art testing lab which received an additional investment this year to gear up for the anticipated new demand"

For a start Verizon has a CDMA network and GSM phones will not work.

You saw what they wanted, now read their announcement for content. It is megacorp marketing speak.

Only if said store sells a CDMA device. You won't be able to go into a Cingular/AT&T or T-Mobile store and expect their GSM handsets to work on Verizon's CDMA network.

DTC hath wroth:

Did you notice the emphasis on the word "device"? I don't think they mean handsets. My guess(tm) is that Verizon is targetting iPhone like devices, as well as micro-cellular devices, cheaper GPS tracking devices, and SCADA like devices. In other words, this is Verizon's way of admitting that they blew it with the iPhone and is trying to put a positive spin on the damage control.

I can't wait to see the price tag on the official Verizon standards and certification.

The new Amazon e-book reader uses EVDO. Interestingly without requiring the user to have any sort of cellular contract. Must be handled at the Amazon end.

That and the probable "activation" fee and monthly surcharges they'll try charging the users for the privilege of that 'foreign' device.

Nice. I didn't know that. Wireless DRM in action.

Yep. Someone has to pay for the $20 million test laboratory. I wonder if they'll also do the necessary FCC type certification tests?

It's also possible that Verizon will charge through the nose for copies of the standard, and make it impossible for anyone to pass. There's also no way that anyone can write an airtight functionality standard and get it right the first time. It took several years to shake out DOCSIS compliance testing. Fortunately, there are existing WCDMA and CDMA2000 compliance test suites for Verizon to plagiarize. However, my guess is that they'll throw in something disgusting, like mandatory QoS and throttling of specific protocols in order to "insure the integrity of the network". I can't wait to see the legal releases required indemnifying Verizon for possible patent infringement. Naturally, it will favor devices that are BREW based, and not Java. My fertile imagination boggles at the possible ways for Verizon to screw it up.

What does Verizon?s open-access network option mean for you?

Kinda looks like the pundits are as confused as I am.

Amend that to "deliberately screw it up".

"Bill Kearney" hath wroth:

I don't think such things are ever done deliberately. The Ouija Board that controls large corporations tends to produce output, even if nobody appears to be deliberately moving things or is at the controls. Perhaps the Verizon engineering department has taken over control of the company? Dunno, but stranger things have happened to cause such a dramatic reversal in company policy.

I've seen several companies go trough reversals in corporate policy and methodology. Intel magically became more user friendly, stopped suing AMD, and fired most of their legal staff, when the FDIV bug demonstrated that they apparently had become more interested in litigation, than in technical excellence. At the time, Intel was spending about $10 million per year doing nothing more than suing AMD. I've also seen such drastic reversals in other companies. It's usually the result of the board looking at the financial statement (before it's obfuscated for public consumption) and finding that much of the bottom line is being consumed by litigation, politics, bribes, and other forms of non-productive corporate behavior. In this case, perhaps someone thought that $20 million might be better spent towards dominating their equipment vendors, than in suing the FCC, or in patent litigation. It's difficult to tell from here, but if Verizon also announces major changes in their legal department, methinks my guess(tm) is correct.

It's also interesting to note the change in company tag line. It was "Can you hear me now" which implied that someone wasn't paying attention or listening. Now, that's morphed into "It's the network" which seems to imply that one shouldn't ask questions of the wizard behind the curtain of the mysterious ways in which Verizon's network operates. Now that Verizon has announced the open access is going to be it's new thing, there will probably need to be a new tag line and probably a new color. Blood red just isn't going to work. Something like paisley for color, and "Whatever you want, no matter how weird" might be suitable. Maybe Alice and "Through the LCD glass" into the world of Oz.

Incidentally, as a Verizon Wireless customer, I just discovered what is required to reset the message waiting indicator on my cell phone. 4 people, 4 failures, and 4 days. I finally had to hard reset the phone to defaults, reinstall all my apps, and restore my data. By late last night, I was seeing Verizon blood red. Lacking anyone else to blame, "It's the network".

I think someone in senior management has finally got fed up with the incompatibility between the Verizon and Vodafone Networks and decided they should have a common direction.

20th September "Vodafone CEO Arun Sarin and Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ - message board) CEO Ivan Seidenberg both told a Goldman Sachs & Co. investor conference Wednesday that they are planning to use the same technology in the next major evolution of their wireless networks, and that the two companies are involved in LTE development work."

"Verizon Wireless currently has more than 62 million subscribers, while Vodafone has more than 200 million customers around the world."

29th November "The selection of LTE provides Verizon and Vodafone ? joint owners of U.S.-based Verizon Wireless ? with a unique opportunity to adopt a common access platform with true global scale and compatibility with existing technologies of both companies."

When I was young and naive I used to think that big companies had all sorts of smart people who knew what they were doing in charge. After I worked for a few I realized that upper management typically consisted of self centered ego centric people who had no clue if the company they were running made fishing reels or space ships.

| >That and the probable "activation" fee and monthly surcharges they'll try | >charging the users for the privilege of that 'foreign' device. | | Yep. Someone has to pay for the $20 million test laboratory. I | wonder if they'll also do the necessary FCC type certification tests? | | It's also possible that Verizon will charge through the nose for | copies of the standard, and make it impossible for anyone to pass. | There's also no way that anyone can write an airtight functionality | standard and get it right the first time. It took several years to | shake out DOCSIS compliance testing. Fortunately, there are existing | WCDMA and CDMA2000 compliance test suites for Verizon to plagiarize. | However, my guess is that they'll throw in something disgusting, like | mandatory QoS and throttling of specific protocols in order to "insure | the integrity of the network". I can't wait to see the legal releases | required indemnifying Verizon for possible patent infringement. | Naturally, it will favor devices that are BREW based, and not Java. My | fertile imagination boggles at the possible ways for Verizon to screw | it up. | | What does Verizon's open-access network option mean for you? | | Kinda looks like the pundits are as confused as I am.

It's been my experience that 'conformal testing' programs such as this evolve to be profit centers to the sponsors. Good example is the CITA Certification program for wireless phones. Despite hard assurances that the test fees would be a function of the cost of testing the program quickly evolved as a TAX to support other program completely unrelated to the mission of the certification program.

| > Amend that to "deliberately screw it up". | >

| >

| When I was young and naive I used to think that big companies had all | sorts of smart people who knew what they were doing in charge. After I | worked for a few I realized that upper management typically consisted of | self centered ego centric people who had no clue if the company they | were running made fishing reels or space ships.

It's the Monkey Tree management structure. Those on top look down and see smiling faces. Those below look up and see A**H***s. (All too often prefect A**H***s ... no hemorrhoids)

Having sat on both sides of the management table with VZN and it's predecessors I can attest that the customer is not high on management's list. Mostly viewed as a cash cow to be manipulated.

More troubling is the system seems to prevent those worker bees charged with doing the job from doing the job they are paid to do.