No, the european and asian markets are going to change the way our telecommunications work. The iPhone was used as a BAD example, not a good one.
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.
U.S. Mobile Phone Carrier Practices Questioned
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, the european and asian markets are going to change the way our telecommunications work. The iPhone was used as a BAD example, not a good one.
Humans don't have rights, Silly
We're random collocations of atoms. Rights are a human construct, ultimately an ethical concept. Talking about "rights" just roots human morality in spirituality and irrationality, which doesn't help anything.Remember Nazi Germany? The Germans had a right to property, but their own children spied upon them. Do not say that the right to property did not exist in Nazi Germany, because it did for almost everyone not convicted of a crime against Germany -- even in a Lbertarian paradise, people are deprived of their property for crimes...
So because I do not own a university, it does not matter if I have the right to be educated at one? Because I cannot own a national forest, I cannot walk through it? Because most of the nomadic Native Americans did not lay claim to the lands on which they traveled, they could not hunt and fish on it?
Then prove it. You can prove that it might be desirable, but you cannot prove that it is a right -- again, rights do not exist outside of the human mind. Do you think rabbits lecture hawks on their respective rights and responsibilities?
Again, the right does not exist -- so deliberating imaginary laws for acceptance of an imaginary right gets us nowhere. I could similarly say that I have a right to sexual congress with anyone I meet, but if I pass up having sex with one quadroplegic midget, it means anyone in the world could rape me at will.
How about this: the world has never been legally bought or sold, since it was never legally owned, since control over the resources for existence is a non-negotiable good (impinges on rights to life). Therefore, the world is the property of all, people who damage the world are guilty of crimes against the property of the human race, and therefore should rectify the damage they have inflicted much like a kid would clean up their spilled milk. All production is derived from natural resources, either directly or indirectly, and thus needs a lowered sale price in proportion to the effects of its creation upon the environment in the form of positive environmental action in order to compensate the world for that "withdrawal."
You can "prove" anything, but you can't prove anything, and rights simply do not exist except as human constructs. I'm not saying that rights are a bad thing -- I'm an anarchist, and against coercion -- but we have to approach this on a sane, philosophical playing field.
When I think of absolutist politicians... well, I think you know a few of the names that come to mind.
?
Reality changes.
It's changed by people who feel they have the power to change it for the better. (or worse obviously in some cases)
Huh, maybe politicians will get some bill through that will make GSM the standard here in the US (considering its the standard worldwide I don't see why not). CDMA can transition through using phones with the R-UIM since its based off GSM standards. Changing all of the CDMA equipment to GSM isn't going to make the major carriers happy though and I'm sure they would tie this up in endless litigation. It's a nice thought at least...
I don't agree with this. Why should the g'vt tell a company to open their product up to be sold by every carrier? Why can't it be the company's choice?
The man can't tell me what to do!
The man can't tell me what to do!
So you like paying 5 bucks/gallon at the pump huh?
The idea is to make the market freer, not to restrict it any more.
I've always hated the limited availability of phones on each network. iPhone or not, I'd never switch back to AT&T. If a law were eventually implemented which made it illegal to lock phones here in the US, consumers would be the ones to benefit. And then cell phone companies would be forced to compete where it really matters: in their network quality, reliability, and customer service.
I am a die-hard capitalist and would agree with you accept for the fact that the cell phone companies make their money on public airwaves. The government (ie. the people) has allowed them to buy parts of the spectrum to run their business. This creates an oligopoly with huge barriers to entry for any other competitors. For this reason alone the cell phone companies should (and probably will) end up with regulation.
On the side topic of regulation, if I were a cell phone company I would proactively start unlocking my phones. The last thing I would want is some government body to start making me do things.
Agree. There's a good reason for the exclusivity here. apple needed a network to commit to allowing certain features, like visual voicemail. If apple just started selling its phone, why would any of the carriers make it work with its network any more than a basic data device? I'm sure Apple evaluated selling the phone without a network/carrier tie-in, and decided that to make it work right, they needed to work with one cell provider.
They could certainly roll the product out in Europe, but again they want to make sure that vodaphone or t-mobile or whoever will provide adequate support. Only wat to ensure that is to grant exclusivity.
The "public" airwaves argument kinds of dies when they auctioned off the spectrum. Every bidder knew they would get a monopoly, which is why the money paid was so significant. It's not like free television, where they've been getting the spectrum for free.
Just because the government colludes with the corporations to rip-off the public doesn't make it OK. You're making it sound like these corporatists are victims of the "public" citizenry who tricked them into colluding together and forced billions in profits on them at our expense.
But the spectrum comes with conditions, and the conditions being discussed at the moment would favor an entity such as Google, as opposed to AT&T/Verizon.
jeez, there are some fanatical people in here.
This isn't about forcing manufacturers to open up their devices. It's about carriers not forcing devices to be locked to their network. If it was up to the manufacturer (ie: Apple) they would LOVE to have their device unlocked. That means anybody -ANYBODY- could buy their product cause it would work on any network, not just a tiny smidgen of the mobile phone users who are on whatever netowork they're tied to. In my opinion, Apple didn't choose to lock their device...nor does motorola or any other manufacturer. They are forced to do so by contracts with carriers that want the devices locked so customers have to engage in long-term contracts and "carrier only" services like music downloads, etc.
Forcing carriers to allow any device on their network is nothing but a good thing. It allows for faster advancement of product design and technology. It's absolutely no different than the fact that i can buy ANY cordless telephone from ANY manufacturer and plug it in at my house to the phone service provider of my choice, whether it's Vonage, Comcast, AT&T, or whowever. All the phones work no matter who you use.
edit: don't confuse the terms "unlocked" - referring to the ability to use a device on any network. "closed" platform - Apple (or any manufacturer) choosing to keep their phone platform "closed" to developers. Devices being "closed" is not the argument here.
This isn't about forcing manufacturers to open up their devices. It's about carriers not forcing devices to be locked to their network. If it was up to the manufacturer (ie: Apple) they would LOVE to have their device unlocked. That means anybody -ANYBODY- could buy their product cause it would work on any network, not just a tiny smidgen of the mobile phone users who are on whatever netowork they're tied to. In my opinion, Apple didn't choose to lock their device...nor does motorola or any other manufacturer. They are forced to do so by contracts with carriers that want the devices locked so customers have to engage in long-term contracts and "carrier only" services like music downloads, etc.
Forcing carriers to allow any device on their network is nothing but a good thing. It allows for faster advancement of product design and technology. It's absolutely no different than the fact that i can buy ANY cordless telephone from ANY manufacturer and plug it in at my house to the phone service provider of my choice, whether it's Vonage, Comcast, AT&T, or whowever. All the phones work no matter who you use.
edit: don't confuse the terms "unlocked" - referring to the ability to use a device on any network. "closed" platform - Apple (or any manufacturer) choosing to keep their phone platform "closed" to developers. Devices being "closed" is not the argument here.
I think some people here are being shortsighted. Sure, it makes sense to say that ending the exclusivity would be good in many ways, but the fact is they have an exclusive contract, and Congress wants to get their dirty fingers into it. It's the principle of the thing: Congress shouldn't be dictating what companies can do unless it's actually hurting someone (the sales of other phones doesn't count).
You don't have a right to have an iPhone. iPhone is not the monopoly of the cell phone or smart phone industries. If you don't like AT&T, then don't get an iPhone. Congress shouldn't have the right to order Apple and AT&T to open the phone up for everyone.
Exclusivity is what drives competition: what the heck are patents!? Maybe we should amend the Constitution and get rid of all patents because they're unfair.
You don't have a right to have an iPhone. iPhone is not the monopoly of the cell phone or smart phone industries. If you don't like AT&T, then don't get an iPhone. Congress shouldn't have the right to order Apple and AT&T to open the phone up for everyone.
Exclusivity is what drives competition: what the heck are patents!? Maybe we should amend the Constitution and get rid of all patents because they're unfair.
I think some people here are being shortsighted.
Yes. And you're at the front of that line. Read pherplexed's post immediately before yours. That's the big picture.
I think some people here are being shortsighted. Sure, it makes sense to say that ending the exclusivity would be good in many ways, but the fact is they have an exclusive contract, and Congress wants to get their dirty fingers into it. It's the principle of the thing: Congress shouldn't be dictating what companies can do unless it's actually hurting someone (the sales of other phones doesn't count).
You don't have a right to have an iPhone. iPhone is not the monopoly of the cell phone or smart phone industries. If you don't like AT&T, then don't get an iPhone. Congress shouldn't have the right to order Apple and AT&T to open the phone up for everyone.
Exclusivity is what drives competition: what the heck are patents!? Maybe we should amend the Constitution and get rid of all patents because they're unfair.
Patents are Congress dictating what companies can do -- they can't copy an idea, until some period (chosen by Congress) has passed. Congress can and does get involved wherever it sees economic inefficiency.
There are complicated arguments on both sides about the efficiency of bundling... but Europe seems to do quite well with their anti-bundling laws (or, at least, enforcement).
I read this a an anti iPhone issue
This is anti iPhone, i.e. the telecommunications department does not like the fact the the iPhone is exclusive to ATT for 5 years and they think that ALL phones should be able to work on ALL networks. As another user mentioned, this is like the Ma Bell fights in the past. I bet Sprint, Nextel, Verizon and Palm are behind this. TOO BAD for you Verizon! You had your chance and you BLEW IT!!
This is anti iPhone, i.e. the telecommunications department does not like the fact the the iPhone is exclusive to ATT for 5 years and they think that ALL phones should be able to work on ALL networks. As another user mentioned, this is like the Ma Bell fights in the past. I bet Sprint, Nextel, Verizon and Palm are behind this. TOO BAD for you Verizon! You had your chance and you BLEW IT!!
Unfortunately, politicians don't really seem to live in reality.
What are our lawmakers? Lawyers, mostly, maybe a few with business background, but since when have they introduced legislation that was "Apple-esque", that is, simple to understand and pleasurable to utilize?
What is their track record? De-Regulation of the Airlines, break up of Ma Bell into baby Bells... your choices may have grown but over the long run how's your satisfaction with the service of those choices? Been on an airplane ride lately?
You think the cell phone contract you sign is bad. Wait until congress comes out with a 900 page law with all the subpart A's, of Section D's, of Paragraph C's, of Subsection ii's, etc. Heck even the lawmakers don't read the laws they are voting on from beginning to end (ie. immigration reform law just recently voted down) and yet they'll vote on 'em. How's that for comforting news!
I can't recall the last time the lawmakers took something that was bad, tried to make it better, only it cames out more muddied and befuddled then before.
I just hope they don't make a bad situation worse by there normal ineptitude.
The only reason i don't understand this thinking is due to manufacturers having a choice on what and where they sell. It is a different market, but why doesn't the government force Abercrombie to sell its clothes in Target, or Craftsman products forced to be sold outside of SEARS, or even a doctor in northern New Jersey selling his services in southern New Jersey.
The examples are a little over the top, but a lot of companies (especially Apple) sell their products in closed practices for maintaining quality. If the iPhone was open, Apple couldn't guarantee 100% functionality, if clothing designers shared their goods the entire reasoning behind different stores would be void, etc. etc.
I HATE that I can't use the iPhone on the Sprint network, but if Apple chooses to use ATT then so be it. Companies cut deals with each other and that's how business works. If every company had to be "unlocked" with it's products the entire economy would be turned upside down.
The end point is if I make my own product I should choose where and how I want it to be sold. Apple designed the iPhone, they want it to work and they want to turn a profit, ATT (hopefully) ensures that. Just because we want the thing to work on all carriers doesn't mean we have to turn the entire economic system upside down to get it.
The examples are a little over the top, but a lot of companies (especially Apple) sell their products in closed practices for maintaining quality. If the iPhone was open, Apple couldn't guarantee 100% functionality, if clothing designers shared their goods the entire reasoning behind different stores would be void, etc. etc.
I HATE that I can't use the iPhone on the Sprint network, but if Apple chooses to use ATT then so be it. Companies cut deals with each other and that's how business works. If every company had to be "unlocked" with it's products the entire economy would be turned upside down.
The end point is if I make my own product I should choose where and how I want it to be sold. Apple designed the iPhone, they want it to work and they want to turn a profit, ATT (hopefully) ensures that. Just because we want the thing to work on all carriers doesn't mean we have to turn the entire economic system upside down to get it.
None of your examples relate to natural monopolies. The system is being turned upside down already (and someone at the FCC or on a congressional subcommittee isn't really going to stop that). Its upside down because our corporatist government's (and this is applying to European government's more and more) are turning over our economy to a smaller and smaller cabal of their friends. How much more upside down can it get?
You say you 'd never switch back to AT&T because, and tell me if I am wrong, you were ired by either the lack of "network quality, reliability or poor customer service".
How does "unlimited" versus "limited" phones improve that situation?
I would love to know the company that has 100% network quality, assures 100% reliability and gives consumers 100% customer service? Because anything short of those ideals, makes the carrier, well, just another carrier "with issues"! It's a paradigm that will never happen. Somewhere, someone is going to gripe about something with their cell phone provider and phones wouldn't have a dang thing to do with it - locked or unlocked. Sorry!
gee, it's not about apple. nobody says apple (or any other manufacturer) has to sell the a phone for every network.
it's about the networks. they should be open to any phone that meets the specifications. like windows has to run every program that is programmed for it (think about the web browsers).
intel is not allowed to stop adobe (or any other companies) programs from running on intel cpu's as long as they meet the spec's.
but phone companies stop certain phones from running on their network although they would meet the specifications.
phone companies limit the transfer of data based on content (ringtones, music downloads). although they are able to transfer music as data packets they don't let you transfer that kind of data. they themselfes however do it.
would you accept that comcast doesn't allow you to buy music from itunes? of course not.
therefore unfortunately the government has to step in and force the phone companies to open their network to all phones that meet their specifications. and phone companies should not be allowed to limit the transfer of data based on content.
it's about the networks. they should be open to any phone that meets the specifications. like windows has to run every program that is programmed for it (think about the web browsers).
intel is not allowed to stop adobe (or any other companies) programs from running on intel cpu's as long as they meet the spec's.
but phone companies stop certain phones from running on their network although they would meet the specifications.
phone companies limit the transfer of data based on content (ringtones, music downloads). although they are able to transfer music as data packets they don't let you transfer that kind of data. they themselfes however do it.
would you accept that comcast doesn't allow you to buy music from itunes? of course not.
therefore unfortunately the government has to step in and force the phone companies to open their network to all phones that meet their specifications. and phone companies should not be allowed to limit the transfer of data based on content.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Cingular/AT&T the only organization that agreed to meet Apple's hefty demands? I think the iPhone-AT&T relationship has very little to do with "monopoly" or quelching innovation, and a lot to do with Apple hoping to make as much money as possible from their product.
What were those hefty demands? Provide decent visual voicemail access for your customers? Provide decent data rates? Improve your Edge network? Provide nationwide service? Are these "hefty" demands. The fact that a phone producer had to push for these things is an indication of how corporatism is screwing customers and citizens alike. The fact that they might be considered "hefty" is an indication off how extreme the situation is.
This is anti iPhone, i.e. the telecommunications department does not like the fact the the iPhone is exclusive to ATT for 5 years and they think that ALL phones should be able to work on ALL networks. As another user mentioned, this is like the Ma Bell fights in the past. I bet Sprint, Nextel, Verizon and Palm are behind this. TOO BAD for you Verizon! You had your chance and you BLEW IT!!
You have it 100% backasswards. Verizon, AT&T and other cell companies have been protecting the present system for years with DC lobbying. Both are opposed to universal access. Companies like Google are trying to open it up.