FCC to investigate markets where iPhone is not available

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 87
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Yes, it's one of the strange paradoxes of America that often those who would most benefit from reform are most opposed to it.



    That's what we're trying to tell you. You seem to think enabling BFE customers to get an iPhone is going to make everything better (or high speed internet). Ever think that maybe, just maybe, people don't base their happiness on technology?



    And actually, while we're at it - there are high-speed internet options via satellite so if you really live in BFE you COULD do that (although it's expensive). Speaking of which, I think we should make a government mandate to give everyone 10 Mbps internet for free because it's obviously a quality of life concern (sarcasm obviously)
  • Reply 22 of 87
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lafe View Post


    I agree. I live in a rural area, and can't figure out why no senators are working to get me

    3G or DSL. We need connectivity. The posters who are slamming you and saying that

    those of us who choose to live in rural areas just have to suffer the inconvenience are not

    looking at the whole picture. Every area in the US should have these basic things, not just

    where the population density makes it super-profitable. I've been to rural areas in Europe

    where there is 3G. I've been to small villages in Bulgaria where ordinary people have

    affordable high-speed internet in their homes. Why is it there? Because the government

    and corporations care to provide service, knowing that it helps keep people connected,

    educated, buying things, etc. It's the right thing to do.



    If they can do it, why can't "the greatest, richest country in the world" do it?



    Excuse me, internet and cell phone is not a basic necessity, people would like to think that but it is not.



    The only reason people in the country has phones, electricity and other public utilities was due to the fact it was subsidized and job programs from back in the 30's and 40's. You could argue that having these service is for the common good and the entire country benefited from farmer having power and phones to their farms which made them more productive for the entire country.



    You getting 3G or 4G and internet and Cell phone, how does that benefit the rest of us who will have to pay for the huge cost to support a few people.



    I do not have 3G I barely get Edge quality near my house, but I live outside the major area and it is my choose and I excepted that and do not expect AT&T, T-mobile or Verizon to spends lots of money support me and my choose.
  • Reply 23 of 87
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    All of the things listed are luxuries - the problem I have is with people thinking those luxuries are rights - it completely undermines what right means.



    There's a large difference between declaring something a right and declaring it to be in the best interests of a free society. This has nothing to do with rights, nor has anyone said that it does. It's about what's in the best interests of America as a whole, not just large telecom companies, and when those interests conflict, either our society loses or certain corporations do. You have to choose. Whose interests are more important to you?
  • Reply 24 of 87
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    There's a large difference between declaring something a right and declaring it to be in the best interests of a free society. This has nothing to do with rights, nor has anyone said that it does. It's about what's in the best interests of America as a whole, not just large telecom companies, and when those interests conflict, either our society loses or certain corporations do. You have to choose. Whose interests are more important to you?



    So you think it's in the best interest to make everyone dependent on technology? Personally if I could do it all over again I wish the massive internet addiction hadn't happened at all - we'd be a thinner and healthier nation for it. So if you want to talk about the best interests of a free society we should kill the internet because it's killing people, literally. It's enabling all of us to sit on our fat butts and, well, get fat instead of going outside and doing stuff. I'd argue that technology is probably the single greatest reason the US keeps getting fatter and fatter despite all FDA restrictions on what you can put in food (hint, the local burger joint is much, much, much worse for you than anything you'll find at McDonalds).
  • Reply 25 of 87
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    Excuse me, internet and cell phone is not a basic necessity, people would like to think that but it is not.



    The only reason people in the country has phones, electricity and other public utilities was due to the fact it was subsidized and job programs from back in the 30's and 40's. You could argue that having these service is for the common good and the entire country benefited from farmer having power and phones to their farms which made them more productive for the entire country.



    You get 3G or 4G and internet and Cell phone, how does that benefit the rest of us who will have to pay for the huge cost to support a few people.



    I do not have 3G I barely get Edge quality near my house, but I live outside the major area and it is my choose and I excepted that and do not expect AT&T, T-mobile or Verizon to spends lots of money support me and my choose.



    So we've got you who is currently in that situation and me who grew up in that situation and my parents who are still in that situation and they still think they know what is best for us and what we really need to have a productive, happy life - gotta love 'em...
  • Reply 26 of 87
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    They aren't talking about forcing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, et al. to provide service in rural areas. This is about customers in rural areas not having the choice to get iPhones, Pres, etc. even though there are wireless companies in their areas willing to provide them service, simply because one of the large companies has them locked out. Clearly this is not in best interest of consumers, and the idea that there is a "second class" of citizens in this country who ought not be able to enjoy the benefits of living in this country simply because of the accident of their place of residence is entirely elitist and undemocratic.



    And, yes, every home in this country ought to have broadband access, although, not necessarily via fiber optics. Lack of access to communications technology, just like lack of access to education, undermines our democracy and when the business practices of large companies go against the public interest, it is the obligation of our government to intervene.



    It's not as if not having an iPhone is depriving anyone of having phone, or even cell phone, access. You are making it sound as if the iPhone is the key to the survival of democracy or something.



    There are some things that are critical or add substantially to quality of life that the government should ensure everyone has access to. Things such as electricity, clean water, education, and telephone service are a few examples of what many would consider necessities. And while there are things such as health care that many feel should also be included in that category, I really don't see how having access to the latest smart phone is a life necessity that the government needs to step in and regulate. Aren't there more important things for them to be working on? Such as the already mentioned health care or broadband access? How about better intercity public transportation?
  • Reply 27 of 87
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    It's every citizen's Constitutional right to own and pet an iPhone, just like having water and sewer is our God-given right.
  • Reply 28 of 87
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    a lot of these redneck counties block AT&T and VZ from putting up towers because it would ruin the view. now they're whining about not getting 3g
  • Reply 29 of 87
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,941member
    Think about it this way, if FCC break these deals then Apple will have a much larger market to go after which makes less competition over all if you look at the ipod success. Apple has 70% of this market thing if they get 70% of the smart phone market in the US, so is that good for consumers or Apple.
  • Reply 30 of 87
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    ... Aren't there more important things for them to be working on? Such as the already mentioned health care or broadband access? How about better intercity public transportation?



    In the words of the guy next to me "I'd rather have them running around in circles with that than effing up everything else..."
  • Reply 31 of 87
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    a lot of these redneck counties block AT&T and VZ from putting up towers because it would ruin the view. now they're whining about not getting 3g



    No, no, no. These people aren't complaining. John Kerry is complaining on behalf of them. Ya know, the people he represent who, umm, wait, there aren't any places like that in Massachusetts.



    Exactly...



    It's a "we know what's best for you because we're better than you" thing - it's really quite pathetic that not a single person in washington realizes they were born on this planet just like the rest of us were and being elected into office doesn't mean you dictate what *YOU* think your constituents need/want you were elected to voice what they *ACTUALLY* need and want... They just wanted to put their names out there and get some pub, welcome to Washington...
  • Reply 32 of 87
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    So we've got you who is currently in that situation and me who grew up in that situation and my parents who are still in that situation and they still think they know what is best for us and what we really need to have a productive, happy life - gotta love 'em...



    Actually I grow in the country and my parents home at the time was on party line (for those too young to understand we shared our phone line with 4 families) and we had to get hold of the operator to make a long distance call, and that was outside the phone companies boundaries. This was in the early 80's too. The real irony of this I moved away to CA and returned in the mid 90's and this phone company went from the dark ages to the internet age over night, I had DSL from them before Verizon offered it in the entire area. This little phone company jumped way ahead of Verizon and At&T who both offered services in the area outside of this little rural phone company. It was funny to hear friend complain they could only get Dial-up from Verizon and I was on DSL in 97.



    So today my parents have better services then I do and they still live in the country, They even go FIOS now too.
  • Reply 33 of 87
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post


    It's every citizen's Constitutional right to own and pet an iPhone, just like having water and sewer is our God-given right.



    That is what a Well and a Hole in the ground is for. they can pet a iphone if they like no one said it has to be connected to anything
  • Reply 34 of 87
    ptysellptysell Posts: 18member
    I pay how many "universal access fees"? What exactly are those going towards?
  • Reply 35 of 87
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    Actually I grow in the country and my parents home at the time was on party line (for those too young to understand we shared our phone line with 4 families) and we had to get hold of the operator to make a long distance call, and that was outside the phone companies boundaries. This was in the early 80's too. The real irony of this I moved away to CA and returned in the mid 90's and this phone company went from the dark ages to the internet age over night, I had DSL from them before Verizon offered it in the entire area. This little phone company jumped way ahead of Verizon and At&T who both offered services in the area outside of this little rural phone company. It was funny to hear friend complain they could only get Dial-up from Verizon and I was on DSL in 97.



    So today my parents have better services then I do and they still live in the country, They even go FIOS now too.



    Same thing happened with my parents. Just this past year a random upstart company bought a couple towers and started offering highspeed internet via RF (and a receiver placed on the house) before cable or DSL are even available. (still, to this day, no cable or DSL option).
  • Reply 36 of 87
    erikvdoerikvdo Posts: 11member
    While I think it would be nice for people in more rural and/or remote communities to be able to purchase whatever product is available to those people in major communities, I don't think that it's reasonable, necessary, or even constitutional for it to be mandated by law.



    There are lots of other examples of things that people in smaller, rural and/or remote communities can't readily get. Examples: Certain brands of or less common types of food, the latest movies, all the latest junk available at big malls and shopping centers, etc. An even more apropos example is the lack of cable TV, cable Internet service and DSL, in many remote and rural locations. Should I pitch a fit to my local congressperson because there are no local stores don't have deals to obtain and sell some widget I want?



    If the govt. gets involved in this and starts regulating that the iPhone, Palm Pre, etc. have to be available everywhere, or even from multiple providers in any given area, it would basically force Apple, Palm, et. al. to offer their products through companies that they don't necessarily want to sell to or can't cut a good deal with. In that case, how can it be decided what the terms of the contract would be, between Apple or Palm, and "Joe Wireless"? Joe Wireless may demand a reduced price for the iPhone/Pre, because "they can't afford more". If Apple/Palm/Whoever doesn't agree to those terms, then what?



    Even more sticky is compatibility issues. Apple only makes a GSM-based iPhone, and Palm only makes a CDMA-based Pre. What if ye' old law makers mandate that both Apple and Palm (and/or X other phone manufacturer) make their devices available through Joe Wireless? Joe Wireless will only have CDMA or GSM, so is either Palm or Apple going to be forced to re-engineer their hardware to meet the needs of a minority, with no hope of recouping the cost of the process?



    Here is another thing to consider: In these small areas, there is typically only one wireless provider offering service. Doesn't that constitute a local monopoly? Would those small wireless carriers like it if the govt. stepped in and mandated that they have some competition, even though they are in small markets?



    I don't get it.
  • Reply 37 of 87
    Not all rural areas are without services. I have Fiber to the Home and my location is remote, nearest neighbor 1/2 mile and nothing else within a mile. Nearest town 35 miles. I just need more cell towers.
  • Reply 38 of 87
    cseemancseeman Posts: 18member
    It's not simply a matter of where you live but where you travel.

    If we go only a couple hours away we get no AT&T service. If AT&T made arrangements with local carriers there wouldn't be an issue. Sorry but it's unrealistic to have to buy a phone contract for each carrier as you travel. I'm not talking about traveling around the world or even the country. . . just a couple of hours away!
  • Reply 39 of 87
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by erikvdo View Post


    If the govt. gets involved in this and starts regulating that the iPhone, Palm Pre, etc. have to be available everywhere, or even from multiple providers in any given area, it would basically force Apple, Palm, et. al. to offer their products through companies that they don't necessarily want to sell to or can't cut a good deal with. In that case, how can it be decided what the terms of the contract would be, between Apple or Palm, and "Joe Wireless"? Joe Wireless may demand a reduced price for the iPhone/Pre, because "they can't afford more". If Apple/Palm/Whoever doesn't agree to those terms, then what?



    Even more sticky is compatibility issues. Apple only makes a GSM-based iPhone, and Palm only makes a CDMA-based Pre. What if ye' old law makers mandate that both Apple and Palm (and/or X other phone manufacturer) make their devices available through Joe Wireless? Joe Wireless will only have CDMA or GSM, so is either Palm or Apple going to be forced to re-engineer their hardware to meet the needs of a minority, with no hope of recouping the cost of the process?



    Sorry, but this is just baseless obfuscation and FUD strewing.
  • Reply 40 of 87
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,185member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    The only reason people in the country has phones, electricity and other public utilities was due to the fact it was subsidized and job programs from back in the 30's and 40's. You could argue that having these service is for the common good and the entire country benefited from farmer having power and phones to their farms which made them more productive for the entire country.



    Providing internet and cellphone access to rural areas would make sense for all these reasons too - for instance, a farmer can check on real-time futures prices for commodities, can call people (e.g., hired help, suppliers, customers) from his tractor in the middle of his farm, can access distance-learning resources to educate himself and his family, etc.



    And, putting those in place would be a jobs program too (although that is not the best reason).
Sign In or Register to comment.