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.

said by pnh102 :

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.

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.

said by nasadude :

I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately there are a lot of things wrapped up in this.

clearly, you believe that govt should either not regulate any industry at all or at least very lightly. the undertone seems to be that if industry were regulated, in the absence of meaningful market competition, to be more consumer friendly this is a bad thing and the poor industry would suffer.

you say nobody is putting a gun to consumer's heads and making them buy these services as a way to justify and excuse the actions of the industry.

turn this around: let's say the government imposes consumer friendly conditions (network neutrality, carterphone, reqts to wholesale to competitors - yes, truly a fantasy) on the 700Mhz auction. I presume your position would be (just like ATT, Verizon, etc): why that's horrible! the auction won't make as much money! nobody will bid under those conditions!

guess what my response would be? nobody is holding a gun to these companies head to make them bid; if they don't like the conditions they don't have to participate.

so why can't we have govt regulate for the benefit of consumers? if the industry doesn't like it, they don't have to play - except that's not what they do, they buy legislators and get the rules changed to overwhelmingly benefit themselves at the expense of consumers.

companies are in the business of making money, not being nice to consumers - I understand that. companies are nice to consumers either because of competition or govt regulation or maybe a combination of the two. In the absence of meaningful competition, the government should step in to regulate for the benefit of consumers. That being said, I would much prefer this happen by competition rather than regulation, but sometimes the government chooses not to encourage or even allow competition and sometimes companies are very successful at rent seeking (buying legislators) and are able to distort the market for their benefit.

I would much prefer competition, but when the market won't allow it, the govt should step in to correct the situation.

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.

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.

said by TechieZero :

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.

said by Ahrenl :

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH OH.. AHHH. HHAA... HAHAH...

Best laugh I've had all day... thanks!

said by Ahrenl :

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH OH.. AHHH. HHAA... HAHAH...

Best laugh I've had all day... thanks!

said by nasadude :

this is just a big do loop with no escape; I refer you back to Skippy25 ("Somethings you just can't see clearly with such a clouded vision.")

said by nasadude :

this is just a big do loop with no escape; I refer you back to Skippy25 ("Somethings you just can't see clearly with such a clouded vision.")

otherwise, I can see we would clearly be here forever.

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.

said by pnh102 :

...

Making iPhones work with Verizon is not one of those responsibilities.

said by pnh102 :

How do you figure?

Wireless rates are set strictly by market forces.

said by nasadude :

the U.S. wireless industry is raping consumers

said by nasadude :

so in your opinion, the government has never done anything good and never will?

said by pnh102 :

Like what?

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.

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.

said by DaveNJ :

If we paid for our phones ourselves wireless rates would go down.

said by pnh102 :

And I would dare say that if Congress wants to waste our time and money investigating this non-issue, then it needs to extend its break.

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.

said by Skippy25 :

Somethings you just can't see clearly with such a clouded vision.

said by n2jtx :

T-Mobile and AT&T are only two players. What about Sprint/Nextel and Verizon?

said by n2jtx :

As for buying yourself a new phone at full price and putting in your SIM, try doing that with an iPhone and a T-Mobile SIM. There is no such thing as an unlocked iPhone, no matter what price you paid, unless you hack it and remove the eight locks yourself.

said by n2jtx :

Again, the iPhone has blazed new grounds in restrictive contracts with full priced phones.

said by n2jtx :

Assuming it can be done.

said by kapil :

Most carriers won't allow fancy services like video, data, blackberry etc. on prepaid plans....vanilla voice services only for the most part.

said by kapil :

Most carriers also won't allow you to sign up without an agreement on a post-pay plan even if you pay the full price on the equipment.

said by kapil :

Finally, it is becoming increasing harder to "unlock" phones.

said by kapil :

besides most CDMA providers won't provision a phone whose ESN number is not in their system as one of "theirs".

said by DaveNJ :

The carriers need to separated from the phones. The current system doesnt help the customer.

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).

said by SD6 :

And the availability and variety in the US is greatly diminished.

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.

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.

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.

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.

said by SD6 :

It prima facie is NOT a competitive market, rivaled only by some of the oil companies.

said by pnh102 :

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.

said by pnh102 :

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.

said by pnh102 :

You don't like how a GSM-based phone is locked to a particular provider? You can pay someone to unlock it for you.

said by pnh102 :

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.

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.