or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › U.S. senators ask FCC to examine exclusive cell phone deals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

U.S. senators ask FCC to examine exclusive cell phone deals - Page 3

post #81 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulfoaf View Post

Please. There is a huge list of things that are unavailable to people in rural areas. It is a fact of life. You can't force businesses to pursue markets that won't make money. There are so many things in small towns that are not competitive - one movie theater, on fast food restaurant, one ISP ...

Bingo!

Just as there are a huge list of things unavailable to people in Urban areas - a lot of those inhabitants just think the world revolves around them!
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #82 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Take a look at this article why RIM is the king of market share in the US.



Looks like iPhone is losing market share, because it's a consumer oriented device most likely. In tough times people buy the device that's going to make them money, and in business that's the serious looking Blackberry.

Also another important thing:



Pisses me off, Apple had a second chance to rule a market and they screw it up by ignoring the business market and catering only to consumers.


http://www.crn.com/retail/218000045;...PCKH0CJUNN2JVN

Okay, in case you're unaware, Verizon was running a "Buy One Get One Free" Blackberry promotion throughout most of the last quarter and that's why its market share was back up. No one is buying the "serious looking" Blackberry because they think it will make them money. Trust me, I've owned one and my brother's law firm requires he have one at all times. The email client on Blackberries is great, but literally everything else about them, especially the web browser, completely and utterly sucks.

In any case, Apple isn't ignoring the corporate world, they built Exchange support into the software, created the tools, and the rest is entirely up to IT departments to deploy. I will say though, if you've ever seen some of the awesome medical uses for the iPhone, you'd understand it alot better.
post #83 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exponent View Post

Dear sick turd:

A) You're not going to do any of that, because I and my loved ones have the INALIENABLE right granted by our Creator to bear arms, and will turn you into a good commie faster than you can say "boo".

B) If you choose to do any of that to someone else, a good society will put your ass in jail or to death. Only a bed-wetter comes up with convoluted phrases like "This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive." in response to battery and rape.

But I'm sure that's all lost on you, as you're a sick turd that likes to talk in the internet about battery, rape, and other people's wives. But I'm still spelling it out for any young impressionable kids reading this.

I'm glad I pissed you and a few others off with my melodramatic case for the social contract. Now, you are finally getting thie idea of it!

In the Law of the Jungle (in absence of an enforced social contract), you have no rights granted by a creator. You only have the rights you can preserve by force.

Who's to say you have better guns than I do? I may be a better shot and I could catch you by surprise.

I find it hilarious that you cower under the skirts of what a social contract provides you, even though you started this fight by denying that such a contract exists.
post #84 of 104
I hate to say this, but the answer is obvious. Exclusive contracts are good for consumers, despite that seeming counterintuitive at first. Yes, I would love the iphone or the palm pre on verizon, but the fact remains that if it weren't for exclusive contract, we those phones would not exist in the first place. It was the promise of a killer exclusive that convinced the carriers the give apple and the freedom to design a phone with no carrier branding, no forced carrier services and no tortured carrier specific UI elements.

I think the question is meaningless, because the root of the problem is the carriers themselves are a cartel, and preventing carrier exclusives does nothing to change that.
post #85 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by labrats5 View Post

I hate to say this, but the answer is obvious. Exclusive contracts are good for consumers, despite that seeming counterintuitive at first. Yes, I would love the iphone or the palm pre on verizon, but the fact remains that if it weren't for exclusive contract, we those phones would not exist in the first place. It was the promise of a killer exclusive that convinced the carriers the give apple and the freedom to design a phone with no carrier branding, no forced carrier services and no tortured carrier specific UI elements.

I think the question is meaningless, because the root of the problem is the carriers themselves are a cartel, and preventing carrier exclusives does nothing to change that.

Well, yes, but if the carriers were not allowed to act as a cartel but forced to compete and act as dumb pipes (I believe the term 'orifices' has been used by some to describe them), which is what they should be, then there would be no question of Apple (or Palm, or anyone else) having the freedom to design a phone without carrier branding and carrier specific UI elements. We still got forced carrier services, and that should end too.
post #86 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And, you might have added, 9674 usually knowledgeable posts, versus 31 random/angry/inane posts.

I think you and solipism are the same person - like me and beezlebub.
post #87 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roos24 View Post

Even though the request sounds fair, are those smaller providers riding piggy back on the main networks that the big ones spent billions on to put in place during the last decade, or did they install their own towers etc.?

It's actually the other way around. If you take a phone from one of the big carriers out into rural territory, you usually end up roaming on a Tier II provider, although the phone usually lies to you and claims you're still on the big carrier's network.

At least, until the recent Verizon/Alltel merger. Which is the problem - the Tier I companies can't build networks. They only are able to buy companies that do, and that's how they get networks in places that aren't big cities. As soon as the last remaining Tier II companies are bought up, you can expect never to see any new coverage in out-of-the-way areas again.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #88 of 104
At long last, legislators will act, hold Committee hearings where witnesses will testify under oath, and enact new legislation to protect consumers.

It also shows that some senators cannot be bought off with campaign contributions paid by lobbyists for major corporations.


post #89 of 104
The government asked AT&T for wireless records, government lawyers approved this action. Why would government lawyers then turn and prosecute AT&T for what it asked AT&T to do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystigo View Post

If AT&T can get away with illegally wiretapping its customers, I don't think it will have any problem with this one.
post #90 of 104
The government already messed up in controlling this type of lock in. When wireless business was being established the government should have mandated that every carrier use the same technology. That above all else would allow users to easily switch carriers.

The government cannot force Apple to make a CDMA phone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Seahawk Fan 2 View Post

That's not the point of what they are contesting. It's tying a phone to a Cellular Provider as and exclusive.

In othe words the iPhone would be available on Verizon and the Pre would be available on AT&T so people don't have to switch vendors to get the phone they want.
post #91 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

Life is not always fair.

BTW you do have a choice.

Where to live
Where to work

If picking your cell phone is so important, and you can't the phone you want....move!

People! Think they are entitled to EVERYHTING!!!


Not everyone has a choice of jobs or where they live. Just entitled children like you who have time to bitch about others sense of entitlement.


Handsets should be untied from carriers, that's just fair for the consumer.
post #92 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exponent View Post

Bed-wetter. The very purpose of government is to protect FREEDOM, NOT 'FAIRNESS'!!!

"- In order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure the Domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity -"

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply
post #93 of 104
I'm thinking it's better for the consumer to be able to buy an Acura at GM as well.

Although at second thought, it's a little like only being able to use Sony TV's with your local Cable company but this is a free market and if it's about being fair, why aren't they investigating 29% interest credit cards??, etc., etc.
post #94 of 104
Isn't this all moot So you get your unlocked phone, it will not run on the other networks or will be as crippled as verizon makes theirs unless the phone makers accommodate. The government can eliminate but cannot make them accommodate!

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply
post #95 of 104
AT&T gave federal agencies a back door to it's phone network. That is illegal because it did it without the oversight of the court system as the Fourth Amendment requires. The Republicans went in after the fact and changed the laws around so AT&T could escape liability. So in summary you have no idea what you are talking about. If I am wrong please cite some case law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceQuit View Post

huh? What the hell are you talking about? (and don't say activities under the Patriot Act, that have been upheld by the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court for years).

One can debate the need for such wiretaps, but claiming they are illegal is dubious at best.
post #96 of 104
QUOTE=TBell;1435439]AT&T gave federal agencies a back door to it's phone network. That is illegal because it did it without the oversight of the court system as the Fourth Amendment requires. The Republicans went in after the fact and changed the laws around so AT&T could escape liability. So in summary you have no idea what you are talking about. If I am wrong please cite some case law.[/QUOTE]

The President has inherent Article II Constitutional powers that neither the judiciary nor statutes like FISA can impinge upon. The FISA appeals court said as much in a decision released in January, as did Attorney General Eric Holder (yes that Eric Holder) during his confirmation hearings.

On 2/27 the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss the Al-Haramain suit.

In court documents the Justice argued that the decision to release classified information "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The brief continues that federal judges are "ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch."

I agree on the timing with respect to the law, but so far the courts have upheld it and the Obama appears to support this right of the executive as well.
post #97 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

Life is not always fair.

BTW you do have a choice.

Where to live
Where to work

If picking your cell phone is so important, and you can't the phone you want....move!

People! Think they are entitled to EVERYHTING!!!

So running away is your answer to everything or just cell phone restrictions?

Do you suggest bending backwards and/or *moving to another state* for every problem one might face?

Talk about cowardice...
post #98 of 104
The real issue is that almost everyone wants the iPhone. They just can't wait to get it. Meaning, they are with T-Mobile, Verizon, etc, and when their contract gets close to coming up, they think "I'm gonna wait for my contract to expire, then, get an iPhone!"

But, they can't wait. The allure of that new phone from their current provider (along with words like "FREE", "VIP customer", "Special Upgrade Price"), comes at them from all sides. SO, they visit their carrier, only to be duped but the sales rep when he says "You don't want the iPhone....You want 'the pre', or 'Storm'"

So, they get a phone. A Pre, Storm, G1, or Blackberryt. After a few days, it gets old. Just exactly like their old phone. Sure they try to justify, "It's better than the iPhone..." They try to convince themselves.

Then it's over. It's gone. It's just a phone again, and the "magic" is gone.

They keep hearing about the iPhone, every day....new apps, top rated phones, fastest phone...and then the nail in the coffin...one of their friends gets it!

And everyone who has ever had an iPhone (95%, so almost everyone), loves it. In fact with each software update 2.2, 3.0, the phone keeps getting better. And better and better. Will the "Pre", get better? How about the "Storm". (which just didn't quit live up to the hype). "G1"? faded fast. Nope won't happen!

So, they lash out. "Why can't my carrier have the iPhone. Why oh Why? Then I would not be such an idiot. I hate AT&T. I hate Apple....."

I hate my phone!

And so, it goes. Those people that hate AT&T in most cases, really don't. It's not usually coverage, or service, or price. In fact AT&T is growing faster than any other carrier, according to 1st quarter results.

What they hate is themselves. They hate the fact that they settled, on something less than the iPhone.

That's the real issue here. We need to get lawmakers involved to make use all feel better. More importantly, we need them to protect us, from ourselves. That's freedom....

right......
post #99 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The government already messed up in controlling this type of lock in. When wireless business was being established the government should have mandated that every carrier use the same technology. That above all else would allow users to easily switch carriers.

The government cannot force Apple to make a CDMA phone.

This is Silicon Valley we are talking about --- where if you can have 99 start-up busts and 1 start-up winner, you would still become a billionaire.

Governments DO pick the wrong technologies time to time. GSM was a lucky choice, WCDMA was a complete bust --- and the US ended up eclipsing Europe in 3G penetration. This is why every major spectrum license auction in Europe for the past 5 years has been technology neutral.

The Japanese government picked analog HDTV --- another major mistake (though can't really blame them because at the time when they pushed it, digital HDTV was totally unfeasible given CPU required). The Korean government mandated every cell phone in Korea needs the Korean only software api --- which is why they still don't have the iphone. The Chinese government mandates one of their mobile license to have their home-grown 3G technology --- it's vaporware so far.
post #100 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

GSM was a lucky choice, WCDMA was a complete bust

Would you mind explaining that further?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #101 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Would you mind explaining that further?

They designed WCDMA through committees trying to leave as many Qualcomm patents as possible --- some of which turned out to be really useful. The technology simply was not ready for prime time. All the 3G licenses in Europe had to revise their build-out requirements several times --- and still a few carriers missed the revised timelines.

It is a very telling thing that every major spectrum/license auction in Europe for the past 4-5 years has been technology neutral.
post #102 of 104
Sure its possible the wrong choice can be made but that does not over shadow the importance of interoperable technology. In the US we should be able to buy a phone and take it to which ever carrier we choose. It appears the carriers also understand being on the same standard is important as most everyone is moving to LTE.



Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Governments DO pick the wrong technologies time to time. GSM was a lucky choice, WCDMA was a complete bust --- and the US ended up eclipsing Europe in 3G penetration. This is why every major spectrum license auction in Europe for the past 5 years has been technology neutral.
post #103 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

They designed WCDMA through committees trying to leave as many Qualcomm patents as possible --- some of which turned out to be really useful. The technology simply was not ready for prime time. All the 3G licenses in Europe had to revise their build-out requirements several times --- and still a few carriers missed the revised timelines.

It is a very telling thing that every major spectrum/license auction in Europe for the past 4-5 years has been technology neutral.

Thanks for the follow up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

...as most everyone is moving to LTE.

Has Sprint talked about LTE as their future yet, or are they still holding onto WiMAX?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #104 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Sure its possible the wrong choice can be made but that does not over shadow the importance of interoperable technology. In the US we should be able to buy a phone and take it to which ever carrier we choose. It appears the carriers also understand being on the same standard is important as most everyone is moving to LTE.

When we talk about technology --- it's not that it's "possible" that wrong choices can be made. It's 99 times out of 100, somebody is going to make the wrong choices.

With respect to LTE, sure American carriers are aggressively migrating to --- but they are doing it on their own. You just have to look at the Korean government --- they are still betting on WiBro (which is the Korean version of WiMax).

Why would normal people care about interoperability anyway? The carriers are going to give you a free phone when you switch over. It may cost the carriers billions of dollars to build a network, but it would only cost you $100 at most (most of the time, you are getting a free phone) to get a new cell phone when you switch to a new network.

And just look at just how useless simlocking laws are in GSM only Europe --- they have a whole continent of people that can't switch iphones to another carrier. Even if you can unlock your iphone --- a few European carriers don't believe in ETF's, so you have to pay off all the remaining part of your o2 iphone contract before you can even upgrade to the newer iphone.

So for 99% of the normal population, getting out of contract cheaply with pro-rated ETF's and then getting a free cell phone from your new carrier --- is the better way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › U.S. senators ask FCC to examine exclusive cell phone deals