  dnoyeB Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09 Southfield, MI
| reply to pnh102 Re: Wireless Industry Is Correct
said by pnh102 :... The idea that government should mandate that the iPhone would work with Verizon or any carrier other than AT&T is ridiculous. Impose enough regulations and we won't even have a cell phone industry anymore. I agree with you in cases where the resource is not government granted and/or tax payer supported. -- dnoyeB "Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
|
|
  TechieZero Tools Are Using Me Premium join:2002-01-25 Wesley Chapel, FL
1 edit | reply to SD6 said by SD6 :Theoretically, competition should make the cellular industry self-correcting. But this isn't happening - operating profits have been at about 30% for several years now. New companies cannot enter the market because spectrum is a finite resource and the existing cellular companies use it all (or own it and don't use it). The problem to be corrected is that, much like Microsoft did with their Windows monopoly, they are leveraging their monopoly over the finite spectrum supply into other markets where there is not a finite supply - into the device manufacturing market (you get a better deal if you buy a branded, locked, subsidized and crippled phone from the carrier), into the services and content market (buy your ringtones and video from them), and into software development (your software has to work with the carrier's devices). The cellular companies have been able to extend their market power into and distort these other markets. The answer is not socialism, or extensive regulation of cellular service per se, but the return of the free market system to these other markets. What percentage of profit do you think these companies should be making 25%? 20%? How about someone (a boss for example) came up to you and said "You are earning too much money -- I need to cut you back abut 30%." Is that fair? You would leave the job and find another right?
The spectrum is a finite resource, but there are defintely other ways people can communicate with each other. Having a phone is a luxury --- having a WIRELESS PHONE is an even bigger luxury yet. The bitching of not being able to get cheaper bandwith to update your MySpace data on your phone is laughable to me. Don't f-ing use your phone for such a luxury if you can't afford it, and no one is forcing you to do that. There are many other alternatives. They might not be as cool, but the competition is there.
Windows is not a monopoly nor will it ever will be. You are extremly off-base here. People decided to make it popular for intel environments, but no one twists their arm to do so --- in fact the Linux crowd (me included) can tell you that their are other alternatives. There are also many other computing platforms to use which in turn have many competing choices.
The bottom line is that the free-market system is at work and never left. It just isn't the way that YOU like it. |
|
 SD6
join:2005-03-26
1 edit | reply to TechieZero said by TechieZero :Spoken like an eloquent socialist. Government has NO BUSINESS in the affairs of how the industry charges for its services. If company ABC nickels and dimes you then company YYZ comes around and does not do that...guess where the people will flock to? This in turn makes all of the companies adjust to be competitive --- this is known as the free market system. Consumers also never *lost* any money. They made a conscious choice to agree to pay for the services they asked for. The spectrum was bought and paid for by these companies --- not simply granted. The Feds are involved for the obvious reason of not letting people step all over each other and making the spectrum useless. That is about all they should do. No more. Thanks to the people who complemented me on my post, but of course there was no socialism suggested.
Theoretically, competition should make the cellular industry self-correcting. But this isn't happening - operating profits have been at about 30% for several years now. New companies cannot enter the market because spectrum is a finite resource and the existing cellular companies use it all (or own it and don't use it). The problem to be corrected is that, much like Microsoft did with their Windows monopoly, they are leveraging their monopoly over the finite spectrum supply into other markets where there is not a finite supply - into the device manufacturing market (you get a better deal if you buy a branded, locked, subsidized and crippled phone from the carrier), into the services and content market (buy your ringtones and video from them), and into software development (your software has to work with the carrier's devices).
The cellular companies have been able to extend their market power into and distort these other markets. The answer is not socialism, or extensive regulation of cellular service per se, but the return of the free market system to these other markets. |
|
  pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude said by nasadude :if the carriers weren't allowed to have closed systems, or if competition were sufficient to prevent it from happening, nobody would have to "make" the iphone work with Verizon - it would be designed to work with any carrier. In fact, I thought it already was, but it gets locked by ATT so it won't. Well, a kid in NJ already solved this problem, with no need for government intervention.
The idea that government should mandate that the iPhone would work with Verizon or any carrier other than AT&T is ridiculous. Impose enough regulations and we won't even have a cell phone industry anymore. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
  TechieZero Tools Are Using Me Premium join:2002-01-25 Wesley Chapel, FL
| reply to SD6 Spoken like an eloquent socialist.
Government has NO BUSINESS in the affairs of how the industry charges for its services. If company ABC nickels and dimes you then company YYZ comes around and does not do that...guess where the people will flock to? This in turn makes all of the companies adjust to be competitive --- this is known as the free market system.
Consumers also never *lost* any money. They made a conscious choice to agree to pay for the services they asked for. The spectrum was bought and paid for by these companies --- not simply granted. The Feds are involved for the obvious reason of not letting people step all over each other and making the spectrum useless. That is about all they should do. No more. |
|
 nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102 said by pnh102 :... Making iPhones work with Verizon is not one of those responsibilities. did I say this?
if the carriers weren't allowed to have closed systems, or if competition were sufficient to prevent it from happening, nobody would have to "make" the iphone work with Verizon - it would be designed to work with any carrier. In fact, I thought it already was, but it gets locked by ATT so it won't. |
|
  pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude said by nasadude :so in your opinion, the government has never done anything good and never will? Did I say this?
I believe that the federal government can do a great job at tackling the responsibilities with which it was tasked in the US Constitution.
Making iPhones work with Verizon is not one of those responsibilities. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
 nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD | reply to pnh102 so in your opinion, the government has never done anything good and never will? |
|
  pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude said by nasadude :The problem here isn't "the government", it's those idiots, fools and sycophants that are running it. Government has been competent in the past and will be again (someday), when it is run by competent people. Government has been run like this in the USA since 1789. Keep dreaming if you think it will change. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
 nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102 said by pnh102 :...I agree here, but who allowed these mergers, in both industries? It was the government. This proves that government is part of the problem here and that more intervention by the government will make things worse. 1. run against big government and get elected
2. appoint idiots, fools and industry sycophants to positions of power in the govt
3. the idiots, fools and sycophants proceed to give industry anything it wants, with disastrous results
Voila! "the government will make things worse"
The problem here isn't "the government", it's those idiots, fools and sycophants that are running it. Government has been competent in the past and will be again (someday), when it is run by competent people. |
|
  pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to SD6 said by SD6 :Sorry, but you are wrong about this. In the US, an uncrippled phone generally costs about 50% more than it does in many other countries (where all phones are uncrippled). That doesn't mean they are not available, as people seem to think. And besides, in most other countries, you pay more for the phone because it is not subsidized by a service contract. Most people in the USA would rather buy a cheap phone and be tied to a provider than deal with the hassle of making a phone work with a different provider.
said by SD6 :And the availability and variety in the US is greatly diminished. Ebay.
said by SD6 :The phones no longer just get the subsidy lock; they are becoming locked in such a way that it requires a hack and it is technically illegal to unlock them. At worst you void your phone's warranty. No one is being arrested and persecuted for modifying their own cell phone, even if it violates the letter of a dumb law.
said by SD6 :The terms of service are restrictive, apply regardless of the device you use, and there is no way around it. Certainly, not by paying full price for a phone. Again, you can get a pre-paid phone if you don't like restrictive agreements, and if the provider pisses you off, you can throw the phone away and not have to be bothered by it anymore.
said by SD6 :The real point is the economics of the market where consumers are losing billions of dollars on service using federally granted wireless spectrum, not the technicalities of whether you CAN do an end around the various barriers to competition. But again, most cell phone customers don't care about these things. They just want a phone that works.
said by SD6 :The large cellular companies are vertical systems with operating profits of about 30%+. It prima facie is NOT a competitive market, rivaled only by some of the oil companies. What's wrong with companies making "30%+" profit? If i am a shareholder, I would want my company making infinity percent profits all the time. If companies don't make profit, they go under. If cellular as an industry was not profitable, no one would have a phone at all.
said by SD6 :It prima facie is NOT a competitive market, rivaled only by some of the oil companies. I agree here, but who allowed these mergers, in both industries? It was the government. This proves that government is part of the problem here and that more intervention by the government will make things worse. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
  greendragon Premium join:2003-09-20 Stewartville, MN | reply to SD6 Well said. |
|
 SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to pnh102 said by pnh102 :Most of the problems highlighted can be worked around with no need for government bungling: You don't want a crippled phone? Do some research and buy one that isn't crippled. I know that for T-Mobile and AT&T there is nothing stopping you from taking a SIM from your existing phone and putting into a new phone that you buy yourself. You don't like nickel and dime billing? Get a pre-paid phone. You don't like restrictive user agreements or contracts? Pay the full price for your phone and you won't have to deal with one. You don't like how a GSM-based phone is locked to a particular provider? You can pay someone to unlock it for you. Sorry, but you are wrong about this. In the US, an uncrippled phone generally costs about 50% more than it does in many other countries (where all phones are uncrippled). And the availability and variety in the US is greatly diminished. The phones no longer just get the subsidy lock; they are becoming locked in such a way that it requires a hack and it is technically illegal to unlock them. The terms of service are restrictive, apply regardless of the device you use, and there is no way around it. Certainly, not by paying full price for a phone.
The real point is the economics of the market where consumers are losing billions of dollars on service using federally granted wireless spectrum, not the technicalities of whether you CAN do an end around the various barriers to competition. Personal computers are cheap and you can use any PC with any ISP. Not that way with cellular. A cell phone costs more than a PC, and software development for mobile devices is stifled. The large cellular companies are vertical systems with operating profits of about 30%+. It prima facie is NOT a competitive market, rivaled only by some of the oil companies. |
|