the retail price of the phones are $499. $599 and $699. any different price is set by the carrier according to their rules and how much they will subsidize. if an overseas market with the carrier rights to the iphone wants to subsidize the whole thing, great. ATT doesn't.
i can almost promise you that once the ATT exclusive deal is over, nothing on prices will change. Apple isn't going to suddenly drop the price $400 for the heck of it.
See I told you there were people here speaking for AT&T.
Yes, I agree. The government should buy Apple, at&t, and Google. How dare such evil corporations even exist? If the United States Government took ownership of these sordid entities then we could all go to bed at night knowing that everything is fair, everybody gets what they want, and everybody gets the same thing. We could all then gather around the virtual campfire (the real thing would be so environmentally damaging) and sing happy songs as we all, both rich and poor, texted each other with our iPhones. Then we would all travel safely home in our GM electric cars.
Tulkas, you make me want to throw up.
Where in the hell did all that shit come from? Did you get hit in the head recently, because this sort rant in response to three words, might be cause for concern.
From three words, you extrapolated all of that did you? I understand you work for AT&T, so I understand being biased, but please try to put some thought into your posts. You come off as a very angry and bitter.
About the vomit: seriously, three words, lead to you being enraged to the point of vomiting. I would maybe see if you can get out from behind the AT&T mall kiosk and get some help.
Just how is anyone screwed by voluntarily paying for a device and service at the rate the provider is asking for? Who is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone and at&t's data service? How did any of you fools who are screaming for the forced breakup and regulation of Apple arrive at the conclusion that, because a device is very desirable, that you have the right to have it in your possession on your terms, at the price you decide is fair? And where do you get off demanding that the government force the parties to comply with your desires? When did the ownership of an iPhone become a basic human right anyway? How dare you demand the right to set the price and terms of use of a non-essential, purely optional, luxury item?
This is sickening.
You are working toward an ulcer.
How dare these people believe they should be able to use a product they purchased in a manner of their own choosing. Downright communist to believe in personal property laws.
AT&T and Apple should always be consulted in how to use your personal property, right? Maybe if I come down to the mall you can tell me what I am allowed to do with mine?
yes and no. they were given the exclusive rights to the iphone and so long as they have that right they won't give anyone the legit unlock code.
once they don't have that exclusive right they can't stop the unlocking so long as you have fulfilled your contract obligation. I dare say that it will be Apple you'd get the code from. but ATT won't be able to stop it. and even if they try, they will be hit with a ton of lawsuits from folks that either finished or paid to break a contract.
you are however 100% correct that in the US simlocking is totally allowed and there is no master law that says a carrier has to give you the unlock code after X time. so perhaps the solution is to fight that law. get it forced for all devices to be open to all carriers that can handle the technology. in other words, Apple has a GSM phone so any company that can service GSM can have the iphone. so ATT and T-Mobile both can have it. they can do subsidies if they want or you can buy it full price and come and go as you please. if Verizon or Sprint goes GSM they can have it also.
Given exclusive right to be the sole service provider should not be an excuse for refusing unlocking the device. The argument is that I fulfilled my contractual agreement with the carrier and I should not be forced to stay if I want to continue using my phone. Most journalists and bloggers who called Apple to unlock their iPhone were told that AT&T don't want them to provide the unlocking codes (it is not actually a code, I believe it is done by iTunes contacting Apple servers and unlocking your iPhone). Personally, I travel overseas few times a year for extended period of time and I have phone accounts in the countries I usually visit. Therefore, unlocking is important to me (who want to pay $3/min?!) and that's why I jailbreak and unlock my iPhone before I leave and restore it to the original state when I come back.
As far as I know, in most countries unlocking is usually handled by the cell carrier.
I am sure that AT&T & T-Mobile will be forced to unlock their phones if this lawsuit continue. Remember for years auto dealers refused to honor their car warranties if you service your car with someone else? The courts forced them otherwise and now you can even service it yourself and still have your warranty.
Yes, they do, absolutely. Mind numbingly stupid but yes, the idiots here want exactly that. They want the FCC to approve iPhone apps. They want government regulation of the iPhone app store.
No. They want the FCC to encourage Apple to be more transparent in their approval process. They want Apple to not use their control of the AppStore as unfair leverage against other developers. Apple has set themselves up as the only [legitimate] way to get apps onto the computers (iPhones) that customers legally purchased. As such, they have imposed a barrier to commerce between application developers and their customers.
Now, even an AT&T sales clerk should realize that as a customer, you are allowed to use a long distance calling card from your AT&T phones. Hell, you can even use it from your landline. You may even be aware that you can choose alternative long distance providers instead of using your local teleco. Now, if your local telco tried to prevent you from doing so, they should and would be investigated by the FCC. If AT&T tried to block the use of legal calling cards from their cell network users, they would be investigated. Blocking the GV apps appears to be just such an effort, as from the calling side, that is really all the GV service is. But, then as an AT&T employee you might not be able to see this. Perhaps you even disagree with being being able to choose long distance providers or use calling cards.
You say "The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone". That's wrong. The original iPhone was unsubsidized and the only reason Apple signed an exclusive deal was that they wanted to maximize profits.
They signed an exclusive deal to reward AT&T for blindly signing on with them without ever seeing the phone.
Not only that, they had requirements like visual voicemail that required significant changes to AT&T's back end systems. And before you dismiss "signifcant" - back it up. If it was so @%#$ easy every other carrier would have offered right after the iPhone - years later most still don't offer it.
Quote:
They not only maximized profits but made a revolutionary deal. The idea is ridiculous because frankly all these phones are overpriced. A recent report says that Apple makes as much as 60% profit on the iPhone.
Go look up the difference between gross and net profit and then return to the discussion - your statements are outlandishly naïve
Although the iPhone is locked to AT&T, it can be easily broken.
Really? I was unaware that the radio in the 3G had been broken - then again I could have missed it. If you have a link or name of the program that can jail brake the radio so it can be used on another carrier, I would be interested in that!
It is always the other parties fault no matter what
The real travesty is it's equally both their fault but everyone is too busy sniping to notice.
Sigh....
Other then forcing them to unlock the radio when your contract is up, I don't see what relevance the government has to any of this - the market will decide way more effectively then any government regulation that will be loop-holed around before the ink is even dry on the new legislation....
The internet has standards, and a well established standards process, and it doesn't seem to have retarded innovation. And, yes, that's exactly the point, force them to compete in other ways: on price, on service, etc.
Um, the Internet standards evolved in a combination of the DARPA research labs (military research, not regulatory) and the universities. And the growth of the Internet and the "standards" it is built around wasn't and still isn't pretty, but it did work and without government regulation. There are no laws requiring the use of TCP/IP or any other standards for the Internet - never were, and never will be. The 'net as it is evolved out of market realities, not some government nanny.
Government mandates would retard innovation because at that point if you mandate X, what's the point of trying to do Y or Z - all you can do is X!
Quote:
The government track record of regulating industries is just fine.
Really? Give one example. I know, food! Whoops, maybe we really don't wan to go into that. I know - the airlines! I hear they are doing swell! What? Shoot, well how about Wall Street? I just know that since there is money involved they are on top of that. Recession you say? Well, shoot - I'm sure there is a good example out there somewhere...
Quote:
What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition
Isn't that part of regulation? Once you start regulating something, by definition you really can't stop until - wait for it - you de-regulate it! Right here you are basically admitting that regulation doesn't work...
Quote:
I fully understand that the wireless carries don't want to have to really compete against each other. I'm sure they are very happy with and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, but allowing them to do so goes against the public interest and causes continual harm to consumers.
Really?
How does not being able to have a phone stuck up your butt 24/7 cause "harm"? I seem to remember growing up without a cell phone just fine, thank you. I find it breathtaking what the average American thinks their god-given rights are these days. We have become fat, lazy and extremely spoiled. Time for a nice famine, war or mother nature to send a big natural disaster our way to give people something legitimate to whine about
Quote:
I welcome forceful government intervention in this market and we will all benefit in the long-term from it.
Yes, just like our country has benefited from the massive explosion of government post WWII
/sarcasm
Quote:
The idea that government is not a good regulator and that government intervention typically causes more harm than good is a pernicious fiction perpetrated by people who don't believe in, or don't want, government acting for the public good.
Ha! There is no magical entity called "government". This is your first and greatest logical fallicy.
Government is an institution, and it's run by humans - not this nebulous entity with mythical powers. Humans that have all the same qualities that are often ascribed to those "evil" corporations. Except with government it's worse. You have politicians who will sell their soul to keep in power and change the rules through these things called laws to execute their will - often screwing up more then they "fix" in the process all while making it so complex that none can untangle what is really going on. They do all kinds of screwy things to retain that power - things like screwing up the budget of the Pentagon, of all places, so bad that they are publicly speaking out about forced earmarks they don't want and labeling them as the fraud, waste and abuse they are. BTW - notice the Democrats stuffed more into the military budget then the Republicans. Kinda blows the lame party stereotypes out of the water - both parties are the problem, kids, because they are in it for themselves - not you or me or America in general. Wake up! If your arguing about Democrats vs. Republicans you have already lost. That's the game they want you to play!
Yes, there are many people in Government who are in it to try to improve things - but they are in the vast minority, and by in large lower down in the food chain. It's a rare thing indeed for something like a congress critter to be routinely (i.e. other then the rare target of opportunity) to be an honest to goodness champion for "public good". Mostly because the system will flush them out in a heart beat.
And that's our fault for paying attention to asinine things like party politics instead of what is really going on. We continually reward these guys for bad behavior by returning them right back to their seats of power. Time and again. Why should they change? We don't hold them accountable. Heck, they can switch parties and still get elected! Worlds biggest con...
How dare these people believe they should be able to use a product they purchased in a manner of their own choosing.
Yup, especially since the terms and conditions were sprung on them.
Without any opportunity to simply not buy the said object of derision
Now having said that, would I like to be able to stick a SIM card from another carrier in my phone? Sure. Is it preventing me from using and enjoying my iPhone right now? Not in the least.
If it does for you, the don't buy it! Otherwise your actions are irrational.
What goes down between Apple and AT&T also affects those users.
Australia is a free country, if mocking you American's makes you get off your fat asses* and help free us from these artificial limitations which also affect those not on AT&T then we have a legitimate right to comment however we want within the rules of this forum.
ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Be a dweeb somewhere else and stop having a conversation with yourself.
I'll chalk this up to sarcasm attempting to be serious and mocking the entire thread.
None of this thread is of any value as we have zero input on contracts.
*Note Australia took the world's fattest nation crown off the USA a while ago, so technically our asses are fatter than yours.
What goes down between Apple and AT&T also affects those users.
Australia is a free country, if mocking you American's makes you get off your fat asses* and help free us from these artificial limitations which also affect those not on AT&T then we have a legitimate right to comment however we want within the rules of this forum.
ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ!
*Note Australia took the world's fattest nation crown off the USA a while ago, so technically our asses are fatter than yours.
The internet has standards, and a well established standards process, and it doesn't seem to have retarded innovation. And, yes, that's exactly the point, force them to compete in other ways: on price, on service, etc. The government track record of regulating industries is just fine. What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition and deregulation, which often fails spectacularly or leads to corporate abuses.
I fully understand that the wireless carries don't want to have to really compete against each other. I'm sure they are very happy with and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, but allowing them to do so goes against the public interest and causes continual harm to consumers. I welcome forceful government intervention in this market and we will all benefit in the long-term from it. The idea that government is not a good regulator and that government intervention typically causes more harm than good is a pernicious fiction perpetrated by people who don't believe in, or don't want, government acting for the public good.
Thank you for the post. I really get tired of debating the facts with all of these anti-regulation, lasissez-faire zealots who don't understand the importance of regulation to *encourage* competition and remove the abuses of large entrenched corporations. (and certainly when you are talking about publicly owned or publicly invested assets). Allowing the cellular companies to use segments of the publicly-owned spectrum is not a right.
Whether it had ultimately been CDMA or GSM, I guarantee the United States would have a far more competitive wireless environment if leased spectrum had a technology mandate attached to it. Customers would have full mobility with their devices, and so carriers would be forced to compete on service and price, and would not be able to lock-in customers with the inherent incompatibilities in cellphone hardware.
A good example is the UK, where the popular carriers are all using GSM/UMTS/HSPA, and customers are able to get the most expensive handsets (Like the Nokia N95/N97 back in the day, or the high-end Sony Ericcson models) on the market for free or very little cost on contract, depending on term and monthly spend. Even the iPhone is now free I believe.
I am a business-friendly democrat and entrepreneur, and I am far more ideologically aligned with most of the progressive technology companies than the old-guard, corporate abuses of telecommunications, energy, media, etc.
Um, the Internet standards evolved in a combination of the DARPA research labs (military research, not regulatory) and the universities. And the growth of the Internet and the "standards" it is built around wasn't and still isn't pretty, but it did work and without government regulation. There are no laws requiring the use of TCP/IP or any other standards for the Internet - never were, and never will be. The 'net as it is evolved out of market realities, not some government nanny.
Government mandates would retard innovation because at that point if you mandate X, what's the point of trying to do Y or Z - all you can do is X!
OK, so, my point was that standards don't necessarily retard innovation. You agree that the Internet has standards and innovation. Yet, your ideological blinders don't allow for the possibility that government regulation can take place but in the single way of mandating a specific frozen X?
Are you just being intellectually lazy or deliberately obtuse?
Here's one example of how government regulation spurs innovation: The EPA doesn't tell auto manufacturers how to design engines for fuel efficiency. They set mileage targets and leave it to manufacturers to determine the best way to do that. Auto manufacturers are forced to innovate to meet the mileage targets. (And, BTW, their cars all run on the same government built roads.)
This is one example that comes to me with just the smallest mental effort while drinking my morning coffee. So, please, everyone, the next time you feel compelled to write, "government regulation stifles innovation," just step away from the keyboard and remind yourself that, "Oh, no it doesn't necessarily."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Really? Give one example. I know, food! Whoops, maybe we really don't wan to go into that. I know - the airlines! I hear they are doing swell! What? Shoot, well how about Wall Street? I just know that since there is money involved they are on top of that. Recession you say? Well, shoot - I'm sure there is a good example out there somewhere...
Well, now, what you are referring to here are failures of government to fulfill it's duty to properly regulate these industries. It's criminal, I know, and people should go to jail... like the entire Bush administration. Oh, BTW, maybe you didn't get the memo on airline deregulation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Quote:
What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition
Isn't that part of regulation? Once you start regulating something, by definition you really can't stop until - wait for it - you de-regulate it! Right here you are basically admitting that regulation doesn't work...
OK, this just doesn't make any sense at all in the context of what you quoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Really?
How does not being able to have a phone stuck up your butt 24/7 cause "harm"? I seem to remember growing up without a cell phone just fine, thank you. Blah blah blah blah blah...
Well, we aren't really interested in hearing about your sexual habits, but "harm" in this context refers to consumer choice being artificially restricted so that consumers can be charged artificially high prices. And, hey, I support your right to do whatever you like with your cell phone!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Yes, just like our country has benefited from the massive explosion of government post WWII
Well, yes, up till about 1980, it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Government is an institution, and it's run by humans - not this nebulous entity with mythical powers. Humans that have all the same qualities that are often ascribed to those "evil" corporations...
So, your argument is that people are evil, whether in the public or private sector, so we shouldn't trust them? Oh, and that there should be no regulation?
So, assuming that, you think you're better off with the evil corporate people who have no accountability to you and (without any regulation) no restrictions on what they do than than with the evil government people who have at least some accountability to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Yes, there are many people in Government who are in it to try to improve things - but they are in the vast minority, and by in large lower down in the food chain. It's a rare thing indeed for something like a congress critter to be routinely (i.e. other then the rare target of opportunity) to be an honest to goodness champion for "public good". Mostly because the system will flush them out in a heart beat.
And that's our fault for paying attention to asinine things like party politics instead of what is really going on. We continually reward these guys for bad behavior by returning them right back to their seats of power. Time and again. Why should they change? We don't hold them accountable. Heck, they can switch parties and still get elected! Worlds biggest con...
Look, I'm discouraged too by what's happened to this country since 1980. But, I'm old enough to remember a better time. A time when we did things like go to the moon not because it was easy but because it was hard. There is hope!
OK, so, my point was that standards don't necessarily retard innovation. You agree that the Internet has standards and innovation. Yet, your ideological blinders don't allow for the possibility that government regulation can take place but in the single way of mandating a specific frozen X?
Are you just being intellectually lazy or deliberately obtuse?
Here's one example of how government regulation spurs innovation: The EPA doesn't tell auto manufacturers how to design engines for fuel efficiency. They set mileage targets and leave it to manufacturers to determine the best way to do that. Auto manufacturers are forced to innovate to meet the mileage targets. (And, BTW, their cars all run on the same government built roads.)
This is one example that comes to me with just the smallest mental effort while drinking my morning coffee. So, please, everyone, the next time you feel compelled to write, "government regulation stifles innovation," just step away from the keyboard and remind yourself that, "Oh, no it doesn't necessarily."
Well, now, what you are referring to here are failures of government to fulfill it's duty to properly regulate these industries. It's criminal, I know, and people should go to jail... like the entire Bush administration. Oh, BTW, maybe you didn't get the memo on airline deregulation?
OK, this just doesn't make any sense at all in the context of what you quoted.
Well, we aren't really interested in hearing about your sexual habits, but "harm" in this context refers to consumer choice being artificially restricted so that consumers can be charged artificially high prices. And, hey, I support your right to do whatever you like with your cell phone!
Well, yes, up till about 1980, it did.
So, your argument is that people are evil, whether in the public or private sector, so we shouldn't trust them? Oh, and that there should be no regulation?
So, assuming that, you think you're better off with the evil corporate people who have no accountability to you and (without any regulation) no restrictions on what they do than than with the evil government people who have at least some accountability to you?
Look, I'm discouraged too by what's happened to this country since 1980. But, I'm old enough to remember a better time. A time when we did things like go to the moon not because it was easy but because it was hard. There is hope!
Yup, especially since the terms and conditions were sprung on them.
Without any opportunity to simply not buy the said object of derision
Now having said that, would I like to be able to stick a SIM card from another carrier in my phone? Sure. Is it preventing me from using and enjoying my iPhone right now? Not in the least.
If it does for you, the don't buy it! Otherwise your actions are irrational.
Terms and conditions on use of personal property would an interesting exercise in enforcement or even in trying to argue their validity. You buy the phone outright, it is yours to do with as you please, within the law.
You might instead be referring to the ToS on the service and or software(OS). you don't buy these. But can and should copyright on the software allow the producer to limit your ability to buy and sell from independent vendors products and services related to you personal property? Large corporations imposing barriers to trade are as effective and perhaps as wrong as the goverment doing so.
No. They want the FCC to encourage Apple to be more transparent in their approval process. They want Apple to not use their control of the AppStore as unfair leverage against other developers. Apple has set themselves up as the only [legitimate] way to get apps onto the computers (iPhones) that customers legally purchased. As such, they have imposed a barrier to commerce between application developers and their customers.
Now, even an AT&T sales clerk should realize that as a customer, you are allowed to use a long distance calling card from your AT&T phones. Hell, you can even use it from your landline. You may even be aware that you can choose alternative long distance providers instead of using your local teleco. Now, if your local telco tried to prevent you from doing so, they should and would be investigated by the FCC. If AT&T tried to block the use of legal calling cards from their cell network users, they would be investigated. Blocking the GV apps appears to be just such an effort, as from the calling side, that is really all the GV service is. But, then as an AT&T employee you might not be able to see this. Perhaps you even disagree with being being able to choose long distance providers or use calling cards.
I personally feel that the FCC should FO and mind their own business though.
Comments
the retail price of the phones are $499. $599 and $699. any different price is set by the carrier according to their rules and how much they will subsidize. if an overseas market with the carrier rights to the iphone wants to subsidize the whole thing, great. ATT doesn't.
i can almost promise you that once the ATT exclusive deal is over, nothing on prices will change. Apple isn't going to suddenly drop the price $400 for the heck of it.
See I told you there were people here speaking for AT&T.
Yes, I agree. The government should buy Apple, at&t, and Google. How dare such evil corporations even exist? If the United States Government took ownership of these sordid entities then we could all go to bed at night knowing that everything is fair, everybody gets what they want, and everybody gets the same thing. We could all then gather around the virtual campfire (the real thing would be so environmentally damaging) and sing happy songs as we all, both rich and poor, texted each other with our iPhones. Then we would all travel safely home in our GM electric cars.
Tulkas, you make me want to throw up.
Where in the hell did all that shit come from? Did you get hit in the head recently, because this sort rant in response to three words, might be cause for concern.
From three words, you extrapolated all of that did you? I understand you work for AT&T, so I understand being biased, but please try to put some thought into your posts. You come off as a very angry and bitter.
About the vomit: seriously, three words, lead to you being enraged to the point of vomiting. I would maybe see if you can get out from behind the AT&T mall kiosk and get some help.
Just how is anyone screwed by voluntarily paying for a device and service at the rate the provider is asking for? Who is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone and at&t's data service? How did any of you fools who are screaming for the forced breakup and regulation of Apple arrive at the conclusion that, because a device is very desirable, that you have the right to have it in your possession on your terms, at the price you decide is fair? And where do you get off demanding that the government force the parties to comply with your desires? When did the ownership of an iPhone become a basic human right anyway? How dare you demand the right to set the price and terms of use of a non-essential, purely optional, luxury item?
This is sickening.
You are working toward an ulcer.
How dare these people believe they should be able to use a product they purchased in a manner of their own choosing. Downright communist to believe in personal property laws.
AT&T and Apple should always be consulted in how to use your personal property, right? Maybe if I come down to the mall you can tell me what I am allowed to do with mine?
yes and no. they were given the exclusive rights to the iphone and so long as they have that right they won't give anyone the legit unlock code.
once they don't have that exclusive right they can't stop the unlocking so long as you have fulfilled your contract obligation. I dare say that it will be Apple you'd get the code from. but ATT won't be able to stop it. and even if they try, they will be hit with a ton of lawsuits from folks that either finished or paid to break a contract.
you are however 100% correct that in the US simlocking is totally allowed and there is no master law that says a carrier has to give you the unlock code after X time. so perhaps the solution is to fight that law. get it forced for all devices to be open to all carriers that can handle the technology. in other words, Apple has a GSM phone so any company that can service GSM can have the iphone. so ATT and T-Mobile both can have it. they can do subsidies if they want or you can buy it full price and come and go as you please. if Verizon or Sprint goes GSM they can have it also.
Given exclusive right to be the sole service provider should not be an excuse for refusing unlocking the device. The argument is that I fulfilled my contractual agreement with the carrier and I should not be forced to stay if I want to continue using my phone. Most journalists and bloggers who called Apple to unlock their iPhone were told that AT&T don't want them to provide the unlocking codes (it is not actually a code, I believe it is done by iTunes contacting Apple servers and unlocking your iPhone). Personally, I travel overseas few times a year for extended period of time and I have phone accounts in the countries I usually visit. Therefore, unlocking is important to me (who want to pay $3/min?!) and that's why I jailbreak and unlock my iPhone before I leave and restore it to the original state when I come back.
As far as I know, in most countries unlocking is usually handled by the cell carrier.
I am sure that AT&T & T-Mobile will be forced to unlock their phones if this lawsuit continue. Remember for years auto dealers refused to honor their car warranties if you service your car with someone else? The courts forced them otherwise and now you can even service it yourself and still have your warranty.
Yes, they do, absolutely. Mind numbingly stupid but yes, the idiots here want exactly that. They want the FCC to approve iPhone apps. They want government regulation of the iPhone app store.
No. They want the FCC to encourage Apple to be more transparent in their approval process. They want Apple to not use their control of the AppStore as unfair leverage against other developers. Apple has set themselves up as the only [legitimate] way to get apps onto the computers (iPhones) that customers legally purchased. As such, they have imposed a barrier to commerce between application developers and their customers.
Now, even an AT&T sales clerk should realize that as a customer, you are allowed to use a long distance calling card from your AT&T phones. Hell, you can even use it from your landline. You may even be aware that you can choose alternative long distance providers instead of using your local teleco. Now, if your local telco tried to prevent you from doing so, they should and would be investigated by the FCC. If AT&T tried to block the use of legal calling cards from their cell network users, they would be investigated. Blocking the GV apps appears to be just such an effort, as from the calling side, that is really all the GV service is. But, then as an AT&T employee you might not be able to see this. Perhaps you even disagree with being being able to choose long distance providers or use calling cards.
You should be angry that you keep paying for the phone after the 2 year contract.
Bing Bing Bing!
We have a winner!
You say "The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone". That's wrong. The original iPhone was unsubsidized and the only reason Apple signed an exclusive deal was that they wanted to maximize profits.
They signed an exclusive deal to reward AT&T for blindly signing on with them without ever seeing the phone.
Not only that, they had requirements like visual voicemail that required significant changes to AT&T's back end systems. And before you dismiss "signifcant" - back it up. If it was so @%#$ easy every other carrier would have offered right after the iPhone - years later most still don't offer it.
They not only maximized profits but made a revolutionary deal. The idea is ridiculous because frankly all these phones are overpriced. A recent report says that Apple makes as much as 60% profit on the iPhone.
Go look up the difference between gross and net profit and then return to the discussion - your statements are outlandishly naïve
Although the iPhone is locked to AT&T, it can be easily broken.
Really? I was unaware that the radio in the 3G had been broken - then again I could have missed it. If you have a link or name of the program that can jail brake the radio so it can be used on another carrier, I would be interested in that!
It is always the other parties fault no matter what
The real travesty is it's equally both their fault but everyone is too busy sniping to notice.
Sigh....
Other then forcing them to unlock the radio when your contract is up, I don't see what relevance the government has to any of this - the market will decide way more effectively then any government regulation that will be loop-holed around before the ink is even dry on the new legislation....
The internet has standards, and a well established standards process, and it doesn't seem to have retarded innovation. And, yes, that's exactly the point, force them to compete in other ways: on price, on service, etc.
Um, the Internet standards evolved in a combination of the DARPA research labs (military research, not regulatory) and the universities. And the growth of the Internet and the "standards" it is built around wasn't and still isn't pretty, but it did work and without government regulation. There are no laws requiring the use of TCP/IP or any other standards for the Internet - never were, and never will be. The 'net as it is evolved out of market realities, not some government nanny.
Government mandates would retard innovation because at that point if you mandate X, what's the point of trying to do Y or Z - all you can do is X!
The government track record of regulating industries is just fine.
Really? Give one example. I know, food! Whoops, maybe we really don't wan to go into that. I know - the airlines! I hear they are doing swell! What? Shoot, well how about Wall Street? I just know that since there is money involved they are on top of that. Recession you say? Well, shoot - I'm sure there is a good example out there somewhere...
What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition
Isn't that part of regulation? Once you start regulating something, by definition you really can't stop until - wait for it - you de-regulate it! Right here you are basically admitting that regulation doesn't work...
I fully understand that the wireless carries don't want to have to really compete against each other. I'm sure they are very happy with and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, but allowing them to do so goes against the public interest and causes continual harm to consumers.
Really?
How does not being able to have a phone stuck up your butt 24/7 cause "harm"? I seem to remember growing up without a cell phone just fine, thank you. I find it breathtaking what the average American thinks their god-given rights are these days. We have become fat, lazy and extremely spoiled. Time for a nice famine, war or mother nature to send a big natural disaster our way to give people something legitimate to whine about
I welcome forceful government intervention in this market and we will all benefit in the long-term from it.
Yes, just like our country has benefited from the massive explosion of government post WWII
/sarcasm
The idea that government is not a good regulator and that government intervention typically causes more harm than good is a pernicious fiction perpetrated by people who don't believe in, or don't want, government acting for the public good.
Ha! There is no magical entity called "government". This is your first and greatest logical fallicy.
Government is an institution, and it's run by humans - not this nebulous entity with mythical powers. Humans that have all the same qualities that are often ascribed to those "evil" corporations. Except with government it's worse. You have politicians who will sell their soul to keep in power and change the rules through these things called laws to execute their will - often screwing up more then they "fix" in the process all while making it so complex that none can untangle what is really going on. They do all kinds of screwy things to retain that power - things like screwing up the budget of the Pentagon, of all places, so bad that they are publicly speaking out about forced earmarks they don't want and labeling them as the fraud, waste and abuse they are. BTW - notice the Democrats stuffed more into the military budget then the Republicans. Kinda blows the lame party stereotypes out of the water - both parties are the problem, kids, because they are in it for themselves - not you or me or America in general. Wake up! If your arguing about Democrats vs. Republicans you have already lost. That's the game they want you to play!
Yes, there are many people in Government who are in it to try to improve things - but they are in the vast minority, and by in large lower down in the food chain. It's a rare thing indeed for something like a congress critter to be routinely (i.e. other then the rare target of opportunity) to be an honest to goodness champion for "public good". Mostly because the system will flush them out in a heart beat.
And that's our fault for paying attention to asinine things like party politics instead of what is really going on. We continually reward these guys for bad behavior by returning them right back to their seats of power. Time and again. Why should they change? We don't hold them accountable. Heck, they can switch parties and still get elected! Worlds biggest con...
See I told you there were people here speaking for AT&T.
And?
Afraid a little logic and reason might show your tirades for the sham they are?
How dare these people believe they should be able to use a product they purchased in a manner of their own choosing.
Yup, especially since the terms and conditions were sprung on them.
Without any opportunity to simply not buy the said object of derision
Now having said that, would I like to be able to stick a SIM card from another carrier in my phone? Sure. Is it preventing me from using and enjoying my iPhone right now? Not in the least.
If it does for you, the don't buy it! Otherwise your actions are irrational.
What goes down between Apple and AT&T also affects those users.
Australia is a free country, if mocking you American's makes you get off your fat asses* and help free us from these artificial limitations which also affect those not on AT&T then we have a legitimate right to comment however we want within the rules of this forum.
ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ!
Be a dweeb somewhere else and stop having a conversation with yourself.
I'll chalk this up to sarcasm attempting to be serious and mocking the entire thread.
None of this thread is of any value as we have zero input on contracts.
*Note Australia took the world's fattest nation crown off the USA a while ago, so technically our asses are fatter than yours.
Almost 50% of iPhones are sold outside the US.
What goes down between Apple and AT&T also affects those users.
Australia is a free country, if mocking you American's makes you get off your fat asses* and help free us from these artificial limitations which also affect those not on AT&T then we have a legitimate right to comment however we want within the rules of this forum.
ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ!
*Note Australia took the world's fattest nation crown off the USA a while ago, so technically our asses are fatter than yours.
Urgh. I like the asterisk part.
The internet has standards, and a well established standards process, and it doesn't seem to have retarded innovation. And, yes, that's exactly the point, force them to compete in other ways: on price, on service, etc. The government track record of regulating industries is just fine. What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition and deregulation, which often fails spectacularly or leads to corporate abuses.
I fully understand that the wireless carries don't want to have to really compete against each other. I'm sure they are very happy with and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, but allowing them to do so goes against the public interest and causes continual harm to consumers. I welcome forceful government intervention in this market and we will all benefit in the long-term from it. The idea that government is not a good regulator and that government intervention typically causes more harm than good is a pernicious fiction perpetrated by people who don't believe in, or don't want, government acting for the public good.
Thank you for the post. I really get tired of debating the facts with all of these anti-regulation, lasissez-faire zealots who don't understand the importance of regulation to *encourage* competition and remove the abuses of large entrenched corporations. (and certainly when you are talking about publicly owned or publicly invested assets). Allowing the cellular companies to use segments of the publicly-owned spectrum is not a right.
Whether it had ultimately been CDMA or GSM, I guarantee the United States would have a far more competitive wireless environment if leased spectrum had a technology mandate attached to it. Customers would have full mobility with their devices, and so carriers would be forced to compete on service and price, and would not be able to lock-in customers with the inherent incompatibilities in cellphone hardware.
A good example is the UK, where the popular carriers are all using GSM/UMTS/HSPA, and customers are able to get the most expensive handsets (Like the Nokia N95/N97 back in the day, or the high-end Sony Ericcson models) on the market for free or very little cost on contract, depending on term and monthly spend. Even the iPhone is now free I believe.
I am a business-friendly democrat and entrepreneur, and I am far more ideologically aligned with most of the progressive technology companies than the old-guard, corporate abuses of telecommunications, energy, media, etc.
Bing Bing Bing!
We have a winner!
And she is..
Um, the Internet standards evolved in a combination of the DARPA research labs (military research, not regulatory) and the universities. And the growth of the Internet and the "standards" it is built around wasn't and still isn't pretty, but it did work and without government regulation. There are no laws requiring the use of TCP/IP or any other standards for the Internet - never were, and never will be. The 'net as it is evolved out of market realities, not some government nanny.
Government mandates would retard innovation because at that point if you mandate X, what's the point of trying to do Y or Z - all you can do is X!
OK, so, my point was that standards don't necessarily retard innovation. You agree that the Internet has standards and innovation. Yet, your ideological blinders don't allow for the possibility that government regulation can take place but in the single way of mandating a specific frozen X?
Are you just being intellectually lazy or deliberately obtuse?
Here's one example of how government regulation spurs innovation: The EPA doesn't tell auto manufacturers how to design engines for fuel efficiency. They set mileage targets and leave it to manufacturers to determine the best way to do that. Auto manufacturers are forced to innovate to meet the mileage targets. (And, BTW, their cars all run on the same government built roads.)
This is one example that comes to me with just the smallest mental effort while drinking my morning coffee. So, please, everyone, the next time you feel compelled to write, "government regulation stifles innovation," just step away from the keyboard and remind yourself that, "Oh, no it doesn't necessarily."
Really? Give one example. I know, food! Whoops, maybe we really don't wan to go into that. I know - the airlines! I hear they are doing swell! What? Shoot, well how about Wall Street? I just know that since there is money involved they are on top of that. Recession you say? Well, shoot - I'm sure there is a good example out there somewhere...
Well, now, what you are referring to here are failures of government to fulfill it's duty to properly regulate these industries. It's criminal, I know, and people should go to jail... like the entire Bush administration. Oh, BTW, maybe you didn't get the memo on airline deregulation?
What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition
Isn't that part of regulation? Once you start regulating something, by definition you really can't stop until - wait for it - you de-regulate it! Right here you are basically admitting that regulation doesn't work...
OK, this just doesn't make any sense at all in the context of what you quoted.
Really?
How does not being able to have a phone stuck up your butt 24/7 cause "harm"? I seem to remember growing up without a cell phone just fine, thank you. Blah blah blah blah blah...
Well, we aren't really interested in hearing about your sexual habits, but "harm" in this context refers to consumer choice being artificially restricted so that consumers can be charged artificially high prices. And, hey, I support your right to do whatever you like with your cell phone!
Yes, just like our country has benefited from the massive explosion of government post WWII
Well, yes, up till about 1980, it did.
Government is an institution, and it's run by humans - not this nebulous entity with mythical powers. Humans that have all the same qualities that are often ascribed to those "evil" corporations...
So, your argument is that people are evil, whether in the public or private sector, so we shouldn't trust them? Oh, and that there should be no regulation?
So, assuming that, you think you're better off with the evil corporate people who have no accountability to you and (without any regulation) no restrictions on what they do than than with the evil government people who have at least some accountability to you?
Yes, there are many people in Government who are in it to try to improve things - but they are in the vast minority, and by in large lower down in the food chain. It's a rare thing indeed for something like a congress critter to be routinely (i.e. other then the rare target of opportunity) to be an honest to goodness champion for "public good". Mostly because the system will flush them out in a heart beat.
And that's our fault for paying attention to asinine things like party politics instead of what is really going on. We continually reward these guys for bad behavior by returning them right back to their seats of power. Time and again. Why should they change? We don't hold them accountable. Heck, they can switch parties and still get elected! Worlds biggest con...
Look, I'm discouraged too by what's happened to this country since 1980. But, I'm old enough to remember a better time. A time when we did things like go to the moon not because it was easy but because it was hard. There is hope!
OK, so, my point was that standards don't necessarily retard innovation. You agree that the Internet has standards and innovation. Yet, your ideological blinders don't allow for the possibility that government regulation can take place but in the single way of mandating a specific frozen X?
Are you just being intellectually lazy or deliberately obtuse?
Here's one example of how government regulation spurs innovation: The EPA doesn't tell auto manufacturers how to design engines for fuel efficiency. They set mileage targets and leave it to manufacturers to determine the best way to do that. Auto manufacturers are forced to innovate to meet the mileage targets. (And, BTW, their cars all run on the same government built roads.)
This is one example that comes to me with just the smallest mental effort while drinking my morning coffee. So, please, everyone, the next time you feel compelled to write, "government regulation stifles innovation," just step away from the keyboard and remind yourself that, "Oh, no it doesn't necessarily."
Well, now, what you are referring to here are failures of government to fulfill it's duty to properly regulate these industries. It's criminal, I know, and people should go to jail... like the entire Bush administration. Oh, BTW, maybe you didn't get the memo on airline deregulation?
OK, this just doesn't make any sense at all in the context of what you quoted.
Well, we aren't really interested in hearing about your sexual habits, but "harm" in this context refers to consumer choice being artificially restricted so that consumers can be charged artificially high prices. And, hey, I support your right to do whatever you like with your cell phone!
Well, yes, up till about 1980, it did.
So, your argument is that people are evil, whether in the public or private sector, so we shouldn't trust them? Oh, and that there should be no regulation?
So, assuming that, you think you're better off with the evil corporate people who have no accountability to you and (without any regulation) no restrictions on what they do than than with the evil government people who have at least some accountability to you?
Look, I'm discouraged too by what's happened to this country since 1980. But, I'm old enough to remember a better time. A time when we did things like go to the moon not because it was easy but because it was hard. There is hope!
Whoa whoa whoa, easy dude.
Yup, especially since the terms and conditions were sprung on them.
Without any opportunity to simply not buy the said object of derision
Now having said that, would I like to be able to stick a SIM card from another carrier in my phone? Sure. Is it preventing me from using and enjoying my iPhone right now? Not in the least.
If it does for you, the don't buy it! Otherwise your actions are irrational.
Terms and conditions on use of personal property would an interesting exercise in enforcement or even in trying to argue their validity. You buy the phone outright, it is yours to do with as you please, within the law.
You might instead be referring to the ToS on the service and or software(OS). you don't buy these. But can and should copyright on the software allow the producer to limit your ability to buy and sell from independent vendors products and services related to you personal property? Large corporations imposing barriers to trade are as effective and perhaps as wrong as the goverment doing so.
No. They want the FCC to encourage Apple to be more transparent in their approval process. They want Apple to not use their control of the AppStore as unfair leverage against other developers. Apple has set themselves up as the only [legitimate] way to get apps onto the computers (iPhones) that customers legally purchased. As such, they have imposed a barrier to commerce between application developers and their customers.
Now, even an AT&T sales clerk should realize that as a customer, you are allowed to use a long distance calling card from your AT&T phones. Hell, you can even use it from your landline. You may even be aware that you can choose alternative long distance providers instead of using your local teleco. Now, if your local telco tried to prevent you from doing so, they should and would be investigated by the FCC. If AT&T tried to block the use of legal calling cards from their cell network users, they would be investigated. Blocking the GV apps appears to be just such an effort, as from the calling side, that is really all the GV service is. But, then as an AT&T employee you might not be able to see this. Perhaps you even disagree with being being able to choose long distance providers or use calling cards.
I personally feel that the FCC should FO and mind their own business though.