Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
European Carriers Claim Apple Should Pay for Network Infrastructure
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, they have. In fact, they always have been evil. But, now here comes a technology where the consumer actually receives a real service and the carrier must be held more accountable. Really, if they want extra money for improvements to the existing infrastructure, where exactly has our money been going to all these years when we were using dumb phones? Vacation homes? New cars?
It's interesting that this is the European companies, not the US ones. IMO, that's because the carriers are playing a dangerous game. Much of their value lies in retention of customers and network assets. The network assets (i.e., cell towers) are worth less than ever now that technologies like LTE and WiMAX are viable. Who needs CDMA and GSM voice networks when you can just send VOIP packet via LTE? The biggest issue is the difficulty in securing permits for building new towers.
It's funny too, that Apple and Google, for all their sniping against each other, are battling the same issues with the carriers. It would be really, really interesting if they collaborated to build or buy out a wireless provider. I know, it's a pipe dream, but if anyone could make it happen, it would be those two.
It's funny too, that Apple and Google, for all their sniping against each other, are battling the same issues with the carriers. It would be really, really interesting if they collaborated to build or buy out a wireless provider. I know, it's a pipe dream, but if anyone could make it happen, it would be those two.
No the carriers will keep upgrading the infrastructure and provide back haul services so the phones can get better service.
I know I will get flamed for this, but I agree a bit that Apple should make some contributions to mobile infrastructures. The release of the iPhone created a demand for a "trendy" product which resulted in millions of people who never had a smart phone/PDA or the need for one. I use the word "trendy" as every soccer Mom and high school student with a RAZR had to have the iPhone. Now regardless of AT&T's customer service (I have had better luck with AT&T customer support than my 10+ years w/ VZN Wireless), that type of abrupt strain on any network would result in horrendous service, especially in dense markets. As the 1st generation iPhone carried a price tag far above most other devices, I can understand why AT&T wasn't prepared for the onslaught (couple that with Cingular renewing their tower leases to t-Mobile to stave off bankruptcy right before the AT&T acquisition = disaster).
This doesn't excuse either AT&T and/or Apple. These companies have raked in a small fortune (I believe Apple has an estimated cash reserve of $50+ billion, much of that as a result of the iPhone and iTunes App Store). It would not be a handout for Apple to invest their capital into its mobile partners as improved service would benefit Apple as well as its mobile carriers. I'm also certain if this were to happen that Apple would re-negetiate its contracts with mobile carriers to increase profit margins on their handsets. Either way, Apple's iPhone has resulted in abrupt data demands on its mobile carriers due to its popularity among those who never needed (and most likely do not need) a smart phone/device. I'm not stating what people should or shouldn't have/need, nor am I stating that technology should be hindered, yet let's be honest, do teenagers and soccer Mom's really need access to so much data? (let the flaming commence)
Thankfully he doesn't speak for all Americans, as I'm certain you don't speak for all Europeans
I don't understand how this relates. Comcast's equipment and service is (generally) unrelated to another company. High temperatures shorting out equipment is essentially the result of Comcast's inappropriate utilization for their equipment, not another company creating a need for their product resulting in a tremendous demand for wireless data. There was no increase in usage from Comcast's customer base.
This doesn't excuse either AT&T and/or Apple. These companies have raked in a small fortune (I believe Apple has an estimated cash reserve of $50+ billion, much of that as a result of the iPhone and iTunes App Store). It would not be a handout for Apple to invest their capital into its mobile partners as improved service would benefit Apple as well as its mobile carriers. I'm also certain if this were to happen that Apple would re-negetiate its contracts with mobile carriers to increase profit margins on their handsets. Either way, Apple's iPhone has resulted in abrupt data demands on its mobile carriers due to its popularity among those who never needed (and most likely do not need) a smart phone/device. I'm not stating what people should or shouldn't have/need, nor am I stating that technology should be hindered, yet let's be honest, do teenagers and soccer Mom's really need access to so much data? (let the flaming commence)
Thankfully he doesn't speak for all Americans, as I'm certain you don't speak for all Europeans
I don't understand how this relates. Comcast's equipment and service is (generally) unrelated to another company. High temperatures shorting out equipment is essentially the result of Comcast's inappropriate utilization for their equipment, not another company creating a need for their product resulting in a tremendous demand for wireless data. There was no increase in usage from Comcast's customer base.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is a ridiculous idea. That's what the monthly data charges are for. It's not the phone manufacturer's responsibility to pay for the wireless carrier's infrastructure. That's like the government saying to automobile manufacturer's, "Hey, help us build these roads, highways and bridges for all these cars you guy are manufacturing!". Doubtful that this will ever come to fruition.
Say WHAT?!
Tractor-trailers already pay more in road-use taxes than do cars.
Internet ACCESS is what we are buying with the monthly bill. The infrastructure should be able to handle the traffic for which we pay a large sum every month.
Is this a serious comment?
No. The maker of the device is not the owner - or even a partner - in the companies that have built the internet lines. It's not up to them to pay for the inability of the IPs to handle the traffic.
Who is Comcast supposed to charge because their equipment failed this past summer because the temperatures were hotter than that equipment could tolerate?
Tractor-trailers already pay more in road-use taxes than do cars.
Internet ACCESS is what we are buying with the monthly bill. The infrastructure should be able to handle the traffic for which we pay a large sum every month.
Is this a serious comment?
No. The maker of the device is not the owner - or even a partner - in the companies that have built the internet lines. It's not up to them to pay for the inability of the IPs to handle the traffic.
Who is Comcast supposed to charge because their equipment failed this past summer because the temperatures were hotter than that equipment could tolerate?
The days of unlimited data plans are running on borrowed time ... in the near future, there will be no unlimited plans for anyone.
reminds me of when gas prices could be found at different tiers all over the city ... now every gas station raises or lowers their prices all in sync.
reminds me of when gas prices could be found at different tiers all over the city ... now every gas station raises or lowers their prices all in sync.
Yeah that makes sense make Apple and Google pay for the fact you are selling your services to customers for lower than you want, if it is a problem just raise your monthly rate or stop subsidizing the phones so much. In the end the customer will end up paying for it either way, why bother with making Apple or Google pay?
european teles are really becoming a pain in the ass. they first want all phones with micro usb. then they control tec adoption and this.
Bingo... Increase the rates a whole lot. All the carriers can get together and set a fixed price then get busted by the EU for price fixing.
The ISPs here in the UK tried something similar with the BBC over it's iPlayer service.
BBC and ISPs clash over iPlayer
BBC and ISPs clash over iPlayer
Meh. I'd be happy to get the service from the provider that I'm already paying for. But as I rarely even get a 3G or HSDPA signal outdoors in the middle of this city from Vodafone (O2 is as bad apparently), even a relatively simple websearch takes so long I generally don't bother. And as for google maps, forget it! According to speedtest.net, on a good day I get about 10kbit/s. On a bad day it fails to even connect... That's not because of Apple or Google using all the data though. There just isn't any to use as there are very few transmitters. Fortunately Orange/T-Mobile seem to have a lot and my iPad gets great reception next to my phone. Roll on renewal time!
Steve.
Steve.
Ridiculous
The people using the bandwidth should pay for the bandwidth, end of story.
If Apple makes devices that use more bandwidth, then the customers who use those devices on the network should pay more for their bandwidth usage, not Apple.
If it's legitimate bandwidth usage by the device, then then customer should expect to pay more. If Apple manufactured a faulty device that used more bandwidth than necessary to accomplish a task, then the free market will take care of the matterless customers will purchase that device, and Apple will have an incentive to improve its product.
The people using the bandwidth should pay for the bandwidth, end of story.
If Apple makes devices that use more bandwidth, then the customers who use those devices on the network should pay more for their bandwidth usage, not Apple.
If it's legitimate bandwidth usage by the device, then then customer should expect to pay more. If Apple manufactured a faulty device that used more bandwidth than necessary to accomplish a task, then the free market will take care of the matterless customers will purchase that device, and Apple will have an incentive to improve its product.
Maybe Comcast and other ISP should start asking for money from Dell, HP, Compaq.. etc for creating computers that can be such bandwidth intensive.
Maybe the carriers should start charging Apple 30% of the cost of the iPhone as a distribution fee.
Maybe they should just stop subsidizing the phones, and put the many they were loosing back into the network.
None of that really changes my point.
You think they're lying? Ok, the government should investigate and say who's right. You or them.
But it doesn't matter what that answer is. My point stands: They should be charging us the amount they need to maintain the network.
Whether that price is lower or higher than now is for someone else to figure out. I don't have the information to make that call.
That's a ridiculous statement by the carriers. Why would companies(Apple&Google) like that get into the network infrastructure when it's an astronomical market in itself.
If anything, Google would be more inclined, but I am thinking there really isn't a need in their minds... Networks Infrastructures is a billion $ market that needs to be replenished as technology moves forward years on in. Both Apple & Google are the opposite, they take advantage of the network infrastructure that is present, and make devices, features, functions, OSs, etc. And with LTE infrastructure coming to the states, Google & Apple will be a success yet again, because the mobile market is increasing as data speeds increase. Although, I do think the iPhone will be pushing away the Android market as the iPhone moves to other carriers... So, Android, will not have the spark it is having in years down the road. Apple will win with a better feature-set as usual.
One day, the laptop will be a thing of the past for some(or already is)... LTE from Verizon is a game changer.
If anything, Google would be more inclined, but I am thinking there really isn't a need in their minds... Networks Infrastructures is a billion $ market that needs to be replenished as technology moves forward years on in. Both Apple & Google are the opposite, they take advantage of the network infrastructure that is present, and make devices, features, functions, OSs, etc. And with LTE infrastructure coming to the states, Google & Apple will be a success yet again, because the mobile market is increasing as data speeds increase. Although, I do think the iPhone will be pushing away the Android market as the iPhone moves to other carriers... So, Android, will not have the spark it is having in years down the road. Apple will win with a better feature-set as usual.
One day, the laptop will be a thing of the past for some(or already is)... LTE from Verizon is a game changer.