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.
My point is that, unlike you, I'm not here to push a particular technology. I very much doubt they would choose a standard that is, in your words, a complete bust. I'd be fine if they put the U.S. carriers in a room and told them to come out when they agreed on what they wanted to use, with the FCC simply knocking heads together when they are dragging their feet, not allowing them to sabotage the process for their own ends, and reviewing the decision to ensure it serves the public interest.
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.
Counting mobile web traffic is an art, not a science --- extremely not accurate to begin with.
Also the study only counts on web traffic --- which excludes much of the enterprise datacard users.
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.
That is a good thing. I signed up for my Sierra Wireless 3G card a month too soon and had to pay the full $175 to get out of that contract even though I had it about 18 months. It was slightly more cost effective to just pay the fee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
My point is that, unlike you, I'm not here to push a particular technology. I very much doubt they would choose a standard that is, in your words, a complete bust. I'd be fine if they put the U.S. carriers in a room and told them to come out when they agreed on what they wanted to use, with the FCC simply knocking heads together when they are dragging their feet, not allowing them to sabotage the process for their own ends, and reviewing the decision to ensure it serves the public interest.
That seems to go against your previous claims that CDMA & CDMA2000 licensing costs to Qualcomm are the same as the lesser patents of just W-CDMA.
There is no contradiction at all.
Verizon Wireless has to spend more money on a low volume high cost limited selection of handsets with zero economies of scale --- yet they are able to charge a premium for their service and is the most profitable wireless carrier in the US.
My point is that, unlike you, I'm not here to push a particular technology. I very much doubt they would choose a standard that is, in your words, a complete bust. I'd be fine if they put the U.S. carriers in a room and told them to come out when they agreed on what they wanted to use, with the FCC simply knocking heads together when they are dragging their feet, not allowing them to sabotage the process for their own ends, and reviewing the decision to ensure it serves the public interest.
I am not pushing any kind of particular technology at all.
I am saying that your kind of government "helping" setting technology standards have been littered with failures after failures.
Do you think that the Japanese government "created" analog hdtv standard --- of course not, they forced all the Japanese consumer electronics companies into a single room and told them to come out with a standard. Samething with their unique 2G standard.
I am not pushing any kind of particular technology at all.
Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Do you think that the Japanese government "created" analog hdtv standard --- of course not, they forced all the Japanese consumer electronics companies into a single room and told them to come out with a standard. Samething with their unique 2G standard.
We already covered and dismissed this argument earlier in the thread.
We already covered and dismissed this argument earlier in the thread.
No, you only argued why the HDTV movement took such a long time.
You didn't answer why the Japanese government telling a bunch of the world's largest consumer electronics companies (during the 1980's when Japan ruled the world) to sit in a room and come up with a standard would fail completely.
Or why Japan's government telling their cell phone manufacturers to come up with a 2G standard would fail as well.
History is littered with these failures. GSM is the exception --- a lucky exception.
No, you only argued why the HDTV movement took such a long time.
You didn't answer why the Japanese government telling a bunch of the world's largest consumer electronics companies (during the 1980's when Japan ruled the world) to sit in a room and come up with a standard would fail completely.
By that line of argument, the US would have ruled the cell phone technology as well. And American car companies would still rule the world because Americans use the most number of cars.
There weren't a single American owned consumer electronics company that had any kind of profitable business at that time.
By that line of argument, the US would have ruled the cell phone technology as well. And American car companies would still rule the world because Americans use the most number of cars.
There weren't a single American owned consumer electronics company that had any kind of profitable business at that time.
No, by my line of argument, if there's a market for it, people will make it, and the larger the market, the more they will want to sell into it.
That doesn't follow in any way at all. In the first case, we are talking about ensuring that the underlying network technology is compatible across carriers. This is much the same as multiple ISPs using TCP/IP protocols to carry data. (OK, it's not exactly the same, but it's analogous.) In the second case, you are talking about what in this analogy would be specific features of, or programs on, a computer that uses TCP/IP networking.
In the first case there's a public interest served in making sure that the underlying technology is compatible. In the second case, the issue of the public interest is not involved. The FCC doesn't have an unlimited mandate, nor will Congress give them one, to regulate the sort of things you are talking about. Raising a point like this is simply sowing FUD, intentionally or not.
AT&T, Verizon, and others are moving toward 4G LTE, which I understand are compatible, and they didn't need government mandate.
AT&T, Verizon, and others are moving toward 4G LTE, which I understand are compatible, and they didn't need government mandate.
If that results in phones that are compatible across carriers, that would be great. Somehow, I think their going to need a little mandate to make that actually happen, as well as to make them unlock the phones.
Hahahaha, yes, but I want the market to be defined in a way that benefits consumers and you want it defined in a way that benefits Qualcomm.
I don't want the market to be defined in any way what so ever to help any company, let alone Qualcomm. Qualcomm is already the largest mobile technology company in the world by market capitalization --- so there is no need to change the whole US regulatory regime to help them grow even bigger.
I was just furthering YOUR argument.
If the US government is going to lean on a technology --- they are going to lean on the home-grown one, so it's Qualcomm.
GSM fanbois have been arguing that it would be in the interest of carriers to switch to GSM because of economies of scale --- but Verizon Wireless has the highest profit margin in the US. So it's in the carrier's self-interest to pick Qualcomm as well.
Consumers are going to pick carriers with the best service and coverage. And the carrier who has the highest consumer satisfaction rating is Verizon Wireless, a CDMA carrier. So it's in the consumer's self-interest to pick Qualcomm as well.
In YOUR world, it's a win-win-win situation to pick Qualcomm.
If that results in phones that are compatible across carriers, that would be great. Somehow, I think their going to need a little mandate to make that actually happen, as well as to make them unlock the phones.
Your argument only works in theory, with 20-20 hindsight.
Imagine that the US government mandated ev-dv --- a standard that only appeared on paper. Wimax (brought to you by Intel, an American company) looked really promising as well in 2005.
If that results in phones that are compatible across carriers, that would be great. Somehow, I think their going to need a little mandate to make that actually happen, as well as to make them unlock the phones.
No need for mandate. If they want to compete they need to move forward to 4G. This is their only option right now. Now, unlock is different story and I agree with you since it is a carrier policy (refer to my post #18). The FCC should force carriers to unlock their phone upon consumer request and should not wait for the courts to decide that. Verizon and Sprint reached a settlement last year and agreed to unlock their phones once the consumer fulfill his/her contract. The same lawsuit is going right now against AT&T and T-Mobile by the same lawyers. My guess is that same agreement will be reached. There are many red flags if you actually read your phone contract and the FCC need to address those first before doing anything else.
Comments
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.
My point is that, unlike you, I'm not here to push a particular technology. I very much doubt they would choose a standard that is, in your words, a complete bust. I'd be fine if they put the U.S. carriers in a room and told them to come out when they agreed on what they wanted to use, with the FCC simply knocking heads together when they are dragging their feet, not allowing them to sabotage the process for their own ends, and reviewing the decision to ensure it serves the public interest.
You have to spend money to make money. Being cheap in the short run, hurt them in the long run.
That seems to go against your previous claims that CDMA & CDMA2000 licensing costs to Qualcomm are the same as the lesser patents of just W-CDMA.
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.
Counting mobile web traffic is an art, not a science --- extremely not accurate to begin with.
Also the study only counts on web traffic --- which excludes much of the enterprise datacard users.
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.
That is a good thing. I signed up for my Sierra Wireless 3G card a month too soon and had to pay the full $175 to get out of that contract even though I had it about 18 months. It was slightly more cost effective to just pay the fee.
My point is that, unlike you, I'm not here to push a particular technology. I very much doubt they would choose a standard that is, in your words, a complete bust. I'd be fine if they put the U.S. carriers in a room and told them to come out when they agreed on what they wanted to use, with the FCC simply knocking heads together when they are dragging their feet, not allowing them to sabotage the process for their own ends, and reviewing the decision to ensure it serves the public interest.
I?m with you, they all have their pros and cons.
That seems to go against your previous claims that CDMA & CDMA2000 licensing costs to Qualcomm are the same as the lesser patents of just W-CDMA.
There is no contradiction at all.
Verizon Wireless has to spend more money on a low volume high cost limited selection of handsets with zero economies of scale --- yet they are able to charge a premium for their service and is the most profitable wireless carrier in the US.
My point is that, unlike you, I'm not here to push a particular technology. I very much doubt they would choose a standard that is, in your words, a complete bust. I'd be fine if they put the U.S. carriers in a room and told them to come out when they agreed on what they wanted to use, with the FCC simply knocking heads together when they are dragging their feet, not allowing them to sabotage the process for their own ends, and reviewing the decision to ensure it serves the public interest.
I am not pushing any kind of particular technology at all.
I am saying that your kind of government "helping" setting technology standards have been littered with failures after failures.
Do you think that the Japanese government "created" analog hdtv standard --- of course not, they forced all the Japanese consumer electronics companies into a single room and told them to come out with a standard. Samething with their unique 2G standard.
I am not pushing any kind of particular technology at all.
Right.
Do you think that the Japanese government "created" analog hdtv standard --- of course not, they forced all the Japanese consumer electronics companies into a single room and told them to come out with a standard. Samething with their unique 2G standard.
We already covered and dismissed this argument earlier in the thread.
Right.
We already covered and dismissed this argument earlier in the thread.
No, you only argued why the HDTV movement took such a long time.
You didn't answer why the Japanese government telling a bunch of the world's largest consumer electronics companies (during the 1980's when Japan ruled the world) to sit in a room and come up with a standard would fail completely.
Or why Japan's government telling their cell phone manufacturers to come up with a 2G standard would fail as well.
History is littered with these failures. GSM is the exception --- a lucky exception.
No, you only argued why the HDTV movement took such a long time.
You didn't answer why the Japanese government telling a bunch of the world's largest consumer electronics companies (during the 1980's when Japan ruled the world) to sit in a room and come up with a standard would fail completely.
You gotta keep up Samab:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...6&postcount=31
You gotta keep up Samab:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...6&postcount=31
By that line of argument, the US would have ruled the cell phone technology as well. And American car companies would still rule the world because Americans use the most number of cars.
There weren't a single American owned consumer electronics company that had any kind of profitable business at that time.
By that line of argument, the US would have ruled the cell phone technology as well. And American car companies would still rule the world because Americans use the most number of cars.
There weren't a single American owned consumer electronics company that had any kind of profitable business at that time.
No, by my line of argument, if there's a market for it, people will make it, and the larger the market, the more they will want to sell into it.
No, by my line of argument, if there's a market for it, people will make it, and the larger the market, the more they will want to sell into it.
Yes, that's MY line of argument --- the economy and the market will take care of things.
Don't need to mandate a standard when the market will decide who has a better item.
That doesn't follow in any way at all. In the first case, we are talking about ensuring that the underlying network technology is compatible across carriers. This is much the same as multiple ISPs using TCP/IP protocols to carry data. (OK, it's not exactly the same, but it's analogous.) In the second case, you are talking about what in this analogy would be specific features of, or programs on, a computer that uses TCP/IP networking.
In the first case there's a public interest served in making sure that the underlying technology is compatible. In the second case, the issue of the public interest is not involved. The FCC doesn't have an unlimited mandate, nor will Congress give them one, to regulate the sort of things you are talking about. Raising a point like this is simply sowing FUD, intentionally or not.
AT&T, Verizon, and others are moving toward 4G LTE, which I understand are compatible, and they didn't need government mandate.
Yes, that's MY line of argument --- the economy and the market will take care of things.
Hahahaha, yes, but I want the market to be defined in a way that benefits consumers and you want it defined in a way that benefits Qualcomm.
AT&T, Verizon, and others are moving toward 4G LTE, which I understand are compatible, and they didn't need government mandate.
If that results in phones that are compatible across carriers, that would be great. Somehow, I think their going to need a little mandate to make that actually happen, as well as to make them unlock the phones.
Hahahaha, yes, but I want the market to be defined in a way that benefits consumers and you want it defined in a way that benefits Qualcomm.
I don't want the market to be defined in any way what so ever to help any company, let alone Qualcomm. Qualcomm is already the largest mobile technology company in the world by market capitalization --- so there is no need to change the whole US regulatory regime to help them grow even bigger.
I was just furthering YOUR argument.
If the US government is going to lean on a technology --- they are going to lean on the home-grown one, so it's Qualcomm.
GSM fanbois have been arguing that it would be in the interest of carriers to switch to GSM because of economies of scale --- but Verizon Wireless has the highest profit margin in the US. So it's in the carrier's self-interest to pick Qualcomm as well.
Consumers are going to pick carriers with the best service and coverage. And the carrier who has the highest consumer satisfaction rating is Verizon Wireless, a CDMA carrier. So it's in the consumer's self-interest to pick Qualcomm as well.
In YOUR world, it's a win-win-win situation to pick Qualcomm.
If that results in phones that are compatible across carriers, that would be great. Somehow, I think their going to need a little mandate to make that actually happen, as well as to make them unlock the phones.
Your argument only works in theory, with 20-20 hindsight.
Imagine that the US government mandated ev-dv --- a standard that only appeared on paper. Wimax (brought to you by Intel, an American company) looked really promising as well in 2005.
If that results in phones that are compatible across carriers, that would be great. Somehow, I think their going to need a little mandate to make that actually happen, as well as to make them unlock the phones.
No need for mandate. If they want to compete they need to move forward to 4G. This is their only option right now. Now, unlock is different story and I agree with you since it is a carrier policy (refer to my post #18). The FCC should force carriers to unlock their phone upon consumer request and should not wait for the courts to decide that. Verizon and Sprint reached a settlement last year and agreed to unlock their phones once the consumer fulfill his/her contract. The same lawsuit is going right now against AT&T and T-Mobile by the same lawyers. My guess is that same agreement will be reached. There are many red flags if you actually read your phone contract and the FCC need to address those first before doing anything else.
With all due respect, I think Verizon knows they really missed the boat on this one, irrespective of their share price compared to ATT!
+1. However, I feel that Verizon relies on Blackberry a lot.