The Third Screen

Playing around with the new Yahoo Go 3 application got me to thinking that most of my mobile Internet needs do not really require a browser. As I blogged here, Go 3 is Yahoo’s new mobile developer platform, designed to facilitate the creation of mobile applications by independent software developers. On your mobile phone, Go 3 is a single icon that serves as a browserless widget container (Yahoo calls it a carousel), where the widgets are software applications created by third parties such as Ebay and MTV. According to Yahoo, the carousel format is optimized to present information effectively on a mobile phone screen.

I have owned more than a dozen Internet ready phones with almost as many different mobile browsers. But, much as I like having access to the Internet on my phone, I rarely use it for browsing because it isn’t worth the hassle. The fact is that mobile browsing stinks. Even the best mobile browsers (Apple’s iPhone Safari and Opera Mobile) leave much to be desired. It’s not the browsers’ fault. The mobile phone form factor is inherently difficult to work with. People, including myself, tacitly accept this as an inconvenient fact of life. But, like spotty cellular coverage, one that is still better than any of the alternatives.

It was a minor revelation, then, when it occurred to me that the mobile browser may not be as indispensable a part of the mobile web as most seem to assume. If you think about it, a person’s browsing habits while on the go differ from their browsing habits when in front of a PC. In my case, it’s access to specific bits of information - such as a restaurant review or the latest sales stats - that makes a mobile browser handy. I seldom find myself wanting to aimlessly meander around the net while in my car or on the street, the way I am wont to do when at my desk. While the latter certainly requires a browser, the former lends itself to specific purpose-built widgets particularly well. I know that I would access the mobile Internet much more frequently if I had a few browserless widgets that provided the bits of information I want when mobile.

If my opinion is representative of others, it means a lot for the thousands of developers that are rushing to put their apps onto mobile phones. The main challenges in developing mobile applications are:

• Less memory than a PC - Users can only install a limited number of applications, so application developers must compete for space on the device.
• Slower CPUs than a PC - Users can only run one or two applications at a time, so application developers must compete for space on the active task list.
• Multiple Operating Systems - With no fewer than six popular operating environments (Windows, Blackberry, Palm, Symbian, Apple and Android) and many many more that are lesser known but still in use, application developers must struggle to ensure that applications work on every one.
• Limited battery life - Use of the device CPU must be minimized in order to conserve battery, so application developers must try to move all heavy processing to the server side.
• Smaller screens - The averge mobile desktop can only display 15-20 icons, so mobile developers must compete for 1-click access to their applications. They must also format menus and such to conserve screen real estate.
• No mouse - The standard point-and-click mousing paradignm is not available, so application developers must adapt to scroll wheels or trackballs.

To date, mobile developers have looked to solve the first two limitations by creating web-based applications. That only half works however, due to the last three limitations. Notably, the best feature of Web 2.0 - Ajax type browser scripting - is not practical on a mobile browser due to the heavy local processing tasks. The result is all too evident in the mobile web we all live with today. Until advances in hardware technology overcome these limitations, mobile application developers will not be able to replicate the PC web-browsing experience in any real way.

But there is an alternative it seems, and Yahoo has found it. By providing a single application environment with potentially viable answers to all of the hardware limitations mentioned above, Yahoo takes much of the headache out of mobile application development. All things equal, it means that more developers will port more applications to more mobile phones, more quickly. The result would be a more useful and user-friendly mobile web. Bravo to Yahoo for identifying the challenge and taking it on.

Of course, whether Yahoo can execute on the strategy remains to be seen. For one it would require mobile application developers to embrace Yahoo’s browserless widget container format, and create widgets for it. For another, it would require users to adopt different behavior when using the mobile web. The first is a much more significant challenge than the second, but neither are any mean feat.

And, if my premise proves correct, and mobile applications thrive in browserless widget containers, then you can be sure that others will follow Yahoo’s in their footsteps. After all, being the company behind the dominant browserless widget container would put Yahoo in the catbird seat. Certainly Google will not sit by idly while this happens.

The good news for Yahoo is that they have first-movers advantage, and a large user-base that will make it easier to encourage user adoption. Additionally, few others are positioned correctly to pull it off. Because the widget container must work seamlessly with all operating systems, the dominant operating system providers would be at cross purposes if they attempted a similar strategy. Could you imagine Microsoft promoting a widget container that made it easier for programs to run on Linux? Me neither. (Google could likely pull it off though, despite Android).

Only time will tell if the factors in its favor are sufficient to get Yahoo’s browserless widget container to the tipping point. But, its a meme worth keeping an eye on. And for that reason, so is Yahoo.

____________________

More: New York Times

Yahoo has made headlines from its new mobile strategy, announced this week at CES. The details have been widely reported (see here), but the announcement is particularly interesting to me because it is the first attempt by a major internet player to provide a general purpose widget API designed specifically for the mobile phone environment. Yahoo has been having its lunch eaten by Google of late, and this is its latest bid to secure mindshare in the rapidly growing mobile space.

Unlike the Google Android mobile OS, which competes with other mobile OS makers such as Windows, RIM (Blackberry), Symbian (Nokia) and Apple (iPhone), Yahoo’s offering - called Go 3 - is not hardware specific. To the contrary, it is a mobile developer platform that aims to hide the daunting jungle of mobile environments from application developers by providing a single development environment that will work on a majority of existing phones. Firms such as Openwave Systems, Callwave, Zumobi, Flurry and Mobio Networks also cater to mobile developers, but do not have the same broad base of existing users that Yahoo does.

And, while Go 3 is clearly meant to promote Yahoo’s own search services, the company has resisted the content owner conundrum and promised to allow competing services (search and other) to create applications within its environment. Some of the first widgets available include an eBay bid tracker, a mini-MySpace client that offers a small number of basic features such as adding friends, status updates, and commenting on photos, and an MTV News widget that delivers the latest entertainment stories and lets users search for albums and artists from their cell phones.

This is an expected and natural extension of the recent moves by Facebook and Google to open their social networks to application developers. Still, as the first mobile-centric version of the widget vision, it deserves special mention. And if it performs as advertised, it will provide value. The mobile phone is the next great Internet frontier, but it poses challenges to application developers due to the limited screen size, awkward pointing devices, and less advanced broadband networks. Yahoo’s offering is designed to make it easier for the developer by masking these complexities. The current list of supported phones includes 270 different models, and Yahoo claims that more are to come.

Among other things, it compensates for the inability of many mobile phones to support scripting necessary for cool Ajax-like interfaces by moving this processing to its own servers (browser -based scripts consume up to 5 times more battery power). It also provides a common context for browserless applications - termed widgets or snippets - within its “carousel” user interface. The Go 3 developers guide expains:

• A Widget is an application with customized layouts that appears on one or more separate screens. Users can add published Widgets to their My Widgets page by selecting them from the Widget Gallery. Users also have the option of adding Widgets to the Yahoo! Go carousel for faster access.
• A Snippet is a “mini Widget” that appears on Yahoo!’s mobile home page and on the Yahoo! Go Home Widget, and can extend onto a separate screen. Snippets share a standard layout, with Yahoo! navigation aids framing the screen; they can link to Widgets and to external Web sites.

This is all very new, and much of it it is still vaporware. But it provides an exciting glimpse of the future to come. And in case you missed it, the discussion has moved from walled gardens to open applications with hardly any fanfare. Now that’s progress!

The result of Facebook’s recent decision to open their API to third party developers is that application providers suddenly have a chance to reach millions of eyeballs with virtually no sales or marketing expense. A clever application can grow virally at a pace never before possible.

One such benefactor of this phenomenon is RockYou, a bay area start-up that makes widgets that get deployed through partner publishing sites such as Facebook. The company’s Super Wall widget, which allows your friends to post messages, photos and videos on your “super” wall in Facebook, was downloaded by 2 million users within two weeks after it was introduced. According to the company, it now has been downloaded more than ten million times.

The surge in popularity has left RockYou with an enviable problem: how to monetize its sudden traffic. Their answer: a Super Wall API that allows widgets produced by others to interact directly with the Super Wall widget and its users.

The Super Wall API allow users to share content from any third party application to their friends’ Super Walls. For developers, the API provides an incredibly powerful viral channel for freely distributing your Facebook app. With over 3.7 M active users, Super Wall is the fastest growing platform for reaching new users on Facebook.

Exposure on Super Wall can introduce Facebook users to lesser known widgets and, in theory, encourage direct usage. When a new widget is installed through the RockYou API network, a RockYou advertisement is displayed, and the revenue is shared between RockYou and the widget’s developer.

The concept of an API for another API is very meta (to quote Pete Cashmore). But, it makes perfect sense as the natural expression of the network effect within social networks. The inherent value of any social application can increase exponentially as it is adopted by users of other social applications. One can easily imagine another widget becoming widely used purely for its connection to Super Wall, and in turn releasing its own API. This could continue ad infinitum, with each succeeding generation of widgets adding value to the federation of widgets as a whole.

As the second largest social network, Facebook deserves props for pushing this idea into the mainstream. Although the idea of openness is one that has been percolating for years, and the network effect is hardly a secret, the natural tendency for network owners is to keep out the “have-nots,” once you become a “have.” The reasons for this are analogous to those that fuel the dumb pipe dilemma in physical networks. By resisting this temptation, Facebook has forced the other social networks to open us as well (as evidenced by the subsequent happenings with the iPhone and the MySpace decision to throw in with Google’s OpenSocial). And these events, together with the looming auction for “open” 700Mhz spectrum, argue that the physical networks (eg. cellcos) are not far behind.

At the same time, the phenomenon raises some interesting questions. For starters, how would Facebook react if a widget were to develop a user base larger than its own? It’s easy to be “open” when you are the second largest social network gunning for the top slot. But fortunes turn, and Facebook may not always be the media darling that it is today. It remains to be seen whether Facebook would resist the urge to clamp down if openness were to mean enabling a potential competitor. The optimist in me hopes that an enlightened attitude would prevail.

Another intriguing question concerns the eventual overload of APIs. If every successful widget begets another API, the number of APIs will quickly become daunting. Unless a standard evolves, new widget developers would conceivably have to work with dozens, or even hundreds, of distinct APIs.

Or would they? My next post will suggest one possible alternative.

_______________________

Related: Fortune on CNN, WSJ (subscription required),

At Solegy, we spend a lot of time talking about how new technology will change the way that users interact with media. While we don’t profess to know what the future holds, one thing is for sure: the days of undivided attention are over. Anyone with kids between the age of 9 and 21 (who roughly fall into the Gen Y or Millennial category) will attest to the multi-tasking skills of tomorrow’s consumers. It is virtually impossible for kids to engage in a single media activity these days, and nowhere is it more apparent than in their television watching habits. Instant Messaging, Video Chat, You Tube, Joost, text messaging, Gameboys, PSPs and virtual worlds (such as Second Life and Disney’s hot pre-teen property VMK) are but a few of the concurrent activities in their media mosaic.

As evidenced by a new ad spot - Televisiphonernet - somebody at Comcast gets the idea. It is the first mainstream media advertisement to address the newly evolving role of interactive media in television viewing habits. The repercussions of this evolution are many, especially for advertisers. And, as Gen Y starts to enter the job market (with its attendant disposable income) content owners must find ways to “engage” viewers for the benefit of advertisers by weaving other forms of interactivity into their fare. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for Comcast to put this knowledge into practice.

Frontline Wireless, the 700Mhz hopeful and employer of former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, has asked the FCC to exclude Verizon from the upcoming 700Mhz spectrum auction for violating the agency’s rules of conduct.

In particular, Frontline is alleging that Verizon did not disclose the subject matter of a September 17th meeting with FCC officials. Apparently, those rules mandate that companies meeting with FCC staff regarding an ongoing matter (such as the 700Mhz auction) are required to disclose a description of those communications to other interested parties.

Like any other large corporation, Verizon has always used its deep pockets to out-lawyer smaller rivals. When facing any type of judicial or administrative body, they count on their ability to bury competitors under mountains of filings and pleadings. Few concerns have the stomach (or bank account) to deal with such a deluge.

It’s not surprising then, that a company like Verizon might try to bend administrative rules with impunity. Frontline, however, has an ace in the hole when it comes to dealing with the FCC. What better way to neutralize Verizon’s size advantage than to trip it up with a keener understanding of the agency’s administrative minutiae, courtesy of its former commissioner?

Speaking as an entrepreneur who has been on the receiving end of big company tactics more than once, I take great pleasure in being reminded that there is justice in the world (at least every once in a while). For more details on the story, see the the PC World article here.

September 2007 may come to be known as the turning point for ad supported phone calls. No fewer than four companies have launched new services or received funding for business models that revolve around ad subsidized free phone calls.

• Blyk, the UK MVNO that is perhaps the most well-known of the pack, went live on September 24th with an ambitious free mobile phone service. As the website claims, “[w]hen you join Blyk you get a free SIM with 217 free texts and 43 free minutes, to any UK network. [And] every month Blyk refills this SIM and, like magic, your free balance returns to 217 texts and 43 free minutes.” As the quid pro quo, users receive 6 color advertisements sent to their phones as MMS targetted to their specific profile.
• On the same day, Pudding Media announced the availability of a beta web site that allow users to make free outgoing calls in return for allowing bots to eavesdrop on conversations. Using speech recognition technology, Pudding’s servers listen for keywords that, combined with knowledge of the users gender, age range and zip code, trigger a targeted advertisement to be displayed on the user’s web browser (which must be open while the call is being made).
• Earlier in September, VoodooVox announces that it had raised $8.1 Million to build on its In-Call Media technology. The company provides a platform that can be used by any organization that processes bulk calls (such as call-centers, phone card providers and ITSPs) to insert targetted audio messages during the period of time before a call is answered, or while a caller is on hold.
• Also, in September AdCalls announced the the availability of a service that would also allow organizations to promote free calls to its users using the AdCalls platform. Though the Adcalls website is not completely clear about their business model, it appears that they are also targeting bulk callers or call receivers to deliver targetted audio messages during call dead space.

Last but not least, the much anticipated Gphone from Google also received further buzz in September with the revelation from Digitimes that a Google phone is “definitely” on the way (likely to be manufactured by Taiwanese handset OEM giant HTC). While Google’s intended business model is not entirely clear either, it is a safe bet that any services offered will be supported at least partly by ad revenue.

Two patterns are becoming discernible amidst the recent ad-supported call activity. First, you have companies that deliver advertisements using non-call media (like Blyk with MMS or Pudding with a browser) versus those that insert audio messages into the phone call itself. Second, you have companies that seek to mine the content of phone calls for keywords (such as Pudding’s speech recognition) versus those that rely mainly on semantic information from user profiles (and other user-supplied data). With both, there is an inverse correlation between user privacy and user convenience, and all of the companies mentioned above fall at different vectors within the continuum. It will be interesting to see which approaches work best as these companies pursue the various models.

Ad supported phone calling is a concept that has been around for years. I still remember the Dialpad.com PC calling service (later purchased by Yahoo) which aspired to provide free-to-the-user ad supported PSTN calls as early as 1999. I am happy to see that the stars are finally aligning to make it a reality. Yet, only time will tell which of the many models being attempted will work.

Not one to waste an opportunity for shameless self-promotion, I would like to point out that Solegy’s ServicePDQ platform and Voice Banner application have the capability to serve ad content during phone calls, and to adjust the charges applied to such calls based on flexible user-defined rules, in real time. I am, accordingly, enthusiastic that yet another Telco 2.0 business model seems to be making its way into the mainstream.

Today marks the end of my third week as an Ooma White Rabbit (that’s Ooma’s euphemistic term for guinea pig). And while I generally avoid commenting on VoIP gadgets or services, I feel compelled to make an exception in this case to give praise where it is due. I don’t know whether Ooma will ultimately succeed as a business concern, but I believe that it breaks new ground in the category of user-friendly consumer VoIP devices, and will raise the bar in this regard for all VoIP services to come.

There has been much criticism of Ooma recently (for anyone unfamilair with Ooma, you can find Walt Mossberg’s review for the Wall Street Journal here, and many other reviews and opinions here). Seemingly, many of those who disparage Ooma have never actually tried the service, and others who have focus on factors that are beyond the accountability of any VoIP service provider (such as faulty home wiring). Much of it sounds like sour grapes. In my opinion, Ooma has managed to put together an innovative VoIP offering amidst a sea of so-so and me-too products.

Instead of making comparisons to phone replacement VoIP services such as Vonage or Sunrocket, the best way to think about Ooma is as an add-on for your existing phone line (much like Tivo augments a cable TV subscription). I won’t get into a detailed review of the Ooma features but, among the several that Ooma touts, the one that sells me is the instant second phone line. Using HPNA over your existing twisted pair wiring, Ooma provides a second dial tone that behaves just like your first. If you have a single phone line, then Ooma seamlessly makes it behave as if you have two. If you have two phone lines, you could realistically consider giving one up and still gain some new features in the bargain.

But the Ooma device and service is more than a cleverly engineered hack of your home telephone wiring. It is a new benchmark in form and function. From the online sign-up, to the activation, to the design and aesthetic of the physical user interface, everything just flows. As simple as that may sound given today’s service-oriented world, it is still the exception rather than the rule. Kudos to Ooma for pulling it off.

________________________________________________________

P.S. Much of the criticism of Ooma concerns its $399 price tag. It is worth noting that one can roll their own Ooma-ish setup for about $100, with PhoneGnome. Though not an apples-to-apples replica, PhoneGnome has many similar features. Having also used PhoneGnome in the past, my preference would be to pay the extra money for Ooma. See here to compare for yourself.

As a frequent trade show exhibitor, we at Solegy are always looking for new ways to attract people to our booth. Raffles, schwag, dancing girls…. we’ve tried it all. Or so I thought. Today at the Internet Telephony Conference and Expo in L.A. I came across a novel marketing gimmick that’s so simple and effective that it made me slap my forehead for not thinking of it myself.

Like any tech-oriented conference, the IT Expo has no shortage of laptop toting geeks looking for the next opportunity to go online. You can’t shake a stick without crossing the path of someone, notebook akimbo, trying to feed their email jones. As a card carrying member of the aforementioned group, I know that a fair amount of time and attention is spent in pursuit of open (unsecured) WiFi access points to do just that.

Apparently, the geeks at Kentrox know this too, and were smart enough to take advantage of it. Because, mixed in among the T-Mobile, Linksys, ‘free internet’ phishers, and other sundry WiFi access point names was the SSID ‘Visit the Kentrox Booth’. Brilliant! What a great way to get their name front and center.

Now that the secret is out, I see a trend taking shape. Can it be long before Google starts aggregating the rights to use SSID names and reselling them to online advertisers? The possibilities are myriad. Now, if only Kentrox had actually allowed me to use their access point…

P.S. After I wrote this post, I Googled SSID Advertising and discovered that the SSID Advertising revolution is well underway (when did that happen??), though a bit short on details (see Exhibit A: http://www.ssidadvertising.com).

Tomorrow, July 31, the FCC will vote on the bidding rules to be employed for the upcoming 700Mhz wireless frequency auction. The outcome is of paramount importance to the future of the Internet in the United States. At issue is whether the bidding rules will be designed to thwart the monopolistic tendencies of established phone companies. To the dismay of Internet aficionados everywhere, the telcos’ combined capital and lobbying power seems hard to beat. At least in my opinion, an outcome that does not work to their benefit is extremely unlikely.

Even so, the fact that the debate has made its way into the public consciousness to the extent that it has will do much to loosen their choke hold on wireless airways. The telcos are able to maintain a wireless walled garden only because we, as consumers, allow them to. Once consumers understand how much better a “mobile Internet” could be, market demand will cause carrier intransigence to fall by the wayside.

Whichever way the FCC vote goes, the culmination of this epic struggle is worthy of some appreciation. Fought in headlines and blogs, these firms have staged a public relations battle royale par excellence. Like charging elephants or attacking killer whales, one can’t help but be enthralled by the sheer magnitude of the feints and parries.

Thus, in honor of the final curtain, I have assembled a timeline to better assist fellow observers follow the plot of this larger-than-life spectacle. Note: it’s still a bit rough, but check back as I intend to refine it over the next days.

October 2005 - Google goes to Washington DC “to defend the Internet as a free and open platform for information, communication and innovation.” With the current incarnations of Verizon and AT&T spending over $50 Million to lobby Congress in 2006 how could they afford not to be there? Why did they wait so long?

January 2006 - Ed Whitacre, AT&T’s Chairman and CEO, kicks the Net Neutrality debate into high gear by suggesting that content providers should be paying extra to reach AT&T’s last mile customers.

January 2007 - In an effort to quell anti-competitive fears spurred by the Net Neutrality debate, the proposed acquisition of AT&T by BellSouth contains unprecedented (for a telco at least) language acknowledging the benefits of a “neutral” Internet.

May 2007 - Open Internet Coalition formed by group of 54 Internet companies, including Google, Ebay and Earthlink, sends an open letter to U.S. Congress in favor of Network Neutrality principles.

June 20, 2007 - FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein goes on the record in favor of open access.

July 9, 2007 - Google submits an ex parte filing to the FCC 700Mhz proceeding. In it, Google urges the FCC to adopt four rules to make sure that regardless of who wins the spectrum at auction, consumers’ interests are the top priority. The rules are:

• Open applications: consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
• Open devices: consumers should be able to utilize their handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
• Open services: third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
• Open networks: third parties (like Internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee’s wireless network.

July 19, 2007 - In an interview with USA Today, FCC chief Kevin Martin proposes to implement “limited open access” that is substantially less than what Google has proposed (basically incorporating open devices and open applications) . Citing a paper by Columbia’s Tim Wu, Martin’s proposal follows in the footsteps of the FCC’s previous Carterfone decision (Carterfone was a ruling that allowed consumers to connect any type of telephone to the PSTN). Some pundits cast this as a success for the “Google block,” despite the lack of support for the important open services provision. Other’s cite Martin’s close ties to the telcos and question his motives.

July 20, 2007 - Verizon issues a press release warning that adoption of Google’s proposed rules will reduce the incentives for other players to bid and decrease the proceed to be earned by the U.S. government from the auction.

July 20, 2007 - Surprise, surprise… AT&T endorses Martin’s limited open access plan as a “creative compromise.” Did anyone really believe that they hadn’t traded notes beforehand?

July 20, 2007 - Ostensibly in response to Verizon’s press release, Google pledges to bid at least $4.6 Billion. CEO Schmidt’s billion-dollar guarantee is meant to erase the telco talking point that open access conditions would short the U.S. treasury billions of dollars in auction revenue — as no company would be willing to bid on spectrum that’s been tied to such requirements.

July 23, 2007 - Google announce investment in femptocell vendor Ubiquisys. This is interesting because femptocell technology offers a partial end-around the wireless networks, letting consumers access online services from a GSM phone, using existing broadband (DSL and Cable) connections.

July 25, 2007 - Martin publicly opposes open access as envisioned by Google. He also says that if the reserve price for the auction ($4.6 Billion for 1/3 of the available frequencies) is not met for the “Google Block,” - and if Google doesn’t enter the auction, it very well may not be met - he will remove the restrictions for open access and try again.

July 26, 2007 - Surprise, surprise surprise… Verizon agrees with Martin. In an 11th hour shift from its position of the previous week, Verizon said it will back Martin’s limited open access plan. Verizon making a concession? Hardly! By now, it’s crystal clear that Martin’s limited open access proposal was a calculated mechanism to allow the telcos room to appear to compromise.

July 26, 2007 - Google announces partnership with Sprint/Clearwire to offer optimized Google services to users on the the jointly-built Wimax network. Sprint/Clearwire appears to be positioning its new network as an open access alternative to the 700Mhz hoo-hah, and goes so far as announcing an API that will allow software developers to create new wireless applications.

Today’s Wall Street Journal had an interesting article (subscription required) on the current state of the wireless walled garden. It cites several recent clashes between handset vendors and cellcos over the extent to which consumers can use their phones to access non cellco content. Says the Journal:

At stake for consumers are what services will be available on their mobile phones and whether they’re free or cost a monthly fee. The wireless Web is taking off more slowly in America than overseas, and one reason is that U.S. carriers tightly control what applications are available on mobile devices. That’s a contrast with Europe and parts of Asia, where carriers’ control is less tight and where wireless services have been more broadly available for years.

The conflict is an outgrowth of the dumb pipe dilemma, in which wireless carriers now find themselves.

As the Web goes wireless, they want to prevent a repeat of what happened when the Internet first arose. They provided access to it, but the businesses that thrived were others, such as Amazon.com, that provided services over the Net. Carriers were reduced to what the industry calls “dumb pipes.” To avoid that plight, wireless companies tightly control what services cellphone consumers can access, their cost and who displays what on cellphone screens.

I love that the issues surrounding wireless network neutrality are finally starting to get attention in the mainstream media. For that, we have Steve Jobs to thank. The upcoming release of Apple’s iPhone is putting a spotlight on the struggle that content vendors face when they try to create direct relationships with mobile consumers. The fact that Apple convinced AT&T to allow its subscribers to access iTunes (as opposed to a generic AT&T music service) is the first small victory in a war that is sure to escalate over the coming months and years.

Meanwhile, the next front of the battle is taking shape in the FCC where the rules for the 700Mhz spectrum auction in January are now being hashed out. The availability of the 700Mhz spectrum (currently being used by TV broadcasters) creates an opportunity for new wireless networks that would eclipse those currently available from the major wireless carriers. As a result, the outcome of the auction competition could determine the direction that competition for mobile services will take in the years to come.

__________________

Related: Washington Wire, Ars Technica, Washington Post