Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1.    #1  
    Know what would allow phones like Palm to truly make a splash? If the FCC did it's job and made the ISPs and Wireless carriers what they should be: dumb pipes, with allowance to lease the lines at wholesale prices without discrimination (like the phone lines do now). Then HP could make it's own service (like Virgin Mobile) BUT put it on AT&T, T-Mobile, Verison and Sprint's lines. Then they can make a dual GSM/CDMA/4G phone that's work all across america. Who wouldn't buy that phone/service?

    Of course, google and apple could do this too - but wouldn't the competition be fantastic?
  2. #2  
    You would pay full price for phones, up front.

    You would pay more for access to the dumb pipes since the dumb-pipe owners would only be making a profit on dumb pipe leases.

    You would probably not be allowed to share minutes (like with family plans), nor would you have rollover minutes.

    Competition would diminish since there would be nothing to discriminate between dumb pipe providers. Phone feature competition would continue the same way it is today.

    After 30 seconds of thought, I don't think I care much your vision of wireless communications utopia.
  3. #3  
    I pay full price for the computer that I connect to the carrier, so I would have no problem paying full price for a phone to have the flexibility and competitive pricing proposed by the OP.
  4. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #4  
    Sounds alright in theory but the only way this happens is if the wireless carriers make the conscious decision to split their companies into two separate and distinct companies (a infrastructure business and a subscriber business).

    Its a viable strategy, but I don't see AT&T or Verizon giving up control over their infrastructure any time soon. And I'm against the government mandating such a drastic change in any industry, bearing in mind that the carriers spent the billions building out the current infrastructure, not the government. What we really need to accomplish what you're talking about is a brand new business who's sole purpose is to build out or acquire wireless infrastructure and lease it back to the carriers. However as others have pointed out, that leaves one less selling point for the carriers to go with - they lose control over the quality of their network.
  5. #5  
    third option, run wireless carrier the way wireline carriers work. They provide the connection, and I buy the phone.

    youngsters won't remember that we used to only be able to use the home phones that at&t ptovided, and they actually retained ownership and charged monthly for each phone in the house.

    finally regulators made them open up their network to bring our own phones. This scenario is no different.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Sounds alright in theory but the only way this happens is if the wireless carriers make the conscious decision to split their companies into two separate and distinct companies (a infrastructure business and a subscriber business).

    Its a viable strategy, but I don't see AT&T or Verizon giving up control over their infrastructure any time soon. And I'm against the government mandating such a drastic change in any industry, bearing in mind that the carriers spent the billions building out the current infrastructure, not the government. What we really need to accomplish what you're talking about is a brand new business who's sole purpose is to build out or acquire wireless infrastructure and lease it back to the carriers. However as others have pointed out, that leaves one less selling point for the carriers to go with - they lose control over the quality of their network.
    Further, if the government attempts to make this into a utility like with landlines, they'll have to reimburse the providers for what they paid for the spectrum (~$20B in the 2008 auction alone) and extend them a frequency "right-of-way" in the same way they give power, phone, cable TV, gas, and plumbing free property rights today.
  7. #7  
    they@wont have to reimburse for spectrul any more than they do for land lines and telephone poles running next to streets.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    they@wont have to reimburse for spectrul any more than they do for land lines and telephone poles running next to streets.
    You are correct - and miss the point. Phone companies may have to pay for the land lines and telephone poles, but don't have to pay for the land they run on. That land is reserved for the utilities by the government - they are guaranteed access to it to provide their utilities. The sale of the frequency spectrum is akin to selling off land for running power lines, phone lines, above ground pipes, above ground cables.
  9. #9  
    Guaranteed access does not mean that they don't have to pay for the land that it's on if it's private, or sometimes even if it's public land. The access isn't right-of-way; it's called 'easement,' and frequently involves compensation for the use of the land and the access if it's outside of certain limits. Gas, sewer, and water lines, for example, can usually intrude into private land by several feet without requiring easement or compensation.

    There are grandfathered as well as poorly-negotiated easements that have no compensation, and there are eminent domain situations elsewhere, but it's not all freely handed out.
    If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.
  10. #10  
    Oh yes...the old "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" argument. Cellular companies bought spectrum rights from the Government and then built or leased towers and other infrastructure to support the towers and telecommunications routing/connections.

    Forcing these companies to share their networks is theft. Pure and simple. It would be like the government coming to your house and forcing you to share your home with other people to make housing cheaper for the masses. It's not right. It will not drive the cost of business down, either. Though it may end up looking cheaper to the end user, the overall costs will soar, and the money will have to come from somewhere (general taxes).
  11. #11  
    I'm not askking them to share their network, I'm asking to be able to bri.g my own phone, just like we do for our landline home phones. There is no difference.
  12.    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    You would pay full price for phones, up front.

    You would pay more for access to the dumb pipes since the dumb-pipe owners would only be making a profit on dumb pipe leases.

    You would probably not be allowed to share minutes (like with family plans), nor would you have rollover minutes.

    Competition would diminish since there would be nothing to discriminate between dumb pipe providers. Phone feature competition would continue the same way it is today.

    After 30 seconds of thought, I don't think I care much your vision of wireless communications utopia.
    Have you seen what's happened to the pricing of land lines since this happened to them? Went WAAAY down and suddenly everyone started offering more features for MUCH less. The competition would definitely drive down the price.

    Also, the owners of the dumb pipes do NOT only make money on the wholesaling. AT&T, Verizon own a lot of landlines and have a lot of direct customers as well as resellers. You need to do some research before you jump to conclusions.
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I'm not askking them to share their network, I'm asking to be able to bri.g my own phone, just like we do for our landline home phones. There is no difference.
    That only occurs with landlines because of the FCC's rules on telecoms.
  14. #14  
    right, and I want the FCC to do the same for wireless.
  15. #15  
    Whats the point, I don't see why it would make it any better. let the manufactures and os developers concentrate on doing what they do; and leave the service providers to be well service providers. I don't think HP and Apple want to get into being a service provider.

    Also I don't think sprint, att, and Verizon will allow such high performance phones and data consuming products on an MVNO using their network. This could probably increase prices since now HP needs to cover costs and operating expenses incurred by being a service provider. (How are they going to do service and repair) since sprint does not do that for MVNO's

    I don't see how doing this would specifically help Palm against the competition especially if the competition does the same.

    My Sprint phone works all across america already.

    I could also see maybe some antitrust issues with something like this depending on how exactly it is structured.

    Finally, I'm thinking that the reason why FCC mandates wireline providers to do this is because they have a territorial monopolies protected by government, and because of economies of scale, barriers to entry. Just like public utility companies have. You will NEVER see ATT and Verizon wire line service in the same area, Thus the FCC regulations. Since anyone can build a cellphone tower where ever the hell they want to those regulations would never come to wireless service.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by hatchettjack View Post
    affordable satellite phones would be the bees knees! If satellite was a viable option, prices would drop all around. But it will never happen. Just dreaming!
    Launch prices should be coming down significantly over the next few years, especially if the Falcon 9 Heavy can fulfill its promises, so satellite telecommunications will become more common. However, even with more birds in orbit, there is the issue of lag time. Your transmission may have to cover several thousand miles between your phone, the satellite, and the ground station. Every 1860 miles adds a latency of 10ms, plus the latency that builds up in the network hardware. It doesn't take long before it has built up to a noticeable fraction of a second, and cross-talk becomes an issue.

    Besides, the power requirements to reach orbit are higher than those used in standard cellular phones, and the battery packs are much larger. Unless we can figure out how to get higher-frequency EHF capabilities into phone-sized packages, this isn't likely to change much.
    If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Maestro1 View Post
    Since anyone can build a cellphone tower where ever the hell they want to those regulations would never come to wireless service.
    The reason the FCC regulates the airwaves is specifically because the wireless spectrum is limited, hence why big companies pay large sums of cash for the rights to use the airwaves. That's why the FCC was created. Sure, I could build a wireless tower wherever and whenever the hell I want, but I couldn't turn it on because the frequencies it would use are already owned by another company and doing so would cause interference with their signal. A powerful phone broadcast tower, or large radio-type tower for that matter, is significantly different than a little wifi hotspot.
  18. #18  
    what id like to see is the option to buy any phone i want and put it on any carrier i want. im sick of the limitations. maybe just do away with cdma in general and make everything need a sim card.
  19.    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Maestro1 View Post
    Whats the point, I don't see why it would make it any better. let the manufactures and os developers concentrate on doing what they do; and leave the service providers to be well service providers. I don't think HP and Apple want to get into being a service provider.
    Well for one thing, it'd mean that as long as they followed specific standards, any phone could be allowed on any network without intervention of the phone carrier.

    Imagine if you could only buy your TV for the cable provider you currently have? And then when you move, if your old cable provider's no longer there, you have to buy a new TV from the new cable provider? That's the current state of mobile phones.
  20. #20  
    it used to be like that for residential phones. Wireless needs to allow any phone.

Posting Permissions