Interesting People mailing list archives

Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

re Reports of Google Nexus One 3G and Support Problems

From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:51:37 -0500




Begin forwarded message:


From: Jim Thompson <jim () netgate com>
Date: January 11, 2010 3:36:46 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: Steve Muir <steve () grimupnorth org>
Subject: Re: [IP] re Reports of Google Nexus One 3G and Support Problems 





One might speculate such, but same seems unwise.


The bands used for 3G (UMTS / HSDPA / HSUPA), world wide are:
• 2100 (downlink) / 1900 (uplink) for Europe, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Asia (including South Korea and Japan) and Brazil (usua lly referred simply as UMTS2100) 
   • 1900 for North and South America
• 2100 (downlink) / 1700 (uplink) for WIND Mobile and T-Mobile US A, called AWS Band (usually referred simply as UMTS1700) • 900 for Australia (Optus and Vodafone Australia in rural areas) , Vodafone New Zealand and in the future in countries that currently use GSM900 • 850 for North and South America, Australia (NextG), New Zealand (Telecom XT) 
   • 800 for Japan (NTT DoCoMo in rural areas)
(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad-band#3G, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands )
The Nexus One supports Tri band UMTS 900MHz, 1700MHz amd 2100MHz, and Quad band GSM (850MHz, 900Mhz, 1800MHz and 1900MHz) T-Mobile's 3G service runs in in UMTS2100 (1700MHz and 2100MHz), just like Europe, Africa, Australia, New Zeland, Asia and Brazil. 

This covers covers most major GSM and 3G providers in Europe and Asia.
AT&T currently runs 3G "data" (HPSA) over the 1900MHz band, though they have announced that a move of 3G data to 850MHz.
Other carriers who use 850MHz and 1900MHz include: Bell Mobility, Telus, Rogers and WIND Mobile (Canada), Movistar (Latin America), Telcel (Latin America), Telstra Australia's Next-G, Telecom New Zealand's XT Mobile Network and, from what I can tell, every carrier in Latin America. 

So its not just customers of AT&T and Rogers who are 'locked out'.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is the (US) 700MHz auction, where Verizon picked up the 'C' block.
Prior to the bidding process, Google asked that the spectrum be free to lease wholesale and the devices operating under the spectrum be open. In return Google guaranteed a minimum bid of $4.6 billion. (http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20070720_wireless.html ).
The relevant part of the 700MHz rules <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.pdf > reads:
5. This band plan provides a balanced mix of geographic service area licenses and spectrum block sizes for the 62 megahertz of commercial spectrum to be auctioned. We will auction two 12- megahertz spectrum blocks (comprised of paired 6-megahertz blocks), one licensed by Cellular Market Areas (CMAs) and one by Economic Areas (EAs); one 22-megahertz spectrum block (paired 11- megahertz blocks) by Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs); and one 6- megahertz unpaired spectrum block by EAs. We also will designate one 10-megahertz spectrum block (paired 5-megahertz blocks), the Upper 700 MHz Band D Block, to be licensed on a nationwide basis and used as part of the 700 MHz Public/Private Partnership entered between this commercial licensee and the licensee that will be assigned the public safety broadband spectrum (hereinafter, the Public Safety Broadband Licensee). 6. In addition to revising the band plan, we adopt new, more stringent performance requirements for the commercial licenses in the 700 MHz Band that will be auctioned. These rules will require licensees to meet both interim and end-of-term construction benchmarks. CMA and EA licensees are required to provide service sufficient to cover 35 percent of the geographic area of their licenses within four years, and 70 percent of this area within ten years (the license term), and REAG licensees must provide service sufficient to cover 40 percent of the population of their license areas within four years and 75 percent of the population within ten years. For licensees that fail to meet the applicable interim benchmark, the license term is reduced by two years, and the end-of- term benchmark must be met within eight years. At the end of the license term, licensees that fail to meet the end-of-term benchmark will be subject to a “keep what you use” rule, which will make unused spectrum available to other potential users. 7. In addition, we determine that for one commercial spectrum block in the 700 MHz Band, the Upper 700 MHz Band C Block, licensees will be required to allow customers, device manufacturers, third- party application developers, and others to use devices and applications of their choice, subject to certain conditions. We conclude, however, that at this time it would not serve the public interest to mandate broader requirements, such as a wholesale requirement for the unauctioned 700 MHz Band spectrum.
In the above, the 'C' block that Verizon won is the 22Mhz REAG block, which is subject to Google's suggested 'rules'. Note that Verizon must build out to cover 40% of the population of their license ares by February 17, 2013, and 70% of the population by Feb 17, 2019. If Verizon misses the 2013 date, then the 2019 date becomes 2017, and Verizon may be subject to "possible enforcement action, including forfeitures". Should Verizon fail to meet the 2019 (or 2017) date, they will be subject to a “keep-what-you- use” rule, under which they will lose their authorization for unders erved portions of their license area, which will be returned to the Commission for reassignment. They may also be subject to potential e nforcement action, including possible forfeitures or cancellation of tyhe licenses. 

---
Accordingly, consistent with the broadband principles set out above, we will require only C Block licensees to allow customers, device manufacturers, third-party application developers, and others to use or develop the devices and applications of their choosing in C Block networks, so long as they meet all applicable regulatory requirements and comply with reasonable conditions related to management of the wireless network (i.e., do not cause harm to the network). Specifically, a C Block licensee may not block, degrade, or interfere with the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the licensee’s C Block network, su bject to reasonable network management. We anticipate that wireless service providers will address this requirement by developing reason able standards, including through participation in standards setting organizations, as discussed below. Finally, for the reasons noted a bove, we will not impose additional requirements on the C Block, inc luding wholesale and interconnection requirements. 
---
and
---
222. Scope of the requirement for open platforms for devices and applications. Wireless service providers subject to this requirement will not be allowed to disable features or functionality in handsets where such action is not related to reasonable network management and protection, or compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.500 For example, providers may not “lock” handsets to prevent their transfer from one system to another. We al so prohibit standards that block Wi-Fi access, MP3 playback ringtone capability, or other services that compete with wireless service pr oviders’ own offerings. Standards for third-party applications or de vices that are more stringent than those used by the provider itself would likewise be prohibited. In addition, C Block licensees cannot exclude applications or devices solely on the basis that such appli cations or devices would unreasonably increase bandwidth demands. We anticipate that demand can be adequately managed through feasible f acility improvements or technology-neutral capacity pricing that doe s not discriminate against subscribers using third-party devices or applications. In that regard, we emphasize that C Block licensees ma y not impose any additional discriminatory charges (one-time or recu rring) or conditions on customers who seek to use devices or applica tions outside of those provided by the licensee. Finally, C Block li censees may not deny access to a customer’s device solely because th at device makes use of other wireless spectrum bands, such as cellul ar or PCS spectrum. However, we also note that, in accepting a mult i-band device for use on its network, a C Block licensee is not requ ired to extend the requirement for open platforms for devices and ap plications to other spectrum bands on which the provider operates.
Net-Net, I don't think that Android and the Open Handset Alliance are short-term plays. Google is out to change the rules in the 'mobile' space to suit themselves. Note how much the "use the devices you want, and the applications you want" rule looks like Net Neutrality. Note that VoIP (in any form) can't be blocked by Verizon in the C block. 

Think carefully about this:
"Specifically, a C Block licensee may not block, degrade, or interfere with the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the licensee’s C Block network,"
Would this prohibit Verizon from offering an iPhone in its 700MHz C block? Apple certainly "interfere(s) with the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing".
The fact that you can't move an AT&T SIM into a Nexus One and get 3G is a trivial, temporary distraction compared to the forces at work here. 

Jim

On Jan 10, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Dave Farber wrote:






Begin forwarded message:


From: Steve Muir <steve () grimupnorth org>
Date: January 10, 2010 6:48:57 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] re Reports of Google Nexus One 3G and Support Problems
One might speculate that the design decision not to support AT&T's 3G frequency bands was intended to support a business decision to limit the use of the Nexus One to T-Mobile customers, particularly when T-Mo is subsidising many of the Nexus One phones by a substantial amount. Without use of AT&T's 3G bands it's very unlikely anyone would purchase one of these devices but then switch it to an AT&T SIM card - this is a much more effective way to lock your customers in than SIM locking.
The ability to support standard cellular voice over WiFi requires a set of technologies known as Generic Access Network (or Unlicensed Mobile Access) that tunnel 3GPP voice protocols over WiFi. GAN/UMA has not achieved widespread adoption within handsets or operator networks, and Google may feel that Google Voice is a superior alternative. 



On 1/9/2010 10:55 AM, Dave Farber wrote:





Begin forwarded message:


*From:* Bob Frankston <bob2 () bobf frankston com
<mailto:bob2 () bobf frankston com>>
*Date:* January 9, 2010 10:44:33 AM EST
*To:* dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>, 'ip'
<ip () v2 listbox com <mailto:ip () v2 listbox com>>
*Cc:* <mailto:nnsquad () nnsquad org>nnsquad () nnsquad org
<mailto:nnsquad () nnsquad org>
*Subject:* *RE: [IP] Reports of Google Nexus One 3G and Support Problems*
My complaint about voluminous disclaimer was aimed at our legal system rather than the Nexus. If I need a manual something is wrong though it 
has taken some learning to use my Nexus and there are still some
aspects I’m getting used to. But I haven’t had radio problem s that are 
different from those with my G1. Getting 3G from T-mobile is still
problematic – often moving the phone an inch will move it fr om E to 3G.
These problems with repurposing a cellular network as a data network 
are one of the issues behind my comments on Ambient Connectivity
<http://rmf.vc/?n=UAC> (new). If anything my big complaint is that the 
Nexus, like other Androids, lacks the ability to act as an access
point (tethering) – a feature built into my Win Mobile phone . Also I bought my Nexus unlocked but it lacks the radio necessary to let me use ATT’s towers as an option. This is an arbitrary design d ecision – after all when companies like HTC, Samsung etc produce phones they do 
them for various carriers rather than for users.
The Nexus (like other such devices) are very powerful and convenient 
personal computer devices reduced to begging for the ability to
communicate and settling for a repurposed voice network. For that
matter when I do have a Wi-Fi connection but no cellular, wh y can’t I get voice over the IP path? In fact T-Mobile has phones which do this 
but so it’s a matter of policy not technology.

*From:* Dave Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
*Sent:* Saturday, January 09, 2010 07:10
*To:* ip
*Subject:* [IP] Reports of Google Nexus One 3G and Support Problems 




Begin forwarded message:

  *From:* Lauren Weinstein <
  <mailto:lauren () vortex com>lauren () vortex com
  <mailto:lauren () vortex com>>
  *Date:* January 9, 2010 3:13:58 AM EST
*To:* <mailto:dave () farber net>dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net > 
  *Subject:* *Reports of Google Nexus One 3G and Support Problems*



  Reports of Google Nexus One 3G and Support Problems

  <http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000664.html>http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000664.html


  Greetings. Various media points are reporting fairly widespread
complaints about customer support and technical problems related to 
  Google's new Nexus One Android phone (
  <http://bit.ly/5MB22D>http://bit.ly/5MB22D [PC World] ).
The volume of postings appears to have been sufficient to trigger 
  Google's "real time search" mode for the search term "nexus one
  complaints" at this time.

  The customer support complaints seem to involve both pre- and
post-sale issues, tales of finger-pointing between T-Mobile, HTC, and Google -- and a reported lack of other than (currently slow) e- mail 
  support from Google related to the phone.
I do not know at this point the extent to which these complaints are or are not representative of the overall Nexus One user population. In these kinds of situations, you usually hear from the people with problems, not the folks who are satisfied. Of course, it's the former 
  group who most need an effective support structure in such
  environments.
I did receive an unsolicited message from a reader (possibly reacting 
  to my "The Google 'Nexus One' Saga Turns Ugly" blog posting from
  yesterday -
  <http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000663.html>http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000663.html
  ) expressing
  incredulity that his Nexus One arrived with voluminous legal
disclosure documentation but (he reported) no manual of any kind.
Concerns over the Nexus One's 3G performance appear to be piling up 
  ( <http://bit.ly/6keyck>http://bit.ly/6keyck [TFTS] ). Again, it
  is impossible to estimate
  at this time how representative these are, and of course any
  associated
  real problems (if actually related to the phone itself) could be
caused by anything from hardware issues (usually a hassle to fix) to 
  firmware issues (typically much easier to deal with).
Since my longstanding concerns and recommendations regarding Google's support structure in general are already quite well known, I won't go 
  farther into that aspect here for now
  (
  <http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000509.html>http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000509.html
  ).

  --Lauren--
  Lauren Weinstein
<mailto:lauren () vortex com>lauren () vortex com <mailto:lauren () vortex com > 
  Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
  <http://www.pfir.org/lauren>http://www.pfir.org/lauren
  Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility -
  <http://www.pfir.org>http://www.pfir.org
  Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad -
  <http://www.nnsquad.org>http://www.nnsquad.org
  Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
  for Transparent Internet Performance -
  <http://www.gctip.org>http://www.gctip.org
  Founder, PRIVACY Forum - <http://www.vortex.com>http://www.vortex.com
  Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: <http://lauren.vortex.com>http:// lauren.vortex.com 
  Twitter:
  <https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein>https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein

Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>



<http://www.listbox.com>


Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> [Powered by Listbox] 
<http://www.listbox.com>


Archives






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Current thread: