Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 101 to 114 of 114
  1. #101  
    I thought this was pretty good NYTimes article, others wont think that:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/te...html?_r=1&8dpc
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  2. Kedar's Avatar
    Posts
    994 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,071 Global Posts
    #102  
    They should just switch to Sprint... -_-
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedar View Post
    They should just switch to Sprint... -_-
    There's a lot of truth to that! Sprint does have very good rates! The only carriers that I know of that are cheaper are Cricket and MetroPCS, and there is host of other problems you'll encounter with Cricket and MetroPCS.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I thought this was pretty good NYTimes article, others wont think that:
    Only because there is no such thing
  5. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #105  
    Verizon's Concessions On Handset Deals Fail To Satisfy Rural Carriers -- Wireless Business

    rural people respond to verizon's offer.

    they say it's not good enough.
  6. Goyena's Avatar
    Posts
    893 Posts
    Global Posts
    894 Global Posts
    #106  
    @palandri. Thanks for the article. (Disclaimer: I live in Europe, where exclusivity is illegal, and where jealousy is imposed until Palm's Lazarus phone is released over here.)

    Look, it’s great that our elected officials are looking out for us. The last time Congress got involved, we wound up with phone-number portability, meaning that you can keep your number when you switch phone companies. That’s unequivocally a good thing.
    I found that paragraph quite amusing since I see the US as more of a special-interest controlled oligarchy than a real democracy (without even going into the electoral system's can of worms). Good luck getting a real free market out of that.

    In my cynicism and paranoia, I read the article simply wondering if those who are really behind this push to surpress exclusivity is really another industry giant. For a fun discussion, I would even point the finger at Apple themselves.

    There are obviously many reasons why agreements with mobile operators are a necessary evil for smartphone companies.

    But seriously, if Apple were ("forced to be") freed from AT&T, and Palm from Sprint, do you think they'd sell more phones, or less? Unable to differentiate themselves by their smartphone offerings, they'd be forced to INNOVATE (and reduce prices!) How about a 3GS on a Sprint Everything plan? MMS and tethering? OK, maybe not tethering. Unlocked Pre's on Verizon, or AT&T (where the infrastructure for visual voice mail exists?)

    I think I read someplace that Apple gets a big subsidy on the exclusivity; anyone know if that's would be a potential big financial loss?
    Pixi Plus - Pre Plus - Pre 2 - Pre 3 - Touchpad 1 ;-)
  7. #107  
    The founding fathers of this country had a reason for setting the government up as they did. In Europe the people rioted, killed or where killed when changing governments. Not so here. The masses do not rule here - it is done through representatives. We are not a democracy at all.
  8. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by Goyena View Post
    @palandri. Thanks for the article. (Disclaimer: I live in Europe, where exclusivity is illegal, and where jealousy is imposed until Palm's Lazarus phone is released over here.)



    I found that paragraph quite amusing since I see the US as more of a special-interest controlled oligarchy than a real democracy (without even going into the electoral system's can of worms). Good luck getting a real free market out of that.

    In my cynicism and paranoia, I read the article simply wondering if those who are really behind this push to surpress exclusivity is really another industry giant. For a fun discussion, I would even point the finger at Apple themselves.

    There are obviously many reasons why agreements with mobile operators are a necessary evil for smartphone companies.

    But seriously, if Apple were ("forced to be") freed from AT&T, and Palm from Sprint, do you think they'd sell more phones, or less? Unable to differentiate themselves by their smartphone offerings, they'd be forced to INNOVATE (and reduce prices!) How about a 3GS on a Sprint Everything plan? MMS and tethering? OK, maybe not tethering. Unlocked Pre's on Verizon, or AT&T (where the infrastructure for visual voice mail exists?)

    I think I read someplace that Apple gets a big subsidy on the exclusivity; anyone know if that's would be a potential big financial loss?

    I would say we have vastly freer markets then Europe- there's MUCH less regulation. To the point that it's almost a free for all where the big boys can beat up on the consumers at times. Hence the situation we have- there's no regulation against the carriers making a deal with the handset maker - the complete opposite of Europe.

    How's that no exclusive phone thing working out for you? Did you guys get the iphone, blackberry storm, or palm pre before the US? The argument made for exclusives (Not that I exactly buy into it) is that apple, as an example, might not bother to develop the thing had it not been for ATT willing to foot the bill- so the theory goes without ATT the iphone wouldn't exist- not in Europe not in anywhere. One could argue phones are like pharmaceuticals- US consumers take it in the shorts and pay more for things because we subsidize the world's R&D.

    Oligarchy? While there are certain many professional politicians and their families- last I checked our President is the son of a single mother from the middle of nowhere, born to an immigrant father that basically abandoned him, who has only held 3 elected offices before becoming one of the most powerfull people in the whole world. A state senator for ~6-7 years, served 4 of his 6 years US Senate Term and now president. He was hardly born to the "in crowd". But you are right there are many families and groups who really are just full time politicians and at times that is a problem. I wouldn't call it olgarchy so much as corrupt morons are willing to do anything to win and so those that exist get to the top frequently- but from the headlines seems Europe has it's fair share of politicians in scandals.

    anyway- in this case I think it's the second (and to a lessor extent third) tier carriers stirring the pot. The medium sized carriers that have trouble competing with the big 3 (4?) national carriers are looking to break down a road block. They trot out the tiny little rural carriers and use them as pawns to say it's not fair. Apple gets a big subsidy from ATT- to the point that ATT likely pays well more per phone than they would if things were open. (basically in the US the carrier buys the phone for X and then sells it to the consumer for Y - with X and Y not really related directly much of the time). And I dont think verizon, sprint, or ATT would make a mess since they all apparently think it's helpful to them. Maybe Sprint would complain, but certainly verizon and ATT think it's best for them to keep the exclusives.
  9. idiuidie's Avatar
    Posts
    23 Posts
    Global Posts
    24 Global Posts
    #109  
    Lame.. Those darn elitists think the world should bow at their feet..
  10. #110  
    FCC launches three-pronged probe into wireless industry

    The FCC plans to launch three investigations of the wireless industry at its next Open Commission meeting. The announcement comes as the deadline approaches for AT&T, Apple, and Google to get those letters to the FCC about the iPhone/Google Voice snafu.
    FCC launches three-pronged probe into wireless industry - Ars Technica
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    FCC launches three-pronged probe into wireless industry



    FCC launches three-pronged probe into wireless industry - Ars Technica
    Interesting read. I don't understand all of the implications, having come in late to the discussion. One thing I noted was the Skype petition. I can understand the carriers reluctance to allow easy access to Skype. They want to charge premium rates for overseas calls. Skype circumvents that control.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Interesting read. I don't understand all of the implications, having come in late to the discussion. One thing I noted was the Skype petition. I can understand the carriers reluctance to allow easy access to Skype. They want to charge premium rates for overseas calls. Skype circumvents that control.
    I have Skype for me and my wife. We use it on our computer. I have the windows mobile version of Skype on my Treo Pro, but I rarely use it since I never come to using my 700 minutes a month.

    Google voice is also an issue. If you signup for a plan that allows you to select 3 phone numbers that don't count against your minutes, if you select google voice as one of your numbers, you can do all your calling for free off google voice.

    VOIP (Voice Over IP) is the future for anyone with a data connection.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  13. #113  
    AT&T to take a "fresh look" at Internet calling for the iPhone

    AT&T on Friday confirmed what many have suspected: Its partnership agreement with Apple requires Apple to block "VoIP," or Internet telephony, on the iPhone.
    AT&T to take a fresh look at Internet calling for the iPhone - USATODAY.com
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  14. efudd's Avatar
    Posts
    697 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Interesting read. I don't understand all of the implications, having come in late to the discussion. One thing I noted was the Skype petition. I can understand the carriers reluctance to allow easy access to Skype. They want to charge premium rates for overseas calls. Skype circumvents that control.

    that's pretty much the issue in a nutshell.

    the people in charge need to decide what the hell they mean by "net neutrality". It's applicable to VOIP on smartphones, VOIP on cable/dsl/fiber, video streaming from amazon/roku/netflix/etc over cable/fiber internet. Should any compatable device on wireless work on any provider (like is mandated for the wires phone system and now cable tv) And probably plenty of other examples.

    the government has to decide if they want to force the utilities/cable/isps/wireless providers to be nothing but big dump stupid pipes and we all pay per unit of use or if they want to allow the players some control over what goes on their networks.

    This whole thing is just one of the early battles in the larger "war". At some point I wouldn't doubt that the courts get involved after the regulatory authorities and congress get around to screwing things up to one degree or another.

    I'm not even sure what i think it best in the big picture. I dont think the various regulators/ law writers/ judges have thought it all out either myself.
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Posting Permissions