Quantcast

A step in the right direction for cell companies!

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
I disagree.

What's wrong with iPhone and carrier having and exclusive agreement? It's not like it's the only phone choice?
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
What if you really want an iPhone but have had nothing but bad experiences with AT&T and would rather shave with a rusty cheese grater than give another penny to those parasites?
I hear ya, but it's not a monopolistic situation. There is absolutely no reason that you have to have an iPhone or AT&T. There's just no call for govt interference. That is, of course, just my opinion.
 

AngryMetalsmith

Business is good, thanks for asking
Jun 4, 2006
14,687
2,433
I have no idea where I am
I hear ya, but it's not a monopolistic situation. There is absolutely no reason that you have to have an iPhone or AT&T. There's just no call for govt interference. That is, of course, just my opinion.
True, but it would be nice to be able to have complete control over which phone and which carrier you want.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want government interference either.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
A company telling you how you should be able to use a product you paid for is absurd. The cell carriers have to be regulated because it is getting insane with carrier locking, "access fees" and the like.
 

BigMike

BrokenbikeMike
Jul 29, 2003
8,933
0
Montgomery county MD
Like I said, look PAST the iPhone, and think of what could happen here! To quote the Engadget article:

We don't usually take much stock in proposed legislation -- Schoolhouse Rock left out the part where lobbyists gut all the good bits -- but we're willing to root for the Wireless Consumer Protection and Community Broadband Empowerment Act, currently on the floor in the House and Senate. The bill, sponsored by Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey, would require carriers to sell contract-free phones, provide rate plan information in a "clear, plain, and conspicuous manner," disclose any phone subsidies hidden in the plan's price, and offer price-comparable plans with no subsidy or early termination fee. That means you'd finally know exactly how much a plan would bill you every month including taxes and fees, it'd be easier to see how much devices like the iPhone are marked up, and most importantly, it'd be way easier to switch carriers to get better deals. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, of which Markey is the chairman, held a hearing on the bill this morning with reps from both the wireless industry and consumer groups present, so progress is being made -- we'll see how things go.
Link

From the congressman's website:

The first section seeks to create a policy framework for wireless services by providing for essential consumer protection rules at the national level, as well as by establishing an effective role for States in supplementing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforcement efforts. This first section addresses wireless early termination penalties, wireless plan and contract disclosures, so-called "truth-in-billing" rules, and service quality reporting.
The second section of the bill clarifies that municipalities have the freedom to provide telecommunications services to their citizens.
Link


This is not about the iPhone, this is about ALL phones, all plans, and all carriers. Laws like this are already in effect in other countries, we are so far behind it's embarassing
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
I still don't like it.

With so many carriers having so many requirements, it's opened up biz opportunities for companies to fill the void... no contracts, no credit checks, etc.

This is not a monopolistic situation, let the market do it's thing.
 

BigMike

BrokenbikeMike
Jul 29, 2003
8,933
0
Montgomery county MD
I still don't like it.

With so many carriers having so many requirements, it's opened up biz opportunities for companies to fill the void... no contracts, no credit checks, etc.

This is not a monopolistic situation, let the market do it's thing.
I think it will be good for the consumer. Let the companies fight, we win. Kind of like this unlimited calling for $99.99 a month that all the big cell companies jumped on one right after the other. So if someone lowers the price, they all will.

Same with this, if they are required to have unsubsidized phones, and have their customers not be tied to their network for two years, they will have to make it enticing to stay!
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
I think it will be good for the consumer. Let the companies fight, we win. Kind of like this unlimited calling for $99.99 a month that all the big cell companies jumped on one right after the other. So if someone lowers the price, they all will.

Same with this, if they are required to have unsubsidized phones, and have their customers not be tied to their network for two years, they will have to make it enticing to stay!
I agree that's what will probably happen.

I just don't like the govt getting involved when there's not a need.

*shurgs*
 

BigMike

BrokenbikeMike
Jul 29, 2003
8,933
0
Montgomery county MD
I agree that's what will probably happen.

I just don't like the govt getting involved when there's not a need.

*shurgs*
While I am normally with you there, as I disagree with most of the things the government does and the way it operates, I don't think this will necessarily be a bad thing. Until the government finds a way to fack it up!
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
I agree that's what will probably happen.

I just don't like the govt getting involved when there's not a need.

*shurgs*
Yeah why don't we let the communication industry destroy the design foundation of the Internet by taking away net neutrality too :rolleyes:

Last time we let them do their own thing and gave them up to 70 billion/year tax breaks they didn't do sh*t (France and Korea have much better connectivity even) and now the next Google will probably happen outside of the US:

The wonderful deregulated US communication industry also destroyed numerous plans for free municipal access solely because it was a threat to their markets with a bunch of fabricated misinformation fed to clueless government officials.

No free market does not always work well - the US communication industry is prime example.

Computerworld said:
January 28, 2008 (Computerworld) Deregulation of telecommunications has been nothing less than an unmitigated disaster for U.S. businesses. If the broadband mess isn't hurting your business today, it soon will be. It's time to do something about it.

The Internet binds businesses to customers, suppliers and partners in a set of federated networks, and the concept of the virtual office has extended the corporate network, delivering bandwidth-hungry services into many employees' homes.

Truly high-speed Internet services of 100Mbit/sec. to 1Gbit/sec. are opening up new business opportunities that could create the next Google.

But not in the U.S. Here, the Internet is being throttled at its endpoints by telecommunications carriers and cable companies with a record of spotty service quality, a broadband rollout that has left more than half the nation behind, and overpriced, overprovisioned "high-speed" broadband services that are still widely unavailable.

In five years, multimedia business interactions will be commonplace. Global, high-definition videoconferencing over the Internet isn't far off. Problem is, an HD video stream requires a sustained 2Mbit/sec. end to end, but today as many as 30 customers in a given area in the U.S. may share 30Mbit/sec. of broadband capacity. What's more, one cable company is monitoring Internet traffic and throttling back or stopping some audio and video streams that compete with its core business.

Will you get the bandwidth you need? If your business is in Europe or Asia, the answer is yes. The average advertised bandwidth in Japan is just under 1Gbit/sec. In Korea and France, it's over 40Mbit/sec. That sort of capacity will drive innovations that U.S. businesses can't even envision yet.

But in the U.S., except in a few metro areas, most people are lucky if they can get 6Mbit/sec. — and in rural areas, most users can't even get that.

It's a disgrace born of political failure. In 1996, the government agreed to free the Baby Bells to compete in the long-distance market if they met certain conditions. Among other things, the Bells promised to share their facilities with other providers and pledged to run fiber to every home. "Almost every one of them reneged on their promises," says David Passmore, an analyst at Burton Group.

Ironically, the rate relief the carriers were given over the years in return for their empty promises — by some estimates as high as $70 billion — would have gone a long way toward running fiber to every home in the U.S.

"The politicians gave away the store, and all of the networks that were paid for by the rate [payers] were handed over to the Verizons of the world," says Passmore.

Businesses should pressure the telecommunications/cable duopoly and regulators to make a competitively priced, nationwide, guaranteed 100Mbit/sec. broadband infrastructure a priority — and 1Gbit/sec. the goal.

Furthermore, all ISPs should be required to contribute to the Universal Service Fund just as land-line carriers do. Unless those subsidies are replenished, high-speed Internet access will never be fully extended to the 20% of businesses and homes in rural areas left behind by the market.

Business also has a stake in promoting Net neutrality. You — not the telecommunications or cable TV companies — should control your content.

Finally, businesses should demand that the FCC require the winning bidders in this month's auction for 700-MHz spectrum (which television broadcasters will abandon in 2009) provide open access. A clear separation of the basic Internet access infrastructure from the services that ride upon it is the only way to prevent today's carriers and cable companies from continuing to act as gatekeepers to the Internet — and stifling innovation in an Internet economy that will be critical to U.S. business growth in the future.

Robert L. Mitchell is a Computerworld national correspondent. Contact him at robert_mitchell@computerworld.com.