Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 114
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb View Post
    Oh, yeah, it's all the fault of Keynesians and liberals. If you ignore the fact that most of this breakdown in the system occurred during the 8 years of the Bush administration, and while both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans.
    What I find interesting is that two of the biggest darlings of the 'right' (i.e. Reagan and Bush the younger) were in effect Keynesians. They both had huge stimulus plans that were deficit-based. The thing that irks the 'left' is that their deficit spending was focused on the military and defense. Keynesian economics are, in a way, the ultimate trickle down theory. The only difference is that Keynesians theorize prosperity will trickle down from the government instead of the market.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb View Post
    That's the common wisdom, but only partially true. People love to say the U.S. companies weren't making products people wanted, but the facts say otherwise. Americans WANTED big SUVs until gas hit $4 a gallon. Big trucks were among the hottest sellers for Toyota and Nissan, too. (The Prius sold pretty poorly until gas shot through the roof.) GM was actually improving, both it's products and sales, until the bottom dropped out of the credit markets.

    Chrysler, in spite of how badly Mercedes screwed them, was doing ok in terms of sales until the market for big trucks collapsed. Probably not well enough to survive unchanged, but it was still the collapse of the credit markets that drove them over the edge.

    Oh, btw: Even Toyota, Honda and Nissan lost money last year. But I suppose that's because their products suck, too, and car buyer went elsewhere to buy new cars. Or wait, maybe it because Americans just about STOPPED buying cars, of any brand.

    I know it's a lot of work, but you ought to do some research and look at sales figures over the last few years before you open you mouth. But it's easier to believe the sound bites that pass for news any more than it is to actually read and analyze what's happening, I suppose, so feel comfortable in your myths.
    first off- mostly what I've purchased of leased myslef were GM and Chrysler- so it's kind of funny that i say they suck. (a chevy berrett, a chevy truck, a mitsubishi gallant, a couple durangos, a pacifica, and a small fleet of minivans over the years for my wife) TO a degree I mean their models suck but mostly only in that GM has been loosing market share since like the time my grandfather was born. I guess you can blame that on globalization or something- but it's not the main point I'm trying to make.

    But my main point is their managment SUCKED and it wasn't some outside force that did them in while their management put up a great fight- sure nissan, toyota, and honda lost money. And so did ford. But only GM and chrysler are dead. I dont know the facts about the first time Chrysler needed CPR but I do know that it happened once before. Some of the sucky management was making crappy models but most of it is a bunch or bad decisions placed one on top of each other for decades.
  3. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #83  
    although the title of this thread is totally silly so I'm loath to continue it-

    the FCC will be looking into it:
    FCC to Investigate Exclusive Cell Phone Deals - News and Analysis by PC Magazine
  4. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #84  
    seems the fcc for sure will be digging into this.

    the guy tapped to be the new head is also on board.

    Genachowski: FCC will probe exclusive handset deals - Ars Technica


    One possible end game would be that single carrier exclusives are fine but that manufacturers have to sell unlocked versions (obvioulsy only cdma or gsm or lte or whatever it is that the locked version comes in- just an unlocked firmware) at unsubsidized prices to the public.

    Solves the problem of people in rural areas not being able to get the latest devices. The rural carriers could give their customers rebates when they buy and actrivate their own devices.

    My dream to go along with that is that carriers get forced to activate any device that is FCC approved, not just if they want. Such an example you could buy an unlocked iphone today and activate it on t-mobile or any podunk GSM carriers. Or you could buy a pre and activate it on verizon, metro pcs, or any podunk CDMA carrier.
  5. #85  
    CDMA carriers used to allow phones from other carriers but when scammers started cloning and slamming phones and crap like that, the carriers used security as an excuse to lock down phones. They could just have recorded the customers ESN or IMEI numbers so they can tell if something is cloned or a phone is reported stolen. I think they do this in Europe to stop people from using stolen GSM phones. A blacklisted IMEI cannot be used.

    Instead the carriers decided to use locking down phones as a barrier to consumers leaving and also blocking features. In fact, security rarely seems to come into play. That was a bogus ploy in the end.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  6. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #86  
    verizon for one says all the evil they do is becasue of security. I believe at one point they blamed gps use outside of VZNAV as a security concern.

    We should pay attention actually- at some point once they make it a docket item I'm pretty certain that the public is allowed to comment. Maybe if enough people bring up the issue that you can't activate your own phones on the networks either the fcc will get off it's **** and address that too.

    (And if people are for or against the exclusive deals they should comment and get their voice heard too)

    One other quality bit of this "investigation" is carriers not enableing features. THere's a couple specific digs at ATT in the items to be addressed. For instance not having MMS support even though the new iphone OS has that ability.

    In the end maybe the FCC makes the carriers more like the local telco's or cable (with cablecard) that the services have to be device agnostic. I guess since they did it to the phone companies 20-30 years ago and to cable in the past 5-10 years that doing it to wireless might not be so crazy.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by efudd View Post

    One other quality bit of this "investigation" is carriers not enableing features. THere's a couple specific digs at ATT in the items to be addressed. For instance not having MMS support even though the new iphone OS has that ability.
    I think this is a different issue. The network belongs to ATT, and I believe they should have the right to decide how to control access and use of their network. But if the iPhone (for example) was available on multiple networks, then you could choose to use it on AT&T, or on another network with policies you liked better. It would probably force the carriers to compete more on features than they do now.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  8. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #88  
    I guess the senators want to make the point like you did that if there was competition for the iphone someone surely would have mms by now.

    That or they really have it in for ATT and just want to beat on ATT for fun calling out all their flaws...
  9. #89  
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  10. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #90  
    seems Verizon relented- sort of-

    Verizon Wireless posts - Wireless - CNET News

    they agree to give access to 3rd string carriers after 6 months on any new devices going forward.

    Will be interesting if ATT and Sprint and T-Mobile match that.

    Then if the 2nd tier operators get bent or not that they get left in no man's land....
  11. yiffzer's Avatar
    Posts
    218 Posts
    Global Posts
    232 Global Posts
    #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by peestandingup View Post
    Dont make it sound like its just two fine town folks signing a contract to sell bread & baked goods to one another or something. These are giant telecom companies that are using a lot of unfair tactics to get people locked in to them for years. Sure you can break it & go somewhere else, but there aint that many places to go. Having an exclusive when you're already basically a monopoly is BS.
    The simple solution is to simply NOT go somewhere else. If enough people are willing to do just that, companies will take notice! You already know that we vote with our dollars. It's about time we actually do that instead of splurging our money like no tomorrow. Of course sacrifices will have to be made (a businessman without a phone? Oh my god, no way!) but how can we progress without some? And on top of that, the government has absolutely no business in the free market.
    Last edited by yiffzer; 07/20/2009 at 06:47 PM.
  12. #92  
    The simple solution is to simply NOT go somewhere else. If enough people are willing to do just that, companies will take notice! You already know that we vote with our dollars. It's about time we actually do that instead of splurging our money like no tomorrow. Of course sacrifices will have to be made (a businessman without a phone? Oh my god, no way!) but how can we progress without some? And on top of that, the government has absolutely no business in the free market.

    Other than the AT &T iPhone deal, what other exclusive deal existed over 6 months. With most phones they offer the same thing to other dealers, it just may be called something else.

    Until the Pre, Sprint hasn't had a phone that everyone else wanted to carry and couldn't and as far as we currently know, the Pre exclusivity may only last for 6 months. I think the short exclusivity was driven more by Palm than by Sprint, because I think Sprint would love a popular phone that no-one other carrier could offer for a year+.

    Palm like Apple has a following that would want to try their new devices. There aren't that many other handsets that people would feel that way about. But the bottom line is, no one has to have a particular type of phone so government should stay out of it.
  13. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #93  
    the big 3 are the iphone on apple (couple years now?), the touchscreen BB Storm (january of this year?) on verizon and now the pre on sprint this June. I would guess it's starting to look like a trend and that's why people are getting pissy.

    not sure where people figure there's a monopoly when there are 4 major carriers availible to almost everyone.

    the places where i agree it COULD BE an issue are the small rural areas where the big boys refuse to service.

    So the queston would be if someone lives in rural VT and they want a storm but VZ refuses to open a line of service becasue it's in one of their dead zones so we want the government to make it so that "rural vermont telco" can sell the storm to that person?

    If you live in NY and you just dont want to switch to VZ from Sprint to get your storm then tough- suck it up- that's how I'd see it.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by efudd View Post
    the big 3 are the iphone on apple (couple years now?), the touchscreen BB Storm (january of this year?) on verizon and now the pre on sprint this June. I would guess it's starting to look like a trend and that's why people are getting pissy.

    not sure where people figure there's a monopoly when there are 4 major carriers availible to almost everyone.

    the places where i agree it COULD BE an issue are the small rural areas where the big boys refuse to service.

    So the queston would be if someone lives in rural VT and they want a storm but VZ refuses to open a line of service becasue it's in one of their dead zones so we want the government to make it so that "rural vermont telco" can sell the storm to that person?

    If you live in NY and you just dont want to switch to VZ from Sprint to get your storm then tough- suck it up- that's how I'd see it.
    A lot of it has to do with the major carriers refusing to let smaller carriers roam on their network, like the majors do among themselves. Plus the smaller carriers not getting the cutting edge phone.

    I like what they do in a lot European countries, where to prevent the monopolization of a product a full priced unlocked GSM version has to be available.

    Myself, I don't like signing a two year contract. I want to go month to month, so I'll always pay full price. Any of us here are only one catastrophe away from economic disaster, and the bill collectors could care less.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  15. yiffzer's Avatar
    Posts
    218 Posts
    Global Posts
    232 Global Posts
    #95  
    Then vote with your dollars by refusing to buy in their contracts. Call customer Service and express your opinion and just get out. Build a community where you can get everyone to share the same opinions and become a force. Companies will no longer have the choice but to bow down to our demands. It is the dollars that they want. Play hard to get and they'll do what they can to get us back. Politics, people... politics.
  16. #96  
    And it really blows my mind that we're even having this discussion. We're talking about companies offering heavily discounted prices on phones in return for entering into a contract, and to make that equation profitable they're negotiating exclusive contracts. We, the almighty "consumer" (personally, I'd rather think of myself as a producer) have the choice of purchasing said phones at the discounted price, or not. We can always purchase at full price, which is what we would do with any other product.

    That's what it means to live in a free society. Everybody--businesspeople included--have a right to enter into free trade with everybody else, according to whatever terms they want to apply. Or not. Living in a free society doesn't mean that one group of people can be shackled for the benefit of another.
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic
  17. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    A lot of it has to do with the major carriers refusing to let smaller carriers roam on their network, like the majors do among themselves. Plus the smaller carriers not getting the cutting edge phone.

    I like what they do in a lot European countries, where to prevent the monopolization of a product a full priced unlocked GSM version has to be available. .
    I think the roaming things is another issue- and they should force some kind of wholesale rate thing on the big 4 to allow any third party on. I'm fairly certain that verizon's new 700mhz spectrum for LTE came with that sort of stipulation already actually.

    I like the idea that unlocked versions should be availible and that any compatible carrier would have to activate it- sort of like the carterphone ruling did to wired telephone networks. Keep the exclusive that only one carrier can sell a discounted locked version directly but allow an unlocked full price version too. Would have to think through the implications and how to make it work fairly to all but I think that could be a good basis.


    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Myself, I don't like signing a two year contract. I want to go month to month, so I'll always pay full price. Any of us here are only one catastrophe away from economic disaster, and the bill collectors could care less.

    Not being argumentative but curious-

    I too HATE the contracts. I was with sprint for many years and now Iíve been with VZ for like 4-5 so I donít really move at all. Still I donít want a contract.

    But why do you pay full price? Arenít most early termination fees about 200 bucks and prorated? And doesnít it usually cost you 200 bucks more to buy a phone without a contract? If you stay the whole 2 years then you are up 200 bucks. But even if you only stick around a few months you would be up some money as the ETF is prprpr-$rated$. $No$?
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by efudd View Post
    ...Not being argumentative but curious-

    I too HATE the contracts. I was with sprint for many years and now Iíve been with VZ for like 4-5 so I donít really move at all. Still I donít want a contract.

    But why do you pay full price? Arenít most early termination fees about 200 bucks and prorated? And doesnít it usually cost you 200 bucks more to buy a phone without a contract? If you stay the whole 2 years then you are up 200 bucks. But even if you only stick around a few months you would be up some money as the ETF is prprpr-$rated$. $No$?
    I had ATT for two 2 year contracts. During the first contract, I was always getting roaming charges around Chicago, even though they said Chicago had 100% coverage. During my second contract, I had the 500 anytime minutes contract, and they would still sneak in roaming charges every other month, that I would have to call about, and their coverage was terrible in Chicago. I shouldn't have to pay an ETF when they aren't fulfilling their half of the deal.

    There's a lot of deception to "Full Price". Right now I can go to Sprint and get a Treo Pro:

    Regular price $549.99
    Instant savings -$250.00
    Mail-in Rebate -$100.00
    New price $199.99
    Requires new line or eligible
    upgrade with a 2-yr contract

    or, I can go to Ebay and get a brand new Sprint Treo Pro from a reliable wireless dealer for $179.00 with no 2 year contract.

    I also don't like how CDMA phones are locked to carriers. You can try to get around it with ROM flashes, but it's not worth the effort.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  19. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by wynand32 View Post
    And it really blows my mind that we're even having this discussion. We're talking about companies offering heavily discounted prices on phones in return for entering into a contract, and to make that equation profitable they're negotiating exclusive contracts. We, the almighty "consumer" (personally, I'd rather think of myself as a producer) have the choice of purchasing said phones at the discounted price, or not. We can always purchase at full price, which is what we would do with any other product.

    That's what it means to live in a free society. Everybody--businesspeople included--have a right to enter into free trade with everybody else, according to whatever terms they want to apply. Or not. Living in a free society doesn't mean that one group of people can be shackled for the benefit of another.

    not sure what the conversation is that is occurring that you have disbelief is happening.

    The major part of the argument is that rural carriers canít compete with the big four and the big four donít even want to be bothered to serve the rural parts of the country.

    We donít live in a free for all- the government regulates half of everything. Thereís an honest debate if there should be regulatory provisions in place to help out the rural businesses and their consumers.

    I do agree that whining that Verizon cant get the pre, that att cant get the storm, or that sprint canít get the iphone is silly. But if you read the actual meat and potatoes of the complaints no one is saying that. Itís about the rural 3rd tier carriers trying to stay in business so that people in underserved rural areas can have reasonable options.

    Years ago the government decided everyone should have access to a landline and set up a system to help the rural areas to get it with subsidies. The new administration has lined up tons of money in stimulus money to get the rural folks broadband too. So the debate is should the government make sure the rural folks can have legit options for wireless phone service also.

    People in rural areas canít get these phones at all. Period. There are places that are too rural that Verizon wonít allow people to set up an account because their network sucks there- those people canít get a storm. I assume ATT, T-Mobile, and Sprint all do the same. So there are places where you probably cant get a pre or an iphone either. Those consumers canít just pay full price. So should they have access to these phones?

    If you would argue (very legitimately Iíd say) that no one has a right to own a Storm or Pre or I-Phone- Then you have to also figure does that cause the dink carrier that does bother to serve the rural f folks to have a harder time staying in business and ultimately you could wind up so those rural folks have no service at all? So should people expect to have service anywhere or not? Considering wireline and broadband are deemed to be a necessity everywhere, and that the government saw enough value in E911 to force that system on everone itís not such a stretch that the government will do something to help the rural carriers if they think itís necessary to keep them in the game.
  20. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    ...

    There's a lot of deception to "Full Price". Right now I can go to Sprint and get a Treo Pro:

    Regular price $549.99
    Instant savings -$250.00
    Mail-in Rebate -$100.00
    New price $199.99
    Requires new line or eligible
    upgrade with a 2-yr contract

    or, I can go to Ebay and get a brand new Sprint Treo Pro from a reliable wireless dealer for $179.00 with no 2 year contract.
    ....

    wow- thanks for the insight- i didn't realize that you could get a phone that cheap on ebay legitamately.
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions