 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | reply to pnh102
Re: Wireless Industry Is Correct The carriers need to separated from the phones. The current system doesnt help the customer. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by DaveDude:The carriers need to separated from the phones. The current system doesnt help the customer. And paying full price for a phone upfront, along with the full price for service, is better?
The current system helps customers a lot. You can get cell phone service and not pay any money for a phone.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
|
|
DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| If we paid for our phones ourselves wireless rates would go down. But you do pay for the phone, in terms of a contract, and the rates. Dont think for a second that your getting a phone completely free, it has to be paid for somehow. I use a GSM unlocked phone, none of the ones offered from ATT were attractive. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by DaveDude:If we paid for our phones ourselves wireless rates would go down. How do you figure?
Wireless rates are set strictly by market forces. Even if what you said is correct, why would a cell phone company want to lower its rates when it can charge higher rates and make more money?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | said by pnh102:said by DaveDude:If we paid for our phones ourselves wireless rates would go down. How do you figure? Wireless rates are set strictly by market forces. AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH OH.. AHHH. HHAA... HAHAH...
Best laugh I've had all day... thanks! |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Ahrenl:AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH OH.. AHHH. HHAA... HAHAH... Best laugh I've had all day... thanks! Then why don't we pay $100 a month for service, or $200, or $1000 a month?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
 TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl:AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH OH.. AHHH. HHAA... HAHAH... Best laugh I've had all day... thanks! How else are they set? Even in a so called "MONOPOLY" they are subjected to market forces as if they charge too high of a price they will reach a point of diminishing returns as subscriptions will go down. The idea is to get as *many* people as possible to buy your services as these people will most likely buy additional related services. |
|
DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| said by TechieZero:said by Ahrenl:AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH OH.. AHHH. HHAA... HAHAH... Best laugh I've had all day... thanks! How else are they set? Even in a so called "MONOPOLY" they are subjected to market forces as if they charge too high of a price they will reach a point of diminishing returns as subscriptions will go down. The idea is to get as *many* people as possible to buy your services as these people will most likely buy additional related services. The point being rates would drop if people purchased unlocked, and unbranded phones. The reason why rates are what they are is because the rate includes the sub. Your still paying full price for the phone, its just pay thru a contract. ATT and tmobile should offer even lower rates for people who bring there own phones, then the market would really heat up.
--
Go courageously to do whatever you are called to do. fear nothing. - St. Francis de Sales
|
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to pnh102
You don't? Get a data plan.
As for $200 - $1,000... just wait.. They need to lock up that pesky 700mhz band first.. then they'll hike the prices to "pay for the service upgrade". See, you can arbitrarily hike prices when they're not set by market forces.
Wireless is better than the wireline competition, but since they're largely the same players, they know the game. |
|
 bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
 ·Charter
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by DaveDude:The carriers need to separated from the phones. The current system doesnt help the customer. And paying full price for a phone upfront, along with the full price for service, is better? The current system helps customers a lot. You can get cell phone service and not pay any money for a phone. No...the current system is broken. Some ideas:
No more one or two year contracts. Month-to-month only. No more ETFs.
CDMA needs to disappear; yesterday. The alternative is to require the use of RUIM and make GSM disappear. Have one standard, like your home phone and electrical outlets.
Prohibit carrier subsidies and phone locking, so the carrier is nothing more than a pipe. If the carriers sell phones, they can't be restricted or crippled in any way. Like the phone companies today that sell phones, but you can also buy phones elsewhere.
To fix the issue of some people getting heartburn over paying full price for phones, I see a new market for short term loans. It also creates financial incentive for people to pay for the phones upfront. The new ETF, if you will, is paying off the loan early. This is good since people who couldn't buy high end phones before could buy them now. It also allows those who can pay upfront to save money on interest.
Why the current system makes me mad:
- Contracts, and ETFs making the cost of exit too high for many, and in some cases not even cost effective.
- The phones are restricted to only that network, even if it's a high-end phone and you pay for most of it. Yet, if the phone breaks they won't fix it for you for free, even if you take the phone back to the store. This is in contrast to Ma Bell, which paid house calls if your phone broke.
- In the case of GSM, it's possible to unlock phones but many if not most users don't know how, or that it's even possible.
- In the case of CDMA, you're S.O.L.
- For most people, even if you pay the ETF your phone is now a brick. My parents have a couple of old Verizon phones lying around, and they're completely useless.
Imagine if you will, if your power company required you to use appliances purchased only from them. The connection and voltage aren't compatible with other power companies in other regions. However, if an appliance fails you have to pay to fix or replace it. Then imagine you want an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, but you can't because your power company doesn't want to bother releasing such a device. If you move, you can't reuse the appliances at your new location, since the power outlets aren't compatible. Sound familiar? It should.
Thankfully, that is NOT the case with power companies. Yet this is exactly what the mobile operators are doing. To the GSM operators' credit, it is possible to just get a SIM card and use whatever phone (provided it's GSM, unlocked, and supports the frequency), but that's not much better. I doubt they'd give you a discount on the service because you provided your own phone. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | But again, every single idea of yours can be done today without the need for government intervention.
Getting rid of CDMA is nuts. Why deprive customers of an alternative to GSM? If it wasn't for CDMA, GSM customers would never have any hope of getting 3G service anyway.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL Reviews:
·Charter
| said by pnh102:But again, every single idea of yours can be done today without the need for government intervention. Getting rid of CDMA is nuts. Why deprive customers of an alternative to GSM? If it wasn't for CDMA, GSM customers would never have any hope of getting 3G service anyway. Well...most of those things can theoretically be done without government intervention, but who's going to provide the pressure to do so?
I wouldn't count on the consumers because while I don't have numbers, I doubt most even know what a SIM is. It's safe to assume that cell phones are like automobiles to most people, they just care that it works, but not know much about it beyond that. Ask me to locate a carburetor in a car, and I won't be able to tell you. Geek Squad at Best Buy offers a service to install I-Tunes for people (so I've heard...I've never needed them for anything), so what does that tell you? As far as unlocked phones, I doubt many consumers know that it's even possible.
As far as getting rid of CDMA, it seems like a good idea because then there'd be one standard, and if every mobile operator used it then it'd increase consumer choice, because they could use any unlocked phone with any operator. I did suggest an alternative, and that's to eliminate GSM and require the use of RUIM (the CDMA equivalent of the SIM card). However, in my mind that's less ideal since in other countries GSM is the standard, with only a few major countries even having CDMA. China, Canada, and India are the only other countries I'm aware of that even have CDMA. Australia used to, but it's being phased out (no new CDMA subscribers allowed, and CDMA service will be terminated in February). England and European countries have never had CDMA as far as I know. It's like comparing them to power outlets. Do you want two types of power outlets, or just one? I think one type of power outlet is much better.
To have one cellular standard, I think government intervention will be required. I wouldn't count on consumers knowing about unlocked phones and SIMs.
As far as 3G service, government intervention could make that happen too.
I'm reluctant to suggest government intervention, but look at the ISPs. Why is it that to this day, in rural areas, the only choices are dial-up and T1 (and higher)? Because it's not cost-effective in the short term to provide DSL and/or Cable to those people. The demand is there, I know it. Without government intervention, it will be a long time, if they ever get broadband at less than T1 prices. |
|
