The $99 iPhone is turning the wireless industry on its head, and not
in a good way. It's having an obvious negative affect on AT&T (NYSE:
T)'s bottom line, and it's causing some serious pain for other makers
of mobile devices.
Eric wants all carriers to stop this subsidy business and raise their
prices. What do you think?
Is it unfair that the iPhone is currently killing others cell phone
manufacturers or is it merely the recession?
To me it is like Rupert Murdock who is railing against Google for
making Google News available for free and he is asking for the world
to stop them. He wants to sell you the news on Fox TV or one of his
newspapers. The Internet is destroying his business model that made
him one of the wealthiest men in the world.
I no longer buy a newspaper but watch video and read the news on the
iPhone which is a perfect substitute for proving information that is
fresh. Rupert doesn't get a dime from me which suits me just fine.
CNN also has a much more competitive app right there on the iPhone
with live video.
There is no charge for CNN content which makes Rupert furious.
Rupert has just one decent app on the iPhone called iReport so you can
submit breaking news and video to FOX. You give it to him for free and
he sells it at a profit to consumers bundled with advertising. The
only one who had a better idea for creating wealth was Bernie Madoff.
Is the iPhone killing other cell phones and the newspaper? Should the
iPhone be banned in the USA to protect these industries and wealthy
enterprises?
In article <buGdnbSK1vTkJU7XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
News <News@Groups.Name> wrote:
> Apple jerk wrote:
>
> > The iPhone Is Too Cheap
>
> Data plan is too cheap. Charge what congestion it imposes on others.
Translation:
"My phone is crap so I never use much data! Why should I have to pay the
same rates for data when I never use it?! Wahhh! Damn those iPhone users
with their spiffy phones! They suck! I am so jealous I spend all my time
trolling their news groups!! I will make them pay!!! PAY I tell you!!!"
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <buGdnbSK1vTkJU7XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> News <News@Groups.Name> wrote:
>
>> Apple jerk wrote:
>>
>>> The iPhone Is Too Cheap
>> Data plan is too cheap. Charge what congestion it imposes on others.
>
> Translation:
>
> "My phone is crap so I never use much data! Why should I have to pay the
> same rates for data when I never use it?! Wahhh! Damn those iPhone users
> with their spiffy phones! They suck! I am so jealous I spend all my time
> trolling their news groups!! I will make them pay!!! PAY I tell you!!!"
>
Translation:
"Gladly wasting the commons. Who cares about the implications".
> In article <buGdnbSK1vTkJU7XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> News <News@Groups.Name> wrote:
>
>> Apple jerk wrote:
>>
>> > The iPhone Is Too Cheap
>>
>> Data plan is too cheap. Charge what congestion it imposes on others.
>
> Translation:
>
> "My phone is crap so I never use much data! Why should I have to pay the
> same rates for data when I never use it?! Wahhh! Damn those iPhone users
> with their spiffy phones! They suck! I am so jealous I spend all my time
> trolling their news groups!! I will make them pay!!! PAY I tell you!!!"
>
More like, "Damn those iPhone users that wouldn't know a real smartphone if
it had a name tag on." They represent a huge waste of bandwidth and
network.
And now you need to go. We have strict rules around here- only one
retarded fanboi to a thread and Oxford beat you to it. Now go tell Mommy
to change the channel- your favorite Dora episode is coming on.
"Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk"
<vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9de746cd-d348-4faa-86c5-0667d9ab3fb1@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> The iPhone Is Too Cheap
> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/..._iphone_is_t_1.
html;jsessionid=EU5H3EJIBW3R5QE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN
>
> Posted by Eric Zeman, Oct 12, 2009 11:33 AM
>
>
>
> The $99 iPhone is turning the wireless industry on its head, and not
> in a good way. It's having an obvious negative affect on AT&T (NYSE:
> T)'s bottom line, and it's causing some serious pain for other makers
> of mobile devices.
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/..._iphone_is_t_1.
html;jsessionid=EU5H3EJIBW3R5QE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN
>
> Is the iPhone too disruptive?
>
> Eric wants all carriers to stop this subsidy business and raise their
> prices. What do you think?
>
> Is it unfair that the iPhone is currently killing others cell phone
> manufacturers or is it merely the recession?
>
> To me it is like Rupert Murdock who is railing against Google for
> making Google News available for free and he is asking for the world
> to stop them. He wants to sell you the news on Fox TV or one of his
> newspapers. The Internet is destroying his business model that made
> him one of the wealthiest men in the world.
>
>
> I no longer buy a newspaper but watch video and read the news on the
> iPhone which is a perfect substitute for proving information that is
> fresh. Rupert doesn't get a dime from me which suits me just fine.
>
> CNN also has a much more competitive app right there on the iPhone
> with live video.
> There is no charge for CNN content which makes Rupert furious.
>
> Rupert has just one decent app on the iPhone called iReport so you can
> submit breaking news and video to FOX. You give it to him for free and
> he sells it at a profit to consumers bundled with advertising. The
> only one who had a better idea for creating wealth was Bernie Madoff.
>
> Is the iPhone killing other cell phones and the newspaper? Should the
> iPhone be banned in the USA to protect these industries and wealthy
> enterprises?
The problem isn't the iPhone (or data-capable phones in general). The
problem, as usual, is lazy, greedy telephone / mobile phone companies that
have been raking in massive profits for years (mostly paid to the greedy
management and shareholders) while spending as little as possible on their
equipment and services. Now they've "suddenly" discovered that they are so
far behind the times that they have to spend much more and upgrade quickly
to stay in business.
In article <Xns9CA2B50B3BFE2blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>,
John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote in news:jollyroger-
> 2C2669.18254912102009@news.individual.net:
>
> > In article <buGdnbSK1vTkJU7XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> > News <News@Groups.Name> wrote:
> >
> >> Apple jerk wrote:
> >>
> >> > The iPhone Is Too Cheap
> >>
> >> Data plan is too cheap. Charge what congestion it imposes on others.
> >
> > Translation:
> >
> > "My phone is crap so I never use much data! Why should I have to pay the
> > same rates for data when I never use it?! Wahhh! Damn those iPhone users
> > with their spiffy phones! They suck! I am so jealous I spend all my time
> > trolling their news groups!! I will make them pay!!! PAY I tell you!!!"
>
> More like, "Damn those iPhone users that wouldn't know a real smartphone if
> it had a name tag on." They represent a huge waste of bandwidth and
> network.
Sure. : ) Because smart phone users don't deserve to use the internet,
right?
> And now you need to go. We have strict rules around here- only one
> retarded fanboi to a thread and Oxford beat you to it. Now go tell Mommy
> to change the channel- your favorite Dora episode is coming on.
It's too bad you won't follow your own advice.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
At 12 Oct 2009 18:25:49 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <buGdnbSK1vTkJU7XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> News <News@Groups.Name> wrote:
>
> > Apple jerk wrote:
> >
> > > The iPhone Is Too Cheap
> >
> > Data plan is too cheap. Charge what congestion it imposes on others.
>
> Translation:
>
> "My phone is crap so I never use much data! Why should I have to pay the
> same rates for data when I never use it?! Wahhh! Damn those iPhone users
> with their spiffy phones! They suck! I am so jealous I spend all my time
> trolling their news groups!! I will make them pay!!! PAY I tell you!!!"
Kiding aside, though, isn't that what AT&T does anyway? Offer every phone
an "unlimited plan, priced at AT&T's expectation of use?
Pre-iPhone, AT&T set the rates at $15/month for dumbphones, $30 for
smartphones, both "unlimited." AT&T expected smartphones, on average, to
consume more data and charged them extra: the cellular data equivalent of
an all-you-can-eat buffet restaurant charging skinny people $15, and fat
people $30, regardless of how much they ate individually, since the law of
averages would validate the separate charges .
Now we have the iPhone users, according to AT&T, using 4x the data that
other smartphone users do (on average), so logically, given AT&T's stupid
pricing structure (charge based on the device's expected, rather than actual,
use) iPhones "should" pay more.
With an unlimited plan, users have no incentive to take it easy. If your
electric bill was unlimited, you'd be less likely to turn off lights when
you left a room; if your heating bill was unlimited, you wouldn't turn the
thermostat down to 68 and wear a sweater.
Similarly, with unlimited data, users have no incentive to "conserve" data-
who bothers to switch to WiFi before checking email or quickly Googling
something?
If AT&T wanted to reduce congestion they could incent users to use less.
Leave the unlimted plan at $30 through the end of the contract, but
automatically rerate data-conserving customers with lower charges on a
monthly basis; e.g. customers who use less than 50MB/month only pay $10,
less than 100MB pay $15, 200MB pay $20, etc. Make this apply to PDA phones
and data cards as well, and have a text shortcode or GSM dial code (e.g.
#DATA#) so users could get up to the minute, accurate, usage info.
Suddenly you'd have users using WiFi where available, setting their email
update intervals less frequently, listening to their preloaded media rather
than streaming- in short, treating data like Ed Begley Jr. treats
electricity!
Post-contract (and immediately for new users), you'd raise the "unlimited
tier" to $50, and set a reasonable number at $30; say the 400 MB the
"average" iPhone is currently using. This way, those who use less pay less,
and those that use more pay more.
Of course, this might mean a little less revenue for AT&T, so they'd never
go for it, but it'd be cheaper in the short term than the negative publicity.
Last time on alt.cellular.attws, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
said:
>In article <buGdnbSK1vTkJU7XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> News <News@Groups.Name> wrote:
>
>> Apple jerk wrote:
>>
>> > The iPhone Is Too Cheap
>>
>> Data plan is too cheap. Charge what congestion it imposes on others.
>
>Translation:
>
>"My phone is crap so I never use much data! Why should I have to pay the
>same rates for data when I never use it?! Wahhh! Damn those iPhone users
>with their spiffy phones! They suck! I am so jealous I spend all my time
>trolling their news groups!! I will make them pay!!! PAY I tell you!!!"
Will you continue to be "Jolly" when AT&T starts capping your
bandwidth?
Fred wrote:
> Last time on alt.cellular.attws, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> said:
>
>> In article <buGdnbSK1vTkJU7XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
>> News <News@Groups.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple jerk wrote:
>>>
>>>> The iPhone Is Too Cheap
>>> Data plan is too cheap. Charge what congestion it imposes on others.
>> Translation:
>>
>> "My phone is crap so I never use much data! Why should I have to pay the
>> same rates for data when I never use it?! Wahhh! Damn those iPhone users
>> with their spiffy phones! They suck! I am so jealous I spend all my time
>> trolling their news groups!! I will make them pay!!! PAY I tell you!!!"
>
> Will you continue to be "Jolly" when AT&T starts capping your
> bandwidth?
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 12 Oct 2009 18:25:49 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
>> In article <buGdnbSK1vTkJU7XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
>> News <News@Groups.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple jerk wrote:
>>>
>>>> The iPhone Is Too Cheap
>>> Data plan is too cheap. Charge what congestion it imposes on others.
>> Translation:
>>
>> "My phone is crap so I never use much data! Why should I have to pay the
>> same rates for data when I never use it?! Wahhh! Damn those iPhone users
>> with their spiffy phones! They suck! I am so jealous I spend all my time
>> trolling their news groups!! I will make them pay!!! PAY I tell you!!!"
>
>
> Kiding aside, though, isn't that what AT&T does anyway? Offer every phone
> an "unlimited plan, priced at AT&T's expectation of use?
>
> Pre-iPhone, AT&T set the rates at $15/month for dumbphones, $30 for
> smartphones, both "unlimited." AT&T expected smartphones, on average, to
> consume more data and charged them extra: the cellular data equivalent of
> an all-you-can-eat buffet restaurant charging skinny people $15, and fat
> people $30, regardless of how much they ate individually, since the law of
> averages would validate the separate charges .
>
> Now we have the iPhone users, according to AT&T, using 4x the data that
> other smartphone users do (on average), so logically, given AT&T's stupid
> pricing structure (charge based on the device's expected, rather than actual,
> use) iPhones "should" pay more.
>
> With an unlimited plan, users have no incentive to take it easy. If your
> electric bill was unlimited, you'd be less likely to turn off lights when
> you left a room; if your heating bill was unlimited, you wouldn't turn the
> thermostat down to 68 and wear a sweater.
> Similarly, with unlimited data, users have no incentive to "conserve" data-
> who bothers to switch to WiFi before checking email or quickly Googling
> something?
>
> If AT&T wanted to reduce congestion they could incent users to use less.
> Leave the unlimted plan at $30 through the end of the contract, but
> automatically rerate data-conserving customers with lower charges on a
> monthly basis; e.g. customers who use less than 50MB/month only pay $10,
> less than 100MB pay $15, 200MB pay $20, etc. Make this apply to PDA phones
> and data cards as well, and have a text shortcode or GSM dial code (e.g.
> #DATA#) so users could get up to the minute, accurate, usage info.
>
> Suddenly you'd have users using WiFi where available, setting their email
> update intervals less frequently, listening to their preloaded media rather
> than streaming- in short, treating data like Ed Begley Jr. treats
> electricity!
>
> Post-contract (and immediately for new users), you'd raise the "unlimited
> tier" to $50, and set a reasonable number at $30; say the 400 MB the
> "average" iPhone is currently using. This way, those who use less pay less,
> and those that use more pay more.
>
> Of course, this might mean a little less revenue for AT&T, so they'd never
> go for it, but it'd be cheaper in the short term than the negative publicity.
>
>
>
Not to mention the CAPEX required to temporarily ease iToy-induced
congestion.
> Of course, this might mean a little less revenue for AT&T, so they'd never
> go for it, but it'd be cheaper in the short term than the negative publicity.
It could mean more revenue for AT&T. Tiered pricing could attract
customers that want an iPhone but that don't buy it because they don't
use enough data to make the $30 monthly extra cost worth it.
They'd have to offer one pricing plan that clearly shows a lower price
for lighter users, rather than just a price increase for heavy users,
and the formula would have to be simple, i.e. $5/GB capped at $50.
Tethering would be permitted.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ad4afcc$0$1629$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Of course, this might mean a little less revenue for AT&T, so they'd
>> never
>> go for it, but it'd be cheaper in the short term than the negative
>> publicity.
>
> It could mean more revenue for AT&T. Tiered pricing could attract
> customers that want an iPhone but that don't buy it because they don't use
> enough data to make the $30 monthly extra cost worth it.
>
> They'd have to offer one pricing plan that clearly shows a lower price for
> lighter users, rather than just a price increase for heavy users, and the
> formula would have to be simple, i.e. $5/GB capped at $50. Tethering would
> be permitted.
"$5/GB"? I know we're both just picking numbers out of our backsides, but
at least I'm trying to be realistic!
The average data use of an iPhone, according to AT&T, is only 400MB. That's
right- apparently all it takes for users to bring down a 3G network is to
each download a little over half the capacity of one data CD per month!
The average (non-iPhone) smartphone uses less than 100MB of data. I wonder
what dumbphones use? 5MB? 10? Giving users a Gigabyte for $5 would be,
for most people, about as good as unlimited!
Currently there's a 5GB limit on tethered phones, which would work out
to $25 for 5GB. Whatever, the point is that they have to not come up
with multiple plans or a complex algorithm, but a way that clearly
rewards light users without having heavy users end up with a
multi-hundred dollar bill each month.
> The average data use of an iPhone, according to AT&T, is only 400MB.
> That's right- apparently all it takes for users to bring down a 3G
> network is to each download a little over half the capacity of one data
> CD per month!
I didn't realize the average was so low. Okay $5 for every 50MB. Alas
that's such a good deal that they'd get every smart phone user on their
network signing up for it.
Actually the new PagePlus 1200 minute plan for $25 included 50MB of data
which might actually be sufficient for many users since the included
1200 MMS messages don't count against the 50MB. Additional MB are $0.60.
In any case, what we think would be a good idea is immaterial. AT&T has
no doubt done extensive studies on the pricing structure that will
generate the most money, and they know that no iPhone customers are
leaving simply because the network is slow. They may lose a few
non-iPhone smart phone users but they don't have all that many of those.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote in
news:jollyroger-182E6D.22553812102009@news.individual.net:
> In article <Xns9CA2B50B3BFE2blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>,
> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
>
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote in news:jollyroger-
>> 2C2669.18254912102009@news.individual.net:
>>
>> > In article <buGdnbSK1vTkJU7XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
>> > News <News@Groups.Name> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Apple jerk wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The iPhone Is Too Cheap
>> >>
>> >> Data plan is too cheap. Charge what congestion it imposes on
>> >> others.
>> >
>> > Translation:
>> >
>> > "My phone is crap so I never use much data! Why should I have to
>> > pay the same rates for data when I never use it?! Wahhh! Damn those
>> > iPhone users with their spiffy phones! They suck! I am so jealous I
>> > spend all my time trolling their news groups!! I will make them
>> > pay!!! PAY I tell you!!!"
>>
>> More like, "Damn those iPhone users that wouldn't know a real
>> smartphone if it had a name tag on." They represent a huge waste of
>> bandwidth and network.
>
> Sure. : ) Because smart phone users don't deserve to use the
> internet, right?
If they were smart, they'd get a real phone, not a glorified iPod.
>
>> And now you need to go. We have strict rules around here- only one
>> retarded fanboi to a thread and Oxford beat you to it. Now go tell
>> Mommy to change the channel- your favorite Dora episode is coming on.
>
> It's too bad you won't follow your own advice.
>
On 2009-10-13, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> "$5/GB"?
>
> Currently there's a 5GB limit on tethered phones, which would work out
> to $25 for 5GB. Whatever, the point is that they have to not come up
$25? I think I had to pay $60 for a 5 GB plan which explicitly
allowed tethering, same as Verizon. I only ever used a gigabyte or so
per month.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that AT&T, and the US in general,
is all screwed up if you compare it to other places. My wife uses
between 150 MB and 250 MB a month on her iPhone. The 3G operator she
uses in the UK gives you 150 MB of data allowance every time you top up
the phone with $16, so her data, text and (considerable) voice usage
ends up costing something less than $30/month, including taxes (if she
used more data she could by a GB or 2 for a month for $8 more). I can
buy 1GB of tethered/air card use for $16 (3GB for $25), and that network
isn't particularly overloaded. And this is in a country where everything
else costs about twice as much as in the US these days.
The same service from AT&T for my wife would cost, what, $80 or $90 per
month on the bill's bottom line, yet despite this rather prodigious
revenue stream AT&T can't manage to build enough network to support
the use (though I did notice they managed to book some pretty nice
profits last quarter)?!?
> It is hard to escape the conclusion that AT&T, and the US in general,
> is all screwed up if you compare it to other places.
Screwed up for users perhaps, but the carriers seem happy with the
current system.
> My wife uses
> between 150 MB and 250 MB a month on her iPhone. The 3G operator she
> uses in the UK gives you 150 MB of data allowance every time you top up
> the phone with $16, so her data, text and (considerable) voice usage
> ends up costing something less than $30/month, including taxes (if she
> used more data she could by a GB or 2 for a month for $8 more). I can
> buy 1GB of tethered/air card use for $16 (3GB for $25), and that network
> isn't particularly overloaded. And this is in a country where everything
> else costs about twice as much as in the US these days.
The only thing about that accounting is that the U.K. is caller pays, so
the cost of voice usage is borne more by the caller than by the subscriber.
While not as cheap as the UK plan your wife has, the new PagePlus 1200
plan gives you 1200 voice minutes, 1200 MMS or texts, and 50MB of 3G
data (and you don't use your data allocation for MMS) for around $25.
> The same service from AT&T for my wife would cost, what, $80 or $90 per
> month on the bill's bottom line, yet despite this rather prodigious
> revenue stream AT&T can't manage to build enough network to support
> the use (though I did notice they managed to book some pretty nice
> profits last quarter)?!?
They actually reduced capital spending for this fiscal year from the
previous year. Again, booking nice profits doesn't mean they'll spend
more on upgrading their network, it means a higher stock price, larger
bonuses, etc.. Also, even though AT&T is spending money on upgrading
their network, it takes a lot of time to get new towers approved, build
them, and get them on line. It took about nine years and three different
owners of the network (PBMS, Cingular, T-Mobile) to get the 1900 MHz
T-Mobile tower near my house built and brought on line. The quick fix is
moving most of the 3G to 850 Mhz, but this won't solve the underlying
problems.
> In any case, what we think would be a good idea is immaterial. AT&T has
> no doubt done extensive studies on the pricing structure that will
> generate the most money, and they know that no iPhone customers are
> leaving simply because the network is slow. They may lose a few
> non-iPhone smart phone users but they don't have all that many of those.
Probably because iPhone users don't have alternatives in the US.
In Denmark three of the four large cell phone companies sell iPhones and
since the law only allows the companies to bind their customers for six
months, the customers can quickly find a new cell phone provider.
Outside the US all companies use GSM and 3G so all phones are can be
used with any carrier ... with an 'un-locked' phone.
In the US only AT&T supports GSM and 3G nationwide so in the cell phone
market it is the US that is a developing country. In all other countries
that I know of, all cell phone companies support at least GSM.
It seems as if the US government doesnt keep a firm hold on technology
standards - but of course the US hasn't even moved from miles and
gallons to kilometres and liters yet.
In Denmark, after six months cell phone companies have to un-lock the
phones sold. For free, if the customers demands them un-locked and then
you are free to use any cell phone company. At present I pay less than
$15 a month for an iPhone subscribtion with 100 MB data traffic a month
included. This could be reduced to $5 a month with payment for actual
use. My data traffic, up and down, is at around 50 MB a month. Tethering
included. But of course I only use the 3G net when I am not covered by
WiFi ...
A free market regulated by state-supported international standards is
good for customers ...
--
Per Erik R鴑ne http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
> The same service from AT&T for my wife would cost, what, $80 or $90 per
> month on the bill's bottom line, yet despite this rather prodigious
> revenue stream AT&T can't manage to build enough network to support
> the use (though I did notice they managed to book some pretty nice
> profits last quarter)?!?
Simply put: Lack of competition. AT&T is the only nationwide company in
the US that supports GSM and 3G ... in the US cell phones are
manufactured in a way so that they can only be used to connect to one
cell phone carrier ...
--
Per Erik R鴑ne http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
> It took about nine years and three different owners of the network (PBMS,
> Cingular, T-Mobile) to get the 1900 MHz T-Mobile tower near my house built
> and brought on line. The quick fix is moving most of the 3G to 850 Mhz,
> but this won't solve the underlying problems.
Don't the network owners share the towers? In Denmark they have to. No
need to have more towers than necessary spoiling the landscape.
Of course, when using different standards I guess roaming isn't
possible. Except for non-Americans visiting the US - we are roaming with
the AT&T network. GSM and 3G.
--
Per Erik R鴑ne http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
In article <1j7k5pm.t4om46o5fm3qN%per@RQNNE.invalid>, Per R鴑ne
<per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> Probably because iPhone users don't have alternatives in the US.
they can use an iphone on t-mobile, although getting an iphone without
an at&t contract won't be cheap.
> In the US only AT&T supports GSM and 3G nationwide so in the cell phone
> market it is the US that is a developing country. In all other countries
> that I know of, all cell phone companies support at least GSM.
t-mobile supports 3g, however, it's on a different band than at&t so
iphone users who use t-mobile will only get 2g.
> In Denmark, after six months cell phone companies have to un-lock the
> phones sold. For free, if the customers demands them un-locked and then
> you are free to use any cell phone company.
with every phone *other* than an iphone, both at&t and t-mobile will
provide an unlock code for free as long as you are a customer in good
standing. t-mobile does it once every six months and i assume at&t is
the same or similar.
> At present I pay less than
> $15 a month for an iPhone subscribtion with 100 MB data traffic a month
> included.
At 13 Oct 2009 19:36:07 -0500 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2009-10-13, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Todd Allcock wrote:
> >
> >> "$5/GB"?
> >
> > Currently there's a 5GB limit on tethered phones, which would work out
> > to $25 for 5GB. Whatever, the point is that they have to not come up
>
> $25? I think I had to pay $60 for a 5 GB plan which explicitly
> allowed tethering, same as Verizon. I only ever used a gigabyte or so
> per month.
I think he meant $25 above and beyond the existing $30 on-phone data plan
(though it's actually $30 extra.)
> It is hard to escape the conclusion that AT&T, and the US in general,
> is all screwed up if you compare it to other places. My wife uses
> between 150 MB and 250 MB a month on her iPhone. The 3G operator she
> uses in the UK gives you 150 MB of data allowance every time you top up
> the phone with $16, so her data, text and (considerable) voice usage
> ends up costing something less than $30/month, including taxes (if she
> used more data she could by a GB or 2 for a month for $8 more). I can
> buy 1GB of tethered/air card use for $16 (3GB for $25), and that network
> isn't particularly overloaded. And this is in a country where everything
> else costs about twice as much as in the US these days.
I think part of the problem is the US carriers found customers resistant to
metered data, due to fears of potential overages so virtually all postpaid
data plans here are "unlimited" (other than the various hard and soft caps
on PC card/tethered plans.) Unfortunately, as I said eariler, that gives
end-users little or no incentive to use alternatives.
I'm just as guilty myself; a bazillion years ago (in "tech years") when I
used a standalone PDA tethered to a GPRS phone with a 20-40kbbs connection
speed (or even earlier using 9.6kbps CSD!) I'd always look for WiFi first,
even though my cell data was "unlimited," in order to have a decent
connection speed. If no WiFi was available, I'd "settle" for cellular
data. Now with reasonable speeds available via cellular, I rarely bother
to turn on WiFi- using the existing cellular connection is simpler. If I
had a data cap, or paid for data in blocks like you describe, I'd use WiFi
whenever possible.
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Apple users seem to always
get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk <vic.healey@gmail.com>
wrote:
>The iPhone Is Too Cheap
>http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...RSKH4ATMY32JVN
>
>Posted by Eric Zeman, Oct 12, 2009 11:33 AM
>
>
>
>The $99 iPhone is turning the wireless industry on its head, and not
>in a good way. It's having an obvious negative affect on AT&T (NYSE:
>T)'s bottom line, and it's causing some serious pain for other makers
>of mobile devices.
>
>http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...RSKH4ATMY32JVN
>
>Is the iPhone too disruptive?
>---
>
>Eric wants all carriers to stop this subsidy business and raise their
>prices. What do you think?
>
>Is it unfair that the iPhone is currently killing others cell phone
>manufacturers or is it merely the recession?
>
>To me it is like Rupert Murdock who is railing against Google for
>making Google News available for free and he is asking for the world
>to stop them. He wants to sell you the news on Fox TV or one of his
>newspapers. The Internet is destroying his business model that made
>him one of the wealthiest men in the world.
>
>
>I no longer buy a newspaper but watch video and read the news on the
>iPhone which is a perfect substitute for proving information that is
>fresh. Rupert doesn't get a dime from me which suits me just fine.
>
>CNN also has a much more competitive app right there on the iPhone
>with live video.
That APP is $1.99 and much slower in pushing News to you than the free
ABC APP for the iPhone is.
>There is no charge for CNN content which makes Rupert furious.
CNN Mobile is $1.99 and is still full of ads.
>
>Rupert has just one decent app on the iPhone called iReport so you can
>submit breaking news and video to FOX. You give it to him for free and
>he sells it at a profit to consumers bundled with advertising. The
>only one who had a better idea for creating wealth was Bernie Madoff.
>
>
>
>Is the iPhone killing other cell phones and the newspaper? Should the
>iPhone be banned in the USA to protect these industries and wealthy
>enterprises?
>
>
>
The iPhone Is Too Cheap 
Linear Mode
