U.S. Mobile Phone Carrier Practices Questioned

[SeaFox]

If this were on Slashdot I would be tagging it "finally".

I can't decide if this is the same thing this story was talking about a couple days ago.

The FCC head wants new wireless internet connectivity devices unlocked. The important note is that he's talking about devices to be used on a yet-to-be-auctioned 700mhz wireless spectrum space, so it has nothing to do with the iPhone or cellphone carriers. Everyone on Slashdot immediately said "it should be the cellphone industry that gets changed" and what ho! So maybe the iPhone was only being used as an example for this. Both these articles are ambiguous enough (and I fear plagued by authors who don't quite know what they're writing about) to tell.

 

[blueflame]

Something interesting I just thought of due to an earilier post...

Apple did not get popular until after it was available to PC users. The iPhone in a way is the equivilent to the original ipod. Locked tightly to a network, IE: a ipod was tied to the mac.

Was this done on purpose. I bet apple is very much playing the same game, and possibly intentionally making it so not everyone can get one? part of a much grander scheme?

My quesiton is, what is apple getting from this deal? why couldnt they sell phones like nokia? they are certianly getting something worthwhile, and somehow, I do not completely belive this profit sharing stuff, it doesnt sit right. on the other hand, I belive something bigger that we do not yet know, some sort of trial market, or eventually free data for all iphone sold or somehting. i dont know

What is for sure is: the iphone is/was a big deal, they are getting something very nice out of it. are they copying in purpose the same method used to make the ipod a sucsess, start off slow and build?
A

 

[irun5k]

Yes, Capitalism is a good thing. But didn't your mother teach you that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing? In other words, a little regulation can only be good for the health of the overall capitalist system.

This type of non-absolute thinking is completely irrational. By your logic, free speech (a good thing) is dangerous if not regulated, therefore, the government should start regulating speech occasionally.

Property rights are good- so a concept like eminent domain is even better because it allows government to step on property rights by seizing private property.

Freedom of religion- good, but for good measure, we should restrict the concept to include everything except Buddhism and certain flavors of Christianity.

Protection from false imprisonment- seems like a good idea, but lets throw a few people in jail every day just because we don't like the way they look, talk, etc.

Equal rights? Good concept, but on occasion we should favor certain races when giving people jobs, an education, or other benefits.

Police protection from other citizens? Nice concept, but it would be better for everyone if on occasion we let people murder one another and turn a blind eye.

Capitalism and a free market? Let us not get carried away. Sure, it is a great concept, but wouldn't we be better off carving part of it out and replacing it with restrictions and regulations?

A non-absolute philosophy is very convenient, because it allows you to fulfill your own self interest at the expense of another. You can demand someone else's property, silence their speech when they say things you don't like, or take their job because you're the "right color." Heck, you can even pass a law saying a cell phone made by a private company has to be compatible with every cell network out there. Hell, lets do it. It benefits YOU, right? It might screw Apple. It might screw AT&T. But hey, it is OKAY to screw big companies, right? As long as we don't screw the "little guys."

Instead of complaining about this and passing new laws so that everything in the world works to your benefit, why don't you just go out and buy this phone: http://www.openmoko.com ? That's right- vote with your dollars!

 

[zflauaus]

The U.S. telecommunication systems are totally messed up. CDMA sucks but they have a much larger EVDO network compared to AT&T's HSPDA network. There needs to be one network with super fast data network. Unfortunately that costs money and I don't think any of the huge corps are down for spending any of it.

CDMA alone does not suck. CDMA is a great technology. It's the carriers that impose their ideas on you that make their service, not the technology, suck. And we do not need one network. We do not want a monopoly ala Ma Bell. Because then we would just be stuck where we are now, even if it did get that far, which it never would.

I'm still waiting for the U.S. to follow Belgium and ban the sale of locked phones.

This would be absolutely great. Although in today's society, the carriers would fight to the death to have all their phones unlocked and let you take the phone elsewhere within a matter of minutes of signing up.

Just a note, the biggest thing I think we should be focused on is convincing Qualcomm to settle with Broadcom on this whole patent debate. The whole, every new, untested phone is banned from the U.S. until an agreement is reached, is kind of disturbing to me. This means that we will be stuck in this time period of no innovation for some time unless phone manufacturers switch to a different, non-Qualcomm chipsets or Qualcomm settles.

Ugh... What a great time for cell phone users in America!

 

[coday182]

Wow the iPhone is so amazing that the government had to get involved.


... oh yeah and for you people getting your hopes up that you will be able to use an iphone with verizon or other carriers in the future, don't expect anything to happen to soon. It is the government.

 

[mixel]

This type of non-absolute thinking is completely irrational. By your logic, free speech (a good thing) is dangerous if not regulated, therefore, the government should start regulating speech occasionally.Eh.. It didn't seem that irrational.

"Non-absolute thinking" could be a good idea in some cases.. Doesn't mean it applies to everything. (You have to be non-absolute in the application of non-absolutism?).. Your "good things" are decided by you anyway, nobody's completely impartial, and others would disagree with your choice of absolute "common sense" rules.

I see both points, but sometimes an open system is better for the consumer, and if they can make it happen without damaging functionality it could be a good thing. I don't think Apple would have anything to lose.. AT&T would, but.. Oh well.

 

[peestandingup]

For Apple to be such a "global" company, having the iPhone tied to only certain carriers is really a kick in the balls to its fan base.

Also, Apple could sell a TON more units & had a global launch instead of this half-a$$ed effort with AT&T if it were just unlocked & sold directly by Apple. Sad.

 

[michelepri]

wrong

This is called reality. Apple only allows Mac OS X to work on Apple's hardware. It is called reality. In reality people sign contracts, or legally binding agreements that allows this so called evil behavior. Look at the laws and read a book on capitalism or the free market. If you do not like it, leave reality.

This is not reality, this is fanatism, and the aggressive style of your post shows only that. No free market can exist without regulation. You write contracts, regulations allow your contracts to be enforced. You deposit cash in a bank, regulation stops the bank from leaving with your money. This is reality. And the same happens with consumer goods. Without regulation we would not even have electrical standards, and every brand would force you to use a different plug or even voltage. And your TV would only work with a specific power company. If Apple made desk lamps they would probably force you to sign a 5 year contract with an expensive power company.

 

[greenwrangler]

This type of non-absolute thinking is completely irrational. By your logic, free speech (a good thing) is dangerous if not regulated, therefore, the government should start regulating speech occasionally.

But that is exactly what we have essentially. You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. In other words, you cannot say anything the hell you want and get away with it. No one seems to have a problem with that concept.

Property rights are good- so a concept like eminent domain is even better because it allows government to step on property rights by seizing private property.

To be sure, I dont agree with the concept of Eminent domain. However, your property rights are in fact regulated. You pay for the right to own property and that allows the government to protect your right by arming the police to protect that right. Absent that regulation is chaos, where the one with the biggest guns gets to control all the property.

Freedom of religion- good, but for good measure, we should restrict the concept to include everything except Buddhism and certain flavors of Christianity.

Can you practice your religion with impunity if it asks you to sacrifice a virgin every Friday the 13th? Again, a little regulation in form of laws helps keep such insanity from running amuck.

Protection from false imprisonment- seems like a good idea, but lets throw a few people in jail every day just because we don't like the way they look, talk, etc.

Can't argue with you on this point. Its valid and written/granted in the constitution explicitly. However, last time I checked there was no such protection in the constitution offered to corporations to trample over consumer's rights.

Equal rights? Good concept, but on occasion we should favor certain races when giving people jobs, an education, or other benefits.

No. But there needs to be protection to make sure those equal rights laws are being applied well. Again a little regulation.

Police protection from other citizens? Nice concept, but it would be better for everyone if on occasion we let people murder one another and turn a blind eye.

Police protection is exactly the form of limited regulation I am alluding to.

Capitalism and a free market? Let us not get carried away. Sure, it is a great concept, but wouldn't we be better off carving part of it out and replacing it with restrictions and regulations?

On the other hand, unfettered capitalism will lead to a few people controlling everything. There is no free market without a somewhat level playing field.

Why is it that taking away individual rights is all right with the same people who raise hell when corporations are asked to be more respectful and conscientious of consumer rights? Why is it wrong to demand corporations to respect the same society that makes it possible for them to operate and be profitable?

I will not bother responding to the rest of your diatribe.

 

[JBaker122586]

I can't believe people don't realize this. The iPhone WILL NOT be unlocked anytime soon, because it WILL NOT make Apple any more money than they are making now. Apple is taking a significant percentage of the sales of any iPhone contract from AT&T.
For instance, if you pay AT&T $60 a month for your iPhone, let's say $50 is going to AT&T and $10 is going to Apple. Assuming 1 million iPhones were sold, Apple is making $600 million from hardware sales PLUS $10 million a month for the next two years, just off early adopters.

And how about we let a capitalist economy work instead of imposing more ridiculous regulations. FDR died 60 years ago, let his legacy go with him.

 

[RedTomato]

While I agree with *some* varieties of social anarchism, you seem to be on a different planet. You seem to be totally unaware of the daily functioning mechanisms of government. And I'm not sure why you're ranting about this on an iPhone discussion.

This type of non-absolute thinking is completely irrational. By your logic, free speech (a good thing) is dangerous if not regulated, therefore, the government should start regulating speech occasionally.

Sorry to patronise you, but free speech is indeed absolutely regulated. For a trival example, see shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It is less narrow in some ways in the USA than in some countries, but more strictly regulated in other ways - for example, in most western countries, Janet Jackson's nipple slip would have caused no fuss whatsoever. Here in the UK, it was replayed on the daytime news about 50 times in slow motion the next day and no-one complained and no laws were broken

Property rights are good- so a concept like eminent domain is even better because it allows government to step on property rights by seizing private property.

The USA does it all the time. Compulsory purchase exists. So does requisitioning in wartime or times of civil emergencies.

Freedom of religion- good, but for good measure, we should restrict the concept to include everything except Buddhism and certain flavors of Christianity.

Religion is indeed restricted. It's not allowed to become part of goverment. (in theory). Also some religions which have certain harmless practices are rather vigorously suppressed in their full form e.g. Rastafarianism with its smoking of ganja. (and will you say 'that's not a proper religion'?)

Protection from false imprisonment- seems like a good idea, but lets throw a few people in jail every day just because we don't like the way they look, talk, etc.

Happens every day legally in the USA and most countries. Arresting on suspicion, or racial profiling (overt or covert). Internment in times of war is provided for in law. (based on nothing more than being the wrong race.) New Orleans in Katrina - when a wealthy, healthy nearby community let whites over the bridge but tried to shoot blacks. With support from their police.

Equal rights? Good concept, but on occasion we should favor certain races when giving people jobs, an education, or other benefits.

Happens every day in the USA. Legally too. I shouldn't have to explain more.

Police protection from other citizens? Nice concept, but it would be better for everyone if on occasion we let people murder one another and turn a blind eye.

Judicial executions - which are still regarded as murder in most western countries. Cop killings. (ignored by many police and supported in the courts). Killings of people you don't know and have never met, and mean no harm to you is greatly funded by the US government - both in times of war and peace (see bombings of unidentified targets and collateral damage in Iraq and Afghanistan.) Or do they not count as they're not USA lives?

Capitalism and a free market? Let us not get carried away. Sure, it is a great concept, but wouldn't we be better off carving part of it out and replacing it with restrictions and regulations?

Unfettered capitalism works about as well as unfettered Communism. Or do you advocate abandoning all services to disabled people, the absolute buying and selling of votes, the right of companies to take over public utilities like water and refuse to sell to any except the rich, to create a virus that infects everyone then charge for a vaccine?

A non-absolute philosophy is very convenient, because it allows you to fulfill your own self interest at the expense of another. You can demand someone else's property, silence their speech when they say things you don't like, or take their job because you're the "right color." Heck, you can even pass a law saying a cell phone made by a private company has to be compatible with every cell network out there. Hell, lets do it. It benefits YOU, right? It might screw Apple. It might screw AT&T. But hey, it is OKAY to screw big companies, right? As long as we don't screw the "little guys."

So your philosophy is solely in absolute rules? Are you 15 years old? Try reading some Godel and his theory of completeness.

Instead of complaining about this and passing new laws so that everything in the world works to your benefit, why don't you just go out and buy this phone: http://www.openmoko.com ? That's right- vote with your dollars!

Finally on topic I also think Moko is lovely, however, it owes its very existence to the same rules you are complaining about. It is built at a fundamental level on research and patents that were 'unfairly' taken from their inventors and distributed to the public for the public good. That's a good thing mind you.

 

[irun5k]

"Non-absolute thinking" could be a good idea in some cases.. Doesn't mean it applies to everything. (You have to be non-absolute in the application of non-absolutism?).. Your "good things" are decided by you anyway, nobody's completely impartial, and others would disagree with your choice of absolute "common sense" rules.

This isn't accurate. There are certain axioms in the world- self evident truths that ultimately lead to a foundation of basic, inalienable rights that every human can demand. For example, the right to life and the right to property are paramount.

The right to free speech is actually a mere corollary. So long as the right to property exists, free speech will never completely die. One can always speak their mind on private property, such as in their home, or potentially on someone else's private property if both parties agree.

By the same token, if you take away the right to own a printing press, it doesn't really matter if you still have the right to free speech.

The right to operate a business and mutually agree to engage in transactions with your customers without external interference is also a right that can be proven- it is not an opinion.

If you don't accept the right to life or property, you must absolutely not accept it. For example, you have to openly accept the fact that I can enter your home and take what I like. Similarly, if you don't absolutely accept the right to life, you accept that your life can be subordinated to me- in other words, I can take you as my slave.

Unfortunately, you are not alone in your quest for non-absolutism. You are joined by many others, including most politicians.

While I agree with *some* varieties of social anarchism, you seem to be on a different planet. You seem to be totally unaware of the daily functioning mechanisms of government. And I'm not sure why you're ranting about this on an iPhone discussion.

We clearly do not agree at all, but sadly we actually disagree slightly less than you realize because you missed my excessive sarcasm in several instances.

 

[greenwrangler]

We clearly do not agree at all, but sadly we actually disagree slightly less than you realize because you missed my excessive sarcasm in several instances.

I think it is you who missed the sarcasm in RedTomato's post.

 

[peestandingup]

I can't believe people don't realize this. The iPhone WILL NOT be unlocked anytime soon, because it WILL NOT make Apple any more money than they are making now. Apple is taking a significant percentage of the sales of any iPhone contract from AT&T.
For instance, if you pay AT&T $60 a month for your iPhone, let's say $50 is going to AT&T and $10 is going to Apple. Assuming 1 million iPhones were sold, Apple is making $600 million from hardware sales PLUS $10 million a month for the next two years, just off early adopters.

And how about we let a capitalist economy work instead of imposing more ridiculous regulations. FDR died 60 years ago, let his legacy go with him.

So, it wasnt enough for Apple to just sell their product for $500-$600, they had to keep squeezing $$ from us after the fact?? That doesnt sit to well with most folks, especially long time Apple/Mac fans that see Apple as being open to standards. Cause this is about as closed as you can get.

Sure companies wanna make $$, but this seems kinda dirty. Especially when they lower their standards to get in bed with a crap company like AT&T, who isnt necessarily known for their great customer support or service.

 

[WolfJLupus]

Unfortunately, you are not alone in your quest for non-absolutism. You are joined by many others, including most politicians.

Unfortunately the realities in which we perceive as real are not the realities of absolution nor evidence to prove the same for everything and everyone else. Truth is really only relative to the one who's perceiving it both consciously and sub consciously. Even if we're governed by absolute truths we really can never prove such a thing especially to others as their perceptions of their truths/realities are subjective/relative to themselves.

The world is not black and white, it's shades of gray. Unless every (generally infinite) possibility has been considered and is known it's hard to find a absolute answer on any front, though certain we can find more balanced universal truths and to test our own truths not only for our own sake but that of society which allows us to progress beyond current selves. But that is my perception of truth which constructs the window panes of my reality in which I perceive the outside world/the reality outside of me.

Some philosophy to chew on perhaps? (Don't forget the world was flat at one point)

^,,^_-wuff-

 

[mangis]

In Japan there are not plans per se.

I can quit my cell phone contract anytime I want without any penalty, and when I start I don't have to lock myself into a contract with any one company.

It will be interesting to see how iPhone approaches this market.

 

[iAlan]

I am iPhone illiterate so hope this is not a silly question

Does the iPhome need certain network capabilities for full functionality? Will standard internet browsing work on any network or does the netweork need sometinging to support this? How about conferencing and voicdemail? Anything needed on the network side or is it all in the phone?

If it is all in the phone then why not have the iPhone compatable with a variety of networks. If network spoecific requirements exist then why risk customer disatisfaction if not all networks can meet the need?

 

[l0ne]

I can't believe people don't realize this. The iPhone WILL NOT be unlocked anytime soon, because it WILL NOT make Apple any more money than they are making now.

Food for thought:

• GSM and UMTS ("3g"/HSDPA) are similar technologies (UMTS is in many ways an evolution of GSM). They are widespread throughout the world, especially in Europe and Japan.
• Europe has no special regulations for locked-down mobiles, but they simply do not sell well here, unless very heavily subsidized. Carriers all use GSM or UMTS networks. Most phones are bought unlocked from the manufacturers, not the carriers. The carriers often offer subsidized unlocked phones if they are bought along with new contracts.
• Apple, unlike many US companies, always thinks global when creating new products. All Apple products, including pieces of electronics like the iPod, are made from day one to be sold everywhere in the world, and most of the software Apple sells is fully localized in all "Tier 1" languages (English and many of the languages of Europe and East Asia, such as Italian, German, French, Chinese and Japanese).

Likely rationale for Apple choices:

• GSM radios are über-cheap and very advanced now (ie low consumption). We can go GSM/EDGE and then use similar UMTS chipsets from the same manufacturers if the need arises. And we can go global with them whenever we choose to.
• As a US company, we want to get the product out in the US first, but we cannot really sell it unlocked here -- carriers have too much of a stranglehold on the market. We cannot also sell it locked here and unlocked abroad at the same time -- there would be mass imports, cannibalizing the US sales and potentially hurting our relationship with whatever carrier we choose. So we go exclusive with one of the GSM carriers here, maybe making some extra money in the form of revenue sharing in the process; and then we can go crazy abroad in the winter.
• We have to bend to the carrier's wishes while we sell here in the US, or we might not get the phone to market.

Note that the last point is a dud -- Apple is not likely to maintain two versions of the iPhone software, so we poor EU souls will get the same exact crippled (eg no Skype) phone you get out there. Sigh.

Apple could have chosen to not bend to any request from AT&T and probably has had draconian limits imposed on the software for this. However, Apple has also a history of not fighting upon such requests if it helps them bring something new to market (replace iPhones, AT&T and limitations with iPod, music companies and DRM).

 

[CHess]

And who is talking about irrational thinking?

This type of non-absolute thinking is completely irrational. By your logic, free speech (a good thing) is dangerous if not regulated, therefore, the government should start regulating speech occasionally.

Property rights are good- so a concept like eminent domain is even better because it allows government to step on property rights by seizing private property.

Freedom of religion- good, but for good measure, we should restrict the concept to include everything except Buddhism and certain flavors of Christianity.

Protection from false imprisonment- seems like a good idea, but lets throw a few people in jail every day just because we don't like the way they look, talk, etc.

Equal rights? Good concept, but on occasion we should favor certain races when giving people jobs, an education, or other benefits.

Police protection from other citizens? Nice concept, but it would be better for everyone if on occasion we let people murder one another and turn a blind eye.

Capitalism and a free market? Let us not get carried away. Sure, it is a great concept, but wouldn't we be better off carving part of it out and replacing it with restrictions and regulations?

A non-absolute philosophy is very convenient, because it allows you to fulfill your own self interest at the expense of another. You can demand someone else's property, silence their speech when they say things you don't like, or take their job because you're the "right color." Heck, you can even pass a law saying a cell phone made by a private company has to be compatible with every cell network out there. Hell, lets do it. It benefits YOU, right? It might screw Apple. It might screw AT&T. But hey, it is OKAY to screw big companies, right? As long as we don't screw the "little guys."

Instead of complaining about this and passing new laws so that everything in the world works to your benefit, why don't you just go out and buy this phone: http://www.openmoko.com ? That's right- vote with your dollars!

I think you're getting a little carried away and spewing some irrational arguments here and pretty well discrediting your opinion. Sit down and take a few slow... deep breaths...

Let's face it, not everything about Capitalism is great. Pure Capitalism, which doesn't exist anywhere, even in the U.S., feeds off the poor and the middle class like they're cattle. Because we believe in freedom, we allow much of this to happen, but we can't let anyone do anything they like. There ARE limits to everything. Laws exist because they are needed to protect the American Citizen. They should be the number one concern, IMHO

 

[maverick808]

The right to free speech is actually a mere corollary. So long as the right to property exists, free speech will never completely die. One can always speak their mind on private property, such as in their home, or potentially on someone else's private property if both parties agree.

I agree, only being able to speak freely on your own property, hidden from watchful eyes, or inside your own mind is double plus good for everyone

 

[mccldwll]

um. no. free enterprise allows carriers to sign exclusive contracts. maybe other countries will allow laws to pass that tell companies they need to open their products but here in the US, that isnt how things work.

Unless it is a monopoly (which this isnt), they cannot tell Apple the product needs to work on all networks. Apple for example could create their own wireless service and make it exclusive to that. They are selling a product, they can limit it as much as they like. People do not need to buy it, nor do they need to use AT&T. There are plunty of other phones and plunty of other carriers out there. No part of this is a monopoly. Except for the fact that AT&T has a monopoly on the iPhone (but no more than any football team has on a player... it is called a contract). If you don't like it than move on, nothing to see here.

There is no monopoly and that there is the problem. Promoting competition in an industry like this is severely inefficient. Providing a single network, where we can buy and use any phone we want, would be so much more efficient. A fraction of the resources expended on wireless service would have given us much faster data rates.

Instead we have each provider duplicating the same resources over and over again. The fact that such inefficiencies can support such wild profits is an indication of how much we're all being ripped off.

Update: Just to clarify, a cellular phone network is what economists call a natural monopoly, meaning that the marginal and average costs are diminishing. This means we have a situation where the most efficient approach is to have a single provider. However, due to serious corruption, that natural monopoly has been divided up into several colluding groups who then are given free-range to charge us exorbitant rates for lower quality service than we would otherwise have.

I agree, but the rest of the capitalist world is enjoying a very good and vibrant cell phone market with options galore, and here in the US we are about three years behind in cell phone tech and business practices. I like the iPhone, but don't believe the hype, Apple won't sell nearly as many as they would like if they don't open it up to the other carriers. Sprint is a better data service provider for businesses, they offer fast speeds and insurance for any smartphone at any price. Until Cingular can do that a lot of people won't buy the iPhone.

The iPod didn't take off until it was usable on a Windows machine.

Sprint was the first company I ever saw that dropped insurance on a model-by-model basis when they refused to insure the one Sony Ericcson phone they ever supported. Since then SprintPCS has switched form an insurance plan to some sort of con game where they gladly take your monthly fee, but then charge you a deductible that's greater than the cost of the replacement phone.

So if I buy a Ford, I should be able to choose what brand tires, oil, antifreeze...etc. it comes with?

No. But you should be able to drive it on all roads, not just Ford's (assuming it runs).

This all probably started because someone high up in the FCC wanted an iPhone and had a contract with another carrier, got upset, and started this ridiculous crusade.

No. This started years ago with respect to upcoming spectrum availability and consumer complaints about being locked in to terrible service.

 

[SeaFox]

I can't believe people don't realize this. The iPhone WILL NOT be unlocked anytime soon, because it WILL NOT make Apple any more money than they are making now. Apple is taking a significant percentage of the sales of any iPhone contract from AT&T.

Why do people keep trying to make a correlation between the iPhone's money making potential and the difficulty in unlocking it. Yeah, Apple will not be unlocking the iPhone anytime soon. Not because they can make more money from service kickbacks (note: I have yet to see any post that verifies they are in fact getting a cut of any monthly service fees, let alone a "significant percentage"), but because they have a contract with AT&T saying they wont for five years. Also note this agreement is for this specific iPhone. Apple could come out with an iPhone Nano next month and only make it available on T-Mobile, or make it a CDMA handset for Verizon.

The abilities of Apple to make money off the iPhone through exclusive agreements has no direct effect on the difficulty in unlocking it. The iPhone is just a smartphone. A smartphone with a very good user interface and a touch screen, but it's still a phone. A device that can be unlocked just like any Treo. Someone will figure out how to unlock it, and when they do, it wont matter what fine print is in any contract.

And to directly respond to the post I quoted, if something so bizarre as an Act of Congress were to regulate the cell phone industry to keep handsets unlocked, YES, THE IPHONE WILL BE UNLOCKED. Last I checked, federal law overruled exclusive agreements.

 

[rob@robburns.co]

Does the iPhome need certain network capabilities for full functionality? Will standard internet browsing work on any network or does the network need something to support this?

Any Edge or 802.11b/g Wifi Network

How about conferencing and voicdemail? Anything needed on the network side or is it all in the phone?

Probably not on conferencing. Visual voicemail on the iPhone requires server side support, but knowing Apple they probably used a IEEE RFC standard or a variant on one. Visual voicemail could also be largely achieved through audio attachments on IMAP. You can do (almost) the same thing with Vonage today (as an example).

If it is all in the phone then why not have the iPhone compatable with a variety of networks. If network spoecific requirements exist then why risk customer disatisfaction if not all networks can meet the need?

I'd love to see even a WiFi only Skype-based VOIP iPhone/iPod. My hunch is that the iPhone is using cutting-edge components and is more costly to produce than analysts realize. Apple does not want to appear as producing very high-priced products (a misconception they constantly battle). So they got AT&T to subsidize the phone price, but not tell anyone about it. Once the component costs decline, Apple will be able to sell an iPhone for $600 or even less without any service provider subsidy.

 

[mccldwll]

There is no monopoly and that there is the problem. Promoting competition in an industry like this is severely inefficient. Providing a single network, where we can buy and use any phone we want, would be so much more efficient. A fraction of the resources expended on wireless service would have given us much faster data rates.

Instead we have each provider duplicating the same resources over and over again. The fact that such inefficiencies can support such wild profits is an indication of how much we're all being ripped off.

Update: Just to clarify, a cellular phone network is what economists call a natural monopoly, meaning that the marginal and average costs are diminishing. This means we have a situation where the most efficient approach is to have a single provider. However, due to serious corruption, that natural monopoly has been divided up into several colluding groups who then are given free-range to charge us exorbitant rates for lower quality service than we would otherwise have.

Right. Darwen clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and really should read up on the upcoming spectrum auction. People would be screaming bloody murder if their computers could only access the internet from certain (mac friendly) ports, but not from others, or could only use certain landphones on certain land networks. The US wireless system is silly, does not promote competition and inhibits technological advancements. And the only reason it still exists is the extremely heavy political lobbying presence (essentially bribery) of the telecom industry. Historically, the carriers have dictated what the cell makers activated on the phones. Further, Verizon and AT&T are the biggest opponents of the spectrum sale, but in all liklihood they're going to get dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. And people should stop blaming Apple for the iPhone being limited to AT&T. Does anyone think for one minute that Apple wouldn't prefer to sell unlocked phones that would work everywhere? No one really knows what monthly fees Apple collects, and whether such fees are "greedy profit" or for support, upgrades and updates for which Apple is responsible. The not too distant future will include integrated cell systems, as well as a complete wifi network, and all will benefit.

 

[whooleytoo]

Just to re-iterate, they're considering regulating new - not existing - spectrum; so this will have no impact on the current generation iPhone.