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
Don't believe everything you read about the EU. Most of it is BS (check out the 'EU Myths' section at: http://www.the-eu-and-me.org.uk/ ).
I doubt very much this will ever happen. The article quote's the CEO of France Telecom saying that companies like Apple, Google and FaceBook have no incentive to lower their data volumes. That's false - if Android phones were more frugal than iPhones (for instance), that would give them a competitive advantage.
The real reason A/G/F have no incentives to lower data usage is that the carriers have been giving unlimited data plans. Make the customer care and the manufacturer will care.
While I agree in principal, this will ultimately hurt Apple in the long run as iPhone sales will decrease (problably by a decent margin).
An iPhone at $200, no problem. But an iPhone at $500 or $600, no thanks.
I know most on the forum are laughing at the desires of the telecom's, but if I was Apple, I would not be. I would start trying to find some common ground about the best deal for both companies. Ultimately, they lose if the carriers raise the price of the iPhone by removing the subsidy, even more so if Google gives in.
I will say though, it seems fair that if Apple and Google do make network investments, they should get some percentage of data revenues from subscribers using their phones. The next problem though is that I can see Steve Jobs crying that the iPhone should have higher priority.
I agree completely. If the networks dont have the bandwidth, dont make the deals!
(Written from my Mac Pro connected to my British 100mbps fibre connection
)Also, for our good friends over in the US, I should point out that Great Briton isn't what you would call an active part of European Union actions. We don't like being associated with it mainly because Europe doesn't like us, nor we them
this is what it's all about........ they are fleecing us as users.......... THEY (globally) should get their money grabbing house/s in order! provide proper service and do not double/over sell bandwidth
I can see where they're coming from but trying to collect the monies from apple for the extra usage is a no no IMO.
They're asking for it - recently, I signed up for a 12month contract (SIM only) which has 600 cross network min's, unlimited texts and 3GB "unlimited" data allowance - all for £7.50 or around $12
How they'll make any money out of me, I'll never know.
The SIM is currently in a 3G dongle which is plugged into a 3G wifi router being shared around my father's house whilst his ADSL is down. Pulling a nice 2mb/s.
If buying the iPhone subsidised from a carrier, the tariff is always much much dearer, the same as above would cost £35-45 with a commitment of 24 months.
So if everyone switches to SIM only deals, how will the carriers try to get money from Apple/Google, they won't know what device is in use?
They're asking for it - recently, I signed up for a 12month contract (SIM only) which has 600 cross network min's, unlimited texts and 3GB "unlimited" data allowance - all for £7.50 or around $12
How they'll make any money out of me, I'll never know.
The SIM is currently in a 3G dongle which is plugged into a 3G wifi router being shared around my father's house whilst his ADSL is down. Pulling a nice 2mb/s.
If buying the iPhone subsidised from a carrier, the tariff is always much much dearer, the same as above would cost £35-45 with a commitment of 24 months.
So if everyone switches to SIM only deals, how will the carriers try to get money from Apple/Google, they won't know what device is in use?
+1 exactly. If the carriers aren't charging enough to maintain their network, that isn't Apple or Google's problem to solve. The carriers need to charge what their product is worth. If they are charging less than what it costs to maintain then their business is in serious trouble.
Geeee.... before smart phones using up gobs of data existed I seem to remember data plans that cost twice as month (Blackberry data plans for $60 per month and Palm data plans for $45 per month in the USA). Those phones used hardly ANY bandwidth, so I am guessing the carriers were raking it in back then. They provided a minimal infrastructure and charged a premium to use it. They just did not have the foresight to upgrade their capacity with all that extra cash.
I also remember an Aesop fable about an ant and a grasshopper that taught us all back in grade school to prepare for the future when there is plenty so you don't have to suffer when the feast turns to famine?
Why should phone manufacturers pay to upgrade a network today that would benefit their competitors tomorrow? It makes far more sense for those that reap the service fees to maintain the network. If their fees are too low, then they need to raise them or find a way to be more efficient. Either that or they can simply stop subsidizing the smartphones so heavily and keep some of that cash for themselves and upgrade their infrastructure.
Ultimately, the consumer will pay for the network he uses and the most sensible route is through the carrier. The carriers who cannot make the upgrades in the most cost-effective manner will lose subscribers to those who can.
I also remember an Aesop fable about an ant and a grasshopper that taught us all back in grade school to prepare for the future when there is plenty so you don't have to suffer when the feast turns to famine?
Why should phone manufacturers pay to upgrade a network today that would benefit their competitors tomorrow? It makes far more sense for those that reap the service fees to maintain the network. If their fees are too low, then they need to raise them or find a way to be more efficient. Either that or they can simply stop subsidizing the smartphones so heavily and keep some of that cash for themselves and upgrade their infrastructure.
Ultimately, the consumer will pay for the network he uses and the most sensible route is through the carrier. The carriers who cannot make the upgrades in the most cost-effective manner will lose subscribers to those who can.
But then:
Computer manufacturers should pay the ISP to help develop faster phone lines,
Car manufacturers should pay road tax,
TV manufacturers should pay service providers (if the service is digital)...
Maybe network carriers should just build infrastructures that can support what their clients are already paying for. Accept the future, stupid carriers.
Computer manufacturers should pay the ISP to help develop faster phone lines,
Car manufacturers should pay road tax,
TV manufacturers should pay service providers (if the service is digital)...
Maybe network carriers should just build infrastructures that can support what their clients are already paying for. Accept the future, stupid carriers.
that is a stupid proposal however it is to be expected.
Somebody has to pay for the infrastructure and the costs will be passed on to the customer in some way.
The obvious choice would be to increase the price for Data packages but that would turn away customers and make them be more price conscious.
So they try to get the money from companies and then the costs are passed on to customers in a hidden way.
I hope this will not happen but knowing the european countries there is a good chance this will happen.
All in all the situation with cell phones, contracts and prices and especially quality of service and coverage is lightyears ahead of the US.
Somebody has to pay for the infrastructure and the costs will be passed on to the customer in some way.
The obvious choice would be to increase the price for Data packages but that would turn away customers and make them be more price conscious.
So they try to get the money from companies and then the costs are passed on to customers in a hidden way.
I hope this will not happen but knowing the european countries there is a good chance this will happen.
All in all the situation with cell phones, contracts and prices and especially quality of service and coverage is lightyears ahead of the US.
this is what it's all about........ they are fleecing us as users.......... THEY (globally) should get their money grabbing house/s in order! provide proper service and do not double/over sell bandwidth
I am pretty sure you would run out of backbone before you run out of subscribers.
was thinking about this same exact example
....stupid carriers are now seeing the errors of their ways. Weren't there people around like 20-30 years ago who could foresee the need for better infrastructure? Isn't that what most corporations pay analysts for? service provider fail.
....stupid carriers are now seeing the errors of their ways. Weren't there people around like 20-30 years ago who could foresee the need for better infrastructure? Isn't that what most corporations pay analysts for? service provider fail.
Google should pay not Apple
Google should pay because the Android OS allows tethering easily. The cell phone carriers can not disable it. When an Android OS based smartphone is being used as an internet gateway for other devices, the cell phone carrier can not know it. Google designed the Android OS so there is no restrictions. This is called openness by the Android fans.
Google should pay because the Android OS allows tethering easily. The cell phone carriers can not disable it. When an Android OS based smartphone is being used as an internet gateway for other devices, the cell phone carrier can not know it. Google designed the Android OS so there is no restrictions. This is called openness by the Android fans.
Perhaps the telco's should stop subsidizing Apple's handset to make the massive profits that Apple is making from the iPhone?
Amen. These telecoms are headed towards becoming utility companies - the sooner the better! Why should I subsidize some wanker streaming video 8 hours a day? I just want to check emails and sync a few apps. If users actually had to pay per mb then they'd get a little sense. Just download the d*mn movie onto your iPhone/iPad when you're at home. Oh you forgot, or you're on holiday? Fine, then pay for your usage just like you would with electricity or water.
The problem is that demand and use is growing faster than the provider can grow infrastructure. Every major carrier always grows the infrastructure.
And also, Ha Ha Ha Europe. Europeans always stress the fact that European networks are so good and so fast. It doesn't seem that the telecoms really feel this way.
So to get this straight: European data carriers - who essentially 'sell bandwidth' - are complaining because Apple and Google are creating too much demand for bandwidth?
"Stop! Please stop! You're giving us too much business!! You should pay us to give us this much business!"
The problem is with the carriers themselves. If they can't survive and thrive with all this demand for their services, it's their problem.
That said, there probably is a lot of scope for partnerships between Apple/Google and the mobile networks.
"Stop! Please stop! You're giving us too much business!! You should pay us to give us this much business!"
The problem is with the carriers themselves. If they can't survive and thrive with all this demand for their services, it's their problem.
That said, there probably is a lot of scope for partnerships between Apple/Google and the mobile networks.
So basically they want the consumer to pay for the amount of data they use by using tiered data plans, then they want Apple and Google to pay them again for building up and maintaining their network. So in the end, all the network has to pay for is advertising! Everything else is profit, what a great idea!
Sorry, if you couldn't handle people actually using data on their phones you shouldn't have offered it in the first place. I think the telcos just got used to making all profit on their data plans because people barely used them, now that they do they don't want to give up their money to support their network.
It is like shared hosting companies that offer unlimited bandwidth and storage because most people barely use any of it. If a single user uses a lot of resources it is subsidized by 50 other people who don't.
Sorry, if you couldn't handle people actually using data on their phones you shouldn't have offered it in the first place. I think the telcos just got used to making all profit on their data plans because people barely used them, now that they do they don't want to give up their money to support their network.
It is like shared hosting companies that offer unlimited bandwidth and storage because most people barely use any of it. If a single user uses a lot of resources it is subsidized by 50 other people who don't.
Yeah that sounds really nice, here in the U.S. gasoline for our cars is expensive, why not have the car makers provide us with the gas.
I can see it now.....
DirectTV: Hello NFL, we would like to market your football games every Sunday through our satellite TV services.
NFL: Sounds great, you pay us X per subscriber and you can keep the rest.
[time passes]
DirectTV: Hello again NFL, we need to launch a new satellite to support all the channels we offer and we have to support one channel per game per week to show all the NFL games. We don't charge enough for your football package to fund the new satellite. You need to help pay for the new satellite.
NFL: Why don't you charge more?
DirectTV: Hello NFL, we would like to market your football games every Sunday through our satellite TV services.
NFL: Sounds great, you pay us X per subscriber and you can keep the rest.
[time passes]
DirectTV: Hello again NFL, we need to launch a new satellite to support all the channels we offer and we have to support one channel per game per week to show all the NFL games. We don't charge enough for your football package to fund the new satellite. You need to help pay for the new satellite.
NFL: Why don't you charge more?
Swimming in Cash
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=VOD+Income+Statement&annual
Where does all this go? Upper MGMT vacation homes and cars?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=VOD+Income+Statement&annual
Where does all this go? Upper MGMT vacation homes and cars?
why should they contribute? If providers want the apple products on their network and like the thought of making money, then they shouldbe responsible for building a suitable network. Should mcdonalds contribute money to help build the highway system ?