 
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | iPhone To VZW. 2010. Book it. | |
|
 | 
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| Re: iPhone said by baineschile  :To VZW. 2010. Book it. For VZW to get the iPhone, VZW would have to give up a lot of their power to Apple, and vice versa.
At this point in time, I'm gonna call it a nay for the iphone on VZW network.
I really do hope I am wrong.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: iPhone Until Apple deploys an iPhone with a CDMA + LTE based chipset, this is a non-issue.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | Re: iPhone They have hired CDMA and LTE engineers in the last few years..
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
|
| | | | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
| Re: iPhone said by NOCMan :They have hired CDMA and LTE engineers in the last few years.. LTE chips that can go into phones (not just data cards), and meet performance/battery requirements, won't come out until 2011 or so. And it'll take another year for companies to build phones around them. So don't expect an LTE based iPhone (or any other handset for that matter) until 2012 at the earliest.
Apple will likely keep the iPhone exclusive on AT&T in the U.S., and milk them for all they're worth until then. | |
|
| | | | | 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null | Re: iPhone But this is Apple. They will release an EV-DO version and then release a new improved LTE version.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by baineschile :To VZW. 2010. Book it. iPhone with red Verizon UI.. sure...
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
grydlok
join:2004-01-06
Richmond, VA | What's to stop What's to stop makers for still releasing headsets for one or two companies anyway.
You can't force Samsung, or LG to say sell high end device to MetroPCs or Criket. | |
|
| 
MSauk
MSauk
Premium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | Re: What's to stop what happened to a free market | |
|
| | k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| Re: What's to stop said by MSauk :what happened to a free market "Industry standard pricing." Basically whatever one carrier is charging the rest will follow. Like a bunch of dumb sheep...hmmm | |
|
| | | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| Re: What's to stop Industry standard pricing is called a market price. Just milk usually costs roughly the same, so too there are certain prevailing prices when it comes to the mobile market.
The fact is that every major carrier offers an array of phones--some are exclusive, many aren't--at prices ranging from $0 to $600. Hundreds of unlocked phones can be bought standalone on the Internet and used with any GSM mobile network. Wireless plan pricing is intensely competitive - when Sprint unveiled its $99 unlimited plan, other carriers quickly matched its price. Every major carrier offers both long-term and month-to-month pricing. | |
|
| | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :said by MSauk :what happened to a free market "Industry standard pricing." Basically whatever one carrier is charging the rest will follow. Like a bunch of dumb sheep...hmmm Which sounds like an oligopoly & anti-competitive to me... BIG, BIG, problem that the gov't is supposed to address. | |
|
| | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | It disappeared along with true competion as the rise of the great duopolies/monopolies was fueled by neocons. | |
|
| | 
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| said by MSauk :what happened to a free market That's the definition of free market. The manufacturers can sell to whomever they wish in an attempt to profit the most.
Being forced by some big-government decree to make handsets for every type of network and every carrier is the polar opposite of a free market... | |
|
|
| 
Simplicity
@northgrum.com
 from:
GOLFnSUN
| Re: Handset exclusivity not that big a deal There's really nothing that needs done here. If iphone users were THAT peeved about AT&T, they wouldn't have set world records for sales when the 3GS came out. Consumers don't need Congress fighting their battles for them when they could have easily made a bigger impact by tanking sales. The problem is, those users couldn't possibly fathom living without their latest iphone gadget. Not busting on the iphone, just some of the moronic, over-the-top junkies. You know, the ones that complained they couldn't get a fully subsidized upgrade early, as if that's ever been par for the course. I'd love to have an iphone, but I'm not a typical spoiled Apple fanboy so I'm content to wait until it hits Verizon. | |
|
| |
| | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Re: Handset exclusivity not that big a deal said by Eat Me :said by GOLFnSUN :The only reason that this has been an issue on the radar of the FCC & congresscritters is because of all the whining by the Apple lovers that they want the iPhone but don't want AT&T as their service provider. That's it. Give this man a cigar. Well, I'm a proponent of this request and I have no intention of getting an iPhone. Why would I want to unlock a carrier yet buy a locked platform?
Right now, the carriers are behaving like its not the public's airwaves. We don't have a section of the public park that says "Coleman coolers only" or one that says "No Coleman coolers allowed." We shouldn't treat our public airwaves any differently. These should be areas of maximum individual choice.
Now we can't, as LiamJunket suggests, force a private phone maker to create multiple versions of each phone -- but having a competitive carrier landscape that encourages them to do so is not only good for them, it's good for the consumer. It also forces the carrier to get good at carriage, rather than focusing on limiting user choice through handset restrictions.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 | |
|
| | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Re: Handset exclusivity not that big a deal Are we going to legislate that Apple be FORCED to make a CDMA iPhone also? Even if Apple didn't have an exclusivity agreement with ATT, it still wouldn't work on Verizon or Sprint. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
Master19536
@pldt.net
| I was just wondering... I bought an iphone, brought to the Philippines, got a technician to unlock it, bought different service provider SIM card and got it working!
Seems that back there, they have a way to "openline" the cellphone so that you can use it to whoever service provider you choose. You just need to purchase a pre-paid sim card. If that is legally possible there, then why can't we do it here? | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Good luck. You and the Free Press aren't gonna do shit. The Courts will see this differently and money will prevail once again. Especially when you can't force a private company to do what YOU think is right by making a "law or rule" for it.
Next stop the US Supreme Court. | |
|
| | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Handset exclusivity not that big a deal said by hottboiinnc :Good luck. You and the Free Press aren't gonna do shit. The Courts will see this differently and money will prevail once again. Especially when you can't force a private company to do what YOU think is right by making a "law or rule" for it. Next stop the US Supreme Court. Yeah, what a mess. The world will always suck. Might as well not try to make things right or better. That's the way to be!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 | |
|
| | | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| Carriers are using the airwaves to deliver services that many members of the public value. That much is undeniable, assuming you agree with the basic economic concept that people generally don't enter into voluntary transactions that harm their welfare. Say an individual can either spend $50 a month on a cell phone plan, or they can spend it on some other item that they value. The fact that lots and lots of people elect to pay for cell phone services suggests very strongly that they value cell phones enough to sacrifice $50 for it, rather than spending that money on something different, like steak or DVDs.
Your public park analogy is not germane to the wireless exclusivity issue because wireless carriers have paid taxpayers for exclusive rights to use certain portions of the airwaves, much like homeowners have paid for exclusive domain over a plot of land. Wireless companies bid on airwaves in open auctions. While there are equivalents of public parks on the airwaves -- the 2.412-2.484ghz band, for instance -- like land, most of the airwaves aren't occupied by public parks.
Increasing the quantity of choices available to consumers is not the objective of public policy. A million choices do not necessarily constitute a welfare-maximizing marketplace; conversely, 5 choices do not necessarily constitute a non-welfare maximizing marketplace.
Re-engineering the wireless market via government regulation will increase consumer choice in a sense, while decreasing business choice. It will also hurt some consumers; namely, those who yearn for an iPhone-killer and are fine with exclusivity. Banning exclusivity will make it possible to use an iPhone with Verizon Wireless, but it will also cause Apple, Samsung, Blackberry and other phone makers to spend less money making innovative phones. It's hardly clear that this is a good policy choice, especially considering how rapidly the mobile marketplace is moving. | |
|
| |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Handset exclusivity not that big a deal said by David :Plus what about the Itouch. It don't have the phone built in it at all. So for those that wanted internet at their fingertips and can have a wi-fi service can have that. I for one am looking for a non-super expensive Itouch. It may be a while before I get one though. You can get 1st generation 8GB iPod Touch for as low as $144.
»www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_e_7_1···d+touch+
My friend has one and with all the latest software, it works well. He must have about 50 apps on it.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| The consumer can't afford cell phones Because of exclusivity deals subsidizing phones, the average consumer can't afford good phones.
All they do is remove any competition outside of getting contracts with carriers. And with most people getting phones with contracts a retail market for phones doesn't really exist. Phones basically carry supper high retail prices to make it seem like there is value in an exclusivity contract.
Cell carriers should be banned from interfering with the retail phone market. That way people can afford goods phones without having to sign a contract. | |
|
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones said by insomniac84 :Cell carriers should be banned from interfering with the retail phone market. That way people can afford goods phones without having to sign a contract. That is the way it is in the EU. And there smartphones run $500 to $800 each. The US way is better for a lot of people where the phone is amortized & subsidized by the cell service provider thru the use of 2 year contracts. And now that ETFs are prorated, there isn't even a big disincentive not to switch carriers.
Not that I think consumers wouldn't be smarter to avoid paying for costly smartphones & expensive data plans if they can't afford it. But that is the American way. Spend more than you can afford. But whose fault is that but their own.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
1 edit | Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones Ok first off, you're grossly overestimating the price of high quality phones in the EU.
The technology in cell phones in the EU and Asia are a generation ahead of the US. As in, they already have camera phones capable of recording HD video at 720p, and capable of taking 12 MP pictures. *Those* are the high-end phones that cost several hundred dollars, but not so high as $800. The "retail" price of cell phones in America are grossly overstated. This is one of the reasons the iPhone hasn't sold particularly well in Japan.
Secondly, nothing stops EU carriers from offering contracts, at least as long as it doesn't go beyond a year. What consumer groups want is to ban *exclusivity* of phones.
Thirdly, the monthly cost of voice and data plans in the EU and Asia are *vastly* cheaper than in America. As in South Korea, basic plans start at $10/month, and voice + data plans for the entire *family* max out at $60/month. In fact, while we're on the topic of overpriced telephony, a super-fast internet connection + TV + phone service all costs a typical home $30-$40/month.
Finally, blaming consumers for spending money that "they can't afford" is the most idiotic criticism a person can make. Who are you to say they can or can't afford it? And how do you know they don't really need the wireless lines, and are simply overspending on a luxury? If they had a choice they'd obviously go for cheaper competition. Too bad *there is none*! | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: The consumer can't afford cell phones Both of you are wrong.
First of all:
»www.t-mobile.de/iphone/
16GB 3GS for as low as 1 euro on contract.
Second, while their up-front pricing is technically cheaper, they nickel and dime you, and have a very complicated rate system
»www.t-mobile.de/iphone/tarife
They charge you different rates if you're calling within TMO's network, calling other mobile users, or calling landlines. Same goes for MMS/SMS charges. Those rates are all higher than what we charge in the USA. Their data caps are equal to or lower than our own (10GB and on down), and are frequently tied to your monthly rate (the less you pay for minutes, the less data you get too).
No such thing as MyFaves. No Friends and Family. No Rollover Minutes. No Unlimited Everything (at least not for as cheap as we have it).
Their consumers have 2 major advantages:
Since everyone there uses GSM on 2 frequencies, all phones sold in europe are compatible on all other euro networks. The only barrier is a simple SIM lock.
They typically have better competition and connectivity due to the smaller sized networks needing to compete on price rather than coverage.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | You are wrong. As cell phone contracts are on average 18months long overseas. | |
|
| | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| said by GOLFnSUN :said by insomniac84 :Cell carriers should be banned from interfering with the retail phone market. That way people can afford goods phones without having to sign a contract. That is the way it is in the EU. And there smartphones run $500 to $800 each. The US way is better for a lot of people where the phone is amortized & subsidized by the cell service provider thru the use of 2 year contracts. And now that ETFs are prorated, there isn't even a big disincentive not to switch carriers. Not that I think consumers wouldn't be smarter to avoid paying for costly smartphones & expensive data plans if they can't afford it. But that is the American way. Spend more than you can afford. But whose fault is that but their own. ETFs should NOT be allowed! There is something amiss here in USA wireless land... | |
|
| | | |
| 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| said by insomniac84 :Because of exclusivity deals subsidizing phones, the average consumer can't afford good phones. SIGH.... thats totally incorrect. The carrier subsidies are actually the only thing that DOES allow people to afford cell phones. What most people (that live in the US) dont understand is that non-subsidized phones, even the most basic ones, cost a few hundred dollars. "Smart" phones (such as Blackberries and iPhones) have retail prices of up to $1000.
said by insomniac84 :All they do is remove any competition outside of getting contracts with carriers. And with most people getting phones with contracts a retail market for phones doesn't really exist. Phones basically carry supper high retail prices to make it seem like there is value in an exclusivity contract. The retail market for 'unlocked' cell phones doesnt really exist in the US because consumers dont want it to. The only reason every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there has an iPhone is because they were able to pick one up for $199. Look at Europe, most people pay full price for thier phones and (shockingly) pay full retail value. I have no problem with paying full retail for a locked phone, or even paying full retail just so I dont need to renew my contract that ended in 2005. Most people dont want that however, and this is the issue. If some law is put in place requiring people to buy thier phones at full retail price, Smart phone will disappear from the "average" consumers hands. 'Joe Smith' and friends will all start using the only phones they can afford (unsubsidized), which will be the cheapo, non 3G, candybar phone that might or might not have color screens.
said by insomniac84 :Cell carriers should be banned from interfering with the retail phone market. That way people can afford goods phones without having to sign a contract. Good luck telling the average person to drop almost a half months' salary on a cell phone then.......
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
|
| |
See 23 replies to this post |
|
| jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| said by insomniac84 :Because of exclusivity deals subsidizing phones, the average consumer can't afford good phones. All they do is remove any competition outside of getting contracts with carriers. And with most people getting phones with contracts a retail market for phones doesn't really exist. Phones basically carry supper high retail prices to make it seem like there is value in an exclusivity contract. Cell carriers should be banned from interfering with the retail phone market. That way people can afford goods phones without having to sign a contract. It's a big problem when a simple phone without a contract is $300, $400, $800 retail. There is no way that these phone are so expensive. It's just a crazy markup. One can purchase more powerful electronics for 1/10th the price. | |
|
8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
| Competition and Innovation for who? Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.
Funny, they don't mention competition and innovation for the wireless service that Verizon directly provides. Hey Verizon, maybe better wireless coverage and service would promote innovation and competition in your own line of business, so you won't have to depend on 3rd party devices to sell your service.
I don't see how restricting a device maker from selling their phone to other carriers promotes competition. | |
|
| |
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| 500,000 Customers? Who's that. I sure hope lawmakers are not stupid enough to fall for that statement. There are hardly any carriers that have less than 500,000 customers. Most of those small companies have already been long ago gobbled up.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
|
| 
SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
·Cingular Wireless
| Re: 500,000 Customers? Who's that. I think ATT should match the gesture .....no exclusivity after 6 months to carriers with less than 500K customers....that will keep VZW from getting an iPhone.
--
»www.Warpstock.org
| |
|
| 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
1 edit | said by NOCMan :I sure hope lawmakers are not stupid enough to fall for that statement. There are hardly any carriers that have less than 500,000 customers. Most of those small companies have already been long ago gobbled up. There are more than you think. Some resellers are considered a service providers. For example, my local ILEC resells AT&T (North State Communications) but AT&T STILL won't allow them to sell the iPhone. If I were to bundle with North State, I could get a significant discount on my AT&T service, but AT&T says nope, too bad. | |
|
pika2000
join:2005-10-13
Everett, WA
| Meh Cellphones will remain provider-locked for good in the US. Just look at how many people here defending provider-locking. People in the US have been brainwashed by the carriers that they have to shell out full price for unlocked phones. Ironically, carriers are selling no-contract phones at full price, yet those are still provider-locked. Even funnier, pay-as-you-go phones in the US, which is supposed to be no-contract-you-pay-for-the-phone deal, are all provider-locked.
Unlocked and subsidy are unrelated. The carriers want you to think that they are, but they are not. Let's take a look at Singapore. Over there, all contract and subsidized phones, including high end smart-phones, and even *gasp*, the iPhone, are sold unlocked out of the box. Carriers can still subsidize phone. Customers that are getting subsidized phones are already tied with a contract. The phone should not have anything to do with it. I mean think about it, in the US, even if you already finish your contract where the phone is technically yours, it is still provider locked and useless to be used on other carriers. How's that even logical?
But, like I said, seeing how many people defending provider-locking, and how many people in the US love being screwed by the carriers, nothing will change. Verizon is already wanting to push their own app store on their phones. AT&T is pre-loading their phones with their own locked-down firmware, which actually reduce performance of the phones. | |
|
|
Master19536
@pldt.net | Re: Meh That is why, there should be an option to have your cellphone's firmware/software unlocked after you finished you contract. So that, you have the option to use it with the other provider instead of getting another phone and contract. | |
|
| | pika2000
join:2005-10-13
Everett, WA | Re: Meh I will suggest further to get rid of provider-locking altogether. Provider locking has no logic behind it. | |
|
|
|
|
Verizon Backs Off Handset Exclusivity -- A Little
Handset exclusivity not that big a deal
·
