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.
That still doesn't have anything to do with locking. But it does point to why multiple different incompatable networks is a huge mess.
That still doesn't have anything to do with locking. But it does point to why multiple different incompatable networks is a huge mess.
Except that even in Europe where there is a single standard, they are advocating that European carriers should copy what Verizon Wireless do --- impose their own additional certification system.
Except that even in Europe where there is a single standard, they are advocating that European carriers should copy what Verizon Wireless do --- impose their own additional certification system.
Certification also has nothing to do with locking. The only purpose of locking is to prevent a customer being able to leave a carrier at the end of a contract. It's an indefensible practice that should simply be explicitly outlawed.
It's also meant to stop subsidised phone's from being resold in places like India.
There's a reason why unlocked phone's usually cost more than locked one's.
Handset locking is not only confined to the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Certification also has nothing to do with locking. The only purpose of locking is to prevent a customer being able to leave a carrier at the end of a contract. It's an indefensible practice that should simply be explicitly outlawed.
Certification also has nothing to do with locking. The only purpose of locking is to prevent a customer being able to leave a carrier at the end of a contract. It's an indefensible practice that should simply be explicitly outlawed.
what exactly is the point of keeping a cell phone more than 2 years? every carrier has free or almost free phones that you can get. and the price points are about the same for the premium phones
what exactly is the point of keeping a cell phone more than 2 years? every carrier has free or almost free phones that you can get. and the price points are about the same for the premium phones
i believe AT&T unlocks most of their phones after the contract expires. I think it's an apple policy not to unlock the iphone because SJ is concerned about the experience and how it may confuse people if they had a choice
i believe AT&T unlocks most of their phones after the contract expires. I think it's an apple policy not to unlock the iphone because SJ is concerned about the experience and how it may confuse people if they had a choice
Again, this is irrelevant in regards to whether it should be allowed.
All the arguments for locking phones amount to nothing more than FUD. All the arguments against network neutrality amount to nothing more than FUD. Just like all the arguments against number portability were nothing but FUD.
apple locks down their hardware and software so that it's very hard to install OS X on anything other than Apple branded hardware. maybe there should be a law that says i should be able to install OS X on any hardware that i want? not like the hardware between Apple branded hardware and Dell/HP is any different?
apple locks down their hardware and software so that it's very hard to install OS X on anything other than Apple branded hardware. maybe there should be a law that says i should be able to install OS X on any hardware that i want? not like the hardware between Apple branded hardware and Dell/HP is any different?
Invalid analogy. Your copy of OS X can be used on any ISP's network, thus, it supports network neutrality.
Certification also has nothing to do with locking. The only purpose of locking is to prevent a customer being able to leave a carrier at the end of a contract. It's an indefensible practice that should simply be explicitly outlawed.
Just look at all the other countries that claim that they have some sort of simlocking laws --- the iphone conclusively has shown that these laws either don't exist at all (in the imagination of geeks who got their information wrong --- like in UK) or that these laws aren't very effectively at all.
It's indefensible practice for the Brits to buy a simlocked 3G iphone, can't unlock it, can't even upgrade to the new 3Gs iphone unless they paid off the rest of their previous 3G iphone contract.
You should get down on your knees and thank god that Americans can get out of contract by paying pro-rated ETF's.
Again, this is irrelevant in regards to whether it should be allowed.
All the arguments for locking phones amount to nothing more than FUD. All the arguments against network neutrality amount to nothing more than FUD. Just like all the arguments against number portability were nothing but FUD.
Except that you are living in an imaginary world.
The countries that explicitly spell out when and how unlocking codes should be given out --- also permit their carriers to charge for the unlocking codes. For the ordinary average citizens, the American way is better because they can get their unlocking codes for free from AT&T and T-Mobile.
There is no such thing as network neutrality --- it's basically a Google invention to screw the other companies. Many countries around the world explicitly censor internet traffic (like China), explicitly block VoIP traffic (Middle East countries), explicitly allows carriers to block VoIP traffic (many countries in Europe). The internet hasn't imploded with all these limitations.
The only country in the world that explicit disallow simlocking on their phones (Singapore) is also the last country to allow number portablity on cell phones in June 2008. Kind of ironic that their government misplaced their priorities on unlocked GSM phones.
Just look at all the other countries that claim that they have some sort of simlocking laws --- the iphone conclusively has shown that these laws either don't exist at all (in the imagination of geeks who got their information wrong --- like in UK) or that these laws aren't very effectively at all.
It's indefensible practice for the Brits to buy a simlocked 3G iphone, can't unlock it, can't even upgrade to the new 3Gs iphone unless they paid off the rest of their previous 3G iphone contract.
You should get down on your knees and thank god that Americans can get out of contract by paying pro-rated ETF's.
Again, although quite melodramatic (thank you Jesus! thank you AT&T!), this says nothing about why Congress and the FCC should not prohibit locking phones in this country. If you and Al are going to argue that locking is good, then, please list the actual benefits that come to consumers from locked phones.
Oh, right, there aren't any. It's just a way for carriers to retain customers after the contract expires and to make it harder for them to leave before it does. I guess that's why none of your posts do anything but spread FUD and give the very strong impression that you're being paid to make them.
The countries that explicitly spell out when and how unlocking codes should be given out --- also permit their carriers to charge for the unlocking codes. For the ordinary average citizens, the American way is better because they can get their unlocking codes for free from AT&T and T-Mobile.
There is no such thing as network neutrality --- it's basically a Google invention to screw the other companies. Many countries around the world explicitly censor internet traffic (like China), explicitly block VoIP traffic (Middle East countries), explicitly allows carriers to block VoIP traffic (many countries in Europe). The internet hasn't imploded with all these limitations.
The only country in the world that explicit disallow simlocking on their phones (Singapore) is also the last country to allow number portablity on cell phones in June 2008. Kind of ironic that their government misplaced their priorities on unlocked GSM phones.
Oh, well, thanks for the "state of the industry roundup" there samab. Other than pointing out the mistakes Congress and the FCC should avoid making when this becomes law in this country, this is relevant how?
And, no, network neutrality is not a Google invention. In fact, many people, like myself, who are highly critical of Google, believe strongly in network neutrality.
Let's review: Network Neutrality is the idea that I can access whatever I want over the network and that my ISP can't control that and force me to only get the content they allow me to get -- i.e., the content that makes them the most money, or supports their point of view. Not only does this prevent ISPs from engaging in quasi-legal racketeering, but it's also vital to the health of a democracy that citizens have free access to information.
Again, although quite melodramatic (thank you Jesus! thank you AT&T!), this says nothing about why Congress and the FCC should not prohibit locking phones in this country. If you and Al are going to argue that locking is good, then, please list the actual benefits that come to consumers from locked phones.
Oh, right, there aren't any. It's just a way for carriers to retain customers after the contract expires and to make it harder for them to leave before it does. I guess that's why none of your posts do anything but spread FUD and give the very strong impression that you're being paid to make them.
No, I am just looking at the practical aspect of these regulations.
The worldwide launch of the iphone is the best thing that has happened for mobile geeks to actually learn about other countries' regulatory regimes. 30-40 countries around the world have tried dozens and dozens of different regulations on these things --- and none of them work.
So instead of spending valuable political capital on trying to get this unworkable solution to work, the FCC should work on other issues that actually helps ordinary Americans --- like national uniform ETF rules, national uniform deposit returning rules, national uniform contract renewal rules (i.e. can't automatically renew someone's mobile contract if a customer phones up AT&T to change a minor feature)... These things may be BORING for you geeks, but they are actually very good for ordinary Americans.
Oh, well, thanks for the "state of the industry roundup" there samab. Other than pointing out the mistakes Congress and the FCC should avoid making when this becomes law in this country, this is relevant how?
And, no, network neutrality is not a Google invention. In fact, many people, like myself, who are highly critical of Google, believe strongly in network neutrality.
Let's review: Network Neutrality is the idea that I can access whatever I want over the network and that my ISP can't control that and force me to only get the content they allow me to get -- i.e., the content that makes them the most money, or supports their point of view. Not only does this prevent ISPs from engaging in quasi-legal racketeering, but it's also vital to the health of a democracy that citizens have free access to information.
This isn't a communist country --- you can't disallow carriers from charging fees to release the unlocking code. Dozens and dozens of countries have tried dozens and dozens of different regulations --- and Apple managed to pretty much dismantle these idiotic regulations.
It's called the internet, not Americanet. The rest of the world doesn't have network neutrality --- and the internet hasn't imploded. You can't access whatever you want right now --- because you can't access pro-democracy websites stationed in China because they were either blocked or shut down by the Chinese government. You can't do a VoIP phone call to the middle east from your home in the US because the middle eastern countries block voip traffic.
No, I am just looking at the practical aspect of these regulations.
So instead of spending valuable political capital on trying to get this unworkable solution to work, the FCC should work on other issues that actually helps ordinary Americans --- like national uniform ETF rules, national uniform deposit returning rules, national uniform contract renewal rules (i.e. can't automatically renew someone's mobile contract if a customer phones up AT&T to change a minor feature)... These things may be BORING for you geeks, but they are actually very good for ordinary Americans.
Well, while those other things may be good, you haven't presented any evidence that prohibiting locking is unworkable or impractical.
This isn't a communist country --- you can't disallow carriers from charging fees to release the unlocking code. Dozens and dozens of countries have tried dozens and dozens of different regulations --- and Apple managed to pretty much dismantle these idiotic regulations.
It's called the internet, not Americanet. The rest of the world doesn't have network neutrality --- and the internet hasn't imploded. You can't access whatever you want right now --- because you can't access pro-democracy websites stationed in China because they were either blocked or shut down by the Chinese government. You can't do a VoIP phone call to the middle east from your home in the US because the middle eastern countries block voip traffic.
So, invoking a "red scare" and arguing that we would be fine operating just like China?
Well, while those other things may be good, you haven't presented any evidence that prohibiting locking is unworkable or impractical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
So, invoking a "red scare" and arguing that we would be fine operating just like China?
No, you haven't provided any evidence that it is workable at all. Not a single country in the world has created a workable simlocking regulatory regime --- under British common law systems, under French civil law systems, or in countries where rules of law ain't that important at all.
I simply state the current state of affairs. My internet includes the rest of the world and the rest of the world doesn't have network neutrality.
That's exactly the business model all the mobile carriers have been using for the past ten years. Its changing, slowly changing, but changing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
AT&T (and other communications service providers) should make money off their investment in their infrastructure. They should not make money by shaking down content providers for cash or by leveraging their control of the pipe into control of the content.
Comments
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.
That still doesn't have anything to do with locking. But it does point to why multiple different incompatable networks is a huge mess.
That still doesn't have anything to do with locking. But it does point to why multiple different incompatable networks is a huge mess.
Except that even in Europe where there is a single standard, they are advocating that European carriers should copy what Verizon Wireless do --- impose their own additional certification system.
http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/Report_...igorously.aspx
Except that even in Europe where there is a single standard, they are advocating that European carriers should copy what Verizon Wireless do --- impose their own additional certification system.
http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/Report_...igorously.aspx
Certification also has nothing to do with locking. The only purpose of locking is to prevent a customer being able to leave a carrier at the end of a contract. It's an indefensible practice that should simply be explicitly outlawed.
There's a reason why unlocked phone's usually cost more than locked one's.
Handset locking is not only confined to the US.
Certification also has nothing to do with locking. The only purpose of locking is to prevent a customer being able to leave a carrier at the end of a contract. It's an indefensible practice that should simply be explicitly outlawed.
Certification also has nothing to do with locking. The only purpose of locking is to prevent a customer being able to leave a carrier at the end of a contract. It's an indefensible practice that should simply be explicitly outlawed.
what exactly is the point of keeping a cell phone more than 2 years? every carrier has free or almost free phones that you can get. and the price points are about the same for the premium phones
what exactly is the point of keeping a cell phone more than 2 years? every carrier has free or almost free phones that you can get. and the price points are about the same for the premium phones
What exactly is the point of locking it then?
i believe AT&T unlocks most of their phones after the contract expires. I think it's an apple policy not to unlock the iphone because SJ is concerned about the experience and how it may confuse people if they had a choice
Again, this is irrelevant in regards to whether it should be allowed.
All the arguments for locking phones amount to nothing more than FUD. All the arguments against network neutrality amount to nothing more than FUD. Just like all the arguments against number portability were nothing but FUD.
apple locks down their hardware and software so that it's very hard to install OS X on anything other than Apple branded hardware. maybe there should be a law that says i should be able to install OS X on any hardware that i want? not like the hardware between Apple branded hardware and Dell/HP is any different?
Invalid analogy. Your copy of OS X can be used on any ISP's network, thus, it supports network neutrality.
Certification also has nothing to do with locking. The only purpose of locking is to prevent a customer being able to leave a carrier at the end of a contract. It's an indefensible practice that should simply be explicitly outlawed.
Just look at all the other countries that claim that they have some sort of simlocking laws --- the iphone conclusively has shown that these laws either don't exist at all (in the imagination of geeks who got their information wrong --- like in UK) or that these laws aren't very effectively at all.
It's indefensible practice for the Brits to buy a simlocked 3G iphone, can't unlock it, can't even upgrade to the new 3Gs iphone unless they paid off the rest of their previous 3G iphone contract.
You should get down on your knees and thank god that Americans can get out of contract by paying pro-rated ETF's.
Again, this is irrelevant in regards to whether it should be allowed.
All the arguments for locking phones amount to nothing more than FUD. All the arguments against network neutrality amount to nothing more than FUD. Just like all the arguments against number portability were nothing but FUD.
Except that you are living in an imaginary world.
The countries that explicitly spell out when and how unlocking codes should be given out --- also permit their carriers to charge for the unlocking codes. For the ordinary average citizens, the American way is better because they can get their unlocking codes for free from AT&T and T-Mobile.
There is no such thing as network neutrality --- it's basically a Google invention to screw the other companies. Many countries around the world explicitly censor internet traffic (like China), explicitly block VoIP traffic (Middle East countries), explicitly allows carriers to block VoIP traffic (many countries in Europe). The internet hasn't imploded with all these limitations.
The only country in the world that explicit disallow simlocking on their phones (Singapore) is also the last country to allow number portablity on cell phones in June 2008. Kind of ironic that their government misplaced their priorities on unlocked GSM phones.
Just look at all the other countries that claim that they have some sort of simlocking laws --- the iphone conclusively has shown that these laws either don't exist at all (in the imagination of geeks who got their information wrong --- like in UK) or that these laws aren't very effectively at all.
It's indefensible practice for the Brits to buy a simlocked 3G iphone, can't unlock it, can't even upgrade to the new 3Gs iphone unless they paid off the rest of their previous 3G iphone contract.
You should get down on your knees and thank god that Americans can get out of contract by paying pro-rated ETF's.
Again, although quite melodramatic (thank you Jesus! thank you AT&T!), this says nothing about why Congress and the FCC should not prohibit locking phones in this country. If you and Al are going to argue that locking is good, then, please list the actual benefits that come to consumers from locked phones.
Oh, right, there aren't any. It's just a way for carriers to retain customers after the contract expires and to make it harder for them to leave before it does. I guess that's why none of your posts do anything but spread FUD and give the very strong impression that you're being paid to make them.
Except that you are living in an imaginary world.
The countries that explicitly spell out when and how unlocking codes should be given out --- also permit their carriers to charge for the unlocking codes. For the ordinary average citizens, the American way is better because they can get their unlocking codes for free from AT&T and T-Mobile.
There is no such thing as network neutrality --- it's basically a Google invention to screw the other companies. Many countries around the world explicitly censor internet traffic (like China), explicitly block VoIP traffic (Middle East countries), explicitly allows carriers to block VoIP traffic (many countries in Europe). The internet hasn't imploded with all these limitations.
The only country in the world that explicit disallow simlocking on their phones (Singapore) is also the last country to allow number portablity on cell phones in June 2008. Kind of ironic that their government misplaced their priorities on unlocked GSM phones.
Oh, well, thanks for the "state of the industry roundup" there samab. Other than pointing out the mistakes Congress and the FCC should avoid making when this becomes law in this country, this is relevant how?
And, no, network neutrality is not a Google invention. In fact, many people, like myself, who are highly critical of Google, believe strongly in network neutrality.
Let's review: Network Neutrality is the idea that I can access whatever I want over the network and that my ISP can't control that and force me to only get the content they allow me to get -- i.e., the content that makes them the most money, or supports their point of view. Not only does this prevent ISPs from engaging in quasi-legal racketeering, but it's also vital to the health of a democracy that citizens have free access to information.
Again, although quite melodramatic (thank you Jesus! thank you AT&T!), this says nothing about why Congress and the FCC should not prohibit locking phones in this country. If you and Al are going to argue that locking is good, then, please list the actual benefits that come to consumers from locked phones.
Oh, right, there aren't any. It's just a way for carriers to retain customers after the contract expires and to make it harder for them to leave before it does. I guess that's why none of your posts do anything but spread FUD and give the very strong impression that you're being paid to make them.
No, I am just looking at the practical aspect of these regulations.
The worldwide launch of the iphone is the best thing that has happened for mobile geeks to actually learn about other countries' regulatory regimes. 30-40 countries around the world have tried dozens and dozens of different regulations on these things --- and none of them work.
So instead of spending valuable political capital on trying to get this unworkable solution to work, the FCC should work on other issues that actually helps ordinary Americans --- like national uniform ETF rules, national uniform deposit returning rules, national uniform contract renewal rules (i.e. can't automatically renew someone's mobile contract if a customer phones up AT&T to change a minor feature)... These things may be BORING for you geeks, but they are actually very good for ordinary Americans.
Oh, well, thanks for the "state of the industry roundup" there samab. Other than pointing out the mistakes Congress and the FCC should avoid making when this becomes law in this country, this is relevant how?
And, no, network neutrality is not a Google invention. In fact, many people, like myself, who are highly critical of Google, believe strongly in network neutrality.
Let's review: Network Neutrality is the idea that I can access whatever I want over the network and that my ISP can't control that and force me to only get the content they allow me to get -- i.e., the content that makes them the most money, or supports their point of view. Not only does this prevent ISPs from engaging in quasi-legal racketeering, but it's also vital to the health of a democracy that citizens have free access to information.
This isn't a communist country --- you can't disallow carriers from charging fees to release the unlocking code. Dozens and dozens of countries have tried dozens and dozens of different regulations --- and Apple managed to pretty much dismantle these idiotic regulations.
It's called the internet, not Americanet. The rest of the world doesn't have network neutrality --- and the internet hasn't imploded. You can't access whatever you want right now --- because you can't access pro-democracy websites stationed in China because they were either blocked or shut down by the Chinese government. You can't do a VoIP phone call to the middle east from your home in the US because the middle eastern countries block voip traffic.
No, I am just looking at the practical aspect of these regulations.
So instead of spending valuable political capital on trying to get this unworkable solution to work, the FCC should work on other issues that actually helps ordinary Americans --- like national uniform ETF rules, national uniform deposit returning rules, national uniform contract renewal rules (i.e. can't automatically renew someone's mobile contract if a customer phones up AT&T to change a minor feature)... These things may be BORING for you geeks, but they are actually very good for ordinary Americans.
Well, while those other things may be good, you haven't presented any evidence that prohibiting locking is unworkable or impractical.
This isn't a communist country --- you can't disallow carriers from charging fees to release the unlocking code. Dozens and dozens of countries have tried dozens and dozens of different regulations --- and Apple managed to pretty much dismantle these idiotic regulations.
It's called the internet, not Americanet. The rest of the world doesn't have network neutrality --- and the internet hasn't imploded. You can't access whatever you want right now --- because you can't access pro-democracy websites stationed in China because they were either blocked or shut down by the Chinese government. You can't do a VoIP phone call to the middle east from your home in the US because the middle eastern countries block voip traffic.
So, invoking a "red scare" and arguing that we would be fine operating just like China?
Well, while those other things may be good, you haven't presented any evidence that prohibiting locking is unworkable or impractical.
So, invoking a "red scare" and arguing that we would be fine operating just like China?
No, you haven't provided any evidence that it is workable at all. Not a single country in the world has created a workable simlocking regulatory regime --- under British common law systems, under French civil law systems, or in countries where rules of law ain't that important at all.
I simply state the current state of affairs. My internet includes the rest of the world and the rest of the world doesn't have network neutrality.
AT&T (and other communications service providers) should make money off their investment in their infrastructure. They should not make money by shaking down content providers for cash or by leveraging their control of the pipe into control of the content.