Did you hear the news? AT&T has an open network -- it’s had it for years. And it can’t quite see what the fuss is about when Verizon Wireless announced it plans to open up.

Me thinks the industry has gone a little batty with its new buzz word. I’ll admit that I’ve done just as much as the next journalist to introduce “open” into our daily lexicon, but won’t be held responsible for the complete and utter lack of nuance in which the word is used. Open is just a word that we’re tossing about willy-nilly these last few weeks, and I think it’s time we looked a little more closely at it.

Let’s tackle the first question: Is AT&T open? Yes, its network is open in a sense. It uses GSM technology, which supports the transfer of a SIM card from device to device. Furthermore it doesn’t block access to any particular application used on those devices. All of this is much to AT&T’s credit, but I think the critical point here is this: the network is by default open but AT&T’s business model isn’t. AT&T is ultimately a service provider, and it sells voice and data services. It locks people into contracts. It charges by the text, the minute and the download.

This isn’t a bad thing. It’s a business model millions are content to participate in. In fact, those people embracing the openness of the network are the exceptions. They don’t live in some parallel business unit AT&T recognizes, bills and markets to in a separate way. They’re outsiders that don’t want to play ball like the other kids, so AT&T lets them have their phones and then just treats them like any other voice customer.

What Verizon and Sprint seem to be implying with their open access bids is to create dual business models: one that follows the old closed model of service providers selling access plus services, and one that follows a new business model of selling just access. They’d bill for the models differently, and -- if we can believe them -- encourage the development of service and retail alternatives. Instead of buying a Verizon phone and service plan, you buy a Sony digital music player that comes configured to access the Verizon network for a monthly fee. You get the idea. AT&T certainly doesn’t do this -- admittedly Verizon and Sprint don’t do it yet either. They could just be tossing the term “open” around as haphazardly as everyone else.

If I am going to blame anyone for the abuse of the word open, I blame Google. It’s both a blessing and a curse they created the openness debate. Because of Google, openness is now a major issue and is forcing operators to overhaul their business models. But at the same time, Google is defining open for its own purposes. In the last few weeks the word “open” somehow got equated with the word “Android,” resulting in idiotic headlines like “Verizon embraces Android!” Android is one OS among many that, like many OSs, has some open aspects and some closed aspects. But somehow Google has managed to convince people that it alone flies the banner of openness. So any carrier that buys an Android phone is by default open. As a newly minted open access operator, Verizon will, of course, support Android, just as it has to embrace any OS that can function on a CDMA device. Any operator that didn’t would be by definition “closed.”

E-mail me at kfitchard@telephonyonline.com.