iPhone: AT&T deal under scrutiny by government, Verizon - Page 3

Sry, double post.

.

By 'handle' I meant that Apple would researching the requirement of eventually becoming their own MVNO. A huge commitment, but quite possible with Apple's money. And knowing that Apple likes to control the entire environment and the real money is in the cell service. I can see Apple either buying a smaller carrier's network after it has several iPhone versions in a few years. The idea of being able to use your AppleNet carrier with your iPhone to connect to your home Mac via your .Mac account all with zero configuration would be a benefit to many. (that is pure speculation)



Hence the monthly payments from AT&T that hide these higher fees from the consumer's initial purchase.



I'm not sure I understand this "multi-carrier" term you are using. I thought you meant "unlocked". Are you suggesting that Apple open it's phone to the big-4 carriers while still maintaining a locked phone from other carriers? If so, would Apple have 2 or 4 different versions or one version that can easily be moved from carrier to carrier. Wouldn't this cause a conflict of interest in Apple's attempt at getting a monthly service fee (forced to only get a subsidized payment) and not being able to research and innovate in manufacturer/carrier integrated services?

Yeah, I accounted for that. Even doubling the Euro average to reflect free incoming, as I did, still leaves the Euros way below US voice usage.


Nearly all US carriers offer free unlimited mobile-to-mobile, free unlimited nights, AND free unlimited weekends as a matter of course (all on the same plan).

Though, like you, we do have to sign a contract to get all of those goodies.

.

According to Wikipedia* and its citations the RAZR had many versions sold in various places. The iTunes capable RAZR V3i was sold in the US by Cingular, though the V3r/V3t versions sold by Cingular and T-Mobile used Motorola's Digital Audio Player. Also, a dark blue version in the UK was the V3r and therefore had no iTunes.

* I know, it's Wikipedia anc be edited by anyone, but I tend to believe a well written article with well cited sources more than your average faceless poster on AI.



PS: TBaggins, according to Wikipedia "The Motorola DAP does not suffer from this [100 song] cap; however, it takes considerably longer time to load and uses the V3's battery at a much faster rate than iTunes does." I'm just sayin',

I don't see Apple going MVNO unless it has no other good options. MVNO is kind of the worst of both worlds for them... a major headache for Apple AND they're still reliant on a carrier to lease airtime/network capacity from.

As Jobs said, "The carriers have probably forgotten more about how to run a network than we know."

Buying a network isn't a walk in the park either. It would probably cost them something like 30, 40 billion dollars to buy up enough network to offer good national coverage. That's a great deal of cheddar, even for Apple, even now. And is it a business they really want to get into, or is it something that distracts them from their core competencies?



I don't think the iPhone really COSTS $1000-1500 to make, if that's what you're trying to say. iPhone teardowns, while inherently lowball because they tend not to include significant costs such as R&D, marketing, shipping, etc., still don't come anywhere near that figure. Nor do competing 'super-phones' like the Nokia N95, which arguably have more features/capability than than the iPhone.



Apple would only need 2 versions (CDMA and GSM), not 4. Verizon and Sprint are both CDMA (as is Alltel, if you want to throw a 10 million customer regional carrier into the mix), while ATT and T-Mobile are both GSM. 'Other technology' networks in the US market, such as iDEN and TDMA, are well on their way to being retired, so Apple doesn't have to worry about them.

I guess WiMax might be the lone 'third option' that Apple may have to worry about supporting, eventually.


No, or at least, I don't think so. Apple can offer the deal to the other carriers, and insist upon things like visual voicemail being part of the bargain. And if you're an ATT competitor, do you really want to NOT support features like that, knowing that ATT is going to club you about the head and shoulders for it in their advertising? Why do the iPhone half-ass, if you know the competition is going to point that out very vocally? The same thing could hold true for Verizon and its policy of crippling/blocking certain Bluetooth file transfers.

And why can't Apple get a cut of the monthlies from multiple carriers at the same time? It would be part of the deal. "You want the iPhone? Pony up."

.

C'mon solip, you must be getting by now that the ROKR was Apple-crippled to avoid cannibalization of the iPod. The Moto OS/UI *is* a bit slow (at least pre-JUIX), but there's no true fig leaf there, if you dig in and really read about it.

All this of course is now a non-issue, because Apple is now happy to self-cannibalize the iPod with the iPhone... hey, better them than someone else.

.

Sometimes I really like what I read on AppleInsider, and other times I think the article titles here begin to resemble that of MacCentral or CNN. Folks, I prefer the truth in all forms, including headline content. Since when did one man, a Democrat no less, become the entire US Government? Since when? Since AppleInsider wrote the headline, I guess? Well, thank God AppleInsider is not running the US Government. And folks, Ed Markey is a member of our Congress but he alone is not "the Government." The appropriate title should have been:

iPhone: AT&T deal under scrutiny by Congressional Representative

or

iPhone: AT&T deal under scrutiny by Democrat from Massachusetts


I personally think that Apple would have liked an unlocked iPhone because they know more people would buy it that way. But they also wanted some firsts in the market, including Visual Voice mail. Apple also wanted profits above and beyond the phone itself. To strike those two key deals (Visual Voice Mail & contractual royalties), they had to get into bed with one partner. And the only partner that made sense to Apple was AT&T, despite how bad AT&T is in many respects. But as one consolation, Apple knew it would not have to lock the phone (and in some cases, legally cannot lock the phone) in countries outside the US. So they are merely looking forward to those sales while enduring the wrath of AT&T hating customers in the US (and the wrath of Ed Markey).

But as much as I personally think an exclusive with AT&T stinks, I feel strongly that the market should be left alone. Republican or Democrat, "representatives" of our government should keep their noses out of it. Every time the government sticks its nose in something, my tax burden increases and red tape abounds.

And those of you bashing the President need to muzzle it. As much as I'd like to bash the President, I can't for two reasons: (1) because so many people are doing it, leaving me no freedom to do so with a clear mind; and (2) because the President has absolutely nothing to do with this article -- it's about one Congressman, AT&T and the iPhone, for crying out loud.

With that said, I strongly suggest that during the next Presidential election, regardless of whether you are Republican or Democrat (or other), you need to vote for someone who doesn't make it a family business to run for public office. If your father was President, you should be legally banned from running for President (or any other public office). And I felt that way long before Bush was ever elected, so my thoughts on this "family ban" have nothing whatsoever to do with how good or bad our President has conducted himself in office. Vote out the incumbents. And vote Yes on "term limits" for all members of government, not just the President! (Ed Markey has been in office since 1976!) Only then can we expect the representatives of the US Government to leave well enough alone in the free market.

I have to agree, Everyone complains about contracts and phones, With every provider except Verizon you do not have to get a contract or get a free phone. People do have choice, but they obviously do not see it that why. The Providers have conditioned everyone they can get a free phone if they get a plan with minutes. Then People see no value on the phone anymore and then complain they have to have a contract.

Look you can go out pay full price for any phone which has not been designed specifically for a provider (iphone excluded) and go to any provider which the phone is compatible (remember Verizon is the odd man out with CDMA, but with GSM you could can go to a number of providers) and get their sim card and no contract and your set, and you can change provider as many times as you like.

But if you want the free phone or the product the provider has you have to sign the deal with the devil.

One last point, besides Verizon not allowing their phones to be unlocked, they also disable lots of the functionality of the phones like BlueTooth file syncing. The other providers let you use all the features of the phone.

Also, we all are assuming the iphone can not be unlocked and moved to another provider. I think this a bad assumption. The deal with AT&T is about distribution, it did not say anything about longer term use. In two year I bet there will be a way to unlock and move the phone to another provide since at that time there will be other provider with iphone services. Remember the deal is only for this phone, if apple comes up with other phones they could be offered by other providers. Once this happens i bet you could move the current iphone once your plans is up.

Yawn. Its not 'bashing' if its true. Dubya SUCKS, and I'll happily say it 'til the end of time.

And most of the country knows it, considering the guy's approval ratings are at 29 percent, i.e. nearing 'Nixon during Watergate' levels. Even my ultraconservative mom and older sister have stopped defending him, and that is saying something.

The worst Prez since Herbert Hoover. Tough to do, but he worked at it.


.

Don't let the owners of the network infrastructure be the carrier providers. This goes for cell phone, cable, fiber, whatever. Remember in the 90's when you could choose between 100 local ISP's when your only internet connection was the phone line? Wouldn't it be great if we could have the same choices over cable, fiber, and cellular networks?

Yep. But by the same token, Verizon is also the only carrier who pro-rates the early termination fee on their contracts. You don't see ATT, T-Mobile, or Sprint doing that. You always pay the full ETF with them if you want out of a contract early. \

So yeah, I could see why you'd want to go sans contract with those providers.

Btw, Verizon isn't really the 'odd man out' by going with CDMA. In the US, CDMA is actually more popular than GSM. Sprint is CDMA too, as are all the big regional carriers (Alltel, US Cellular, Cricket, Metro PCS).

Meanwhile, GSM in the US is ATT and T-Mobile... and that's about it (aside from a few *tiny* regionals- Dobson was the last one left of any size, but ATT is buying them out).


.

Haha! Nice! Verizon is being defensive because they know they turned down a HUGE opportunity. I bet they never thought the iPhone would be this big of a deal. C'mon fellas. Here's a tissue. Now go sulk somewhere else. LOL

ps. I am actually on Verizon. Sucks I can't use an iPhone but then again at those prices I'll pass.

The biggest reason why there was this space for Apple to expand the definition of a phone is that the monopolism that the wireless networks practice in the U.S. actually retards development. The wireless networks need to be deprecated against the phone developers. The wireless networks need to share connections -- in much the same way the Internet works. The closest tower snags the call, and gets the connection fee. Then the home network gets to transport the call and get the fee for that. Then, the destination phone gets picked up by the tower it's nearest to, no matter what the company is. Revenue-sharing. The network needs to be one big network, and the wireless companies are just ISP's.

He is the head of the appropriate committee, and the Democrats, as much as it seems a shock to you, are running the House and Senate. It's not quite accurate to call it "the U.S. government," but foreigners don't understand that we have divided branches of government, and even Americans don't seem to get it.

I agree that the free market is best. What is bad is that the "free market" is being used as a monopoly. Imagine if the major participants of the Internet market unhooked from the legal restrictions of the Internet, prioritized the messages of their own ISP and charged you if you wanted to look up the "wrong" website that was hosted by a competitor, and then started giving away free computers only if you signed up with them for two or more years. That would be an immense tragedy. In the old days, sane Republicans would have recognized that for what it is: restraint of trade.

I agree he sucks, but Carter was the worst Prez. of all time. The War aside the country is in much better shape now then under Carter or even Ford for that matter. Clinton wasn't much better either, IMHO his poor management of foreign affairs is what lead to 9/11, and Bush's subsequent mismanagement.

The prob is that you can't just sweep it under the rug by saying 'the war aside', 'cuz the war is HUGE. Half a trillion dollars, four years, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands wounded, and of course we have helped totally f*** up that country. The media is bad about focusing on it, but there are literally millions of Iraqi refugees who've fled the country.

Additionally, Bush (and Cheney, and Rumsfeld) have 'Vietnamized' the US perhaps as badly as Vietnam itself did in the '70s, making us much less able to respond even if someone like an Iran or North Korea got really out of hand. We'll be feeling the effects for a long time to come, especially our poor beat-up military.

And the corruption, the botched response to Katrina (where thousands more Americans died, this time at home), the pathological focus on politics and cronyism over competence, the endless kow-towing to the religious right on everything from stem cells to family planning to gay rights, the rampant budget deficits, the destruction of our national reputation via Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo and the secret black sites in Eastern Europe, the drag-assedness on global warming and renewable energy, the failure to do anything on immigration, the contempt for our American civil liberties and the law...

Jesus H, you could go on for days about how much this administration sucks. It's actually exhausting. No, I remember Carter. He was ineffective, but this guy and his crew are definitely worse. And at least Carter has been a good ex-President with his charity work, Habitat for Humanity, etc.

Somehow, I think Dubya is going to find a way to still suck once he's out of office. Hard as that is to do.

.

You?

"Bipartisan members of Congress spoke out today to free the iPhone and other next generation hand-held computers from the grip of phone incumbents like AT&T and Verizon.

During the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, representatives from both sides of the aisle called for a more open wireless system where new innovations aren't held hostage to the competition-killing carriers that control the network.

In what's been dubbed the "iPhone hearing" Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and "Chip" Pickering (R-Miss.) called for a different system - where wholesalers could compete and new applications and devices could be connected regardless of carrier.

"The iPhone highlights both the promise and the problems with the wireless industry today," Rep. Markey said holding up before other members his newly acquired iPhone. "On the one hand, it demonstrates the sheer brilliance and wizardry of wireless engineering. On the other hand, the advent of the iPhone raises questions about the fact that a consumer can't use this phone with other wireless carriers."

Markey highlighted myriad problems with our wireless marketplace, where "many consumers feel trapped having bought an expensive device or having been locked into a long-term contract with significant penalties for switching."

Representative Pickering called for more openness in the marketplace stating that "openness is creating a wholesale market" for applications and services."

It would be nice to keep the politics out of this one, particularly the discussions of politicians not mentioned in the story.

how about fuck the government... bunch of murdering criminals.

Actually I can, with regards to judging the presidency or the state of the country under him, the war is an entirely over blown issue the media and dare I say it Democrats like to focus on, and it's still only one issue that despite the medias hype does not effect most Americans' daily lives.

The War itself should never be swept under the rug or downplayed, and Bush and co. have totally fucked it up.

But that being said and my point is the country is in a much better place now then in the late 70's, and as much as a borderline retard Bush is, he has done a much better job than Carter, or Ford. Now the overall presidential legacy has much more to do with timing, history, and the entire cabinet than the individual man, but thats not how you nor the media portrays it.

Yes this is now getting way off topic I apologize for my role in that.

Steve Jobs went to Verizon and asked them if they wanted to be a part of this before he went to Cingular, Verizon turned it down.

Besides, in order for Visual Voicemail to work, Cingular (AT&T) had to make changes on how their equipment handled voicemail. So you couldn't use visual voicemail on any other network currently.

Give it time, I'm sure the iPhone will make its way to other providers just as the RAZR eventually did.

Also, comparing how the US is so different than everyone else is kinda silly. Remember the US has a lot more infrastructure to upgrade when new stuff comes out, so regulations have to be a little different. I get so tired of how people complain that Japan and Europe has so much more options with cell phones, it is more than just the device, the infrastucture has to be there too. Japan is smaller than the state of California.

ZING indeed!

Assuming that:

1) Solipsism knows my real name

2) Solipsism has access to my credit history

3) My credit was poor

Touche?

For those of us with ATT coverage, the Apple and ATT monopoly that Ed Markey and, of course, all ATT's competitors would like to investigate, might well be a possibility. It is in the area of no coverage where ATT, and derivatively, that Apple might face law-suits.

For those people living in areas where there is NO ATT coverage, ATT is still telling people to go ahead and buy the iPhone. A friend who lives in a wealthy rural area of the US was told that two days ago. The ATT store manager even said that hundreds of people in this region had come in and bought the iPhone, and that was confirmed by the folks in the Apple "store" a couple of doors down the street. But the "Apple" folks warned that there might not be ATT coverage but that it was up to the purchaser of the phone to get a "deal" out of ATT.


Now, the ATT store manager did not mention this, but my friend, on returning to the ATT store, which actually had a couple of 8G phones-- the store selling Apple gear, did not-- brought this up and one of the other employers, said it was true and that the user would have to "roam." He then said that that could become a huge problem for ALL the people who had bought the iPhone in that area, since after more than 40% roaming, ATT would turn off service and the iPhone would be a DEAD phone.

The manager finally agreed then said it was up to the customers to deal with ATT and get some sort of special deal. My friend asked if this store would help and the manager said, NO, he could not.

My friend then called Apple and got up to a fairly high level, where he learned that SJ understood that this would happen but it was nothing Apple could do anything about since Apple just sold the phone and did not have any mechanism to get ATT to make variances in its contracts.

This may be true, but ATT simply cannot allow the unwary users to begin a field day of roaming, then shut off the service because they have now violated their contracts.

By not informing them in the first palce is not ethical at worst and stupid at least.
For starters, why is ATT NOT in that geographical area-- the store manager said the other carriers-- by the way, little carriers that I have not even heard of-- would not allow ATT to operate there. That sounds like rubbish. It smacks more of more like a deal with ATT for some reason that ATT has agreed to. Monopolistic practices???

Apple DOES have a vested interest in this but perhaps is taking a step back to let ATT take the blast as there is surely going to be some very angry rich people with the most expensive iPods on the planet-- and they are not going to sit still about this.

Perhaps, then, Apple can apply its enormous weight on ATT. Simply, ATT should allow people in certain areas like this to be able to roam and NOT turn them off. This is an incredible catch 22 for these people and it is solvable.

Otherwise a very real class action suit- with MERIT for a change-- is likely to come about. This is not good for Apple-- I could care less about ATT, as the store manager's attitude seems to suggest that NOTHING has changed with our (ATT) carriers. I have to assume that this was the sort of thing that caused Apple some angst about getting into this market in the first place-- they have not got full control of the dog.

C'mon Steve, have a fit about this and look like you care for your customers. We think you do...

I like the European model.

I only buy unlocked GSM phones.

I put my out-of-contract T-Mobile SIM card in them. When I travel out of the States, I can use my T-Mobile SIM or a prepaid local SIM without issues.

If T-Mobile were ever to annoy me so much that I thought AT&T would be better (!), I would sign the shortest possible contract with the Evil One, then repeat the process. At that time I might actually consider an iPhone because of the contract, and the fact that it will be completely hacked inside of those two years.

Vendor-crippled phones, locking--all that stuff is just an excuse for having crappy service and draconian contracts.

You cannot assume the people that were buying the phone there were actually from that area. With the iPhone activation being handled through iTunes, you can actually purchase the phone anywhere and activate it whenever or whereever you want. Apple cannot help that coverage isn't everywhere.

And it is true that AT&T are not allowed into areas by other carriers (especially small carriers), simply because AT&T likes to piggyback on existing towers, if the owners of those towers don't want them in, they only have the option of putting up their own towers which requires permits and what not, so AT&T simply doesn't go in there.

I have never heard such bull. Verizon is upset that they are losing customers to AT&T, thats all this about.
Verizon never complained about the exclusive deals that Palm/Trio, Blackberry and Motorola has made in the past.
All you need to know about this is that Verizon is nervous!!!

Other wise please explain why has it taken them six years for Verizon to get upset about this issue?
The iPhone is a huge hit and Verizon is worried now. Thats all this about plain and simple.

To some of the people who posted about it being unfair that Apple and AT&T have this exclusive. This deal is no
different to consumers than the deals Motorola struck when the Razor first came out, or the deals Trio or RIm has made.
I have a Blackberry from AT&T and I can't take it to Verizon. Verizon has a Blackberry model that won't run on AT&T.

I have no idea what you mean-- I was quite clear-- these are local people who bought the phone, not travelers. And of course, I realize that ATT might not be able to get permits- yeah, right! And, they cannot demand to piggy-back. That was not the point I was making. ATT has an obligation to tell you what the consequences of FORCED roaming are.
I spoke to Congressman Markey's office a while ago and they are going to pursue this.

In the example of not being able to use a particular Blackberry (or any other phone) on another network, that ought to be explained at the time of purchase.

Sorry, but that's a bit... well, wrong. And Bush's presidency will definitely be judged on the basis of Iraq, far more than any other issue. Even most conservatives I know acknowledge that (and then sigh, and mumble stuff under their breath).

Aside from that, I think you make some credible points, even if I disagree with many of them. Let's hope we have some better choices in '08.

.

Not so much. But at least your sig is nice revenge.

.

I firmly believe all phones should be unlocked. It's only fair. Think about it, you're like "OMG I LUV MY IPHONE IT'S TEH SEXY, SO I SIGNED DA 2 YEAR CONTRACT."

But it's not a 2 year contract, it's a 5 year contract, your if you stay loyal for 2 years then wanna change companies, your iphone is now dead.

It's not just iphone it's all phones, that do that and ass rape consumers. Imagine you were like "I LUV ESSO SERVICE FOR MAH CAR, I'LL ONLY USE THEIR GAS!" then after 2 years you change and you go "NAH THAT'S NOT FOR ME, I WANT TO USE TEH SUNOCO!" and then your car was rendered useless.

That'd but fucked up and eveyone would be up in arms about it.

The itunes thing doesn't count because you don't have to pay for itunes, I've been using it for years and I've only every downloaded, the weekly free song from them sometimes. And now Steve pushing for drm free music, even further lifts the barely existent itunes stranglehold.

People should be picking their contracts based on which carriers offer what they percive to be the best value to them for their voice, data, etc. Not because whichever phone they choose will become a brick once the contract is done.

I agree completely. But, unfortunately, some sales reps (and even entire stores) are 100% about the commission, and will gloss over or even fail to mention completely any potential problems. Reps like these exist at all carriers, its an industry-wide problem.

I think a good way to combat it would be to simply retroactively yank their commission for the sale if the user either cancels the contract due to bad service or is cancelled by the carrier for excessive roaming within a few months of the sale. Hey, you shoulda done the legwork, rep.


I... don't think that's going to happen. The problem, as it often is, is money.

When you roam on another carrier's network, your carrier has to pay fees to the carrier your roaming on... that's what roaming agreements are all about. And of course, your carrier doesn't LIKE paying a lot of money out to other carriers, so most carriers have rules against excessive roaming. I know for a fact that Sprint will terminate your contract if over 50% of your minutes are roaming on another network, even if your usage was like that only for a month or two.

ATT probably isn't going to let users 'roam freely' for all the minutes they want, simply because it'll end up costing them a lot of money. And Apple sure isn't going to pay for it either.

The main thing is for reps and stores to be honest and not sell iPhones (or any phones, period) to folks who live in areas where they're obviously going to be roaming excessively. But that then goes back to the 'dishonest rep' problem I stated above. \


.

Well by the media yes, but thats very ignorant, and simply buying into everything you watch on the news. Thats not to say he's doing a good job in any way shape or form, because he's not. It's just saying that to point out he's the worst president since HH simply because he's done a horrible job with the War is simply stupid, and just wrong. The more logical thing would be to address the state of the country at the end of his presidency. That being said the economy is fairly strong, unemployment is not bad. I don't see any gas lines, we are not in a depression, or even a recession. Education has improved. Taxes have gone down. And as bad as Iraq is its nowhere near a Vietnam ( appx. 3,600 US Armed Forces casualties vs. 58,000 US Armed Forces casualties, to be specific). When all is said and done, down the road after the Iraq mess blows over GW will wind up having done a better job than Ford, Carter, and even his father for that matter. Despite what the media or popular current opinion will have you believe. Bare in mind I dont think the President is solely responsible for either the good or bad that happens under his regime.

Worst president, not even close, I will give you stupidest president though.


Aside from Hillary we will

Nope. By the people as well. And its entirely fair to do so, its a huge issue. Not that his record outside of the war is much better.

The media has not made me believe so either, though they always do make a reliable scapegoat for any politician in times of trouble. And I have a pretty good filter against both left- and right-wing media.



Its not just the war, though, he's screwed up many other things, as has been listed elsewhere. Katrina, anyone? Universal health care (or lack thereof)? Immigration? Civil liberties? The environment and global warming? Deficits? Energy policy? Over-politicization and cronyism in, well, everything? Blanket incompetence? Destruction of American soft power, reputation, and influence worldwide? Kowtowing to the religious right on most everything?

The list of suckage just goes on and on and on with these guys... it's tragic.


As Republicans were so fond of pointing out during the Clinton years, the President can only take a small amount of credit for the economy, at best. Additionally, growth is slumping, and we have big problems in the housing sector as well as the trade deficit (especially with China).


You mean the No Funds Left Behind Act? Yeah, laying down mandates without providing much in the way of money to achieve them isn't that helpful. Every teacher I know simply rolls their eyes at this.


Sure, with the lion's share going to the rich. And the deficit has exploded as a result. Look to see the Bush tax cuts either not being renewed by Congress, or being heavily modified and tilted more towards the middle class (as they should've been to begin with).


The numbers are different, but the effect is the same. The US has been 'Vietnamized' once again, and will be significantly more hesitant to go to war in the future, even when it may be very necessary. Privately, military commanders acknowledge this to be a disaster.

And the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've died may differ with you on the human toll of the current war.


Nope. Dubya's approval ratings are plumbing depths not seen since the 'Nixon during Watergate' era. We're talking subterranean here.

But its always nice to pretend that history will vindicate one's record, isn't it? I'm sure that's what Dubya and all his top cronies are telling themselves, over and over. Must be a mantra behind closed White House doors by now, I'd think.


On that one thing, we can agree.



And yet, she may well win. Though I prefer others.

If she does, she can thank Dubya for having set the bar so low. She'll look good in comparison, almost no matter what she does.

.

Since when does a US Citizen, born and raised and educated in California no less, who lived more than the first 24 years of his life in the US, suddenly become a "foreigner" when he decides to live outside the Land of the Free for a number of years? It's the same mentality as those who love to label us "X-Pats." As in "X-Patriots." As in "You once were a Patriot, but now you are not." Or more simply put, "You are disloyal to your country by living outside its borders." I'm sorry, but I am still a US tax payer, support the US economy with my money, vote on a regular basis, and participate in quite nearly every way as most Americans, even to the extent of making my voice known online in forums like this one! If I was disloyal or hated my country, I would take another's country's citizenship. I am still a US Citizen because, despite its flaws, I still have a love for my country. So I am by no means an "X-Pat" or "foreigner," regardless of my current country of residence.

Getting back to the heart of the matter, I do "get it" about branches of government. But a detailed analysis of the American form of government has nothing to do with the point I was making, which you yourself partly admit was correct by stating, "It's not quite accurate to call it 'the U.S. government.'" No it is not! It's a CNN.com-style viewer grab, plain and simple. I don't like headlines like that.

But above and beyond the headline, the thrust of my previous post was about keeping "representatives of our government" out of the free market as much as possible. If Congressmen from Massachusetts want to use an iPhone on a non-AT&T carrier, they should pound on the FCC. If anything has held back cellular technology and limited choice, it's the FCC -- part of our fine US Government! That's right. Ed Markey, a representative of our Government is in fact indirectly complaining about the dirty deeds of another part of our government! But rather than admitting that it's the FCC, Markey is blaming the free market -- that's the part I take issue with.

Come on Sheepeople. baaa baaaa. We should not have all these restrictions on cellular contracts. The fee model is outdated when home phones now have unlimited calling no long distance etc. really any any time minutes. We should have one fee for using the phone when we want to period. We should also not put up w/ the termination fees when paying FULL price for a phone!! I can understand where there are incentives, but come on people are you people or sheepeople? baaa baaaa. We need one network in the US also and we need to be able to take our handsets where ever we please!

I wouldn't be surprised if cell phones start shipping with an EULA this is similar to what is commonly used by software companies. Which basically give you the right to use the product but not own it.

Lol, global warming, go look at weather patterns over the last 1000 year instead of the last 100 you'll realize that there is no such thing.
Al Gore = Chicken Little
The sky is not falling.

You obviously buy in to most of the medias hype, and we can argue these points all day. I can point out how Clinton mishandled the majority of your criticisms of Bush just as poorly (i.e. healthcare, immigration), or how his mishandling of foreign policy (i.e. USS Cole, Somalia), and budgeting directly contributed to 9/11.

With regards to Iraq, I could simply point out how people fail to recognize we were dealing with the next Hitler here, and far fewer Germans would have died if we didn't get into WWII, did FDR make the wrong decision there.

But listen we agree for the most part that Bush sucks. But sorry I just cant jump on the band wagon and say he's even close to the worst president ever (well he is in the top five definitely). The War is not the defining issue for me, nor is his poor handling of a catastrophic hurricane. What is is the state of the country, to me its certainly better than it was in 1979, 1976, or even 1993 (hell I could even argue 2000), and to me thats the bottom line.

Stupidest president ever is fine with me, after all Carter was probably the smartest (but still the worst hands down) and they both suck.

I was going to stay out of this one because it is a tangent on a tangent and not being discussed at a very high level. But this is too bone head to let slide.

If you don't like Gore, fine.
If your repertoire of literary allusions peaks at children's books, fine.

But just saying it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. Sure, no one can prove global warming. Just like no one can prove smoking causes cancer. But for decades people deluded themselves into thinking "I smoke two packs a day and I feel fine." And there were plenty of scientists who would take $$ or publicity to say "well, maybe people who are predisposed to get lung cancer are just more likely to smoke."

For human induced climate change, there is plenty of evidence. The general mechanisms are understood. There are real measurements. Of course, prediction is far, far, far from exact and there are plenty of factors that are not understood. But to take that uncertainty and to say "meh" about the whole thing is some kind of delusion. Be skeptical, but don't be an idiot.

If you want an intelegent review of the actual science, check out the August 2007 issue of Scientific American, page 64, 'The Physical Science Behind Climate Change."

Sry, double post.