I wouldnt be so quick to assume Verizon will get the iPhone. First of all, Verizon hit apple pretty hard with negative advertising. Probably not a good idea when trying to buddy up to Apple (Jobs). Secondly, the CEO is pretty cavalier with shooting his mouth off trying to drop hints, etc. Based on past examples, Jobs has shunned companies for less. I would keep my eye on Sprint. While the seem like the last in the mix, they will be a year ahead of the competition technologically speaking. They seem to be very quiet and it wouldnt surprise me. Apple likes to be in control and Sprint would have a lot to gain allowing Apple to call the shots by taking on the iPhone.
Sprint's WiMax 4G is incompatible with the rest of the telecommunications world. They are not getting a 4G version of the iPhone because Apple isn't interested in building a one-off version for them.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
"Old and in the way" is your handle but I am curious to know how old? The greatest generation old that did what needed to be done (WW2) and that supposedly never asked for anything unless you mess with SS or MediCare or Post WW2 like the Flower Power generation of the 60's, that expects things for nothing like free love and if you're not with me, you're against me and it's all about the MAN! generation?...
I am always amazed when I read comments like, "I should be able to use any phone I choose." Why? Why do you think YOU are ENTITLED to any phone produced by any manufacturer to be able to work across all the various networks differing technologies when it comes to the cell phone industry? If it is in Apple's game plan to produce a CDMA iPhone along with its GSM iPhone, great. But what mentality or thought process allows ANYONE to say hey Federal Government via the FCC, I can't get the phone I want so I want YOU to check into it and by decree, regulation, rule, law or whatever, MAKE them, a public company that has their own future roadmap, that you may not totally agree with, COMPLY!
What's next?
It's sad...
That is how I see you as coming across and maybe I'm wrong... Please tell me I am wrong...
GSM is used by the rest of the world. In the big picture, there are far more potential subscribers world-wide to tap than what Apple would get from the US-only Verizon network.
I think what is being missed here is that the iPhone is a "global" phone. Verizon is not.
As an AAPL owner, I'd love it to be on Verizon's network. But I'll consider the technical challenges, the capital expenditures, and ROI to be an issue for Apple. I would have to think that Apple has run the numbers to decide if it's a worthwhile venture.
That is how I see you as coming across and maybe I'm wrong... Please tell me I am wrong...[/QUOTE]
You're wrong. None of what you said is how I meant it. I do see your point on several items, but when you let business make all the decisions you only get decisions that benefit business.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
While you would easily have an argument if the Verizon cellular network was based on the GSM, the cellular technology supported by the iPhone... Unfortunately, the Verizon network is based on CDMA and entirely different technology.
I'd have no problem with the FCC dictating that all cell phones of a 'like type' must be made available to all prospective buyers. In other words all GSM based phones should be available to anyone who wants to but it. This would allow T-Mobile (and Sprint? NO!) subscribers to use the iPhone on those networks. (perhaps others too I'm only giving examples). However, this wouldn't help Verizon users.... and I'd have a SERIOUS problem with the FCC DEMANDING that all cell phone makers MUST design all of their phone models in TWO flavors one supporting GSM networks and another one supporting CDMA. I'd also have a problem if the FCC demanded that all phones marketed in the US support both networks in the same model.
The FCC has no business telling anyone what networks they must support.
Isn't there an arrangement that's halfway between exclusive and open-to-all? It seems like Motorola used to do it (maybe still does) where the preferred carrier gets the hot phone first, and then months later, others carriers get it.
Seems like this could work for Apple: AT&T gets the latest iPhone in June, and then Verizon gets the same model in December. AT&T would still pay a premium for the right to carry it first, but other carriers wouldn't be shut out. People like me who wouldn't be able to wait 6 months would probably stick with AT&T; others would have a choice.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
We all live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
The feds cannot force any company to design a new phone just so that a carrier can play in the same sandbox as its competitors. Otherwise, by the same principle, Microsoft can then be forced to port its Xbox-exclusive games to PS3.
There is the move to 4G or LTE. Apple could be waiting for this to happen and do not want waste time doing a CDMA phone for what would amount to one year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
And Avi Greengart, with Current Analysis, reportedly said Apple is unlikely to do a "one-off" version of the iPhone for compatibility with CDMA networks when Long Term Evolution 4G is around the corner. Both AT&T and Verizon plan to upgrade their networks in the coming years to the new wireless standard.
"It's not in Apple's nature to do a one-off for a technology Verizon itself is moving away from," Greengart reportedly said.
As we've said a thousand times in other threads at AI, when LTE arrives on Verizon, it won't cover most of the US for several, possibly five, years. Thus, a Verizon phone must still have CDMA as a fall-back option. So investing in CDMA is not a one-off or for one year.
From other rumors, it is possible that Apple is waiting for multi-functional chips, where CDMA is just one function. That could explain why there doesn't seem to be any urgency in negotiating with Verizon and making a decision.
I swear to god, this is just attempt by someone to keep customers from making a decision. For 2 yrs now the iphone or some idevice is coming to VZ all this does is keep VZ customer who are on the fence about going to AT&T staying with VZ and possibly signing another 2yr contract with huge cancellation fees
I am an investor and was looking at the companies as a whole, ATT is twice the size of VZ
ATT market cap is $155 billion VZ is $85.5 billion, who's better prepared to serve Apple, and we all know Jobs is a control freak with his products, he may like where he is just fine. ATT stock on the rise while VZ is floundering.....
Be careful with that comparison. VZ only owns 55% of Verizon Wireless. Vodafone owns the other 45%. AT&T owns all of AT&T Mobility. (They both also own landlines and broadband.)
Agreed. Everyone (except AT&T) has a bunch of Android phones, and the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T.
And the Android market is growing fast, while RIM is holding its own.
Anybody on any wireless service has lots of choices, and once they are locked in, later switching to an iPhone becomes less likely.
This really sums up the problems Apple is getting itself into by staying only on AT&T. There are no Android phones on AT&T because if you are willing to put up wtih their network and pay for a smartphone plan you are probably going to get an iPhone. In the meantime, Apple has ceded Verizon and TMobile to Android.
GSM is used by the rest of the world. In the big picture, there are far more potential subscribers world-wide to tap than what Apple would get from the US-only Verizon network.
I think what is being missed here is that the iPhone is a "global" phone. Verizon is not.
As an AAPL owner, I'd love it to be on Verizon's network. But I'll consider the technical challenges, the capital expenditures, and ROI to be an issue for Apple. I would have to think that Apple has run the numbers to decide if it's a worthwhile venture.
I just don't buy this. All the other manufacturers seem to be able to make 2 versions of their phones without any trouble. The real reason is Apple is getting a sweetheart deal from AT&T. Maybe their huge subsidies are good for Apple in the short term, but it sucks for their customers, and I think it is actually bad for Apple in the long term.
The FCC has no business telling anyone what networks they must support.
Actually that was the intended purpose of the FCC, the reason all land line phone work on all phone lines and providers is because the US government and FCC mandated interoperability thus creating what was Ma Bell. The same should have been done for Cellular networks which never happen because VZ fought this tooth and nail they did not want non VZ customers accessing their network. Unlike the GSM networks, and this is the point most people have no clue about.
Just because you pay your bill to AT&T it does not mean 100% of the time you are on an AT&T network or Tower. AT&T has agreements with hundreds of Tower owners and network providers to allow your AT&T phone to be on a GSM network in most parts of this country.
Unlike the GSM providers who mover to SIM card solution which allows people to change phones or providers without necessarily buying a new phone VZ stuck it to customers again and stayed away form the SIM card solution.
GSM is used by the rest of the world. In the big picture, there are far more potential subscribers world-wide to tap than what Apple would get from the US-only Verizon network.
I think what is being missed here is that the iPhone is a "global" phone. Verizon is not.
Agree, but there's at least an additional 200 million subscribers outside the US (beyond Verizon) who are still using CDMA. Most of them are in China, India, Japan, and South Korea.
So Apple already makes a GSM phone for the other 5 billion. Doesn't a phone that can be sold to around 300 million people seem worthwhile?
Any iPhone (or any phone, for that matter) on Verizon's nextwork, even 3 years from now, will need to support CDMA. So saying that a CDMA iPhone would be a "one-off" is a pretty silly argument. However, I could see Apple waiting for the LTE deployment to get a foothold so they could do an LTE/CDMA phone. In that case, waiting until 2011 would probably make sense.
If LTE chipsets are available for handsets now, and the frequencies that Verizon will use in their LTE network have been assigned, is it possible/likely that Apple could build a dual mode iPhone that contains circuitry for both CDMA and LTE. So a subscriber with such a phone could uses CDMA signaling today, and when Verizon has an LTE network/tower in the subscribers area, the iphone could switch over to the LTE chipset?
Sort of like how an iPhone 3G can use Edge or 3G signaling depending upon availability of said signals.
If feasible, this would let Verizon offer an iphone today that wouldn't be obsoleted as LTE rolls out, and give Verizon subscribers a fallback network.
I swear to god, this is just attempt by someone to keep customers from making a decision. For 2 yrs now the iphone or some idevice is coming to VZ all this does is keep VZ customer who are on the fence about going to AT&T staying with VZ and possibly signing another 2yr contract with huge cancellation fees
This is my dilemma. My contract is up. My monthly service fee supplements my phone purchase so the longer I wait to get a new phone the more I overpay for service. Yes I could get an android and they are nice phones, but everything else I have is Apple and they all play so well together.
Agree, but there's at least an additional 200 million subscribers outside the US (beyond Verizon) who are still using CDMA. Most of them are in China, India, Japan, and South Korea.
So Apple already makes a GSM phone for the other 5 billion. Doesn't a phone that can be sold to around 300 million people seem worthwhile?
While I agree with your comment I think it needs to be noted that China's CDMA carrier, China Telecom, is the smallest of the three with 65M subs, compared to China Mobile's (TD-SCDMA) 535M subs and China Unicom's (GSM/3GSM) 150M subs.
This makes China as an argument for CDMA less of a factor when China Unicom is an option and China Mobile has expressed interest in the iPhone, is growing by 5M a month and so much larger than CDMA is now. With their growing economy and interest in the iPhone since 2007 I have to think that even with considerably less sales per capita than Verizon their excessive numbers might actually make a TD-SCDMA iPhone viable for Apple.
Also, outside of Verizon in the US, it seems that most countries with CDMA are pretty poor with many of them having no GSM network in place, mostly around Central and South America. This has pros and cons. Apple can extend their reach to the rest of the world, but I doubt the sales will be very high.
On top of that, there are many countries with CDMA that really shouldn't be counted in the figure because they use CDMA for 2G but switched to UMTS/HSDPA for 3G. In S. Korea* the iPhone only works on their 3G network yet I think most non-iPhone subs are coutned as CDMA users too, on global stats, despite it being irrelevant to this situation.
Finally, I think the US CDMA market is by a wide margin the only real consideration when looking into a CDMA iPhone. Between Sprint and Verizon there are more than enough subs that would love to get the iPhone, but if Apple can't even add the simple, cheap radio band for T-Mobile USA I doubt we can expect a Verizon model.
PS: S. Korea has just broken records for selling 500k iPhones in 4 months from launch. They are one of 7 countries to do that in under 1 year. Part of that might be because their laws make it very hard to get unlocked iPhones on their network, unlike China which had hundreds-of-thousands years before the official release, but it's a definitely an accomplishment especially when you consider all the talk that the Asian markets were so advanced compared to the iPhone. I'm finding these national funded TV services for phones simply aren't popular, but I'd love to have a national comment on that directly.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
Did you miss the part about Cdma being different from 3g? Or that Cdma is being obsoleted? I do understand how you feel, and have a problem with the "exclusive" At&t deal. However, why should the government force a person or entity to make an additional product that they do not want to?
Comments
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers.
No. Absolutely, no. The FCC (US Government) has no business getting themselves involved in the private agreements taken between two business partners.
I wouldnt be so quick to assume Verizon will get the iPhone. First of all, Verizon hit apple pretty hard with negative advertising. Probably not a good idea when trying to buddy up to Apple (Jobs). Secondly, the CEO is pretty cavalier with shooting his mouth off trying to drop hints, etc. Based on past examples, Jobs has shunned companies for less. I would keep my eye on Sprint. While the seem like the last in the mix, they will be a year ahead of the competition technologically speaking. They seem to be very quiet and it wouldnt surprise me. Apple likes to be in control and Sprint would have a lot to gain allowing Apple to call the shots by taking on the iPhone.
Sprint's WiMax 4G is incompatible with the rest of the telecommunications world. They are not getting a 4G version of the iPhone because Apple isn't interested in building a one-off version for them.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
"Old and in the way" is your handle but I am curious to know how old? The greatest generation old that did what needed to be done (WW2) and that supposedly never asked for anything unless you mess with SS or MediCare or Post WW2 like the Flower Power generation of the 60's, that expects things for nothing like free love and if you're not with me, you're against me and it's all about the MAN! generation?...
I am always amazed when I read comments like, "I should be able to use any phone I choose." Why? Why do you think YOU are ENTITLED to any phone produced by any manufacturer to be able to work across all the various networks differing technologies when it comes to the cell phone industry? If it is in Apple's game plan to produce a CDMA iPhone along with its GSM iPhone, great. But what mentality or thought process allows ANYONE to say hey Federal Government via the FCC, I can't get the phone I want so I want YOU to check into it and by decree, regulation, rule, law or whatever, MAKE them, a public company that has their own future roadmap, that you may not totally agree with, COMPLY!
What's next?
It's sad...
That is how I see you as coming across and maybe I'm wrong... Please tell me I am wrong...
I think what is being missed here is that the iPhone is a "global" phone. Verizon is not.
As an AAPL owner, I'd love it to be on Verizon's network. But I'll consider the technical challenges, the capital expenditures, and ROI to be an issue for Apple. I would have to think that Apple has run the numbers to decide if it's a worthwhile venture.
It's sad...
That is how I see you as coming across and maybe I'm wrong... Please tell me I am wrong...[/QUOTE]
You're wrong. None of what you said is how I meant it. I do see your point on several items, but when you let business make all the decisions you only get decisions that benefit business.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
While you would easily have an argument if the Verizon cellular network was based on the GSM, the cellular technology supported by the iPhone... Unfortunately, the Verizon network is based on CDMA and entirely different technology.
I'd have no problem with the FCC dictating that all cell phones of a 'like type' must be made available to all prospective buyers. In other words all GSM based phones should be available to anyone who wants to but it. This would allow T-Mobile (and Sprint? NO!) subscribers to use the iPhone on those networks. (perhaps others too I'm only giving examples). However, this wouldn't help Verizon users.... and I'd have a SERIOUS problem with the FCC DEMANDING that all cell phone makers MUST design all of their phone models in TWO flavors one supporting GSM networks and another one supporting CDMA. I'd also have a problem if the FCC demanded that all phones marketed in the US support both networks in the same model.
The FCC has no business telling anyone what networks they must support.
Seems like this could work for Apple: AT&T gets the latest iPhone in June, and then Verizon gets the same model in December. AT&T would still pay a premium for the right to carry it first, but other carriers wouldn't be shut out. People like me who wouldn't be able to wait 6 months would probably stick with AT&T; others would have a choice.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
We all live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
The feds cannot force any company to design a new phone just so that a carrier can play in the same sandbox as its competitors. Otherwise, by the same principle, Microsoft can then be forced to port its Xbox-exclusive games to PS3.
There is the move to 4G or LTE. Apple could be waiting for this to happen and do not want waste time doing a CDMA phone for what would amount to one year.
And Avi Greengart, with Current Analysis, reportedly said Apple is unlikely to do a "one-off" version of the iPhone for compatibility with CDMA networks when Long Term Evolution 4G is around the corner. Both AT&T and Verizon plan to upgrade their networks in the coming years to the new wireless standard.
"It's not in Apple's nature to do a one-off for a technology Verizon itself is moving away from," Greengart reportedly said.
As we've said a thousand times in other threads at AI, when LTE arrives on Verizon, it won't cover most of the US for several, possibly five, years. Thus, a Verizon phone must still have CDMA as a fall-back option. So investing in CDMA is not a one-off or for one year.
From other rumors, it is possible that Apple is waiting for multi-functional chips, where CDMA is just one function. That could explain why there doesn't seem to be any urgency in negotiating with Verizon and making a decision.
I am an investor and was looking at the companies as a whole, ATT is twice the size of VZ
ATT market cap is $155 billion VZ is $85.5 billion, who's better prepared to serve Apple, and we all know Jobs is a control freak with his products, he may like where he is just fine. ATT stock on the rise while VZ is floundering.....
Be careful with that comparison. VZ only owns 55% of Verizon Wireless. Vodafone owns the other 45%. AT&T owns all of AT&T Mobility. (They both also own landlines and broadband.)
Agreed. Everyone (except AT&T) has a bunch of Android phones, and the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T.
And the Android market is growing fast, while RIM is holding its own.
Anybody on any wireless service has lots of choices, and once they are locked in, later switching to an iPhone becomes less likely.
This really sums up the problems Apple is getting itself into by staying only on AT&T. There are no Android phones on AT&T because if you are willing to put up wtih their network and pay for a smartphone plan you are probably going to get an iPhone. In the meantime, Apple has ceded Verizon and TMobile to Android.
GSM is used by the rest of the world. In the big picture, there are far more potential subscribers world-wide to tap than what Apple would get from the US-only Verizon network.
I think what is being missed here is that the iPhone is a "global" phone. Verizon is not.
As an AAPL owner, I'd love it to be on Verizon's network. But I'll consider the technical challenges, the capital expenditures, and ROI to be an issue for Apple. I would have to think that Apple has run the numbers to decide if it's a worthwhile venture.
I just don't buy this. All the other manufacturers seem to be able to make 2 versions of their phones without any trouble. The real reason is Apple is getting a sweetheart deal from AT&T. Maybe their huge subsidies are good for Apple in the short term, but it sucks for their customers, and I think it is actually bad for Apple in the long term.
The FCC has no business telling anyone what networks they must support.
Actually that was the intended purpose of the FCC, the reason all land line phone work on all phone lines and providers is because the US government and FCC mandated interoperability thus creating what was Ma Bell. The same should have been done for Cellular networks which never happen because VZ fought this tooth and nail they did not want non VZ customers accessing their network. Unlike the GSM networks, and this is the point most people have no clue about.
Just because you pay your bill to AT&T it does not mean 100% of the time you are on an AT&T network or Tower. AT&T has agreements with hundreds of Tower owners and network providers to allow your AT&T phone to be on a GSM network in most parts of this country.
Unlike the GSM providers who mover to SIM card solution which allows people to change phones or providers without necessarily buying a new phone VZ stuck it to customers again and stayed away form the SIM card solution.
GSM is used by the rest of the world. In the big picture, there are far more potential subscribers world-wide to tap than what Apple would get from the US-only Verizon network.
I think what is being missed here is that the iPhone is a "global" phone. Verizon is not.
Agree, but there's at least an additional 200 million subscribers outside the US (beyond Verizon) who are still using CDMA. Most of them are in China, India, Japan, and South Korea.
So Apple already makes a GSM phone for the other 5 billion. Doesn't a phone that can be sold to around 300 million people seem worthwhile?
Any iPhone (or any phone, for that matter) on Verizon's nextwork, even 3 years from now, will need to support CDMA. So saying that a CDMA iPhone would be a "one-off" is a pretty silly argument. However, I could see Apple waiting for the LTE deployment to get a foothold so they could do an LTE/CDMA phone. In that case, waiting until 2011 would probably make sense.
If LTE chipsets are available for handsets now, and the frequencies that Verizon will use in their LTE network have been assigned, is it possible/likely that Apple could build a dual mode iPhone that contains circuitry for both CDMA and LTE. So a subscriber with such a phone could uses CDMA signaling today, and when Verizon has an LTE network/tower in the subscribers area, the iphone could switch over to the LTE chipset?
Sort of like how an iPhone 3G can use Edge or 3G signaling depending upon availability of said signals.
If feasible, this would let Verizon offer an iphone today that wouldn't be obsoleted as LTE rolls out, and give Verizon subscribers a fallback network.
I swear to god, this is just attempt by someone to keep customers from making a decision. For 2 yrs now the iphone or some idevice is coming to VZ all this does is keep VZ customer who are on the fence about going to AT&T staying with VZ and possibly signing another 2yr contract with huge cancellation fees
This is my dilemma. My contract is up. My monthly service fee supplements my phone purchase so the longer I wait to get a new phone the more I overpay for service. Yes I could get an android and they are nice phones, but everything else I have is Apple and they all play so well together.
Agree, but there's at least an additional 200 million subscribers outside the US (beyond Verizon) who are still using CDMA. Most of them are in China, India, Japan, and South Korea.
So Apple already makes a GSM phone for the other 5 billion. Doesn't a phone that can be sold to around 300 million people seem worthwhile?
While I agree with your comment I think it needs to be noted that China's CDMA carrier, China Telecom, is the smallest of the three with 65M subs, compared to China Mobile's (TD-SCDMA) 535M subs and China Unicom's (GSM/3GSM) 150M subs.
This makes China as an argument for CDMA less of a factor when China Unicom is an option and China Mobile has expressed interest in the iPhone, is growing by 5M a month and so much larger than CDMA is now. With their growing economy and interest in the iPhone since 2007 I have to think that even with considerably less sales per capita than Verizon their excessive numbers might actually make a TD-SCDMA iPhone viable for Apple.
Also, outside of Verizon in the US, it seems that most countries with CDMA are pretty poor with many of them having no GSM network in place, mostly around Central and South America. This has pros and cons. Apple can extend their reach to the rest of the world, but I doubt the sales will be very high.
On top of that, there are many countries with CDMA that really shouldn't be counted in the figure because they use CDMA for 2G but switched to UMTS/HSDPA for 3G. In S. Korea* the iPhone only works on their 3G network yet I think most non-iPhone subs are coutned as CDMA users too, on global stats, despite it being irrelevant to this situation.
Finally, I think the US CDMA market is by a wide margin the only real consideration when looking into a CDMA iPhone. Between Sprint and Verizon there are more than enough subs that would love to get the iPhone, but if Apple can't even add the simple, cheap radio band for T-Mobile USA I doubt we can expect a Verizon model.
PS: S. Korea has just broken records for selling 500k iPhones in 4 months from launch. They are one of 7 countries to do that in under 1 year. Part of that might be because their laws make it very hard to get unlocked iPhones on their network, unlike China which had hundreds-of-thousands years before the official release, but it's a definitely an accomplishment especially when you consider all the talk that the Asian markets were so advanced compared to the iPhone. I'm finding these national funded TV services for phones simply aren't popular, but I'd love to have a national comment on that directly.
It's time for the FCC to step up to the plate and stop these exclusive agreements between phones and carriers. I live in an area that is only serviceable by Verizon. I should be able to use any phone I choose. Maybe we need fair rates for service and buy our own phones.
Did you miss the part about Cdma being different from 3g? Or that Cdma is being obsoleted? I do understand how you feel, and have a problem with the "exclusive" At&t deal. However, why should the government force a person or entity to make an additional product that they do not want to?