And just think if our government never went into Iraq (or at least had some allies going in) we could have built 4G 100 times over every year for the last 8 years or so.
You need to end that with something like "with an amount of money equivalent to the amount spent there."
Otherwise it looks like you're implying the government would have spent that money on such a project. Which is abject nonsense. And should be kept in PoliticalOutsider.
This is a nit, but what is an accidental leak? Was ATT or someone leaking other documents and this one was accidentally included? Or was it an accidental release or disclosure?
No, cellphone signal quality has nothing to do with how satisfactory your iPhone experience is. And service charges and a wide variety of plans to choose from, has also nothing to do with on total cost of ownership of an iPhone. And the total cost of ownership also nothing to do with the size of the addressable market for iPhones.
Meanwhile, rival Verizon has almost a year-long head start with LTE. The carrier launched its 4G network in 38 markets, covering 110 million people, last December. It plans to reach nationwide coverage by 2013.
Its just shocking, shocking I tell you, that AT&T finds itself behind Verizon on LTE. While AT&T touts its "4G" HSPA+, Verizon is going to hand them their asses when it comes to LTE. What a joke of a company. New motto from AT&T's next ad campaign: Day late and a dollar short.
You guys are like people who read The New York Times and wonder what a story about the European debt crisis has to do with New York.
True and funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
You can't seriously believe that T-Mobile will ever offer that plan for a single iphone.
No, but they may offer it for all the iPhones (that's the extent of my humor for the day)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2
We don't need no stinking 4G.
You may not, bit dont speak for all of us, because I do want 4G/LTE/3.5G or whatever it is they offer. I'm holding onto my 3GS until they launch an LTE iPhone. Your comment is like saying, "We don't need no high-speed cable-modem this 56k modem line is good enough."
You say it is a weak argument, but you don't explain why. The argument is strong because common sense dictates that hardware manufacturers, like regular consumers, benefit from choice. T-Mobile has 33 million subscribers. It is the only other GSM carrier. Let us say AT&T and Apple had a falling out with the four major carriers still in tack. Apple could say screw AT&T and embrace Verizon's 100 million subscribers, T-Mobile's 33 millions subscribers, and Sprint's roughly 55 million subscribers for a roughly 188 million people market. If the sale goes through with a similar falling out, Apple's potential market drops by T-Mobile's 33 million and Apple losses the only other GSM provider. With both T-Mobile and Sprint being around, Apple can use those carriers as leverage to gain concessions because even though Apple wouldn't want to do so, it could drop both Verizon and AT&T. The more carriers is better, not just for Apple, but for all hardware manufacturers. With the exception of Microsoft (who is desperate to keep AT&T happy), you do not hear any hardware manufacturers publicly supporting the take over. With everybody else taking AT&T's money to come out in support of the sale, you think you'd hear one hardware manufacturers. For good reason. With the exception of Apple, they all have to kiss the carriers asses to get their phones on their networks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
I don't think T-Mobile really adds or subtracts much from this very weak argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
If this is true, then why would eliminating T-Mobile (a carrier) lead to less innovation?
As stated above, more carriers is better for hardware manufactures because they can leverage the various carriers against each other to gain concessions. Before the iPhone came out, the carriers were solely responsible for the applications and features installed on the phones (most Android phones still come installed with hard to get rid of unwanted applications, and Verizon forces many customers to use services such as Bing), signing customers up, and customer support. You'd always read about phones like the Blackberry that had such and such feature that was turned off by the carrier. When the phone broke, you'd call the carrier.
When Apple wanted to come out with the iPhone, it wanted total control over the customer experience. To gain that concession, it leveraged the carriers against one another to strike a deal. At the time Verizon was stealing AT&T customers and was the clear market leader (Verizon publicly acknowledges this). Apple was able to leverage AT&T's desire to over take Verizon (as well as sell more data) and strike an unheard of deal.
In summary, less carriers, means less leverage to force carriers to implement innovative features manufactures want to bring to market.
Please don't bother to respond if all you have is my argument is weak.
You say it is a weak argument, but you don't explain why. The argument is strong because common sense dictates that hardware manufacturers, like regular consumers, benefit from choice. T-Mobile has 33 million subscribers. It is the only other GSM carrier. Let us say AT&T and Apple had a falling out with the four major carriers still in tack. Apple could say screw AT&T and embrace Verizon's 100 million subscribers, T-Mobile's 33 millions subscribers, and Sprint's roughly 55 million subscribers for a roughly 188 million people market. If the sale goes through with a similar falling out, Apple's potential market drops by T-Mobile's 33 million and Apple losses the only other GSM provider. With both T-Mobile and Sprint being around, Apple can use those carriers as leverage to gain concessions because even though Apple wouldn't want to do so, it could drop both Verizon and AT&T. The more carriers is better, not just for Apple, but for all hardware manufacturers. With the exception of Microsoft (who is desperate to keep AT&T happy), you do not hear any hardware manufacturers publicly supporting the take over. With everybody else taking AT&T's money to come out in support of the sale, you think you'd hear one hardware manufacturers. For good reason. With the exception of Apple, they all have to kiss the carriers asses to get their phones on their networks.
....
As stated above, more carriers is better for hardware manufactures because they can leverage the various carriers against each other to gain concessions. Before the iPhone came out, the carriers were solely responsible for the applications and features installed on the phones (most Android phones still come installed with hard to get rid of unwanted applications, and Verizon forces many customers to use services such as Bing), signing customers up, and customer support. You'd always read about phones like the Blackberry that had such and such feature that was turned off by the carrier. When the phone broke, you'd call the carrier.
When Apple wanted to come out with the iPhone, it wanted total control over the customer experience. To gain that concession, it leveraged the carriers against one another to strike a deal. At the time Verizon was stealing AT&T customers and was the clear market leader (Verizon publicly acknowledges this). Apple was able to leverage AT&T's desire to over take Verizon (as well as sell more data) and strike an unheard of deal.
In summary, less carriers, means less leverage to force carriers to implement innovative features manufactures want to bring to market.
Please don't bother to respond if all you have is my argument is weak.
I don't disagree with your points but I'm not sure they are all that relevant, either. Anti-trust laws almost always are applied looking downstream, not up. First and foremost, they are for the protection of consumers. In fact, I can't recall a case where they were argued for the protection of a supplier. If anyone knows of one, I'd certainly be interested in knowing the details and outcome.
The more carriers is better, not just for Apple, but for all hardware manufacturers. With the exception of Microsoft (who is desperate to keep AT&T happy), you do not hear any hardware manufacturers publicly supporting the take over. With everybody else taking AT&T's money to come out in support of the sale, you think you'd hear one hardware manufacturers. For good reason. With the exception of Apple, they all have to kiss the carriers asses to get their phones on their networks.
While you're obviously correct that carriers are the customers for vendors, and that consolidation of carriers has a competition implication for them - I'm not convinced that it's at the point where it would be enough to be the main concern for the FTC in this merger.
For starters vendors, unlike consumers are playing in a global market - they can sell to carriers anywhere. The US is a big important market but vendors can use international markets to launch a product, once the product is a big seller carriers in the US will inevitably be eager to get it.
If the carrier situation in the US got too bad for OEMs then we'd likely see a rise in virtual networks, indeed that might be the best option from the FTC's perspective. To allow this merger to go through but to ensure that AT&T stands ready to support virtual networks with a fair wholesale pricing structure.
I don't disagree with your points but I'm not sure they are all that relevant, either. Anti-trust laws almost always are applied looking downstream, not up. First and foremost, they are for the protection of consumers. In fact, I can't recall a case where they were argued for the protection of a supplier. If anyone knows of one, I'd certainly be interested in knowing the details and outcome.
Your first link doesn't work and the second (DeBeers case) was about collusion enabled by a 90% share of the distribution channel. I don't see how that relates to a global wireless market where no one provider likely has even 10%.
The original post should have said customers instead of consumers. Most antitrust action targets situations where customers were disadvantaged, whether these customers are consumers or businesses. Even in the De Beers case, a cursory reading of the Wikipedia did not tell me whether De Beers was charged for disadvantaging the buyers of diamonds (rough and cut) or for disadvantaging the sellers of rough diamonds.
The original post should have said customers instead of consumers. Most antitrust action targets situations where customers were disadvantaged, whether these customers are consumers or businesses. Even in the De Beers case, a cursory reading of the Wikipedia did not tell me whether De Beers was charged for disadvantaging the buyers of diamonds (rough and cut) or for disadvantaging the sellers of rough diamonds.
Thank you and, yes, I meant customers.
I think in the DeBeers case there was some issue of unfair treatment of suppliers but that only stemmed from unusual situation that DeBeers had effectively found a way to prevent suppliers from selling to other people. At least that's my vague recollection of the story. Needless to say it was a very unusual situation brought on by DeBeers controlling something like 90+% of the distribution channel. There's nothing in the current topic of handset makers and wireless carriers that has any resemblence to that.
I see negative value from an AT&T <-> T-Mobile merger, however, they should be free to do as they wish and merge without government intervention. I also believe corporate "rights" should be stripped -- no corporation should be afforded any rights as fictitious citizens -- only citizens should be afforded rights.
Spring should have merged with T-Mobile -- now THAT would have made sense for the end users, IMHO.
I see negative value from an AT&T <-> T-Mobile merger, however, they should be free to do as they wish and merge without government intervention. I also believe corporate "rights" should be stripped -- no corporation should be afforded any rights as fictitious citizens -- only citizens should be afforded rights.
Spring should have merged with T-Mobile -- now THAT would have made sense for the end users, IMHO.
Interesting idea but I'm not sure I know what you're saying. What "rights" do corporations have today that are the same or even analogous to individual citizen's rights?
no corporation should be afforded any rights as fictitious citizens --
Should they have the right to defend themselves in court when sued? Should they have the right to protect their IP? Should they have the right to sell their wares?
No, but they may offer it for all the iPhones (that's the extent of my humor for the day)
You may not, bit dont speak for all of us, because I do want 4G/LTE/3.5G or whatever it is they offer. I'm holding onto my 3GS until they launch an LTE iPhone. Your comment is like saying, "We don't need no high-speed cable-modem this 56k modem line is good enough."
Do you know all the potential innovation that was stifled by allowing bandwidths to get as high as they are. Had we simply set a hard bandwidth cap at 56k, we might be streaming HD video with just 28.8k of bandwidth. All of this bandwidth has potentially set back theoretical compression technology by as much as two decades, possibly even more.
Comments
And just think if our government never went into Iraq (or at least had some allies going in) we could have built 4G 100 times over every year for the last 8 years or so.
You need to end that with something like "with an amount of money equivalent to the amount spent there."
Otherwise it looks like you're implying the government would have spent that money on such a project. Which is abject nonsense. And should be kept in PoliticalOutsider.
What does this have to do with Apple?
No, cellphone signal quality has nothing to do with how satisfactory your iPhone experience is. And service charges and a wide variety of plans to choose from, has also nothing to do with on total cost of ownership of an iPhone. And the total cost of ownership also nothing to do with the size of the addressable market for iPhones.
Meanwhile, rival Verizon has almost a year-long head start with LTE. The carrier launched its 4G network in 38 markets, covering 110 million people, last December. It plans to reach nationwide coverage by 2013.
Its just shocking, shocking I tell you, that AT&T finds itself behind Verizon on LTE. While AT&T touts its "4G" HSPA+, Verizon is going to hand them their asses when it comes to LTE. What a joke of a company. New motto from AT&T's next ad campaign: Day late and a dollar short.
You guys are like people who read The New York Times and wonder what a story about the European debt crisis has to do with New York.
True and funny.
You can't seriously believe that T-Mobile will ever offer that plan for a single iphone.
No, but they may offer it for all the iPhones (that's the extent of my humor for the day)
We don't need no stinking 4G.
You may not, bit dont speak for all of us, because I do want 4G/LTE/3.5G or whatever it is they offer. I'm holding onto my 3GS until they launch an LTE iPhone. Your comment is like saying, "We don't need no high-speed cable-modem this 56k modem line is good enough."
I don't think T-Mobile really adds or subtracts much from this very weak argument.
If this is true, then why would eliminating T-Mobile (a carrier) lead to less innovation?
As stated above, more carriers is better for hardware manufactures because they can leverage the various carriers against each other to gain concessions. Before the iPhone came out, the carriers were solely responsible for the applications and features installed on the phones (most Android phones still come installed with hard to get rid of unwanted applications, and Verizon forces many customers to use services such as Bing), signing customers up, and customer support. You'd always read about phones like the Blackberry that had such and such feature that was turned off by the carrier. When the phone broke, you'd call the carrier.
When Apple wanted to come out with the iPhone, it wanted total control over the customer experience. To gain that concession, it leveraged the carriers against one another to strike a deal. At the time Verizon was stealing AT&T customers and was the clear market leader (Verizon publicly acknowledges this). Apple was able to leverage AT&T's desire to over take Verizon (as well as sell more data) and strike an unheard of deal.
In summary, less carriers, means less leverage to force carriers to implement innovative features manufactures want to bring to market.
Please don't bother to respond if all you have is my argument is weak.
You say it is a weak argument, but you don't explain why. The argument is strong because common sense dictates that hardware manufacturers, like regular consumers, benefit from choice. T-Mobile has 33 million subscribers. It is the only other GSM carrier. Let us say AT&T and Apple had a falling out with the four major carriers still in tack. Apple could say screw AT&T and embrace Verizon's 100 million subscribers, T-Mobile's 33 millions subscribers, and Sprint's roughly 55 million subscribers for a roughly 188 million people market. If the sale goes through with a similar falling out, Apple's potential market drops by T-Mobile's 33 million and Apple losses the only other GSM provider. With both T-Mobile and Sprint being around, Apple can use those carriers as leverage to gain concessions because even though Apple wouldn't want to do so, it could drop both Verizon and AT&T. The more carriers is better, not just for Apple, but for all hardware manufacturers. With the exception of Microsoft (who is desperate to keep AT&T happy), you do not hear any hardware manufacturers publicly supporting the take over. With everybody else taking AT&T's money to come out in support of the sale, you think you'd hear one hardware manufacturers. For good reason. With the exception of Apple, they all have to kiss the carriers asses to get their phones on their networks.
....
As stated above, more carriers is better for hardware manufactures because they can leverage the various carriers against each other to gain concessions. Before the iPhone came out, the carriers were solely responsible for the applications and features installed on the phones (most Android phones still come installed with hard to get rid of unwanted applications, and Verizon forces many customers to use services such as Bing), signing customers up, and customer support. You'd always read about phones like the Blackberry that had such and such feature that was turned off by the carrier. When the phone broke, you'd call the carrier.
When Apple wanted to come out with the iPhone, it wanted total control over the customer experience. To gain that concession, it leveraged the carriers against one another to strike a deal. At the time Verizon was stealing AT&T customers and was the clear market leader (Verizon publicly acknowledges this). Apple was able to leverage AT&T's desire to over take Verizon (as well as sell more data) and strike an unheard of deal.
In summary, less carriers, means less leverage to force carriers to implement innovative features manufactures want to bring to market.
Please don't bother to respond if all you have is my argument is weak.
I don't disagree with your points but I'm not sure they are all that relevant, either. Anti-trust laws almost always are applied looking downstream, not up. First and foremost, they are for the protection of consumers. In fact, I can't recall a case where they were argued for the protection of a supplier. If anyone knows of one, I'd certainly be interested in knowing the details and outcome.
The more carriers is better, not just for Apple, but for all hardware manufacturers. With the exception of Microsoft (who is desperate to keep AT&T happy), you do not hear any hardware manufacturers publicly supporting the take over. With everybody else taking AT&T's money to come out in support of the sale, you think you'd hear one hardware manufacturers. For good reason. With the exception of Apple, they all have to kiss the carriers asses to get their phones on their networks.
While you're obviously correct that carriers are the customers for vendors, and that consolidation of carriers has a competition implication for them - I'm not convinced that it's at the point where it would be enough to be the main concern for the FTC in this merger.
For starters vendors, unlike consumers are playing in a global market - they can sell to carriers anywhere. The US is a big important market but vendors can use international markets to launch a product, once the product is a big seller carriers in the US will inevitably be eager to get it.
If the carrier situation in the US got too bad for OEMs then we'd likely see a rise in virtual networks, indeed that might be the best option from the FTC's perspective. To allow this merger to go through but to ensure that AT&T stands ready to support virtual networks with a fair wholesale pricing structure.
I don't disagree with your points but I'm not sure they are all that relevant, either. Anti-trust laws almost always are applied looking downstream, not up. First and foremost, they are for the protection of consumers. In fact, I can't recall a case where they were argued for the protection of a supplier. If anyone knows of one, I'd certainly be interested in knowing the details and outcome.
B2B cartels certainly get some attention too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2001...ancenew…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beer...ust_Litigation
there are plenty of others.
B2B cartels certainly get some attention too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2001...alfinancenew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beer...ust_Litigation
there are plenty of others.
Your first link doesn't work and the second (DeBeers case) was about collusion enabled by a 90% share of the distribution channel. I don't see how that relates to a global wireless market where no one provider likely has even 10%.
B2B cartels certainly get some attention too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2001...alfinancenew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beer...ust_Litigation
there are plenty of others.
The original post should have said customers instead of consumers. Most antitrust action targets situations where customers were disadvantaged, whether these customers are consumers or businesses. Even in the De Beers case, a cursory reading of the Wikipedia did not tell me whether De Beers was charged for disadvantaging the buyers of diamonds (rough and cut) or for disadvantaging the sellers of rough diamonds.
The original post should have said customers instead of consumers. Most antitrust action targets situations where customers were disadvantaged, whether these customers are consumers or businesses. Even in the De Beers case, a cursory reading of the Wikipedia did not tell me whether De Beers was charged for disadvantaging the buyers of diamonds (rough and cut) or for disadvantaging the sellers of rough diamonds.
Thank you and, yes, I meant customers.
I think in the DeBeers case there was some issue of unfair treatment of suppliers but that only stemmed from unusual situation that DeBeers had effectively found a way to prevent suppliers from selling to other people. At least that's my vague recollection of the story. Needless to say it was a very unusual situation brought on by DeBeers controlling something like 90+% of the distribution channel. There's nothing in the current topic of handset makers and wireless carriers that has any resemblence to that.
Spring should have merged with T-Mobile -- now THAT would have made sense for the end users, IMHO.
I see negative value from an AT&T <-> T-Mobile merger, however, they should be free to do as they wish and merge without government intervention. I also believe corporate "rights" should be stripped -- no corporation should be afforded any rights as fictitious citizens -- only citizens should be afforded rights.
Spring should have merged with T-Mobile -- now THAT would have made sense for the end users, IMHO.
Interesting idea but I'm not sure I know what you're saying. What "rights" do corporations have today that are the same or even analogous to individual citizen's rights?
no corporation should be afforded any rights as fictitious citizens --
Should they have the right to defend themselves in court when sued? Should they have the right to protect their IP? Should they have the right to sell their wares?
True and funny.
No, but they may offer it for all the iPhones (that's the extent of my humor for the day)
You may not, bit dont speak for all of us, because I do want 4G/LTE/3.5G or whatever it is they offer. I'm holding onto my 3GS until they launch an LTE iPhone. Your comment is like saying, "We don't need no high-speed cable-modem this 56k modem line is good enough."
Do you know all the potential innovation that was stifled by allowing bandwidths to get as high as they are. Had we simply set a hard bandwidth cap at 56k, we might be streaming HD video with just 28.8k of bandwidth. All of this bandwidth has potentially set back theoretical compression technology by as much as two decades, possibly even more.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44148462...ence-wireless/
TL;DR? Verizon by a landslide, then T-Mobile, then Sprint, with AT&T dead last.
My previous post is as germane as ever:
My advice to AT&T: Get busy, or get your arses handed to you by Verizon.