It?s about time. I crunched the numbers a long time ago it just seem right. Not that a company can?t charge a premium for a service, but since all the carriers have raised their prices on text messaging it seems a little like an oligopoly was in effect.
With only a handful of major carriers it's certainly not a perfect market, but I would ask what the solution would be. A regulation regime, similar to the one we had before the AT&T breakup?
You seem to have a sad misunderstanding of what you're FREE to follow as a personal philosophy, and what you're FORCING people to follow as a function of governmental authority.
You may think it unfair that Apple and AT&T have an exclusivity arrangement on the iPhone. Fine. You're FREE to think that. Steve Jobs & Co. are FREE to think that this is the best way Apple can recoup their investment and make a return for the shareholders.
What you can do with your FREEDOM is a) use a carrier and/or phone provider that doesn't have any exclusivity arrangement (e.g.: Android), or you're b) FREE to start up your OWN cell phone design or alternative communication system company. Or you can go a third route and write software for a platform (Android, Symbian, Blackberry, WinCE, etc.) to make it more to your liking.
What you DON'T have is the right to FORCE us to conform to your idea of FAIRNESS. That's TYRANNY. And I'm getting damn sick and tired of those that think themselves little tyrants.
Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.
Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me
that seems most likely to me, too. The talks with verizon were just part of the negotiations to put cingular on the ropes.
Speaking of having a better understanding of what you read on the internet?. Stopping excluvise deals between mobile network operators and handset vendors will not make the iphone work on verizon and will not the pre work on at&t. They are discussing exclusivity contracts, not the forcing of mobile handset vendors to make different hardware versions.
Ps: If you worked on reading comprehension and not being an insufferable ass all the time you might actually make a valid point one of these days.
With only a handful of major carriers it's certainly not a perfect market, but I would ask what the solution would be. A regulation regime, similar to the one we had before the AT&T breakup?
A breakup or government committee pricing of SMS or a refund to the ~250M SMS users in the US just isn’t feasible. I think the best action —one I personally employee— is to not use these services. If enough people do that then the free market will adjust. If enough people are happy with the costs then I can’t see anything but a lot of wasted tax payers money if the government gets involved.
Full disclosure: I did test MMS on the iPhone when v3.0 was first released. I sent one image and received one image, but that ended up not costing me anything.
Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.
Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me
Dear sick turd:
A) You're not going to do any of that, because I and my loved ones have the INALIENABLE right granted by our Creator to bear arms, and will turn you into a good commie faster than you can say "boo".
If you choose to do any of that to someone else, a good society will put your ass in jail or to death. Only a bed-wetter comes up with convoluted phrases like "This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive." in response to battery and rape.
But I'm sure that's all lost on you, as you're a sick turd that likes to talk in the internet about battery, rape, and other people's wives. But I'm still spelling it out for any young impressionable kids reading this.
Even though the request sounds fair, are those smaller providers riding piggy back on the main networks that the big ones spent billions on to put in place during the last decade, or did they install their own towers etc.?
I believe they lease tower access, so that's fair. I don't believe anyone can just "piggyback" off a cell tower. I can be right next to a tower Verizon doesn't lease or own and have a crappy signal.
As far as exclusitivity, I believe it's a double edge sword. Yes, it would be nice to use the carrier of my choice, but then again, if you just commoditize carrier service, they'll probably run the small carriers out of business as the big boys drop prices low enough to squeeze them out, only to raise them even higher soon after, as there is less competition.
Also, do you really want Verizon, or any other carrier for that matter, pushing it's VCast on you on an iPhone? No thanks... If I want an iPhone, I'll gladly switch carriers to do it.
The first link is all fluff as described by the first sentence "Social contract describes a broad class of theories..." (emphasis on the word "theories")
Oh dear, if it involves theories it can't be of any relevance, can it? I thought it obvious, but this is "background reading", you know, to help you have an understanding of the subject?
Social contract also means: "an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection." -- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...ial%20contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
and the second link says all the power starts with the Constitution and flows downward - don't really think that undermines anything he said...
Apparently you didn't read far enough, as the second paragraph begins:
"In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law)."
I said you could start your education at those resources, but, you might have to read past the first paragraph(s) and even look into some of the references to complete it. Maybe even do some independent reading.
What a waste of time. ATT decided to go along with Apple's requests. Verizon did not (wanting as it did, greater control, apparently). And, on top of that, it's GSM versus CDMA.
There should simply be a "fully unlocked" option at full price (a la countries such as France), and this issue would be moot.
Completely agree -- simply mandate an unlocked version. Also mandate official unlocking for iPhones whose 2 year contracts have expired -- users should not be stuck with a carrier for the life of the device.
There should simply be a "fully unlocked" option at full price (a la countries such as France), and this issue would be moot.
That would be fair. And an unlocking after your contract is up.
PS: Dev Team should have the v3.0 unlock coming later today after Apple?s official release. If you update to v3.0 before using Dev Team?s Ultrasn0w your baseband will get updated and no known holes have been discovered, which may mean you?ll never get an unlock in the future. So if you plan to travel to other countries or even plan to sell your iPhone you may want to think about this unlock option.
Oh dear, if it involves theories it can't be of any relevance, can it? I thought it obvious, but this is "background reading", you know, to help you have an understanding of the subject?
Social contract also means: "an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection." -- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...ial%20contract
Apparently you didn't read far enough, as the second paragraph begins:
"In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law)."
I said you could start your education at those resources, but, you might have to read past the first paragraph(s) and even look into some of the references to complete it. Maybe even do some independent reading.
Yeesh!
There's a reason theories aren't called facts and the second still doesn't use your choice verbiage of "Social Contract." Still fluff, you can read it however you want but it's still fluffy. Stay Puff - is that you?!?!?!
John Kerry doing something useful?? Wow I'm not totally ashamed of my Massachusetts government.
There is no reason why cell phones should have exclusivity contracts. For a truly competitive market, all cell phones should be unlocked, it benefits the consumer and in the end it benefits cell phone providers (customers are more willing to switch to the better service if they don't need to buy new phones, so it would be easier for someone like sprint and t-mobile to gain customers back by lowering prices and improving service, like introducing 4G like sprint is doing in Baltimore).
The big cell phone companies really do screw over rural providers. Prepaid and rural providers have a shit selection of phones that would be pathetic 5 years ago.
Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.
Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me
I don't see any reason to expect this at all. If anything, availability from multiple carriers will lead to an increase in the subsidy and decreases in the rate plans, as carriers compete to provide the lowest entry point and TCO.
You can just go to Italy and Australia to check the iphone prices --- both countries have multiple carriers selling the iphone.
Both countries have a much more expensive iphone data plans than Americans.
The FIRST thing that would happen if the exclusivity end is the lowering of handset subsidies.
Please. There is a huge list of things that are unavailable to people in rural areas. It is a fact of life. You can't force businesses to pursue markets that won't make money. There are so many things in small towns that are not competitive - one movie theater, on fast food restaurant, one ISP ...
Before I read this article, I thought John Kerry must have been stuck in a Sprint contract and wanted an iPhone, but didn't want to pay contract breaking fees ... now THAT would be worthwhile! :>D
A breakup or government committee pricing of SMS or a refund to the ~250M SMS users in the US just isn?t feasible. I think the best action ?one I personally employee? is to not use these services. If enough people do that then the free market will adjust. If enough people are happy with the costs then I can?t see anything but a lot of wasted tax payers money if the government gets involved.
Yes, people often forget that they have the option of not buying. I wonder though from those who wail and moan about the cost of these services what kind of government intervention they'd like to see. I'm not ideologically opposed to regulation I just wonder how you fix problems of imperfect competition (in this industry anyway), without making the problem even worse. I mean, do you force handset manufacturers to break their exclusive contracts with providers and offer their products to other providers? That's no small step. I'd think antitrust law violations would have to be proven before the government could go there -- and good luck with that.
Take a look at this article why RIM is the king of market share in the US.
Looks like iPhone is losing market share, because it's a consumer oriented device most likely. In tough times people buy the device that's going to make them money, and in business that's the serious looking Blackberry.
Also another important thing:
Pisses me off, Apple had a second chance to rule a market and they screw it up by ignoring the business market and catering only to consumers.
MacTriper - You hit the nail in the head. Apple has restricted its excellent phone to just one carrier. Their justifications is the hi margins and subsidies they can get from ATT. Apple figures that anybody who wants the iPone will switch carriers. The problem is that people are tied to their carriers by contracts, family plans and even corporate plans.
Some valid arguments have been that only ATT was willing to give Apple control of the iPhones with no carrier logo, 100% of iTunes revenues, etc. Personally I would prefer market share and letting the carriers compete with each other on subsidies by retaining control over the brand and iTunes.
I have hedged my bets by investing in AAPL and RIMM... with RIMM being a side bet. RIMM is a one trick pony and risky but since I bought the stock a few months ago, it has outperformed AAPL.
The current distribution model has allowed Palm with Pre to play in a protected field with a moat. They could go into the CDMA market that is 20% of the world wide market. In the US, VZ and Sprint combined dominate the wireless market with CDMA. In some countries like Korea, CDMA is universal. The virtual keyboard is ideal for languages like Chinese, Japanese, that use the Kanji characters.
Please. There is a huge list of things that are unavailable to people in rural areas. It is a fact of life. You can't force businesses to pursue markets that won't make money. There are so many things in small towns that are not competitive - one movie theater, on fast food restaurant, one ISP ...
Bingo!
Just as there are a huge list of things unavailable to people in Urban areas - a lot of those inhabitants just think the world revolves around them!
Comments
It?s about time. I crunched the numbers a long time ago it just seem right. Not that a company can?t charge a premium for a service, but since all the carriers have raised their prices on text messaging it seems a little like an oligopoly was in effect.
With only a handful of major carriers it's certainly not a perfect market, but I would ask what the solution would be. A regulation regime, similar to the one we had before the AT&T breakup?
You are mistaken. You can start educating yourself here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
and here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States
You seem to have a sad misunderstanding of what you're FREE to follow as a personal philosophy, and what you're FORCING people to follow as a function of governmental authority.
You may think it unfair that Apple and AT&T have an exclusivity arrangement on the iPhone. Fine. You're FREE to think that. Steve Jobs & Co. are FREE to think that this is the best way Apple can recoup their investment and make a return for the shareholders.
What you can do with your FREEDOM is a) use a carrier and/or phone provider that doesn't have any exclusivity arrangement (e.g.: Android), or you're b) FREE to start up your OWN cell phone design or alternative communication system company. Or you can go a third route and write software for a platform (Android, Symbian, Blackberry, WinCE, etc.) to make it more to your liking.
What you DON'T have is the right to FORCE us to conform to your idea of FAIRNESS. That's TYRANNY. And I'm getting damn sick and tired of those that think themselves little tyrants.
Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.
Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me
Klassy...
that seems most likely to me, too. The talks with verizon were just part of the negotiations to put cingular on the ropes.
Speaking of having a better understanding of what you read on the internet?. Stopping excluvise deals between mobile network operators and handset vendors will not make the iphone work on verizon and will not the pre work on at&t. They are discussing exclusivity contracts, not the forcing of mobile handset vendors to make different hardware versions.
Ps: If you worked on reading comprehension and not being an insufferable ass all the time you might actually make a valid point one of these days.
troll.
troll.
Quick troll check (let's just be honest here...)
solipsism - joined Apr 2006, 9674 posts
SeahawkFan2 - joined Jun 2009, 31 posts
If anybody is more likely to be a troll it's you (although teckstud has a lot of posts and annoys the crap out of me!).
With only a handful of major carriers it's certainly not a perfect market, but I would ask what the solution would be. A regulation regime, similar to the one we had before the AT&T breakup?
A breakup or government committee pricing of SMS or a refund to the ~250M SMS users in the US just isn’t feasible. I think the best action —one I personally employee— is to not use these services. If enough people do that then the free market will adjust. If enough people are happy with the costs then I can’t see anything but a lot of wasted tax payers money if the government gets involved.
Full disclosure: I did test MMS on the iPhone when v3.0 was first released. I sent one image and received one image, but that ended up not costing me anything.
Quick troll check (let's just be honest here...)
solipsism - joined Apr 2006, 9674 posts
SeahawkFan2 - joined Jun 2009, 31 posts
If anybody is more likely to be a troll it's you (although teckstud has a lot of posts and annoys the crap out of me!).
And, you might have added, 9674 usually knowledgeable posts, versus 31 random/angry/inane posts.
Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.
Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me
Dear sick turd:
A) You're not going to do any of that, because I and my loved ones have the INALIENABLE right granted by our Creator to bear arms, and will turn you into a good commie faster than you can say "boo".
But I'm sure that's all lost on you, as you're a sick turd that likes to talk in the internet about battery, rape, and other people's wives. But I'm still spelling it out for any young impressionable kids reading this.
Even though the request sounds fair, are those smaller providers riding piggy back on the main networks that the big ones spent billions on to put in place during the last decade, or did they install their own towers etc.?
I believe they lease tower access, so that's fair. I don't believe anyone can just "piggyback" off a cell tower. I can be right next to a tower Verizon doesn't lease or own and have a crappy signal.
As far as exclusitivity, I believe it's a double edge sword. Yes, it would be nice to use the carrier of my choice, but then again, if you just commoditize carrier service, they'll probably run the small carriers out of business as the big boys drop prices low enough to squeeze them out, only to raise them even higher soon after, as there is less competition.
Also, do you really want Verizon, or any other carrier for that matter, pushing it's VCast on you on an iPhone? No thanks... If I want an iPhone, I'll gladly switch carriers to do it.
The first link is all fluff as described by the first sentence "Social contract describes a broad class of theories..." (emphasis on the word "theories")
Oh dear, if it involves theories it can't be of any relevance, can it? I thought it obvious, but this is "background reading", you know, to help you have an understanding of the subject?
Social contract also means: "an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection." -- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...ial%20contract
and the second link says all the power starts with the Constitution and flows downward - don't really think that undermines anything he said...
Apparently you didn't read far enough, as the second paragraph begins:
"In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law)."
I said you could start your education at those resources, but, you might have to read past the first paragraph(s) and even look into some of the references to complete it. Maybe even do some independent reading.
Yeesh!
What a waste of time. ATT decided to go along with Apple's requests. Verizon did not (wanting as it did, greater control, apparently). And, on top of that, it's GSM versus CDMA.
There should simply be a "fully unlocked" option at full price (a la countries such as France), and this issue would be moot.
Completely agree -- simply mandate an unlocked version. Also mandate official unlocking for iPhones whose 2 year contracts have expired -- users should not be stuck with a carrier for the life of the device.
There should simply be a "fully unlocked" option at full price (a la countries such as France), and this issue would be moot.
That would be fair. And an unlocking after your contract is up.
PS: Dev Team should have the v3.0 unlock coming later today after Apple?s official release. If you update to v3.0 before using Dev Team?s Ultrasn0w your baseband will get updated and no known holes have been discovered, which may mean you?ll never get an unlock in the future. So if you plan to travel to other countries or even plan to sell your iPhone you may want to think about this unlock option.
Oh dear, if it involves theories it can't be of any relevance, can it? I thought it obvious, but this is "background reading", you know, to help you have an understanding of the subject?
Social contract also means: "an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection." -- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...ial%20contract
Apparently you didn't read far enough, as the second paragraph begins:
"In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law)."
I said you could start your education at those resources, but, you might have to read past the first paragraph(s) and even look into some of the references to complete it. Maybe even do some independent reading.
Yeesh!
There's a reason theories aren't called facts and the second still doesn't use your choice verbiage of "Social Contract." Still fluff, you can read it however you want but it's still fluffy. Stay Puff - is that you?!?!?!
There is no reason why cell phones should have exclusivity contracts. For a truly competitive market, all cell phones should be unlocked, it benefits the consumer and in the end it benefits cell phone providers (customers are more willing to switch to the better service if they don't need to buy new phones, so it would be easier for someone like sprint and t-mobile to gain customers back by lowering prices and improving service, like introducing 4G like sprint is doing in Baltimore).
The big cell phone companies really do screw over rural providers. Prepaid and rural providers have a shit selection of phones that would be pathetic 5 years ago.
Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.
Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me
you are a real class act
I don't see any reason to expect this at all. If anything, availability from multiple carriers will lead to an increase in the subsidy and decreases in the rate plans, as carriers compete to provide the lowest entry point and TCO.
You can just go to Italy and Australia to check the iphone prices --- both countries have multiple carriers selling the iphone.
Both countries have a much more expensive iphone data plans than Americans.
The FIRST thing that would happen if the exclusivity end is the lowering of handset subsidies.
http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/arti..._lower_subsid/
Before I read this article, I thought John Kerry must have been stuck in a Sprint contract and wanted an iPhone, but didn't want to pay contract breaking fees ... now THAT would be worthwhile! :>D
A breakup or government committee pricing of SMS or a refund to the ~250M SMS users in the US just isn?t feasible. I think the best action ?one I personally employee? is to not use these services. If enough people do that then the free market will adjust. If enough people are happy with the costs then I can?t see anything but a lot of wasted tax payers money if the government gets involved.
Yes, people often forget that they have the option of not buying. I wonder though from those who wail and moan about the cost of these services what kind of government intervention they'd like to see. I'm not ideologically opposed to regulation I just wonder how you fix problems of imperfect competition (in this industry anyway), without making the problem even worse. I mean, do you force handset manufacturers to break their exclusive contracts with providers and offer their products to other providers? That's no small step. I'd think antitrust law violations would have to be proven before the government could go there -- and good luck with that.
Take a look at this article why RIM is the king of market share in the US.
Looks like iPhone is losing market share, because it's a consumer oriented device most likely. In tough times people buy the device that's going to make them money, and in business that's the serious looking Blackberry.
Also another important thing:
Pisses me off, Apple had a second chance to rule a market and they screw it up by ignoring the business market and catering only to consumers.
http://www.crn.com/retail/218000045;...PCKH0CJUNN2JVN
MacTriper - You hit the nail in the head. Apple has restricted its excellent phone to just one carrier. Their justifications is the hi margins and subsidies they can get from ATT. Apple figures that anybody who wants the iPone will switch carriers. The problem is that people are tied to their carriers by contracts, family plans and even corporate plans.
Some valid arguments have been that only ATT was willing to give Apple control of the iPhones with no carrier logo, 100% of iTunes revenues, etc. Personally I would prefer market share and letting the carriers compete with each other on subsidies by retaining control over the brand and iTunes.
I have hedged my bets by investing in AAPL and RIMM... with RIMM being a side bet. RIMM is a one trick pony and risky but since I bought the stock a few months ago, it has outperformed AAPL.
The current distribution model has allowed Palm with Pre to play in a protected field with a moat. They could go into the CDMA market that is 20% of the world wide market. In the US, VZ and Sprint combined dominate the wireless market with CDMA. In some countries like Korea, CDMA is universal. The virtual keyboard is ideal for languages like Chinese, Japanese, that use the Kanji characters.
Please. There is a huge list of things that are unavailable to people in rural areas. It is a fact of life. You can't force businesses to pursue markets that won't make money. There are so many things in small towns that are not competitive - one movie theater, on fast food restaurant, one ISP ...
Bingo!
Just as there are a huge list of things unavailable to people in Urban areas - a lot of those inhabitants just think the world revolves around them!