First, the government should just let companies make their own decisions and they should not be telling any company who/what/where/why/how they should run their business.
Right, because that approach has historically worked so well on, say, Wall Street.
Well, there are some technical limitation with the iPhone in the US. The only other compatible carrier for the iPhone in the US is T-Mobile and their network does not support the iPhones 3G frequencies. With T-Mobile your iPhone will work but you will be limited to EDGE unless Apple modify their designs. So there is somehow a technical limitation.
A better analogy to your example is PC games not working correctly with your PC because you use incompatible Video card from different manufacturer, which is common. However, he was not referring to technical limitations. His analogies are correct, XBoX can be ported to other platforms such as PS3 and Wii and vice versa but no one is forcing them to.
I had to look it up since I'm not familar with the American carriers, but it looks like you are correct is this particular instance as the iPhone doesn't support t-mobiles 1700Mhz 3G band. I have no problem with a carrier not having a phone if the is a limitation that would detract from the user experience, but quite often that is not the case. For example the original iPhone being edge only would have worked fine on t-mobiles network, but was still AT&T exclusive. Iguess you could argue the visual voicemail point but there are plenty of phones out there that have zero technical limitations out there that are not allowed on compatible networks. I think the fact that the xbox analogy has any relevance is just luck. He just selected a bunch of technological items that can't be used together and used them as a reason why the iPhone can be exclusive without considering why the iPhone is exclusive or why those technologies are exclusive.
Yes, well, the question is, should the FCC allow carriers to introduce and maintain these sorts of incompatibilities using a resource that belongs to the public -- i.e., radio spectrum -- as a means of locking customers in with technology, or should the FCC mandate that the wireless information highways be compatible with each other, just as our physical highways are compatible with all the cars sold in this country.
I think it's ludicrous that we allow wireless carriers to run incompatible networks, on publicly owned radio spectrum. If the FCC mandated common technology, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now and there wouldn't be any issues of Apple having to produce different hardware for different carriers. I mean, how crazy is that!?
Samab from Qualcomm will be along to argue the contrary with bad examples related to 3G rollouts in Europe, but his arguments have historically misrepresented these issues, and I doubt he has anything new to say.
It's ludicrous to believe that any bureaucrat can foresee the future in technology and make a correct decision on technology choices.
The Japanese government mandated a Japan-only 2G network that nobody in the world uses. The Korean government mandated a Korea-only mobile API on every cell phone in Korea that nobody in the world uses. The Korean government is still pushing wibro (korean version of wimax). The Chinese government is still pushing their home-grown 3G standard (which hasn't worked well enough beyond prototypes) when the rest of the world is migrating to 4G networks.
For every success like GSM, there are going to be littered with dozens of cell phone technology failures. That's how the high tech world works. If one carrier picks the wrong technology, that one carrier suffers financially alone. If one country picks the wrong technology --- the whole country suffers.
Somehow, Qualcomm's CDMA is the wrong technology --- yet Qualcomm is the largest mobile technology company by market capitalization in the world. Somehow, Verizon Wireless picked the low-volume, high-cost CDMA technology, and Verizon Wireless ended up with the highest profit margin in the US. Somehow, AT&T with its user-friendly GSM standard has the lowest consumer satisfaction rate and Verizon with its consumer-choice sucking standard has the highest consumer satisfaction rate.
Conceptually, I have some agreement with you. But given the Government's track record at picking technologies, it would've mandated something way behind the times, and your tax dollars would be doled out to help companies try to implement it.
That's it right there! Most astute observation/post today!
'Government's track record at picking technologies...'
Betamax vs. VHS, GSM vs. CDMA. Imagine if the Government had 'picked' Windows over Apple's OS!
Right, because that approach has historically worked so well on, say, Wall Street.
Agreed, we allowed Wall Street to be in charge over our 401K's, crunch!
We've allowed the 'fortress five,' (large banks) to be in charge of mortgages, crunch! (side note: You see the media reporting, 'home values have decreased 30% in the last year.' The more important fact is that most homeowner's equity has been reduced by 60%-70%)
Yeah let's just have the insurance companies run our health care and oh, yeah, let ATT and Verizon run our cell phone service without any oversight.
I'm all for a 'fair/free market.' But it has to be 'free' and 'fair' first!
Agreed, we allowed Wall Street to be in charge over our 401K's, crunch!
We've allowed the 'fortress five,' (large banks) to be in charge of mortgages, crunch! (side note: You see the media reporting, 'home values have decreased 30% in the last year.' The more important fact is that most homeowner's equity has been reduced by 60%-70%)
Yeah let's just have the insurance companies run our health care and oh, yeah, let ATT and Verizon run our cell phone service without any oversight.
I'm all for a 'fair/free market.' But it has to be 'free' and 'fair' first!
Wrong again. You were in charge of your 401k.....you chose to contribute...and you chose the investments....all the Gov did was define what a 401k was.
The large banks got large because customers chose them. Consumers had a choice....not a mandate from the government. If you don't want choice and you want the government to control everything, go to Russia.....I hear they have a thriving economy and a technology sector that the world envies .
That's it right there! Most astute observation/post today!
'Government's track record at picking technologies...'
Betamax vs. VHS, GSM vs. CDMA. Imagine if the Government had 'picked' Windows over Apple's OS!
Well, so far, no one seems to be complaining too much about the switch to HDTV broadcasting. And that whole Internet thing everyone is so wild about was invented by a government program: DARPA.
And, most of the things you mention are not equivalent to GSM vs. CDMA: it's the only one of your examples that uses a publicly owned resource.
They would sell a lot more if they lowered the price, chose other carriers and force the carriers to compete based upon their service and price instead of locking a much desired phone to just one carrier.
The FCC should mandate that any phone that is capable and not a threat should be allowed on any carriers network.
In other words, get the carriers back to being carriers and not device sellers and manipulators.
Now that AT&T has their own 3G netbook, what's is stopping them from hampering, discouraging or disallowing other companies from doing the same?
Is the world going to end up having carrier supplied phones?
Well, so far, no one seems to be complaining too much about the switch to HDTV broadcasting. And that whole Internet thing everyone is so wild about was invented by a government program: DARPA.
And, most of the things you mention are not equivalent to GSM vs. CDMA: it's the only one of your examples that uses a publicly owned resource.
The Japanese government bet on analog HDTV and lost that one as well --- suddenly the Korean companies own the tv market and Samsung becomes the largest tv manufacturer in the world.
The Japanese government bet on analog HDTV and lost that one as well --- suddenly the Korean companies own the tv market and Samsung becomes the largest tv manufacturer in the world.
And why is that? Could it be because the U.S. is the largest consumer economy in the world and our choices insured the success of digital HDTV?
The idea that a standard wireless technology in the U.S. could somehow cause us to be left out is, frankly, a bit silly.
Well, so far, no one seems to be complaining too much about the switch to HDTV broadcasting. And that whole Internet thing everyone is so wild about was invented by a government program: DARPA.
And, most of the things you mention are not equivalent to GSM vs. CDMA: it's the only one of your examples that uses a publicly owned resource.
Yeah....it only took them 60 years to go from SDTV to HDTV....that was fast, government, thank you! HDTV was demonstrated in the 1980s !!!! On top of that, they couldn't even get that right as they delayed the cutover date over and over again.
Yeah....it only took them 60 years to go from SDTV to HDTV....that was fast, government, thank you! HDTV was demonstrated in the 1980s !!!! On top of that, they couldn't even get that right as they delayed the cutover date over and over again.
Interesting math: 2009 - 1980 == 60 (And, of course, demonstrated and ready for deployment are not the same thing.)
And, part of the reason the HDTV switch was done over such a long period was that it was designed to not be backward compatible, so, to avoid disrupting TV service to large parts of the population, they basically had to wait until all the parts were in place. I think all the evidence actually indicates that they did indeed "get that right".
It's amazing how the FUD starts to fly when something good for consumers is suggested.
And the American choice for their cell phone service is CDMA
Well, you're the only one here expressing your vested interest in a particular technology. Although, to say that Americans chose CDMA, or any other technology, is misleading. I didn't choose the iPhone so I could be on a GSM network, it's just what I got.
I don't really care what is chosen, as long as something is chosen, and the insanity of the wireless industry in this country is ended. It's not like I can take my iPhone to Europe and use it anyway, given what it would cost me to do so.
On the other hand, if the larger markets agreed on a standard, that would very likely push most of the rest of the world to follow.
I don't really care what is chosen, as long as something is chosen, and the insanity of the wireless industry in this country is ended. It's not like I can take my iPhone to Europe and use it anyway, given what it would cost me to do so.
So you would be fine if the US government chose the chinese home-grown 3G technology (TD-SCDMA) or wimax as the next cell phone network standard.
Then what? The TD-SCDMA standard is a complete bust.
I had to look it up since I'm not familar with the American carriers, but it looks like you are correct is this particular instance as the iPhone doesn't support t-mobiles 1700Mhz 3G band. I have no problem with a carrier not having a phone if the is a limitation that would detract from the user experience, but quite often that is not the case. For example the original iPhone being edge only would have worked fine on t-mobiles network, but was still AT&T exclusive. Iguess you could argue the visual voicemail point but there are plenty of phones out there that have zero technical limitations out there that are not allowed on compatible networks. I think the fact that the xbox analogy has any relevance is just luck. He just selected a bunch of technological items that can't be used together and used them as a reason why the iPhone can be exclusive without considering why the iPhone is exclusive or why those technologies are exclusive.
All of NasserAE?s comment were apt. The lock-in is the only arbitrary limitation and it?s done across the entire cellular industry in the US, especially with CDMA phones. Everything else is just straight up network incompatibilities. Even the 3G and 3GS iPhones will work with T-Mobile USA, but of course only on EDGE.
Well, you're the only one here expressing your vested interest in a particular technology. Although, to say that Americans chose CDMA, or any other technology, is misleading. I didn't choose the iPhone so I could be on a GSM network, it's just what I got.
I don't really care what is chosen, as long as something is chosen, and the insanity of the wireless industry in this country is ended. It's not like I can take my iPhone to Europe and use it anyway, given what it would cost me to do so.
On the other hand, if the larger markets agreed on a standard, that would very likely push most of the rest of the world to follow.
If we go by data usage on a mobile phone, America has clearly chosen GSM which accounts for at least 66% of all mobile traffic. We know this because the iPhone is GSM and accounts for 66% of all mobile traffic.
I?m quite glad that I can be on a call and use cellular data at the same time with a GSM-based 3G phone.
PS: Would Verizon had allowed WiFi on the iPhone. They didn?t seem to keen on it with the first BB Storm. The iPhone seems to have changed that.
All of NasserAE?s comment were apt. The lock-in is the only arbitrary limitation and it?s done across the entire cellular industry in the US, especially with CDMA phones. Everything else is just straight up network incompatibilities. Even the 3G and 3GS iPhones will work with T-Mobile USA, but of course only on EDGE.
At least Americans just have to pay pro-rated ETF's to get out of contracts.
Many other countries, you have to pay off the rest of the contract in order to get out.
Comments
First, the government should just let companies make their own decisions and they should not be telling any company who/what/where/why/how they should run their business.
Right, because that approach has historically worked so well on, say, Wall Street.
Well, there are some technical limitation with the iPhone in the US. The only other compatible carrier for the iPhone in the US is T-Mobile and their network does not support the iPhones 3G frequencies. With T-Mobile your iPhone will work but you will be limited to EDGE unless Apple modify their designs. So there is somehow a technical limitation.
A better analogy to your example is PC games not working correctly with your PC because you use incompatible Video card from different manufacturer, which is common. However, he was not referring to technical limitations. His analogies are correct, XBoX can be ported to other platforms such as PS3 and Wii and vice versa but no one is forcing them to.
I had to look it up since I'm not familar with the American carriers, but it looks like you are correct is this particular instance as the iPhone doesn't support t-mobiles 1700Mhz 3G band. I have no problem with a carrier not having a phone if the is a limitation that would detract from the user experience, but quite often that is not the case. For example the original iPhone being edge only would have worked fine on t-mobiles network, but was still AT&T exclusive. Iguess you could argue the visual voicemail point but there are plenty of phones out there that have zero technical limitations out there that are not allowed on compatible networks. I think the fact that the xbox analogy has any relevance is just luck. He just selected a bunch of technological items that can't be used together and used them as a reason why the iPhone can be exclusive without considering why the iPhone is exclusive or why those technologies are exclusive.
Yes, well, the question is, should the FCC allow carriers to introduce and maintain these sorts of incompatibilities using a resource that belongs to the public -- i.e., radio spectrum -- as a means of locking customers in with technology, or should the FCC mandate that the wireless information highways be compatible with each other, just as our physical highways are compatible with all the cars sold in this country.
I think it's ludicrous that we allow wireless carriers to run incompatible networks, on publicly owned radio spectrum. If the FCC mandated common technology, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now and there wouldn't be any issues of Apple having to produce different hardware for different carriers. I mean, how crazy is that!?
Samab from Qualcomm will be along to argue the contrary with bad examples related to 3G rollouts in Europe, but his arguments have historically misrepresented these issues, and I doubt he has anything new to say.
It's ludicrous to believe that any bureaucrat can foresee the future in technology and make a correct decision on technology choices.
The Japanese government mandated a Japan-only 2G network that nobody in the world uses. The Korean government mandated a Korea-only mobile API on every cell phone in Korea that nobody in the world uses. The Korean government is still pushing wibro (korean version of wimax). The Chinese government is still pushing their home-grown 3G standard (which hasn't worked well enough beyond prototypes) when the rest of the world is migrating to 4G networks.
For every success like GSM, there are going to be littered with dozens of cell phone technology failures. That's how the high tech world works. If one carrier picks the wrong technology, that one carrier suffers financially alone. If one country picks the wrong technology --- the whole country suffers.
Somehow, Qualcomm's CDMA is the wrong technology --- yet Qualcomm is the largest mobile technology company by market capitalization in the world. Somehow, Verizon Wireless picked the low-volume, high-cost CDMA technology, and Verizon Wireless ended up with the highest profit margin in the US. Somehow, AT&T with its user-friendly GSM standard has the lowest consumer satisfaction rate and Verizon with its consumer-choice sucking standard has the highest consumer satisfaction rate.
Conceptually, I have some agreement with you. But given the Government's track record at picking technologies, it would've mandated something way behind the times, and your tax dollars would be doled out to help companies try to implement it.
That's it right there! Most astute observation/post today!
'Government's track record at picking technologies...'
Betamax vs. VHS, GSM vs. CDMA. Imagine if the Government had 'picked' Windows over Apple's OS!
Right, because that approach has historically worked so well on, say, Wall Street.
Agreed, we allowed Wall Street to be in charge over our 401K's, crunch!
We've allowed the 'fortress five,' (large banks) to be in charge of mortgages, crunch! (side note: You see the media reporting, 'home values have decreased 30% in the last year.' The more important fact is that most homeowner's equity has been reduced by 60%-70%)
Yeah let's just have the insurance companies run our health care and oh, yeah, let ATT and Verizon run our cell phone service without any oversight.
I'm all for a 'fair/free market.' But it has to be 'free' and 'fair' first!
Agreed, we allowed Wall Street to be in charge over our 401K's, crunch!
We've allowed the 'fortress five,' (large banks) to be in charge of mortgages, crunch! (side note: You see the media reporting, 'home values have decreased 30% in the last year.' The more important fact is that most homeowner's equity has been reduced by 60%-70%)
Yeah let's just have the insurance companies run our health care and oh, yeah, let ATT and Verizon run our cell phone service without any oversight.
I'm all for a 'fair/free market.' But it has to be 'free' and 'fair' first!
Wrong again. You were in charge of your 401k.....you chose to contribute...and you chose the investments....all the Gov did was define what a 401k was.
The large banks got large because customers chose them. Consumers had a choice....not a mandate from the government. If you don't want choice and you want the government to control everything, go to Russia.....I hear they have a thriving economy and a technology sector that the world envies
That's it right there! Most astute observation/post today!
'Government's track record at picking technologies...'
Betamax vs. VHS, GSM vs. CDMA. Imagine if the Government had 'picked' Windows over Apple's OS!
Well, so far, no one seems to be complaining too much about the switch to HDTV broadcasting. And that whole Internet thing everyone is so wild about was invented by a government program: DARPA.
And, most of the things you mention are not equivalent to GSM vs. CDMA: it's the only one of your examples that uses a publicly owned resource.
They would sell a lot more if they lowered the price, chose other carriers and force the carriers to compete based upon their service and price instead of locking a much desired phone to just one carrier.
The FCC should mandate that any phone that is capable and not a threat should be allowed on any carriers network.
In other words, get the carriers back to being carriers and not device sellers and manipulators.
Now that AT&T has their own 3G netbook, what's is stopping them from hampering, discouraging or disallowing other companies from doing the same?
Is the world going to end up having carrier supplied phones?
Have no fear .
Apple with go carrier-less soon enough.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article...icleid/3429483
topic here
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=102053
M V D O system looks real good on paper . Seems like who ever has the best 3g/4g network would win the day .
9
Well, so far, no one seems to be complaining too much about the switch to HDTV broadcasting. And that whole Internet thing everyone is so wild about was invented by a government program: DARPA.
And, most of the things you mention are not equivalent to GSM vs. CDMA: it's the only one of your examples that uses a publicly owned resource.
The Japanese government bet on analog HDTV and lost that one as well --- suddenly the Korean companies own the tv market and Samsung becomes the largest tv manufacturer in the world.
The Japanese government bet on analog HDTV and lost that one as well --- suddenly the Korean companies own the tv market and Samsung becomes the largest tv manufacturer in the world.
And why is that? Could it be because the U.S. is the largest consumer economy in the world and our choices insured the success of digital HDTV?
The idea that a standard wireless technology in the U.S. could somehow cause us to be left out is, frankly, a bit silly.
Well, so far, no one seems to be complaining too much about the switch to HDTV broadcasting. And that whole Internet thing everyone is so wild about was invented by a government program: DARPA.
And, most of the things you mention are not equivalent to GSM vs. CDMA: it's the only one of your examples that uses a publicly owned resource.
Yeah....it only took them 60 years to go from SDTV to HDTV....that was fast, government, thank you! HDTV was demonstrated in the 1980s !!!! On top of that, they couldn't even get that right as they delayed the cutover date over and over again.
Yeah....it only took them 60 years to go from SDTV to HDTV....that was fast, government, thank you! HDTV was demonstrated in the 1980s !!!! On top of that, they couldn't even get that right as they delayed the cutover date over and over again.
Interesting math: 2009 - 1980 == 60 (And, of course, demonstrated and ready for deployment are not the same thing.)
And, part of the reason the HDTV switch was done over such a long period was that it was designed to not be backward compatible, so, to avoid disrupting TV service to large parts of the population, they basically had to wait until all the parts were in place. I think all the evidence actually indicates that they did indeed "get that right".
It's amazing how the FUD starts to fly when something good for consumers is suggested.
And why is that? Could it be because the U.S. is the largest consumer economy in the world and our choices insured the success of digital HDTV?
The idea that a standard wireless technology in the U.S. could somehow cause us to be left out is, frankly, a bit silly.
And the American choice for their cell phone service is CDMA --- where they have more than 50% of the market share in the US.
It's an Amreican invention --- the US government loves that.
It's good for the American consumer --- Verizon Wireless has the highest consumer satisfaction rate.
It's good for the American carriers --- Verizon Wireless has the highest profit margin in the US.
And the American choice for their cell phone service is CDMA
Well, you're the only one here expressing your vested interest in a particular technology. Although, to say that Americans chose CDMA, or any other technology, is misleading. I didn't choose the iPhone so I could be on a GSM network, it's just what I got.
I don't really care what is chosen, as long as something is chosen, and the insanity of the wireless industry in this country is ended. It's not like I can take my iPhone to Europe and use it anyway, given what it would cost me to do so.
On the other hand, if the larger markets agreed on a standard, that would very likely push most of the rest of the world to follow.
I don't really care what is chosen, as long as something is chosen, and the insanity of the wireless industry in this country is ended. It's not like I can take my iPhone to Europe and use it anyway, given what it would cost me to do so.
So you would be fine if the US government chose the chinese home-grown 3G technology (TD-SCDMA) or wimax as the next cell phone network standard.
Then what? The TD-SCDMA standard is a complete bust.
I had to look it up since I'm not familar with the American carriers, but it looks like you are correct is this particular instance as the iPhone doesn't support t-mobiles 1700Mhz 3G band. I have no problem with a carrier not having a phone if the is a limitation that would detract from the user experience, but quite often that is not the case. For example the original iPhone being edge only would have worked fine on t-mobiles network, but was still AT&T exclusive. Iguess you could argue the visual voicemail point but there are plenty of phones out there that have zero technical limitations out there that are not allowed on compatible networks. I think the fact that the xbox analogy has any relevance is just luck. He just selected a bunch of technological items that can't be used together and used them as a reason why the iPhone can be exclusive without considering why the iPhone is exclusive or why those technologies are exclusive.
All of NasserAE?s comment were apt. The lock-in is the only arbitrary limitation and it?s done across the entire cellular industry in the US, especially with CDMA phones. Everything else is just straight up network incompatibilities. Even the 3G and 3GS iPhones will work with T-Mobile USA, but of course only on EDGE.
So you would be fine if the US government chose the chinese home-grown 3G technology (TD-SCDMA) or wimax as the next cell phone network standard.
Then what? The TD-SCDMA standard is a complete bust.
Note that the China Mobile choose TD-SCDMA to avoid the high license fees from Qualcomm.
Note that the China Mobile choose TD-SCDMA to avoid the high license fees from Qualcomm.
You have to spend money to make money. Being cheap in the short run, hurt them in the long run.
Well, you're the only one here expressing your vested interest in a particular technology. Although, to say that Americans chose CDMA, or any other technology, is misleading. I didn't choose the iPhone so I could be on a GSM network, it's just what I got.
I don't really care what is chosen, as long as something is chosen, and the insanity of the wireless industry in this country is ended. It's not like I can take my iPhone to Europe and use it anyway, given what it would cost me to do so.
On the other hand, if the larger markets agreed on a standard, that would very likely push most of the rest of the world to follow.
If we go by data usage on a mobile phone, America has clearly chosen GSM which accounts for at least 66% of all mobile traffic. We know this because the iPhone is GSM and accounts for 66% of all mobile traffic.
I?m quite glad that I can be on a call and use cellular data at the same time with a GSM-based 3G phone.
PS: Would Verizon had allowed WiFi on the iPhone. They didn?t seem to keen on it with the first BB Storm. The iPhone seems to have changed that.
All of NasserAE?s comment were apt. The lock-in is the only arbitrary limitation and it?s done across the entire cellular industry in the US, especially with CDMA phones. Everything else is just straight up network incompatibilities. Even the 3G and 3GS iPhones will work with T-Mobile USA, but of course only on EDGE.
At least Americans just have to pay pro-rated ETF's to get out of contracts.
Many other countries, you have to pay off the rest of the contract in order to get out.