1. Except that effectively in any given place there are few companies providing service.
2. The change needed is to call that fee what it is, a loan. The company gives you a loan to buy the cell phone through them and you pay off the loan over the coarse of the contract. As such, when the balance is paid, the company should stop charging me for the phone. Of course, at the back end of this you will find manufacturers making a killing on new phone sales as a constant stream of revenue flows in off this policy. You can bet that they don't want the policy to change...because then people may stop upgrading...it would certainly slow the process.
The whole industry is a bit crooked.
every carrier has a selection of "free" or almost "free" phones. in fact i found some for my inlaws a few months ago. every 2 years you can just upgrade to the "newest" free phone
of course we can price cell service like airline seats where everyone pays a different rate depending on any number of factors
of course we can price cell service like airline seats where everyone pays a different rate depending on any number of factors
We could also price it like public utility service where rates have to be approved by government agencies and justified. Or we could price it a thousand different ways.
This would be a horrible solution. If we required every cell phone maker to ensure that every phone is compatible with every carrier, prices would SKY ROCKET! No one would be able to afford one every few years.
Also, you don't have to lock into a carrier....just buy the phone at list price. Ahhh.....you wouldn't like that would you?
I disagree with above statement, since in India, thats exactly what is happening, you have majority of legal unlocked phones being sold and people are very happy to buy them, since most people do not want to be locked in to a specific carrier.
I am sure there low-end phones that are locked to carriers, but majority of people want the freedom to choose their own plan or change if necessary. If it can work in India, why not US.
There is a form of lock in with certain carriers due to models being only with that carrier e.g. new BB 9000 model (can not remember exact model no.), but there is no contract lock in.
1. you can kind of do this if manufacturers would make all phones with CDMA and GSM radios and the software. some blackberries have this and they are very expensive
2. that was already tried with the original iphone at launch and it was a dismal failure. it failed so bad that Apple/AT&T had to quickly work out a subsidy agreement because only a few of the most hardcore fanboys bought the iphone when it first came out. no one in their mind wanted to pay $600 for a cell phone
saw your reply after i replied and it makes sense, since USA is so used to cell carriers supporting the cost of mobile phones, it would be hard to change. In India the cell carriers would never support such a scheme and people are used to buying the unlocked phone and getting the plan their want and changing if necessary.
I expect the reason the third-party GV apps were originally approved is that no one at a high level actually looked in detail at what this actually did to the platform, but that the Google GV app probably caught the attention of higher ups who realized the danger it posed.
Actually, Phil Schiller himself approved the third-party Google Voice apps, then they got pulled a few months later when Google decides to release its own Voice app. Now you're telling me that the higher-ups decided it was both worthy of approval, yet unworthy of approval? There's nothing here that suggests that Apple could be at fault if they approved the apps to begin with. It's more likely that the Google Voice app caught the auspicious eye of AT&T, who then hinted to Apple that they should reject it (sending a reject letter to Google) and then when the FCC investigates, go into damage control mode and say it was not rejected, but still "studied" for somehow modifying the interface. All of these reasons are BS that Apple gives during the FCC investigation, it's simply lawyer-speak for saying something else instead of actually saying AT&T was involved in the influencing the decision.
saw your reply after i replied and it makes sense, since USA is so used to cell carriers supporting the cost of mobile phones, it would be hard to change. In India the cell carriers would never support such a scheme and people are used to buying the unlocked phone and getting the plan their want and changing if necessary.
i had an unlocked phone in italy in 1999. i paid $250 or so for the cheapest and crappiest phone with no contract and i had a choice of 2-5 different carriers i could buy calling cards from. at the same time i saw people buy cell phones for $500 and up there because there was no subsidy and the experience was exactly the same
i had an unlocked phone in italy in 1999. i paid $250 or so for the cheapest and crappiest phone with no contract and i had a choice of 2-5 different carriers i could buy calling cards from. at the same time i saw people buy cell phones for $500 and up there because there was no subsidy and the experience was exactly the same
I prefer the US system of subsidized phones
There is no necessary tie between subsidization and locking. As others have pointed out, nothing would stop carriers from offering subsidized phones with contracts and bring your own phone monthly plans at different rates. The only reason that phones are locked is to try to prevent the consumer from going elsewhere once the contract is over, and it doesn't figure into the subsidy price.
Actually, Phil Schiller himself approved the third-party Google Voice apps, then they got pulled a few months later when Google decides to release its own Voice app. Now you're telling me that the higher-ups decided it was both worthy of approval, yet unworthy of approval? There's nothing here that suggests that Apple could be at fault if they approved the apps to begin with. It's more likely that the Google Voice app caught the auspicious eye of AT&T, who then hinted to Apple that they should reject it (sending a reject letter to Google) and then when the FCC investigates, go into damage control mode and say it was not rejected, but still "studied" for somehow modifying the interface. All of these reasons are BS that Apple gives during the FCC investigation, it's simply lawyer-speak for saying something else instead of actually saying AT&T was involved in the influencing the decision.
Google Voice is a call forwarding app where consumers still have to pay AT&T voice minutes.
saw your reply after i replied and it makes sense, since USA is so used to cell carriers supporting the cost of mobile phones, it would be hard to change. In India the cell carriers would never support such a scheme and people are used to buying the unlocked phone and getting the plan their want and changing if necessary.
That's because of:
(1) India is a third world country where people are poor, there aren't much job security and there aren't many ways for ordinary people to obtain credit
(2) the massive market of grey goods because these 3rd world countries often impose huge import duty taxes on actual legitimately imported goods.
(3) most of the grey goods cell phone imports came from first world like UK where they were box-broken --- most of them are originally simlocked subsidized phones that were illegally unlocked.
The first world carriers are subsidizing Indians on their cell phones.
Because it's not in the public interest to allow the wireless carriers to use their position of control of a public resource to stifle competition and innovation. They're making plenty of money on the pipes, but, if they find it not profitable enough, they can always return their spectrum to the FCC. I doubt we see that happening even if strict wireless net neutrality is enforced for them.
This is exactly right. It really is OUR spectrum, at&t and every one else it just leasing it. The FCC has the right to make sure that it is used in a manor to benefit the public. I hear at&t winning about how they didn't know this going into the last auction. If they don't like it, return the spectrum, some one else will buy it and make money off it with these new rules. AT&T has one goal, make as much money as they can. So they are going to fight this tooth and nail. The FCC has to grow some big ones and not back down to them.
This is exactly right. It really is OUR spectrum, at&t and every one else it just leasing it. The FCC has the right to make sure that it is used in a manor to benefit the public. I hear at&t winning about how they didn't know this going into the last auction. If they don't like it, return the spectrum, some one else will buy it and make money off it with these new rules. AT&T has one goal, make as much money as they can. So they are going to fight this tooth and nail. The FCC has to grow some big ones and not back down to them.
AT&T didn't whined about it.
And it was Verizon Wireless that bought the 700 MHz spectrum that came with the "open" policy attached.
Guess what --- Google never had any intention to bid to win that spectrum auction.
That doesn't mean that AT&T's spectrum cannot be regulated as necessary to serve the public interest.
What public interest is that? Google's interest doesn't necessarily mean it's the public's interest.
AT&T Wireless offers the largest regular priced iphone data allowance in the world, the second cheapest iphone plans in the G7 countries and the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the world.
The worldwide launch of the iphone is the best thing that has happened in terms of understanding the rest of the world's telecom regulatory frameworks. Before the iphone was launched --- everybody had the wrong impression that the grass is greener on the other side.
What public interest is that? Google's interest doesn't necessarily mean it's the public's interest.
I know that everyone has gone gaga for Google, but network neutrality isn't about Google, even though they would benefit from it. It's about consumers being able to freely choose what services they want to access over the network and being able to do so.
I know that everyone has gone gaga for Google, but network neutrality isn't about Google, even though they would benefit from it. It's about consumers being able to freely choose what services they want to access over the network and being able to do so.
I fail to see any consumer benefit if the carriers start using the rest of the world's iphone data model. You can do whatever you want, as long as you pay $800 for the iphone and then pay expensive monthly fees to have the option of tethering --- but we will give you 100 MB or 250 MB a month.
I fail to see any consumer benefit if the carriers start using the rest of the world's iphone data model. You can do whatever you want, as long as you pay $800 for the iphone and then pay expensive monthly fees to have the option of tethering --- but we will give you 100 MB or 250 MB a month.
I don't know what you are talking about but I don't think it has anything to do with network neutrality.
There is no necessary tie between subsidization and locking. As others have pointed out, nothing would stop carriers from offering subsidized phones with contracts and bring your own phone monthly plans at different rates. The only reason that phones are locked is to try to prevent the consumer from going elsewhere once the contract is over, and it doesn't figure into the subsidy price.
At least i can be sure if I buy a phone that it has been tested by the carrier to work on their network. If it's bring your own phone it's a support nightmare where carriers will have to support all kinds of phones and it's going to be their fault if something doesn't work. Just like the wifi issue with the 3gs
I had to work with some telecom equipment one time and it was a nightmare. It took me a week to figure out that it was some setting on our backbone network and the way the t1 was configured.
Comments
1. Except that effectively in any given place there are few companies providing service.
2. The change needed is to call that fee what it is, a loan. The company gives you a loan to buy the cell phone through them and you pay off the loan over the coarse of the contract. As such, when the balance is paid, the company should stop charging me for the phone. Of course, at the back end of this you will find manufacturers making a killing on new phone sales as a constant stream of revenue flows in off this policy. You can bet that they don't want the policy to change...because then people may stop upgrading...it would certainly slow the process.
The whole industry is a bit crooked.
every carrier has a selection of "free" or almost "free" phones. in fact i found some for my inlaws a few months ago. every 2 years you can just upgrade to the "newest" free phone
of course we can price cell service like airline seats where everyone pays a different rate depending on any number of factors
of course we can price cell service like airline seats where everyone pays a different rate depending on any number of factors
We could also price it like public utility service where rates have to be approved by government agencies and justified. Or we could price it a thousand different ways.
It's actually "VoIP"
How long is it going to take before people who don't even know how to spell it keep mentioning it? The Horror!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post
AT&T is responsible for killing GV on the iPhone. Apple had little to do with it, apart from covering for AT&T. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post
... Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network
And your very first point demolishes your own argument.
lol..Thanks for a good chuckle this morning Gazoobee
This would be a horrible solution. If we required every cell phone maker to ensure that every phone is compatible with every carrier, prices would SKY ROCKET! No one would be able to afford one every few years.
Also, you don't have to lock into a carrier....just buy the phone at list price. Ahhh.....you wouldn't like that would you?
I disagree with above statement, since in India, thats exactly what is happening, you have majority of legal unlocked phones being sold and people are very happy to buy them, since most people do not want to be locked in to a specific carrier.
I am sure there low-end phones that are locked to carriers, but majority of people want the freedom to choose their own plan or change if necessary. If it can work in India, why not US.
There is a form of lock in with certain carriers due to models being only with that carrier e.g. new BB 9000 model (can not remember exact model no.), but there is no contract lock in.
1. you can kind of do this if manufacturers would make all phones with CDMA and GSM radios and the software. some blackberries have this and they are very expensive
2. that was already tried with the original iphone at launch and it was a dismal failure. it failed so bad that Apple/AT&T had to quickly work out a subsidy agreement because only a few of the most hardcore fanboys bought the iphone when it first came out. no one in their mind wanted to pay $600 for a cell phone
saw your reply after i replied and it makes sense, since USA is so used to cell carriers supporting the cost of mobile phones, it would be hard to change. In India the cell carriers would never support such a scheme and people are used to buying the unlocked phone and getting the plan their want and changing if necessary.
I expect the reason the third-party GV apps were originally approved is that no one at a high level actually looked in detail at what this actually did to the platform, but that the Google GV app probably caught the attention of higher ups who realized the danger it posed.
Actually, Phil Schiller himself approved the third-party Google Voice apps, then they got pulled a few months later when Google decides to release its own Voice app. Now you're telling me that the higher-ups decided it was both worthy of approval, yet unworthy of approval? There's nothing here that suggests that Apple could be at fault if they approved the apps to begin with. It's more likely that the Google Voice app caught the auspicious eye of AT&T, who then hinted to Apple that they should reject it (sending a reject letter to Google) and then when the FCC investigates, go into damage control mode and say it was not rejected, but still "studied" for somehow modifying the interface. All of these reasons are BS that Apple gives during the FCC investigation, it's simply lawyer-speak for saying something else instead of actually saying AT&T was involved in the influencing the decision.
Actually, Phil Schiller himself approved the third-party Google Voice apps
And we know this how? (Maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall reading this anywhere.)
saw your reply after i replied and it makes sense, since USA is so used to cell carriers supporting the cost of mobile phones, it would be hard to change. In India the cell carriers would never support such a scheme and people are used to buying the unlocked phone and getting the plan their want and changing if necessary.
i had an unlocked phone in italy in 1999. i paid $250 or so for the cheapest and crappiest phone with no contract and i had a choice of 2-5 different carriers i could buy calling cards from. at the same time i saw people buy cell phones for $500 and up there because there was no subsidy and the experience was exactly the same
I prefer the US system of subsidized phones
i had an unlocked phone in italy in 1999. i paid $250 or so for the cheapest and crappiest phone with no contract and i had a choice of 2-5 different carriers i could buy calling cards from. at the same time i saw people buy cell phones for $500 and up there because there was no subsidy and the experience was exactly the same
I prefer the US system of subsidized phones
There is no necessary tie between subsidization and locking. As others have pointed out, nothing would stop carriers from offering subsidized phones with contracts and bring your own phone monthly plans at different rates. The only reason that phones are locked is to try to prevent the consumer from going elsewhere once the contract is over, and it doesn't figure into the subsidy price.
Actually, Phil Schiller himself approved the third-party Google Voice apps, then they got pulled a few months later when Google decides to release its own Voice app. Now you're telling me that the higher-ups decided it was both worthy of approval, yet unworthy of approval? There's nothing here that suggests that Apple could be at fault if they approved the apps to begin with. It's more likely that the Google Voice app caught the auspicious eye of AT&T, who then hinted to Apple that they should reject it (sending a reject letter to Google) and then when the FCC investigates, go into damage control mode and say it was not rejected, but still "studied" for somehow modifying the interface. All of these reasons are BS that Apple gives during the FCC investigation, it's simply lawyer-speak for saying something else instead of actually saying AT&T was involved in the influencing the decision.
Google Voice is a call forwarding app where consumers still have to pay AT&T voice minutes.
saw your reply after i replied and it makes sense, since USA is so used to cell carriers supporting the cost of mobile phones, it would be hard to change. In India the cell carriers would never support such a scheme and people are used to buying the unlocked phone and getting the plan their want and changing if necessary.
That's because of:
(1) India is a third world country where people are poor, there aren't much job security and there aren't many ways for ordinary people to obtain credit
(2) the massive market of grey goods because these 3rd world countries often impose huge import duty taxes on actual legitimately imported goods.
(3) most of the grey goods cell phone imports came from first world like UK where they were box-broken --- most of them are originally simlocked subsidized phones that were illegally unlocked.
The first world carriers are subsidizing Indians on their cell phones.
Because it's not in the public interest to allow the wireless carriers to use their position of control of a public resource to stifle competition and innovation. They're making plenty of money on the pipes, but, if they find it not profitable enough, they can always return their spectrum to the FCC. I doubt we see that happening even if strict wireless net neutrality is enforced for them.
This is exactly right. It really is OUR spectrum, at&t and every one else it just leasing it. The FCC has the right to make sure that it is used in a manor to benefit the public. I hear at&t winning about how they didn't know this going into the last auction. If they don't like it, return the spectrum, some one else will buy it and make money off it with these new rules. AT&T has one goal, make as much money as they can. So they are going to fight this tooth and nail. The FCC has to grow some big ones and not back down to them.
This is exactly right. It really is OUR spectrum, at&t and every one else it just leasing it. The FCC has the right to make sure that it is used in a manor to benefit the public. I hear at&t winning about how they didn't know this going into the last auction. If they don't like it, return the spectrum, some one else will buy it and make money off it with these new rules. AT&T has one goal, make as much money as they can. So they are going to fight this tooth and nail. The FCC has to grow some big ones and not back down to them.
AT&T didn't whined about it.
And it was Verizon Wireless that bought the 700 MHz spectrum that came with the "open" policy attached.
Guess what --- Google never had any intention to bid to win that spectrum auction.
AT&T didn't whined about it.
Well, they are whining now.
And it was Verizon Wireless that bought the 700 MHz spectrum that came with the "open" policy attached.
That doesn't mean that AT&T's spectrum cannot be regulated as necessary to serve the public interest.
Guess what --- Google never had any intention to bid to win that spectrum auction.
You're probably right about that.
That doesn't mean that AT&T's spectrum cannot be regulated as necessary to serve the public interest.
What public interest is that? Google's interest doesn't necessarily mean it's the public's interest.
AT&T Wireless offers the largest regular priced iphone data allowance in the world, the second cheapest iphone plans in the G7 countries and the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the world.
The worldwide launch of the iphone is the best thing that has happened in terms of understanding the rest of the world's telecom regulatory frameworks. Before the iphone was launched --- everybody had the wrong impression that the grass is greener on the other side.
What public interest is that? Google's interest doesn't necessarily mean it's the public's interest.
I know that everyone has gone gaga for Google, but network neutrality isn't about Google, even though they would benefit from it. It's about consumers being able to freely choose what services they want to access over the network and being able to do so.
I know that everyone has gone gaga for Google, but network neutrality isn't about Google, even though they would benefit from it. It's about consumers being able to freely choose what services they want to access over the network and being able to do so.
I fail to see any consumer benefit if the carriers start using the rest of the world's iphone data model. You can do whatever you want, as long as you pay $800 for the iphone and then pay expensive monthly fees to have the option of tethering --- but we will give you 100 MB or 250 MB a month.
I fail to see any consumer benefit if the carriers start using the rest of the world's iphone data model. You can do whatever you want, as long as you pay $800 for the iphone and then pay expensive monthly fees to have the option of tethering --- but we will give you 100 MB or 250 MB a month.
I don't know what you are talking about but I don't think it has anything to do with network neutrality.
There is no necessary tie between subsidization and locking. As others have pointed out, nothing would stop carriers from offering subsidized phones with contracts and bring your own phone monthly plans at different rates. The only reason that phones are locked is to try to prevent the consumer from going elsewhere once the contract is over, and it doesn't figure into the subsidy price.
At least i can be sure if I buy a phone that it has been tested by the carrier to work on their network. If it's bring your own phone it's a support nightmare where carriers will have to support all kinds of phones and it's going to be their fault if something doesn't work. Just like the wifi issue with the 3gs
I had to work with some telecom equipment one time and it was a nightmare. It took me a week to figure out that it was some setting on our backbone network and the way the t1 was configured.
I don't know what you are talking about but I don't think it has anything to do with network neutrality.
All the regulations in the world don't prevent carriers to charge whatever they want.