Wireless Carriers Accused of Antitrust Violations 272
phoneboy writes "From Wireless Consumers Alliance: A class-action lawsuit was filed on April 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of wireless consumers seeking to end the control of the handset market by wireless carriers. Read the Antitrust Complaint. While the complaint is fairly short and easy to understand, a summary is in order: The carriers basically dictate required features to handset manufacturers. Phones are tied to specific carriers and cannot be moved between carriers. Carriers refuse to allow handsets on their network they didn't approve. Handset manufacturers thus cannot sell handsets that aren't approved by carriers because carriers will not allow them to be used. All of this rises costs for the consumer, making it difficult and more expensive to switch carriers, and unfairly restrains trade for both handsets and cellular services. As someone who recently tried subscribing to AT&T's new GSM service with an unlocked GSM phone (they didn't allow me to "activate" the service unless I bought one of their phones), I'll be watching this case very closely."
Deja vu. (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is, what is the current state of regulation in the wireless arena? Do regulations currently exist similar to the old phone regulations? If not, how do the wireless carriers enforce their hardware requirements?
Re:Deja vu. (Score:1)
It's in the article, lines 55-58 (Score:4, Informative)
Carterphone et. al. ... again (Score:1)
Bravo! Bravo! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is highly needed. I am a big fan of Nokia phones, to the point where I won't use any other brand of phone. Unfortunately, I signed up for access with Sprint PCS 2 years ago, and a little over a year ago I extended my contract (it won't be over until May).
When I signed up with Sprint PCS, Nokia phones were an option. Today they aren't, and no matter how many times I've contacted them things don't seem to be changing.
My only choices are to (A) continue to use my 3 year old phone, (B) move on to a new provider, or (C) get a non-Nokia phone.
None of those options are satisfactory to me.
(A) my phone is outdated and no longer has the features I require. It is over large, gets horrible reception in my new Apartment, and the battery hardly lasts a day.
(B) I would have to change my phone number as I was told I could not switch my current phone number over to the new provider (it is owned by Sprint). Secondly, my options are AT&T and Verizon who are both far worse companies than Sprint (in my experience anyway).
(C) There are few phones I like, and after past experiences with current cell phone companies I've chosen to remain with Nokia, not just because I like their phones but because I like the way they run their business.
As you can see, I am in a no win situation. Any choice I make leads me to make some sort of a compromise. While this lawsuit will unfortunately not go through the courts quick enough to be a benefit to me, it is long overneeded and I can only hope it helps keep others from experiencing these same problems in the future.
Bryan
Wireless Number Portability (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is, every time the FCC has set a deadline for this to happen, all the big wireless companies whine a lot, petition the FCC because implementing the switch/billing software/etc upgrades would be "too difficult" (i.e. costly), and the deadline gets postponed. As it stands now, it was supposed to already have happened over two years ago, and the latest deadline in late November is probably going to be pushed out another six months (if it hasn't been already). The net result is that it really sucks to be the consumer, 'cuz folks like you have to face decisions like the one you're faced with now.
Re:Wireless Number Portability (Score:2)
If businesses see their profits threatened by something the government is going to do they will try and get it delayed as long as possible. After all - their first duty is to their shareholders. As the telecomms sector has been one of the ones suffering the most - I'm not surprised that the FCC would delay a decision that in the long run - wouldn't let them hang on to customers for such a long time & cost them more in advertising having to advertise for new ones.
Re:Bravo! Bravo! (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunatly, this lawsuit, if successful, would likely bring upon the world a gigantic shit pile of junk phones - I'm certain that Sprint PCS and Verizon would LOVE to have Nokia phones available besides the forever standby of the 5185 and the "newish" 3285 models.
However, UNTIL Nokia turns out a handset that has decent quality of service, that will operate on CDMA, don't expect SPCS or Verizon to accept that!
One thing that I do know is that Verizon phones MUST all have pull out antennas - not only do the phones receive better service, they have longer battery life times, and you're not putting as much radiation into yer head. I don't know if SPCS has adapted this policy or not, but last summer was the last time that I saw a fixed antenna SPCS phone, so maybe they have.
It's not all about features - it's about quality control.
There's no reason why you couldn't take a SprintPCS tri-mode phone, and activate it as a tri-mode phone on Verizon's service - except that SprintPCS would have to give up the subsidy lock code on the phone. Once you had that, you could program it for Verizon's service.
The reason why Verizon phones wouldn't operate on Sprint PCS network is because Sprint PCS won't allow any phone that they have not purchased from the manufacturer to operate. If they don't have the ESN of that phone entered into their database, no activation.
It's not foul play - it's fair play. No one's saying "You can't make a phone that will work with our network" - they are saying "Make a quality phone that works with our network, and we'll sell it."
This would be like forcing people to provide service for things that can't possibly work - ie, a TDMA phone will NOT talk to a CDMA network - it can't be done. Just like my toaster doesn't talk to my refrigerator.
wow... USA in the mobile dark ages. (Score:3, Interesting)
But at last we europeans (and those asians even more so) have a chance to cast a gloating data communications eye across the water: the USA is still in the mobile phone dark ages!
Over here, you can buy any phone and have it work anywhere in europe with any carrier. It's all GSM here. (well, actually there are pre-paid phones, and bill phones) and I can go on holiday to a little greek island and my phone could roam on either of the 2 greek carriers that covered the island. I go to london, get off the airplane and my phone has a choice of a whole bunch of networks!
My dad travels a lot, so to save on roaming costs he bought a pre-paid GSM SIM card in each country that he regularly spends time in. So when he gets off the plane, he just puts whichever SIM card into his phone according to which carrier has the best rates. the only disadvantage is that to reach him i might have to dial 4 numbers (Dad, Dad-FR, Dad-NL, Dad-ES). But hey..
Also, do people in the states have to pay full price on the handsets? At least here in EU, most of the cost of handsets is subsidised by the carriers (low-end nokia's are about EUR30 to EUR70 depending on the carrier's deal - used to be they gave them out free, but not anymore)
anyway.. GSM - we pee in your general direction! hu hu..
Re:wow... USA in the mobile dark ages. (Score:2)
Yes. No. It depends on the special of the day, sometimes the phones are free. Most of the ones I've seen cost $40-$109 USD (either before or after rebate). I paid $50 for mine. US residents are also more concerned about roaming from state to state than country to country. Canada is about the only international roaming I care about.
Re:wow... USA in the mobile dark ages. (Score:2)
point is, here in europe (and presumably Asia too) roaming is a complete non-issue: it just works. If there is an issue it is of cost. the only new thing is 1.8GHz GSM, but all the 1.8GHz GSM phones are dual-band and can roam between both old 900MHz GSM and newer 1.8GHz GSM networks.
How many different mobile phone standards/types of networks are in use in the states at the moment? Dont you guys still have some analogue mobile networks in operation? Do you have quinta-band phones in the states for the true "hardcore roamer"?
--paul 'European making the most of a once in a lifetime gloating opportunity' j
Re:wow... USA in the mobile dark ages. (Score:2)
Too many. There is still analog service, but the drive is to only digital. Digital is 'better' because your calls choppy up instead of static out.
Yeah, it's funky here in the US. But then again, US needs are slighty different. We have cheap, reliable, and widespread landline services. Regloat.
Then again there is always the stance that anything and everything relating to telecommunication requires confusolopies and inferior customer service.
Re:wow... USA in the mobile dark ages. (Score:2)
the story is even sadder, it is perhaps a quarter of the price. in fact there are "call-back" companies who make use of US cheap rates to offer cheaper international
way it works is:
- you dial call-back company (US number), type in pin number and hang up.
- call-back company rings you, you type in the number you want to call and the call-back company rings that number and connects you to them.
obviously, for this to work out, it means that *2* US-originated transatlantic calls are
sad isnt it?
VoiceStream for unlocked phones (Score:2)
This is probably because VoiceStream is owned by Deutsch Telekom. [telekom.de]
Re:VoiceStream for unlocked phones (Score:2, Informative)
On the flip side of things, in australia (from what I've seen), phones and plans are sold seperate -- I have 2 friends with the same phone but different carriers that were purchased from the same store (I think).
Re:Bravo! Bravo! (Score:2, Interesting)
Makes me wonder if they even checked to see if voicestream was actually comitting any of the acts described in the suit. Perhaps they were in lawsuit frenzy (Hey, This is America).
-dcviper
It's easy (Score:4, Funny)
Just wait... (Score:2, Funny)
part of the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Parent is underrated (Score:2)
Anyway, it is in the carrier's best interest to control the equipment used to access their network. In the newspaper today, there was an interesting article on the HDTV standard, which while a somewhat different scenerio is still relevant. The studios want all newer TV's manufactured to contain DRM type stuff, which would make the previously sold HDTV's obsolete. Now whether or not they can do this over the airwaves is the debate. Over cable is one thing, but over airwaves they've paid the FCC for the rights to, can they control what type of equipment has access to it. I see this as very much the same argument, and believe that if this antitrust case goes through, the TV network companies will in the future see very much the same case.
Antitrust (Score:4, Insightful)
But, like most class actions, this suit can succeed without the slightest hint of merit, since the real point is just to extract fees for lawyers by making it too expensive for the defendants.
Re:Antitrust-audiance (Score:2)
Re:part of the point (Score:2)
There are plenty of operators making money in Europe without needing to lock phones (though some of them still do).
Operators simply want to make it harder for people to switch, even though the subscriber is already tied in by a contract (meaning that the operator's phone subsidy is not a reason for phone locking - the contract ensures they will make enough money to cover the subsidy).
As opposed to? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As opposed to? (Score:2, Informative)
1) Phones are capable of detecting what features are available by their provider
2) AT&T needs a time synch feature, just like every other provider. I hate my phone because it relies on the provider to set the time and can't be set manaully. But really, in this day and age AT&T in SF is the only provider in this area that doesn't set the time.
Either way, the post is quite irrelevant.
Also: They don't let you keep your phone number (Score:1, Redundant)
AT&S GSM (Score:1)
On a slightly different note, they told me that after my 1 year contract they would unlock my phone.
Re:AT&S GSM (Score:2, Interesting)
I had a few problems with AT&T activating a phone they didn't sell.
I had been waiting for them to release the Ericsson T39, but the launch dates kept being pushed back. I called them and they said they were going to be getting the T68, no date though. I called their GSM support center and got conflicting opinions on them activating a phone they didn't sell. They told me they could sell me a SIM and I would just put it in my phone. On that note, I went ahead and bought a phone on eBay because I was tired of waiting for them. When I picked up the phone from the person I bought it from, I also stopped at the nearest AT&T Wireless store to buy a SIM. They sold me a SIM ($25) and told me to call a certain number to activate it. I call said number and the CSR basically went ballistic about the store selling a SIM without a phone. He then refused to activate the SIM. No amount of convincing would work. He said they would only activate a SIM only if it was sold with a phone from them. At that point I thought I might be SOL in getting my phone working on their network. Well, I called back and spoke to a supervisor and asked the same questions again. He told me the same things that the previous CSR had said. I then asked him what would stop me from getting one of their phones and using that SIM. He said nothing would, and couldn't tell me not to do it. I had been with AT&T since 1994 so I knew I was going to get a good deal on the Customer Upgrade Program. I went to one of the AT&T stores in downtown Seattle and bought a Motorola Timeport that they were selling for $199, my price was $9.99. After the hour long wait for them to "move" my TDMA account to GSM, I pulled the SIM out of the Motorola and stuck it in my T68 (in the presence of the clerks at the store) and the phone worked fine.
I should not have had to go through all of this to get my phone to work. Had they activated the SIM that I bought, they would not have had to spend money to subsidize the Motorola I had to buy to get them to activate a SIM. I did pay more than what AT&T is currently selling the T68 for, but I did get the portability of taking it to whatever carrier will activate a SIM.
I have heard rumors about AT&T planning to do naughty things to people who are using phones that weren't purchased from them. One is not allowing any phone with an IMEI(sp) number that is not one they sold to access their network. I do not think this can possibly be legal. I think there is a requirement for all carriers to allow access to their networks for 911 service. They can't block a phone without being in violation of that.
The problem I had with the WAP stuff is that their WAP gateway was not yet configured for the T68. Shortly after they started to sell that model, the gateway was updated.
Re:AT&S GSM (Score:2)
Sure they can - they can let you come up on the network, but refuse to complete any calls but a 911 call.
Re:AT&S GSM (Score:2)
Of course, I ended up cancelling the service and returning the phone the next day since their GSM coverage was crap where I needed it to work. Maybe in a year it might be better.
-- PhoneBoy
Non portable numbers , handset volume (Score:1)
I can't understand... (Score:1)
Sheesh, you can use your same phone In Hong Kong, catch a flight to South Africa, then hit London and Amsterdam, stopover in Canada, but when you come to the states- NO SERVICE FOUND!!!
Damn us stupid americans! If the rest of the world adopts 900 or 1800MHz, we decide we have to be different and go along with a 1900MHz system either SOLELY to sell more expensive Trimode handsets, or to make people fork over more cash to buy a second phone.
---------------
Just for perspective. (Score:5, Informative)
1) An open GSM phone. You can use this anywhere, on any network. Either roaming, or with a sim card from that network.
2) A branded phone, where it is locked to a certain carrier. So you can't just take any sim card and use it, you have to use that network.
With #2, they usually sell the phone cheaper, because you are stuck with their network. Which makes sense.
But.. a carrier will not refuse service or differentiate at all as to what phone you use.
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
And it is very uncommon nowadays to lock them; it was common some years ago but consumer organisations protested. Now you get the phone cheaper when you sign up for a contract (e.g. for one year), but the phone itself is not locked.
Those that come with a lock will be unlocked after a period, or if you pay the operator that subsidized your phone.
No, locked is locked.... (Score:2)
You have to consider, they many not lock you out of switching companies as much now (because they "lock you in" in other ways, like 1 year service contracts.)
But, the lock codes still "criple" the phone companys software on the phone.... Those Nokia and Ericsson phones do a LOT more than the company want's to provide support for, so they "LOCK" the features out to keep you from asking "why isn't my email/text messaging working, I found the option on the phone!
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:4, Insightful)
Friggin 99.95% of American just "accept" the fact that the phone they buy will only work with 1 company, and don't even know places exist (like USTronics [ustronics.com]) that see unlocked phones, that you can buy, stick a Voice Stream SIM into, and when you travel to EU or Japan, or anywhere, can just get a "local SIM" and use the same phone. As an American, it must be said anyway, AMERICANS ARE IDIOTS!!! (because no one educates themself as a consumer).
TriBand GSM (900/1800/1900) phones that are FINALLY hitting the US shores in SOME number are going to be the ONLY hope we have (in the US).. Because when Americans see the LOCAL ADVANTAGE (always on data capacity and text messages) they may start to see the international roaming capacity, and international compatibility.
It's down to a simple fact that the US has done exactly the oppisite of the rest of the world, they have SEPERATE systems for each cell carrier. Where in EU and Japan, ane the rest of the world the realized the fact that one protocal was enough and compete on service (and companies just buy air time on the tower as used, covering the whole landscape) and compete for customers.
You can be in the Black Forest in Germany and get Cell service.... Because, it's uniform service... You may be Roaming, sure, but there are NO dead spots. WHEREAS, you can be in New York City in the USA, and drop calls, because YOUR company doesn't have a Cell tower there, because every company has thier own system.... For a country that covers SOOO SOOO much more land per population, isn't this not only a worse idea, but an idiotic idea?
So, I agree, GSM is the future, and it's about time Americans get off their asses, learn why the service they pay for sucks, and pay a little more for something that is COMPLETELY worth while. GSM should be an American standard.... It works in Europe, and now the Americans are in the Technology Dark Ages... (at least as far as cell phone service)
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
For one thing, CDMA offers a far, far higher capacity than GSM. While I'll agree that GSM has better voice quality, CDMA providers are far cheaper. In my part of the USA, you can get unlimited calling with Cricket [cricketcom...ations.com] for US$32.95/mo with no credit checks or contracts. Cricket uses CDMA, and this sort of value would be impossible with GSM.
Moreover, a vast majority of americans live within metropolitan areas, where there is digital service (as well as long interstate highways), which is all fine and good. I'd rather pay for service that'll work where I am, not wherever Joe BFE decides to live. Besides, there's analog coverage over about 99% of the mainland US.
system....
Erm. You need to learn about interconnection agreements. Qwest (a western United States provider) has an interconnection agreement with Alltel, a national provider. Qwest will hop on Alltel's network where Qwest towers don't exist. These agreements are fairly common in the United States. Also, every company does not have their own system. The only single-carrier system I can think of is Nextel, a specialised business-targetted provider. AT&T, Cingular, Alaska Wireless use TDMA. Alltel, Qwest, Verizon, Airtouch, Cricket, Sprint, and probably a few more all use CDMA. Voicestream, Pac-Bell, and certain chunks of Cingular also use GSM.
Multiple systems are actually better for the customer. Nextel phones can be used like walkie-talkies, Cricket takes advantage of CDMA's cell-hopping and capacity technologies to offer a fabulous service.
And lastly, New York City? Bah. Your trolls phase me not.
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:5, Insightful)
They ALL suck. I work for a small company, very tight, but small. There are 8 people in the US, spread out pretty even. We all travel and visit each other. We all picked our own service. Combined, we have tried, SprintPCS, Cingular, AT&T, Verizon, VoiceStream, just about everyone. Of the 8, 5 of us switch yearly looking for something better. Guess what? NOTHING IS BETTER. They all suck, on diffrent but equal levels.
And lastly, New York City? Bah. Your trolls phase me not. No Troll, I drop 3 calls a week in NYC right now with SprintPCS (what I count as MY drops). Total, I drop about 8 a week calling other guys in my company (one AT&T and one Verison) in NYC. NYC to NYC calls, droped.. CONSTANTLY. Not a troll. Given that no matter wich of us three call who, they are always droped calls, I would have to say, even NYC doesn't have cell service. You? (Minus October of 2001, at which point NO ONE DROPED A CALL FOR A MONTH!!! They trucked in towers and put them everywhere for a month after 9-11, but it's dropping back down to shit service again).
Yes, you named a ton of companies that have agreements.. and SHARE towers. But, it's not the same.. at all, and I can prove it beyond a doubt, if you care to learn a little.... See Below:
Look at a local Cell tower. How many antennas do you see? 2 types? 3 types? 4 types? Of what, the 5-6 avaliable services? Consider Europe, where there is only 2 general types (Both GSM, if you can call that 2 types). And they are everywhere in EU, yet there are countless places you can find no service in the US.
So, shareing service is there in the US, but that doesn't conclusively prove that 25 cell companies using 6 shared services would be better coverage than 25 services sharing 1 universal service type.
Face it, if you ever used a cell phone in the EU and the US, you KNOW the service is better than the US. If you ever bought a Coke or paid for a parking meter with your cell phone, you are LAUGHING at US cell phone service with the rest of the world.
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
Let's debunk this six-type argument, shall we...
Six types, Analog, GSM1900, TDMA800, TDMA1900, CDMA800, and CDMA1900. Try and actually find a phone that was made in the last three or four years that actually supports just one type. (excluding some Nokia models made for prepay services like Tracfone). My dad has a piece of crap Audiovox 800 MHz/analog phone from like five years ago that works everywhere. Try and find a phone that you would actually want to use that doesn't support CDMA or TDMA at both frequencies as well as analog fallback. They're hard to find.
I occasionally got dropped calls with AT&T and VoiceStream, but at least AT&T offered a 50c/drop credit on my bill. I also don't have the environmental factors you do... tall buildings of NYC I'm sure have some detrimental effect on cell service, whereas where I am, even a three story building is a rare sight to behold.
My point is, it's not exactly fair to judge a whole service network based on what you get in one area. If you were in some part of europe where 40-story buildings were all over (do they even have those in europe), would Orange or OpTel or Vodafone or Deutsche Telekom never drop your call? I doubt it. Would said companies be doing a far superior job than Sprint if they had to provide service in NYC? Probably not.
better coverage than 25 services sharing 1 universal service type.
Well
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
Dual band is common, but not universal now, true. But Dual is 2, and that's 2 out of 6, and still, that's only a 1 out of 3 (2 of 6) shot to be the right protocol for your area.
would Orange or OpTel or Vodafone or Deutsche Telekom never drop your call? I doubt it. Would said companies be doing a far superior job than Sprint if they had to provide service in NYC? Probably not.
Your 100% right, ABSOLUTELY NOT. But you have so qualified your question to make the reality of service unclear.
No ONE phone company from europe would do as well as ONE phone company in the US. But your just totally glossing over the key differance.
Orange or OpTel or Vodafone or Deutsche Telekom don't all run seperate systems, with seperate antennas, and seperate towers like AT&T, VoiceStream, Verison, SprintPCS, etc... do!
So, at the end of the day, Orange or OpTel or Vodafone or Deutsche Telekom are all essentiall ONE system, with a combine effort from all companies, to maximize clear coverage.
Whereas, AT&T, VoiceStream, Verison, SprintPCS, Qwest and the like are all seperate companies, with thier own systems, and thier own towers, and very petty agreements to share 1 or 2 of the 6 protocol among 2 or 3 of the companies, and the "infighting" and "fragmemtation" causes the problems.
Fragmenting a network will never lead to maximum coverage of all... it's that simple.
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
Six types, Analog, GSM1900, TDMA800, TDMA1900, CDMA800, and CDMA1900. Try and actually find a phone that was made in the last three or four years that actually supports just one type.
you know... i think you've just gone and completely missed the other's guys point.
the point is not about
in EU:
- i can send text messages to anyone, irrespective of what carrier they are on or what phone they use and they will receive it fine.
- i can use whatever sim i want with whatever phone i want. (well the pre-paid phones
(anybody know what the difference is between phones that take pre-paid SIMs and normal GSM phones? it seems that "bill" phones will take pre-paid SIMs, but that pre-paid phones wont take "Bill" SIMs. ??)
- my dad and sister often swap phones (they both use pre-paid). we have about 4 phones of varying age lying around the house, ericson T10, Nokia 5110, an absolutely crap "Trium", newer Ericson something or another. Battery low and you're in a hurry? Phone broken? just grab another one.. no fuss - they're all GSM - insert SIM and move on.
Another example of this, something that's happened to me a few times, you're in a pub or nightclub and someone will ask you if they can quickly use your phone cause their battery is dead, and they'll stick their own SIM in your phone and make the call on their own credit.
- my dad travels a lot, so he has 4 pre-paid SIM cards. In france? use the french carrier SIM, Netherlands? Use the dutch carrier SIM, etc..
- As the previous poster mentioned, in some countries providers are starting to offer "pay-by-phone" services, eg, finland is one. Got no cash? want to buy something? SMS the money over.
but most importantly, as the other poster alluded to:
- Wherever i go in Europe, i
dont need to worry about tri-band phones or which carrier offers what network where, i just
The US, for once, is
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
As an european I kindly ask you sir to explain to me what is this "Dropped call" thingy you americans say you have and we don'd ?
^_^
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
Because the phone is constantly looking for a decent signal ;-) Not it's prefered network type, rescan them.... Signal strength too low, rescan them.... over and over, till it sucks up all of the battery.
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
Look at the map and compare size of Europe and the population density to size of US and population density of US.
That's exactly my point.
Since it's going to be harder to cover all that area, why not cover a lot of it with 1 system insted of tring to cover it with 7 diffrent systems?
Small PS... (Score:2)
BTW, Qwest sucks bad, and is not a "wester US provider" for Cell service, but a "big provider in mid and southern Arizona" PERIOD. They are known outside of that area, but that is thier KEY hardcore stronghold for cell service.
So to say Qwest is any kind of big company is laughable, and only serves to prove you spent way to long in Southern AZ and need to travel more... (which isn't totally a bad thing, I grew up in Tucson, and loved it... it just shows you don't get out as much as you should).
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
Well first, Americans are far less likely to travel internationally than Europeans are. I think that international roaming will always be a low priority for them. And anyway, since our system charges for outbound or inbound use (whereas Europeans on the cell only pay for outbound) roaming can get damn expensive. Furthermore, flat rate land line phone service is so much cheaper than land line in Europe--we only use our cells when we are not near a land line phone or maybe when we wanna use long distance and have lots of long distance minutes. That removes roaming incentive (assuming you'll be near a usable land line phone.)
TriBand GSM (900/1800/1900) phones that are FINALLY hitting the US shores in SOME number are going to be the ONLY hope we have (in the US)
That's a temporary thing...since 3G is slowly coming this way. I believe however that Europe is standardizing on CDMA 3G, the same one we'll be using...so that should work out ok. The future does not rest with 2G of anything, be it CDMA or GSM.
It's down to a simple fact that the US has done exactly the oppisite of the rest of the world, they have SEPERATE systems for each cell carrier.
Part of this is because European governments segmented land areas and awarded the areas to cell phone companies based on highest bidder--it was used as a (very expensive) taxation scheme. One which Europeans are paying out the ass for in cell phone rates. (This was done in the US for analog systems, but it was far cheaper.) With one company controlling one area, there was no choice but for everyone to standardize on one system so that people could roam freely. Here, a company could put cell phone towers which ran on any system wherever they want as long as it met FCC regulations and local tower erection ordinances.
I like having multiple protocols...there are advantages and disadvantages to them. GSM works outstandingly well for Europe--for instance, it has SMS. Here you can have SMS too...but it's used far less because of that billing issue above (and to a certain extent that most people didn't have the same protocol to actually use SMS. SMS was an act of serendipity anyway...it was a part of GSM's configuration protocol, not a purposeful cell phone feature.) I believe that CDMA is the superior protocol (although I think that TDMA is even better, and if I were to do it all over again, I would take a TDMA phone.)
The point of all this is...it's just different. I think in the long run, it'll be hard to say one system is better or worse...except that, generally speaking, telecommunication is cheaper in the US...and perhaps that's the most important metric.
(haha...metric...US...see...I made a joke...ohh nevermind...to the devil with you all)
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
The US and Europe are *not* adopting the same 3G standards (why change the habit of the last few decades??): the US will use CDMA2000 (mainly), and Europe will use W-CDMA (aka IMT-2000). However, I think some US operators such as AT&T will use W-CDMA so they get global roaming revenues from visitors to the US.
TDMA is quite obsolete - all the TDMA operators are converting to GSM/GPRS, see www.3gamericas.org for what used to be the TDMA trade body in the US, which now promotes GSM.
Cost isn't the only metric - being able to depend on mobile phone coverage is another key one. Ease of roaming between GSM operators is a key part of getting good coverage.
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
I live in the US, and I don't have a land line[1]. I see no reason for it, the cost of a land line unlimied service is the same as a cell phone for twice the minutes I've EVER used, and the cell phone includes long distance.
[1] This isn't strictly true, to get DSL I have to pay for metered land line service, but I never use it, and I've complained about paying this fee for a service that I don't use.
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
This debate over GSM/CDMA has gotten ridiculous, not because America's CDMA implimentation is better than Europes implimentation of GSM. Quite the contrary, its pretty clear that Europe does more with GSM than the US does with CDMA. But CDMA isn't the problem, and adopting GSM isn't the only way to make American cell service better. People don't understand that GSM isn't inherently better than CDMA, its just that the EU companies use it better.
Indeed, CDMA is the better technology (I work for an English wireless engineering company and although I am not an engineer, I'm quoting RF engineers I drink beer with) and has a lot of advantages over GSM. However, like VHS/Betamax, GSM is used more, and has more features, but CDMA could have all those and more.
Now, having a more uniform CDMA method in the US would be vastly superior to the current willy-nilly mish-mash we have, but insisting that we go to the EU system may not be the best idea.
Also, part of the reason a lot of the text/messaging apps haven't caught on in the US is that Americans aren't as receptive to text on cellphone. I, at least, would rather just call somebody and leave a voicemail than spend all that time fscking around with trying to type text on a numeric keypad. Who has time for that?
The US & Canada already have a significant investment in CDMA. Having the different carriers allow interoperability over thier CDMA networks would only require a software change on existing phones and towers/switches. There's no need to throw away 30 million handsets (or however many) and 10,000 ($million+ dollar a pop) cell sites just so that I can use my current phone the once every two years I find myself in Europe or Japan. I'd much rather have my current phone work better, than throw it away and spend another $200 on a phone, plus have to pay twice as much for service to cover the billion-dollar transition to all new equipment.
Spending billion-dollar sums for million-dollar fixes is far more idiotic than the current US system.
Sure, Europe and Japan use GSM, but arguing that that means we have to switch to GSM is saying that Linux and Mac users have to switch to Windows.
GSM Service in the US. (Score:2)
I hope there are more I don't know of... I hope... But you can get a phone from USTronics (and I hope someone post links to more, it's sad they are the only company I know of, I have no connection to them but give them credit for this).
GSM 900 is a standard, but low and being phased out. GSM 1800 is the EU and World standard, and now that the US is doing GSM they "have to be propriatary" and only offer 1900 band, not 1800 band. That honestly has more to do with the FCC and bandwidth avaliablity than it has the standard, but it has a bit to do with both.
Your best bet, as a consumer is that wants service, is to get a tri band GSM that does 900/1800/1900) and is unlocked and will accept a SIM card.
Re:Just for perspective. (Score:2)
Yes, we still pay to receive calls.
I've worked under both systems. Having the caller have to pay to call a cell phone (as apparently the case in the UK and where I currently live, Mexico) and the way its done in the U.S. where the owner of the cell phone pays for received calls.
I prefer the latter. Especially when you get 2000 or 3000 minutes per month--there's no way I call more than 100 or 200 per month so I'd just assume that the caller call me free and get that rolled into the 3000 minutes I wouldn't otherwise use.
Ways to avoid antitrust litigation (Score:2)
Kinda like MSN specifically disabling connections from non-Windows machines, and with AOL it isn't even possible to connect from non-Windows machines in the first place. (Yeah, yeah, Macs. I know.)
Re:Ways to avoid antitrust litigation (Score:2)
Sprit was apparently a visionary. They don't need to artifically disable unapproved phones from working... They just build their own propritary PCS system, and NOTHING can even potentially communicate with it unless it uses that same PCS protocol.
Erm, are you sure? I've regularly roamed onto Sprint when I've been in the States using my tri-band (900/1800/1990MHz) GSM phone purchased in Europe. I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be doing any funky propritary Sprint only stuff.
Al.Re:Ways to avoid antitrust litigation (Score:2)
Are you sure it was Sprint? AFAIK they only have GSM networks (today) in a couple of US cities...
Fairly sure it was Sprint, now which city was I in? It was either NYC or Boston I think... But yes, most other places I seem to end up on Voicestream.
Al.Re:Ways to avoid antitrust litigation (Score:2, Insightful)
A free market won't always work (Score:4, Insightful)
Standards need to be set by a regulatory authority. Otherwise competing businesses will not just have the opportunity to create their own standards, they'll be forced to do so. There'll always be one business that'll use dirty tricks, so to survive, all must use them.
The U.S. cell phone market is a joke. Over here in Europe where I live I can buy any phone from anywhere. It'll work with any operator (as long as I pay for their service - duh). It will operate in any country in the world (except the U.S. and some other exceptions). There are no usage restrictions.
A few years ago when I visited the U.S. the phone I rented worked in New York, but not in Iowa! And I'll be moving to Boston next year, forcing me to get a U.S. phone. I hate you people! (well your phone companies at least...)
P.S. Is it true that text messaging doesn't always work between operators in the U.S?
Re:A free market won't always work (Score:2)
IME most phones in Europe are locked into one particular operator's network. Example: I got one of the earlier Motorola Timeport P7389(?) things, which was available only on BT Cellnet at the time.
I guess I could - and did - have it unlocked to work with Orange, but that was hellish expensive - definitely not the default state.
On the other hand, both my recent Nokia purchases have been unlocked, despite buying on Cellnet...
Re:A free market won't always work (Score:2)
Phone locking is fairly pointless IMO, and should be stopped - the fact that Vodafone, who are a very profitable wireless operator, don't do it shows that it's not necessary. After all, people are already locked in by the contract, so all you are doing is stiffing them for an extra 20 UKP or whatever to unlock.
SMS (Score:2)
In their defense... (Score:5, Interesting)
As most of us know, there are six widely used technologies, Analog, GSM, CDMA 800mHz, CDMA 1900mHz, TDMA 800mHz, and TDMA 1900mHz.
Most carriers only have their towers equipped for one, maybe two frequencies. In your case, while Sprint used to use the GSM technology, they now only use the CDMA 1900mHz for their phones.
Only phones made for that technology will work on that system.
The other issue that is run across quite a bit is knowledge. Most wireless representatives will have no idea how to program handsets they do not actually sell, even if they run on the same technology and frequency. A person who sells only Nokia and Motorola handsets will have no clue how to program an older Ericsson or Samsung, for example.
Another reason they require their own handsets deals with the fact that many companies (AT&T and Sprint for example) upgrade the software in the phones before sending them to the stores.
They do this to make sure you have the ability properly access their networks.
I agree that wireless providers should provide quite a bit more selection in stocking their handsets, but I would don't expect them to sell and support every type of handset out there.
Thats like requiring car manufacturers to make sure all their vehicles can use diesel, gasoline, petroleum, electricity, fuel cells and ethenol, and have them interchangable.
All it will do is drive the price of the service and handsets up, not just for the added technology, but for the additional training and expertise the representatives will need.
Re:In their defense... (Score:2, Insightful)
You example "Thats like requiring car manufacturers to make sure all their vehicles can use diesel, gasoline, petroleum, electricity, fuel cells and ethenol, and have them interchangable." is simply wrong.
The present situation is as if you were forced to buy your gasoline for your Ford only from companies associated with Ford. Or, if you move from one state to the other and need a new number plate, you would have to buy a new car.
Re:In their defense... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the US are just technologically inept?
Or more likely, it's just the effect of companies too comfortable with their power.
Here, we can send SMS from any carrier to any other carrier, even from GSM network to CDMA ones.
We can change carriers and keep our phone no.s.
So why can't the US, with a market 100 times larger to spread the cost over, do the same thing?
Re:In their defense... (Score:2)
Some of my work is in this area, and these black holes in the messaging coverage are not only an irritation ("Why didn't the message I sent get through?"), but are hampering rollout of some useful commercial information services.
Re:Competing standards and SMS (Score:2)
Re:In their defense... (Score:2)
Re:In their defense... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is where the problem lies. Why is the Wireless Provider the one who sells and supports the phone?
In the Tech industry, its the hardware manufactures that sell and support the hardware, and you can by a PC with a modem, Token Ring, or Eithernet or all of the above. The Internet Service Provider only has to support the network and protocol - PPP, DSL, CableModem, Not Every brand PC out there. ISPs would loose lots of businiess if they required you to to use only their computer hardware and software.
I'm not a Wireless Industry expert but it would seem to me that the Cell phone manufactures, Motorola, Nokia, Ericson, Samsung, etc need to change thier business model, to include sales and support.
Customers will win big when they can choose their phone, with multinetwork capabilities. They may pay more for it to access multiple Wireless providers, but they get the choice that way, and the Best Hardware Provider and the Best Network Provider both win.
Re:In their defense... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's like telling a gas station that regardless of if you're driving a Chevy Impala, a Ford Mustang, or a Mercedes that they have to be able to fill your tank up.
"Oh, sorry, we're allied with GM. Did you consider selling your VW and buying a Geo? That way, we could sell you fuel."
If you're in a town where only general motors cars can get fuel, and you really need gas for your BMW, you're S.O.L., even though there's not a good reason why you can't buy fuel there: it'll still work in your car.
If a place only sells diesel fuel and you need regular unleaded, that's one thing. But two cars that both can use premium should be able to buy premium from the same vendor.
Re:In their defense... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think this is the problem we're discussing. A dual-band (800/1900) CDMA phone will work just fine on the Verizon or SprintPCS networks if they would let customers use them. And I'm not talking about using an ancient CDMA 1900 phone that nobody will know how to set up, I'm talking about a brand-new phone without a subsidy lock. I for one would pay $500 for a phone if I knew I could use it with any service provider (who uses the standard, be it GSM 1900 or CDMA).
Another reason they require their own handsets deals with the fact that many companies (AT&T and Sprint for example) upgrade the software in the phones before sending them to the stores.
This isn't required - they add logos and tailor how the user interface works so that the end-user can figure out their phone more easily. Non-customized phones will still work perfectly well on their networks. How about the service providers say, "If you want to use a non-subsidy-locked phone on our network fine..But we won't help you figure out your phone. Complain to us only if you get lots of dropped calls."
Re:In their defense... (Score:2)
I agree that wireless providers should provide quite a bit more selection in stocking their handsets, but I would don't expect them to sell and support every type of handset out there.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that. I think they are suggesting that artificial barriers to interoperability should be removed. Removing such barriers doesn't necessarily imply that you have to support every product. By "support" I mean "provide bundled customer support".
The best analogy I can think of is working for an ISP, which I've done. We only "supported" Netscape, and IE on Windows and MacOS. That didn't mean users couldn't use pine on Linux. It just meant that if they called us having a problem with that, we just gave them server settings and sent them on their way.
So, from a support standpoint, I think all they are asking is that the network be open to phones that are capable of accessing the network. If somebody has a problem with a 3rd party phone, all the company's service rep has to do is say "make sure it's a foobar compatable phone" and check for network outages in their area. Anything else would indeed be unreasonable, since the rep could be exposed to a virtually unlimited range of technologies for which they aren't trained. Also, it would open the door for customers to take advantage of reps in unreasonable ways. I swear I'm not making this up: One time a customer called us asking for help with a modem that his brother had *built* as a project.
Re:In their defense... (Score:2)
Well, you know, that's why I went with a tri-band GSM phone (a Motorola p7389), a year ago. The European networks don't have a problem running different phones across GSM... why does the US?
Perhaps. But that doesn't explain why, if I switch to AT&T's new GSM/GPRS network, they want me to buy at least a Motorola 7382i form them, if not something more expensive. Web browsers for phones (at least Motorolas) are ridiculous, anyhow, so I don't need GPRS. So why do I have to have a phone with GPRS, and why can't I get one from a catalog or direct from the manufacturer (thereby getting around the excuse that the firmware is not up to date), if GPRS is not just an optional layer?
The answer, of course, is that the service providers make money off the phones! If not directly, they talk you into long contracts in order to decrease the price of the handset, and some will also try to charge you to "unlock" your phones when you change providers, as well.
Not all of them do that. (Score:2)
I don't think the complainers have much of a case. Phone systems are different because their designers start with different frequency allocations, and since they won't get any hardware reuse, they don't bother to make consistent protocols either. And nobody's telling them to do so.
This is the reason you don't want laissez-faire in some consumer industries. You get what you wish for.
--Blair
policy choices (Score:2)
imode: something to be said for monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
they are talking about.
I lived in Japan for two years, and just returned to the US. I found that the cell phones in Japan are literally years ahead of phones in the US, and data and Internet features like iMode, email, and Java apps on the handset, which simply work
in Japan, are completely hopelessly brokne in the US.
As far as I can tell this lossage is due precisely to the lack of any leverage that carriers have over handset makers in the US. In Japan, NTT DoCoMo, and the other carriers, dictate exactly what features they want, and thus
they get high quality user experience; all the phones have compatible web browsers, color displays, internet email, and other features. The features all work almost perfectly across the different handset models from different manufacturers.
Contrast this to the pathetic piece of junk called WAP in the US, where each phone has different incompatible implementations. Some phones have color WBMP support (hah!), others handle GIF, other PNG, others JPG. Some carriers gateways have byte limits of 1 kbyte, others higher, no telling which is which though. Chance of actually displaying a color picture, or a proper web page on your phone: about zero.
Email does not work consistently on US phones, and Java applets are still science fiction. People have the WAP forum to thank for this
pathetic situation. They were so greedy that they
tried to get all the carriers to standardize prematurely on technology that solved non-existent problems. NTT DoCoMo just went ahead and basically just built HTML 2.0 into thier phones (iMode) and it works an order of magnitude better than WAP.
This is preventing me from getting a Treo... (Score:2)
The Treo's I've seen at Best Buy had 'Voice Stream' marked all around them. So I just shrugged and decided to wait. I really don't want to switch from AT&T, but I would like to get a PDA phone in the next 6 months or so.
Curious, though: Are there any AT&T customers with a Palm based phone?
Re:This is preventing me from getting a Treo... (Score:2)
It might work. AT&T is starting to do GSM, which is what the Treo uses. Just switch SIMs. Give them a call and hope you live in a GSM service area.
Re:This is preventing me from getting a Treo... (Score:2)
How can I find out? (Score:2)
Thanks!
Re:How can I find out? (Score:2, Informative)
I hope that this discussion motivates people to switch to Voicestream. They are the network that most "gets it" of all of them.
Re:How can I find out? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How can I find out? (Score:2)
Re:How can I find out? (Score:2)
What you need to do is email simunlock@voicestream.com [mailto] with the original phone owner's name, the original mobile number, the IMEI number (on a sticker on the phone somewhere or type *#06# into the phone), the carrier name (was it an old Aerial phone pre-merger, or was it real VoiceStream, etc), city/region where it was first used and the date of purchase, all so they can find the right database with the codes. Got an email the next morning (Sunday no less) with the 8-digit SIM unlock code.
Doesn't appear that they lock their new phones anymore... if you want a no-frills american-GSM phone you can get a Nokia 3390 from them for $99 through their prepaid sales.
(must give thanks here to jesus herrera who posted the unlock info info first on this message board [visorvillage.com] =] )
Wait a second here... (Score:2)
What do the hardware manufactures think (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, this restricion might allow the wireless companies more better deals with the handset mfgs. As far as I can tell it would generally be in the best interest for the wirless company to allow any handset (lowering the barriers for cusomters to switch to their service).
So how much of this is the result of wireless companies being bullied by handset makers (just has PC mfgs are bullied by MS)?
~Adam
[Offtopic] But not really (Score:2)
so what?
All this talk of the US cell phones being so broken compared to Europe and Japan? Tsk tsk tsk...
Shame.
and all those intelligent, educated software engineers sitting at home reading the want ads, deciding whether to become a plumber or an electrician....
really is a shame...
see any CONNECTION HERE?? MANAGEMENT???? HELLO?????????
Well, of course you don't. Hurry along now, you're late for your all-day meeting!
Someone said "it'll get worse before it gets better?" I sure hope not.
There is precedent in this case (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm technically not old enough to remember any of this, but from what I recall, there was some issues with the phone company not selling phone equipment to people -- only leasing.
There was some issue about the use of non-Bell phones on the system. Could someone respond with more intelligent and enlightening information regarding this?
The gist of it is that the general population won the right to use their own phones on their phone connection without being hassled by the phone company about it.
Re:There is precedent in this case (Score:2)
There were BIG issues around this. I am old enough to remember when you were supposed to rent a thingie (a box full of caps) to isolate your non-bell equipment from the phone lines (but was young enough then to completely ignore that rule). You can find a lot of info on this with a google search for "carterphone". My favorite page that covers this and a lot of other phun stuff from telco history is here at Sandman's telco history site. [sandman.com] Lots of cool pics of phones, old catalogs and shit. The background of the Carterphone decision is towards the beginning.
"Lack of Class" actions (Score:2)
Here is how the scam works - One million plaintiffs each of whom gets say $10 - the lawyers pocket 15% or more of each judgment; so the lawyers take down a cool couple of million.
Very cute - if anyone but lawyers pulled a similar scam they would be in prison for fraud.
This is a complex issue. (Score:2)
The thing was the phone cost nothing, a penny or maybe $100 in the case of the "cooler" ones. The phone was being paid for by the cellular provider because you were signing a contract.
But what was the contract for? In many cases the contract wasn't for service at all. Sure, it's nice to have a steady customer for years - but you just gave some idiot a $400 phone for free so you need to collect on that.
It would be like the cable company giving out Tivo's for "Only $20!!". They may disable some features and not let you move with it but you would have to sign something right?
I'm guessing that there is a loophole that let's them not "unlock" the phones. They are taking a loss on every phone sold.
Who believes the phones with wireless web and vibrating features cost $39.95? I don't.
Yes really (Score:2)
You bought a phone AND[!] signed the contract. Did you read the contract? Chances are they do in fact 0wn your phone.
I have worked with and around mobile phones since cellular and up until now and the big bust of digital carriers.
Many [i.e. Verizon] companies started out as Cellular and still work on the same principles. They are buying the phone for you and selling it to you at a significant loss.
A local company that is now part of Verizon would, for example, sell you a Star TAC for $99 but they still 0wned the phone. They wouldn't go to great lenghts to retrieve it if you canceled your contract because you would have to pay the lump sum to get out of it. That lump sum is for the phone itself - not for any service.
Your contract isn't for service at all. Maybe it is. You would have to be stupid or desperate to get into a wireless contract today. I was a GTE customer when they rolled out in my area [one of the first] and ever since then Cellular has been dead.
Great quality, CDMA, no contracts, low minute charges and cool phones.
The down side to this new wireless telephone access is that when you buy a phone at the mall it is a "Sprint Phone" or a "Cingular Phone" - it's not "My Phone".
Actually if you watch the ads you will see that they advertise phones as "Get this nifty, cool, Sprint phone" but not "Get this nifty, cool, Nokia phone".
Alas, this was the reason that if you had provided your own equipment in the old Cellular game you could get out of signing the contract.
Imagine your local ISP sells you a computer for $49. You pay them a monthly fee for net access. He isn't going to let you move with it and likely they are going to make you sign a contract to recover the costs of your machine.
Glad I do not own a cell phone (Score:2)
What real advantages do I get? Oh, thats right. My boss can call me anytime he wants. Oh boy. Sign me up. Or have my annoying parents or friends call. I prefer screening with my answering machine at my convience thank you. There really is no advantage of a cell phone except that the office follows you where ever you go. And do not be decieved that carrying a cell phone somehow increases your job performance and efficiancy. It just doesn't. Can you think of anyone who has got promoted because his cell phone made him or her like %40 more productive? Its all bs. If I need to call someone, I can just find a pay phone. A standard old fashioned rj-11 line meets my needs just fine. Infact my father is an executive and even he never uses one. I asked him why because he is a VP. He answered when I leave my office, I want my office to stay where it is thank you.
Also I give a message to the phone companies that I will not be jerked around. Give me cell phone access for $20 a month( same as regular phone line) or I wont switch. I find a simularity between the MPAA and megaTeleco trying to persuade everyone that the world will leave without you if you do not buy there latest products. I just laugh at them and count the money saved in my wallet.
Re:Glad I do not own a cell phone (Score:2)
Very useful.
Re:Glad I do not own a cell phone (Score:2)
My cell phone has callerID, no extra charge, along with voice mail. Not quite as good as a an answering machine for call screening, but still good enough. When my cell phone rings I'm perfectly free to not answer it. You would not belive how shoked people are when my phone rings and I just keep on talking, letting it ring!
My cell phone is a convience, and I do not let it rule my life. And considering the services I get, it is cheaper than a land line too!
I don't see why any single person in todays world would have a land line, and I'm starting to think families will soon be the same way.
Seems we have a good deal in the UK (Score:2)
But by either paying about £30 to the phone company, or about half that to an "unlocker" you can easiliy get your phone unlocked to work on any network. And the phone companies seem to allow any phone to work on their network. After all, its in their interest to try to prevent you from using your phone on other networks, but in their interest that you use your unlock phone on *their* network rather than another one.
And the cost of calls seem to be considerably less here that in the USA from what I've seen
Re:Seems we have a good deal in the UK (Score:2)
Wow, how wrong can they possibly be? (Score:3, Informative)
The carriers basically dictate required features to handset manufacturers.
I've seen these requirements, and they don't generally dictate anything other than what the GSM standards require. It's a way to ensure that all the phones on the network have the same set of features for the customer. Take Orange for example, a major operator in the U.K. They require 2-line support on all their phones, so they can offer phones with 2-lines to all their customers. This is a customer win, and is a key reason to pick Orange over someone else in the U.K.
Phones are tied to specific carriers and cannot be moved between carriers.
Absolutely! No question! And they should be! That lovely little Nokia 8290 you just got was likely subsidised to the tune of $100-$150 by your new operator. If the operator wants any chance of getting their money back for that subsidy, they have to prevent you from getting a cheap phone from them and then grabbing a SIM from another operator.
Most operators will gladly unlock your phone for you so you can use it on another network, especially in Europe. Just call them up and ask. They might charge you ~$50, but that's still less than their subsidy. Even Voicestream in the US will do this for free if you ask them, I've had it done.
Carriers refuse to allow handsets on their network they didn't approve.
This is flat out wrong. I've been using tri-band phones that I purchase in Europe over in the U.S. for years with my basic Voicestream SIM. In fact, I've never purchased a phone from Voicestream. Cingular does this as well. AT&T currently doesn't sell SIM-only packages, but they are going to. (Keep in mind they *just* started GSM service, and are still trying to get everything sorted out).
Manufacturers thus cannot sell handsets that aren't approved by carriers because carriers will not allow them to be used.
True, you cannot sell a handset *to an operator* that the operator hasn't approved for sale on their network. This is because the operator is responsible for all the support calls, replacement, and management of the phones on their network. Would you buy 1,000,000 phones from a company if it hasn't passed your quality assurance tests? Heck no!
If your phone fails these tests then it just means that you can't sell your phone to the operator directly and have to make it available through other channels. But (and again, if I've seen these tests) if you can't pass the tests then something is *seriously* wrong with your phone.
While it hasn't hit the U.S. yet, there are companies in Europe that make a killing selling phones that are not tied to a specific operator. Carphone Warehouse is a great example from the U.K., and you can bet that now that the U.S. has woken up to cellular it won't be too long before the same types of companies are available here.
All of this rises costs for the consumer, making it difficult and more expensive to switch carriers, and unfairly restrains trade for both handsets and cellular services.
This is the statement that shocked me the most. Have you *looked* at cellphone pricing and plans lately? My newspaper is constantly filled with offers that include 1, 2, or even 4 phones for *free*, with tons of minues included. For $29.99 a month I can get a really nice phone and more airtime than I can possibly use in a month.
If the operators *couldn't* lock their phones to their network to guarantee they'll make back their subsidy, do you actually think the prices will go *down*?
Re:Wow, how wrong can they possibly be? (Score:2)
1. Voicestream is probably one of the more liberal companies with regards to many of these points, including providing unlock codes for their phones after being a customer for three months. I've never used any of the Voicestream-branded phones with my Voicestream service.
2. GSM phones in general are more versatile because the technology generally allows for easier interoperability/portability. This same technology is going to allow Cingular and Voicestream to share spectrum and towers in CA/NV/NY.
3. There are certainly "cheap" phones to be had out there. In order to get the "free" or even "subsidized" phones, you have to sign a one (or more) year service agreement or pay a hefty termination fee. Okay, they have to make their money back on the phone, but what if I find out two or three months into my contract that their service won't meet my needs? That's just money down the tubes. Note that these contracts apply even if you already have a compatible phone, which is something I don't understand.
4. Technology issues aside, why can't I buy a phone once and use it with any service provider? We know it's technically possible to make a phone that has GSM, TDMA, CDMA, and AMPS all in one unit. What is preventing Nokia or any other company from making that kind of a phone? Quite simply, no carrier would approve such a phone. Why? It would be too easy for someone to switch carriers. It's the same reason they're dragging their feet on number portability.
-- PhoneBoy
Re:The token "free" market response (Score:2)
Re:The token "free" market response (Score:2)
Re:The US Gov is the ultimate ball dropper. (Score:2)
One of the main reason why Japan and other countries in the world today have better wireless technology is because of the fact that the landline is way too expensive
For example in Japan, you still have to pay by the minute for LOCAL call from landlines!
USA is too big and landlines are cheap, that's why it take a lot of incentives for the mass to get wireless.
That's my theory anyways.
Re:The US Gov is the ultimate ball dropper. (Score:2)
The rest of the world is actually *bigger* than the US (shock!) and GSM works just fine there...