Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > BlackBerry CEO writes Feds, seeks mandated cross-platform development

BlackBerry CEO writes Feds, seeks mandated cross-platform development
Thread Tools
NewsPoster
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 10:22 AM
 
Blackberry CEO John Chen appears to be turning to the US government for help in broadening the app ecosystem for the struggling Canadian handset, as well as railing against a US-centric view of net neutrality and possible Title II regulation at the same time. In a blog post taken in part from a letter the CEO wrote to members of Congress, Chen defines not only what he sees as an ideal path for net neutrality, but also complaining about a "two-tiered wireless broadband ecosystem" where content providers like Apple and Netflix are free to not develop for all wireless platforms.

Despite being the CEO of a Canadian company and having little, if any, say in the debate, Chen writes that US policymakers "should focus on more than just the carriers, who play only one role in the overall broadband Internet ecosystem." He also writes that US lawmakers should "demand openness not just at the traffic/transport layer, but also at the content/applications layer of the ecosystem."

Title II regulation of broadband would apply regulation to ISPs similar to that of utilities, such as water and power. While the ISPs and some governmental supporters believe the FCC may not have this power, if implemented, US broadband access would be more tightly monitored for abuses, predatory pricing, and other anti-consumer measures. Additionally, the ISPs would be subject to independent ombudsmen deciding if the companies were taking advantage of their power over consumers.

Most Republicans and large Internet Service Providers decry the possibility of Title II legislation. AT&T has written that "going backwards 80 years to the world of utility regulation would represent a tragic step in the wrong direction. Utility regulation would strangle investment, hobble innovation, and put government regulators in charge of nearly every aspect of Internet-based services," but has not offered any concrete evidence that such regulation would actually harm consumers compared to the status quo. Sprint disagrees, and doesn't feel that Title II would cause any real harm to the wireless ecosystem.

Blackberry, like AT&T and most of the rest of the carriers, believe that Title II regulation is overkill. Forgetting that a lawsuit from Verizon about terms it agreed to as part of the broadband auction of 2008 launched the whole debate, Chen writes that existing regulations spelled out under 47 CFR ยง27.16 formed to regulate that auction is the way to go, as Verizon "has lived under those rules ever since."

Chen points to BlackBerry Messenger as the ideal example of net neutrality for content providers. "Tens of millions of iPhone and Android customers around the world have since downloaded BBM, and are enjoying the service free of charge," says Chen. He points to Apple and Netflix as discriminating against BlackBerry customers for not in return making iMessage and Netflix streaming available, respectively.

Chen complains that "iPhone and Android users are able to access far more content and applications than customers using devices running other operating systems. These are precisely the sort of discriminatory practices that neutrality advocates have criticized at the carrier level."

It is unclear what exactly Chen is looking for, or how far it would extend. Chen is seemingly advocating for cross-platform development as a mandated standard, which would put a massive burden on most developers that don't have the resources that Apple or Netflix does. Netflix has chosen to not develop its app for BlackBerry, and said so in 2013, without giving a concrete reason. The likeliest reason for the absence would be the small market share of BlackBerry devices in Netflix's target market.

Chen's suggestion could theoretically be implemented with HTML5. However, the burden of making a platform attractive to developers is up to hardware manufacturers (which BlackBerry continues to fail to do so), while critics say it shouldn't be left to legislators. When Apple was on the losing side of developer's labor, it didn't turn to legislation to demand that developers code for its particular OS, but took steps to build marketshare, and make development less of a zero-sum equation.

Regardless of Chen's self-serving want for wireless platform agnosticism, MacNN and Electronista believe that there is a clear case for government oversight of the biggest tier of the ISP industry, for broadband in particular, but also for cellular. In many cases these companies are one and the same. However, like President Obama, we do not endorse wholesale application of the entire Title II mantle on providers, nor do we endorse strong regulation of smaller providers -- as both are not wholly without valid arguments about the costs of bandwidth expansion, and how best to bear the costs thereof.
( Last edited by NewsPoster; Jan 23, 2015 at 08:25 AM. )
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 11:13 AM
 
"policymakers should focus on more than just the carriers, who play only one role in the overall broadband internet ecosystem"

What an ill-informed and ignorant statement. You might as well say that the CPU in a computer "plays only one role" in the overall operation of the computer.

Out of the title "broadband internet ecosystem," the carriers' "one role" encompasses nearly 100% of "broadband" and "internet."

Just because an entity is in control of a single role doesn't mean that the role that they play is small or insignificant. Without the carriers, your phone is utterly useless, so the fact that it's only one role doesn't mean squat. It's not the quantity of roles that an entity plays, it's the importance of the roles that they play.

Jeepers, man, what an ignorant statement by Chen.
     
climacs
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in front of my computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 12:44 PM
 
i would like to think he's trolling on behalf of the carriers...
     
Flying Meat
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 01:31 PM
 
Is he saying he wants regulations to make developers from other companies write software for his platform?
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Flying Meat View Post
Is he saying he wants regulations to make developers from other companies write software for his platform?
Yes.
     
coffeetime
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 01:42 PM
 
It looks like he is on his way out the door. He is pulling his last stunt that makes 0 sense.
     
bjojade
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 04:35 PM
 
So what he's saying is that any software that gets developed must be released on all platforms. Who determines which platform it gets released on? What if the destination platform has technical hurdles that prevent a piece of software from functioning on that platform?

Now, I would agree that communication protocols should be opened up so that cross device communication could occur. iMessage is great, but ONLY on Apple devices. If iMessage would be available on Android, Windows and Blackberry, that would be amazing. I would agree to requiring developers of communication protocols to require that those protocols be made available cross platform in some way or another. Even if it required the destination platform to pay the developer costs to port, that would be fine. i.e., if BackBerry wants iMessage on their devices, they simply would pay Apple the costs to develop it on their platform.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,