There are a bunch of different mobile music services out there (and more popping up every day). Some involve getting downloads to your phone, and others involve streaming (and, of course, there are things like ringtones and ringbacktones for specific functions). But Music Ally points us to a new service launched with Orange UK (and Universal Music) that will let users dial a voice call to hear some music. Basically, you call into an IVR system, and get a variety of options on what playlist you want to listen to. There's some functionality where you can set up your own playlist on a computer, and then access it via the IVR. Of course, the service is quite limited, especially in that it only has Universal Music music right now. The article describes the service as "free" but also targeting "pay as you go" customers, which makes me wonder if people are paying for those voice "minutes" that they'd use (which could add up). Perhaps I'm missing something? I also would think the very limited selection is an issue. Still, it's fascinating to see someone try such an experiment to get around some of the other barriers -- especially for folks with lower-end phones that don't have all the bells and whistles and app stores of higher end phones.

It's really sad to see some of the struggles that legacy businesses go through in trying to adapt to a more modern world, but not all of it is the fault of those businesses themselves. Look, for example, at what's happening with Verizon. Subsidiary Verizon Wireless -- which is 55% owned by Verizon -- began a marketing campaign pushing people to ditch their landline phone and go completely wireless. That's not a bad marketing campaign (and, in fact, might be a very good marketing campaign these days). So what happens? The union that represents Verizon's landline telco workers flips out and accuses the company of trying to undermine the union by helping Verizon get out of the landline business, so it can get rid of those workers. Seriously. First of all, there's little evidence to suggest that's true. Like most traditional telcos, Verizon still sees its basic landline business as a useful cash cow that I'm sure it intends to milk for as long as possible. Chances are, since VZW is a separate company, the marketing plan had nothing to do with the parent's marketing efforts. But, either way, at some point the company should be pushing customers to ditch landlines and other older technologies and embrace better solutions. Not because it puts old union guys out of work, but because it's where the market is headed.

Earlier this year, we covered AT&T's back and forth over its terms of service, concerning whether or not services like SlingMedia's place shifting (streaming from your TV to a phone or laptop) was allowed. Some had noticed that AT&T's terms of service appeared to forbid it -- but then AT&T said it was a mistake and took it out, only to change its position a little later, and reinsert the language. Because of that, Sling had to disable its own player from working when an iPhone is connected via the 3G cellular network, rather than a WiFi connection.

Yet, recently, Major League Baseball's digital arm, MLB.com announced that it was going to start streaming video of games to its iPhone app, even on 3G connections -- and AT&T seemed fine with it. However, this differential treatment is leading to charges of favoritism and discrimination, even bringing out the dreaded charges that "net neutrality has been broken." The specific question is why AT&T gets to choose which streaming video apps are allowed, and which are not. If your regular ISP told you that you could watch Hulu, but not YouTube, there would be quite an outrage.

AT&T's response is disingenuous, at best, claiming:

AT&T said the MLB app streams video from MLB's website, while SlingPlayer streams from the TV set-top box Slingbox. AT&T also said the company is only trying to ensure all users on its network get the best possible service.

"We're certainly not crippling any apps," an AT&T spokesman said. "This is an issue of fairness.... While we would like to support all video services across our network, the reality is that wireless networks simply lack the capacity to support customers streaming hours of cable, satellite or IPTV video programming to individual users."

While this -- once again -- highlights the point that mobile cellular services are nowhere near legitimate competitors for real broadband services, note that the AT&T person never actually answers the question. The fact that Sling streams from a settop box and MLB streams from MLB's website is functionally meaningless to the iPhone. To the iPhone user it's the same thing. It doesn't care where the server is placed -- it's just receiving a video stream. So AT&T is not being honest or upfront about this at all. If the network is a problem, then it shouldn't allow video at all. Picking and choosing who gets to run video certainly smacks of discrimination and favoritism -- exactly the sort of thing the FCC claims is not allowed.

The Skype app for the iPhone proved to be an instant hit, topping App Store download charts around the world, including Germany, where T-Mobile reminded its customers that using Skype, or any other VoIP app, could get them kicked off its network. The operator now says it's "looking at different ways of dealing with VoIP", perhaps including offering some special plan where users would have to pay some fee to use VoIP. It also says it's not actively blocking any voice apps, although when it begins selling the Nokia N97 smartphone later this year, the Skype application that's normally pre-installed on the device will be stripped out. T-Mobile's justification for removing the app is great: it's not because they don't want people undermining voice revenues by using Skype, but because "by not putting Skype on, subscribers could choose from a number of VoIP apps, and not be limited to just one." That's as opposed to having Skype pre-installed, and customers being able to download and install any other VoIP app alongside it. Only in the world of mobile operators does removing choices for customers actually increase customer choice.

T-Mobile has announced that it's expanding its offer of a $50 per month unlimited voice service plan across the US, becoming the first of the country's four biggest operators to start to fall into line with the $50 voice ceiling. Given the constant price battles in the mobile industry, you'd expect the other major operators to follow T-Mobile, or lower the prices of their current unlimited offerings that also include text messages and data. But one interesting aspect of the T-Mobile plan is that it's only available to customers that have had T-Mobile accounts in good standing for at least 22 months, making it more of an effort to retain existing customers than attract new ones. This reflects the rapidly changing focus of the business from attracting new customers to also retaining current ones. One of the quandaries posed by US mobile operators was that, historically, they gave better deals and prices (especially on new handsets) to new customers than current ones, giving good customers an incentive to churn to a rival so they could get a free new device. This stance has changed over the last couple of years, as the industry standard contract length has grown from one to two years. Second, the T-Mobile offer reflects the company's standing in the market. Its quarterly net subscriber additions are falling, while the company's seeing a lot of competition at the low end of the market. This new plan is aimed at helping on both fronts.

It's no secret that the various cable companies have been interested in offering some sort of mobile phone service. A few years ago, the biggest cable companies (Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cox) teamed up with Sprint to offer mobile phone service under their own brands, building on Sprint's experience in allowing others to offer their own branded mobile phone service (known in the business as being a mobile virtual network operator -- or MVNO). Of course, since then, a ton of MVNO efforts have failed (remember ESPN's own mobile phone service?) and the cable companies never actually moved forward with offering service on Sprint's network. There was some thought that the cable companies were still interested in something in the mobile space, and Comcast and Time Warner are a part of Sprint's WiMax offering, but clearly Cox had decided to go its own way by that point.

Even so, it's quite surprising to find out that Cox is entering the mobile phone business for real -- as in building its own network. The company has apparently been acquiring spectrum to serve its market, and negotiating with handset providers. The article is a little unclear, but it sounds like there may still be a roaming agreement with Sprint, since the article claims the phones will work on both Cox's network and Sprint's -- suggesting Cox is working on an EVDO network. However, the company also claims that it's looking at using LTE as its "4G" technology. LTE is the technology chosen by pretty much everyone else in the US but Sprint, which is betting on WiMax.

Cox claims that its mobile service will be highly integrated with the other aspects of its business, including letting people watch TV on their handsets, control their DVRs from the handsets and automatically synchronize phone address books with home computer address books. It's good to see them thinking about real integration between services, because that's still pretty rare, but those services are all going to need to work pretty well together to make it really convincing for most people. Either way, you could see this as the epilogue to the death of MVNOs. While we've already seen that most MVNO plans went nowhere, it's quite a statement when a company is now choosing to build its own damn network rather than just piggybacking on someone else's.

For many years, we saw stories, usually pushed by security software companies, about how mobile phone viruses were some huge threat that had to be dealt with quickly before they spread around the world. Of course, that hasn't actually happened -- and there are some good reasons why it's unlikely. In fact, it seemed like such stories had been decreasing lately, perhaps in part due to some security firms scolding competitors for mobile virus FUD.

So, we were a bit surprised to see yet another story on the subject, this time suggesting that we're on the verge of (I'm not making this up) a "Cell Phone Zombie Uprising." Some researchers are predicting that mobile phones would be perfect for botnets, though, again it's not clear how that would actually happen, given the limitations of phones. While it is true that phones have become more powerful (and open) over the past few years, there still hasn't been much evidence that viruses and such are a real threat. Most phones are designed well enough to not make it easy for apps to just install themselves -- so consider us skeptical until there's real evidence of a mobile botnet rising.

In the past month, it has become clear that Apple, through their App Store, is going to exercise a lot of control over the programs that iPhone users download. The list of removed App Store downloads include Tetris clones, harmless but expensive novelties, movie listings and useful wireless applications. Although many have sung the praises of the new system, this trend of contingent generativity - Jonathan Zittrain's term for intermediaries exerting control over new creativity - has some worrying implications. An ecosystem with perfect enforceability of rules will come to preempt the creativity which comes from the edge (and even piracy). If developers worry that their applications will be shut down by an overzealous enforcement organization (there is no evidence Apple is pulling applications after anything more than a third-party complaint), then innovation will stagnate.

Google seems to understand this. In announcing their competing service, the Android Market, the Android team notes "We chose the term "market" rather than "store" because we feel that developers should have an open and unobstructed environment to make their content available." Application creators will be as free to post information as videographers are to post to YouTube. Although the lack of review before posting doesn't mean Google will not remove applications if complaints are made, their ethic of freedom suggests they see mobile applications in the same light as the Internet: creators will build unanticipated, useful applications if given the chance to experiment freely.

Originally I wasn't going to write about Nokia's decision to purchase the rest of Symbian and then open source the code, but a few people have written in to ask about our take, and the more I think about it, the more interesting it becomes. There's certainly been a palpable fear lately among some that things like the locked-down iPhone represent a dangerous "future" to be avoided.

But that doesn't seem to have much historical support. New markets often are driven initially by locked down and proprietary solutions, but openness tends to prevail in the long run. The reason many markets start out with closed and proprietary solutions is that you need a comprehensive enough solution to address the market, and it's often difficult to do that in an ad hoc manner. A proprietary solution gives control to one person or a small group of people who can easily drive the project to where it needs to be to drive adoption. However, in the long run, more open solutions then win out, because competitors realize that the real game is being a platform, which is more important than being the comprehensive supplier. And the way to become a platform is to sign up as many developers as possible, and free them to make your platform much more valuable. That's much easier to do in an open or open source environment.

This is why we're seeing this particular decision to open up Symbian, and also explains Google's open approach with its Android offering. It also explains why Apple's iPhone, which was totally closed at the beginning, has been slowly opening up to try to combat the rise of more open competitors.

Finally, this move by Nokia is a recognition of the economics of infinite goods. Just as IBM helped massively boost its services business by betting big on Linux, Nokia recognizes that freeing up Symbian helps turn it into a services company as well. Freeing up that infinite good (the software) helps generate more demand for the scarce "services" provided by the company. There may be some stumbles along the way, but on the whole this is exactly the type of bet the company needs to be making. And, at the same time, it shows that there's little to fear concerning a future world of "closed" systems a la the iPhone. Every such closed system is merely an opportunity and an invitation for competitors to become more open.

In recent years, we've seen the entertainment industry suddenly embrace mobile as a platform, incorrectly believing that its more locked-down nature would mean that it wouldn't face the same "threats" (which they should see as opportunities) of file sharing and open networks and services. However, as is always the way, more open systems are catching on and getting more usage, and more closed systems are having trouble getting traction. Rather than embracing that, however, it appears Nokia is pushing to hold back the tide.

Ben S writes in to highlight a rather unconvincing talk given by a Nokia VP trying to explain to open source developers why they need to embrace DRM, intellectual property, digital locks and subsidies in the mobile world. However, his reasoning basically amounts to "because I say so."

"Why do we need closed vehicles? We do. Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]."

In other words, there's no actual reason to use these things, other than that Nokia says you must -- even though it knows such things harm the industry. Way to show leadership in the mobile industry. No wonder it seems like most innovation in the mobile space is coming from folks other than Nokia.