Complexity and Social Networks Blog

I am from Spain and here I am sure that happens the same. Often mobile phone users think on wasting less money so friends that are different carriers make shorter calls. I have seen people asking me: Are you from carrierX? Because if not I will call you from my work place that is cheaper.

At first blush, this makes no sense: telephone numbers are just telephone numbers, so why would which cellphone network make any difference? But the article makes the story clear: once again, economics undermine social structure.

As precursor, the evidence from other cellphone usage makes unmistakable the impact of price plans on usage. It has been the case in Europe, for instance, that high rates for cellphone voice calls pushed young users to use less expensive SMS (texting) instead. Whereas in the US, where voice rates were less prohibitive, texting was slower to take off. (Though not any more, it is clear, with an average of 435 US text messages a month, in some cases according to the article ...)

Now it seems, the carrier's enticement, with on-net free minutes, can insidiously undermine a social link, when a friend changes to a different carrier where the cellphone connection is no longer via free minutes. Interestingly, this comes to light within a larger tussle now underway.

Cellphone carriers have long controlled their individual 'vertical.' Which cellphone you can use on a particular carrier's net, or especially what services that carrier has turned on - or more to the point, disabled on a phone and therefore prohibited - is all controlled by the carrier. The upcoming auction in the US of 700 MHz spectrum, to be released when TV goes digital, has brought a response intended to open those silos. Google notably, and others, are campaigning for what has come to be known as 'open access,' a newer parallel to net neutrality, that would compel more flexibility across cellphone networks.

Now, with this article, we see evidence that verticality in the cellphone economics also undercuts the fundamental function of a network: to support the social link. Perhaps another rallying cry might be added to what are already several sub-parts for 'open access.'

What is the prospect for more opening? A friend in Colorado, Eric Dobbs, points at Apple's iPhone. He suggests that Steve Jobs succumbed to the AT&T wireless vertical for the iPhone while, Eric suggests, Job's in his mind's eye sees that carrier control will eventually slough off. Eric makes a parallel to the diminution of DRM (digital rights management) and Jobs' role helping to remove DRM from audio. Jobs first built iTunes around DRM to attract the big distributors, eventually he issued a call for its removal, and now iTunes actually sells some tracks without DRM.

Is this only a US campaign? I see there are also discussions of open acces in Europe too; our European correspondents might bring us detail. Raquel's post from Spain helps, on experience with price incentives there.

The NYT article does report a countervailing anecdote, it is important to note. Two friends, cut off by pricing between cell carriers, report getting together more frequently. That could be an ironic twist, with the seemingly-perverse economics actually strengthening what some see as the basic nurture for ties.

But for me anyway, another item from the article is especially tantalizing, quoting: “ 'Friendship networks,' [David S. Hachen, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame] said, 'tend to be larger in younger groups, but they have weaker ties with those they talk with. But as they get older, the networks are smaller and they have stronger ties.' ” This, once again, points to differences in the functioning of human networks, longitudinally, across the human lifespan, across stages in human development. Again this builds on the earlier discussion in March.
http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/2007/03/digital_life_and_design_conference_social_network_panel_discussion_asw_xing_facebook.html#comments

David

I don't have a cellphone network but if I did I am sure it would influence me and realizing this is embarrassing!

Although there is some collation generally between carrier and length of call, the true measure especially with Gen Y would be the texting patterns of the individuals.

Personally, I have been with the same carrier for approximately 5 yrs and haven't changed even though my closet friends and boyfriend are on different networks...mainly because this is the best deal for me.

There is really no surprise here. Calls on a cellphone are the most expensive form of communication we use on a regular basis.

It is human nature to take notice at the beginning of the call to note whether or not the call is "in network" or "multi network."

Knowing that a call is not costing anything removes the urgency to communicate the pertinent points as quickly as possible. Thus leading to calls of longer duration.