Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > Cellular Communications > US Networks > alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 06:23 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

In today's San Jose Murky News:

"http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12764874"

Apple could argue that they don't want to do a CDMA version just for the
U.S. and South Korea, but they could not defend against not allowing the
iPhone to be used on T-Mobile or other U.S. GSM carriers. Of course
Apple would probably be thrilled if the U.S. government deemed that it's
exclusivity arrangement with AT&T were not legal, since they could
quickly bring out a CDMA model, as well as sell the current model on
T-Mobile, adding another 150 million people to the total available
market for the iPhone in the U.S..

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 06:41 PM
nospam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

In article <TnM4m.5050$Jb1.653@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Apple could argue that they don't want to do a CDMA version just for the
> U.S. and South Korea, but they could not defend against not allowing the
> iPhone to be used on T-Mobile or other U.S. GSM carriers. Of course
> Apple would probably be thrilled if the U.S. government deemed that it's
> exclusivity arrangement with AT&T were not legal, since they could
> quickly bring out a CDMA model, as well as sell the current model on
> T-Mobile, adding another 150 million people to the total available
> market for the iPhone in the U.S..


why would apple be thrilled if the government forced them to make
products they are not interested in making? plus the current iphone
would not work on t-mobile's 3g network, so it too would need a
redesign and it won't be 'quick' to bring out a cdma version either.
anyway, this whole issue will pretty much go away with lte.

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:54 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:23:38 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <TnM4m.5050$Jb1.653@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>:

>In today's San Jose Murky News:
>
>"http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12764874"
>
>Apple could argue that they don't want to do a CDMA version just for the
>U.S. and South Korea, but they could not defend against not allowing the
>iPhone to be used on T-Mobile or other U.S. GSM carriers. Of course
>Apple would probably be thrilled if the U.S. government deemed that it's
>exclusivity arrangement with AT&T were not legal, since they could
>quickly bring out a CDMA model, as well as sell the current model on
>T-Mobile, adding another 150 million people to the total available
>market for the iPhone in the U.S..


That's just plain silly (even for you). Apple benefits from the AT&T
exclusive just as AT&T does. If it didn't, it wouldn't do it, and is no
more eager to have government interference in the market than any other
strong player..

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:49 PM
Larry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:TnM4m.5050$Jb1.653
@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com:

> In today's San Jose Murky News:
>
> "http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12764874"
>
> Apple could argue that they don't want to do a CDMA version just for the
> U.S. and South Korea, but they could not defend against not allowing the
> iPhone to be used on T-Mobile or other U.S. GSM carriers. Of course
> Apple would probably be thrilled if the U.S. government deemed that it's
> exclusivity arrangement with AT&T were not legal, since they could
> quickly bring out a CDMA model, as well as sell the current model on
> T-Mobile, adding another 150 million people to the total available
> market for the iPhone in the U.S..
>


Deals between makers and carriers doesn't worry me near as much as deals
between REGULATORS and carriers does. THAT is what needs close inspection
and a few hangings.

--
-----
Larry

Noone will be safe until the last lawyer has been strangled by the entrails
of the last cleric.


Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 10:10 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come underscrutiny"

On Jul 7, 11:41*am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <TnM4m.5050$Jb1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS
>
> <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Apple could argue that they don't want to do a CDMA version just for the
> > U.S. and South Korea, but they could not defend against not allowing the
> > iPhone to be used on T-Mobile or other U.S. GSM carriers. Of course
> > Apple would probably be thrilled if the U.S. government deemed that it's
> > exclusivity arrangement with AT&T were not legal, since they could
> > quickly bring out a CDMA model, as well as sell the current model on
> > T-Mobile, adding another 150 million people to the total available
> > market for the iPhone in the U.S..

>
> why would apple be thrilled if the government forced them to make
> products they are not interested in making? *


They are extremely interested in making those products, but they can't
do it because of the AT&T exclusivity arrangement. If that arrangement
is deemed to be illegal, it frees Apple from those shackles.

Remember, Apple desperately wanted to go with Verizon for the iPhone,
but Verizon turned them down because of Apple's demand for monthly
revenue sharing. AT&T, desperate for new retail postpaid customers,
went along, with the exclusivity agreement as part of the deal.

So what kind of market is Apple missing out on? In the U.S., there are
a lot more CDMA (135 million) users than GSM (111 million) even with
Sprint's recent subscriber losses. Verizon subscribers are especially
loathe to leave Verizon, if you want to know why, look at all the
independent surveys of carrier quality, coverage, and service. Not
even the iPhone will get Verizon subscribers to go to AT&T.

Right now, there's a TAM of 168 million cellular subscribers in the
U.S. (33 million on T-Mobile, 86 million on Verizon, and 49 million on
Sprint) that can't get an iPhone and stay with their current provider.
This is is good news for AT&T, whose subscriber growth is almost
entirely due to the iPhone, but bad news for Apple.

Dropping in a CDMA/EVDO radio is trivial. It's almost certainly
already been prototyped, if not for the U.S., for South Korea.


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 10:24 PM
Richard B. Gilbert
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

SMS wrote:
> On Jul 7, 11:41 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <TnM4m.5050$Jb1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS
>>
>> <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> Apple could argue that they don't want to do a CDMA version just for the
>>> U.S. and South Korea, but they could not defend against not allowing the
>>> iPhone to be used on T-Mobile or other U.S. GSM carriers. Of course
>>> Apple would probably be thrilled if the U.S. government deemed that it's
>>> exclusivity arrangement with AT&T were not legal, since they could
>>> quickly bring out a CDMA model, as well as sell the current model on
>>> T-Mobile, adding another 150 million people to the total available
>>> market for the iPhone in the U.S..

>> why would apple be thrilled if the government forced them to make
>> products they are not interested in making?

>
> They are extremely interested in making those products, but they can't
> do it because of the AT&T exclusivity arrangement. If that arrangement
> is deemed to be illegal, it frees Apple from those shackles.
>
> Remember, Apple desperately wanted to go with Verizon for the iPhone,
> but Verizon turned them down because of Apple's demand for monthly
> revenue sharing. AT&T, desperate for new retail postpaid customers,
> went along, with the exclusivity agreement as part of the deal.
>
> So what kind of market is Apple missing out on? In the U.S., there are
> a lot more CDMA (135 million) users than GSM (111 million) even with
> Sprint's recent subscriber losses. Verizon subscribers are especially
> loathe to leave Verizon, if you want to know why, look at all the
> independent surveys of carrier quality, coverage, and service. Not
> even the iPhone will get Verizon subscribers to go to AT&T.
>
> Right now, there's a TAM of 168 million cellular subscribers in the
> U.S. (33 million on T-Mobile, 86 million on Verizon, and 49 million on
> Sprint) that can't get an iPhone and stay with their current provider.
> This is is good news for AT&T, whose subscriber growth is almost
> entirely due to the iPhone, but bad news for Apple.
>
> Dropping in a CDMA/EVDO radio is trivial. It's almost certainly
> already been prototyped, if not for the U.S., for South Korea.
>


Why do you assume that everyone does, or will, want an iPhone? If you
GAVE me one, I'd sell it and keep right on using my current phone!



Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 10:34 PM
nospam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

In article
<a396990c-29fb-4ba8-b01b-ed865d092360@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, SMS
<scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Apple could argue that they don't want to do a CDMA version just for the
> > > U.S. and South Korea, but they could not defend against not allowing the
> > > iPhone to be used on T-Mobile or other U.S. GSM carriers. Of course
> > > Apple would probably be thrilled if the U.S. government deemed that it's
> > > exclusivity arrangement with AT&T were not legal, since they could
> > > quickly bring out a CDMA model, as well as sell the current model on
> > > T-Mobile, adding another 150 million people to the total available
> > > market for the iPhone in the U.S..

> >
> > why would apple be thrilled if the government forced them to make
> > products they are not interested in making? *

>
> They are extremely interested in making those products, but they can't
> do it because of the AT&T exclusivity arrangement. If that arrangement
> is deemed to be illegal, it frees Apple from those shackles.


if apple or at&t wanted out, they'd get out. according to rumours,
they both just *extended* their contract, so it apparently they're
happy with the arrangement.

> Remember, Apple desperately wanted to go with Verizon for the iPhone,
> but Verizon turned them down because of Apple's demand for monthly
> revenue sharing. AT&T, desperate for new retail postpaid customers,
> went along, with the exclusivity agreement as part of the deal.


that's pure speculation.

> So what kind of market is Apple missing out on? In the U.S., there are
> a lot more CDMA (135 million) users than GSM (111 million) even with
> Sprint's recent subscriber losses. Verizon subscribers are especially
> loathe to leave Verizon, if you want to know why, look at all the
> independent surveys of carrier quality, coverage, and service. Not
> even the iPhone will get Verizon subscribers to go to AT&T.


and they have to balance the cost of having two different versions of
the iphone, one cdma and one gsm, especially with cdma going away in a
few years. they are no doubt waiting on lte to have a multi-carrier
device.

> Right now, there's a TAM of 168 million cellular subscribers in the
> U.S. (33 million on T-Mobile, 86 million on Verizon, and 49 million on
> Sprint) that can't get an iPhone and stay with their current provider.
> This is is good news for AT&T, whose subscriber growth is almost
> entirely due to the iPhone, but bad news for Apple.


it's actually very good news for apple because apple is selling an
awful lot of them. the 3gs broke several sales records, for instance.

> Dropping in a CDMA/EVDO radio is trivial. It's almost certainly
> already been prototyped, if not for the U.S., for South Korea.


so you've seen this mythical cdma iphone or are you talking out your
butt again?

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 10:37 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> Why do you assume that everyone does, or will, want an iPhone? If you
> GAVE me one, I'd sell it and keep right on using my current phone!


Where did I ever say I assumed that? Not everyone, but there are a lot
of Verizon subscribers that would like an iPhone, just not enough to
leave Verizon. Apple can't reach that market. Even if just 5% of Verizon
subscribers wanted an iPhone, that's more than 4 million iPhones.

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 11:19 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

At 07 Jul 2009 15:10:09 -0700 SMS wrote:*

> They are extremely interested in making those products, but they can't
> do it because of the AT&T exclusivity arrangement.


Did I miss the story where Stan Sigman threatened Steve Jobs with
embarrassing photos taken at the 2006 Apple Christmas party?

Unless I missed that, Apple was a willing participant in the exclusivity
deal. What makes you think Apple wants it to go away any more than AT&T
does?

> If that arrangement
> is deemed to be illegal, it frees Apple from those shackles.


Doubtful- more than likely any rulemaking wouldn't be retroactive, but
would let current exclusivity deals run their course. If Apple wants out
as badly as you think, they'll be out when the current deal expires anyway,
no new laws or rulemaking required.


> Remember, Apple desperately wanted to go with Verizon for the iPhone,
> but Verizon turned them down because of Apple's demand for monthly
> revenue sharing.



"Desearately wanted?" Nice revisionist history- all anyone outside Apple
and Verizon knows is that they met, discussed a deal, and no deal happened.
It's equally likely Apple wanted to get preliminary talks out of the way
so they could "write off" CDMA early on, and focus on a phone wth more
world-wide marketability.


> AT&T, desperate for new retail postpaid customers,
> went along, with the exclusivity agreement as part of the deal.


Yes, as part of a revenue sharing deal, which has ince been recinded.
Presumably Apple got something of comparable value in exchange, like a
big pile of upfront money instead.


> So what kind of market is Apple missing out on? In the U.S., there are
> a lot more CDMA (135 million) users than GSM (111 million) even with
> Sprint's recent subscriber losses.


Except that the majority of both of those camps don't give a rat's
hindquarters what technology is in their respective phones. They chose
their current phone and service based on the coolest look, flashiest ads,
most convincing salesperson, or a friend's/co-worker's recommendation.
I'd be surprized if 10% of cell customers knew for certain which
technology was in their handset, (but I'll guess that just about 50% of
wirele
s users guess correctly if offered a multiple choice!)


> Verizon subscribers are especially
> loathe to leave Verizon, if you want to know why, look at all the
> independent surveys of carrier quality, coverage, and service. Not
> even the iPhone will get Verizon subscribers to go to AT&T.


Except, even with the lowest churn in the industry and high ratings, 10%
of VZW customers walk away every year. That's 8 million people, or about
a year's worth of iPhone sales.

> Right now, there's a TAM of 168 million cellular subscribers in the
> U.S. (33 million on T-Mobile, 86 million on Verizon, and 49 million on
> Sprint) that can't get an iPhone and stay with their current provider.


True. There are also millions of Chevy owners who can't buy a new Ford
from their Chevy dealer. So what? They switch dealers when the "other
guys" ofer a desirable product. Other than perhaps a few customers in
rural areas or folks in your immediate vicinity, most Americans get
perfectly adequate coverage from multiple carriers. Otherwise, everyone
(except perhaps iPhone users!) would've switched to Verizon by now.
You've never been sun this og many times, but have never answred this
simple question: why would the 150-plus million non-Verizon customers in
the US not have already switched to the "obviously" superior Verizon
service anytime in the last two decades? We ain't all using iPhones,
Steve!


Verizon's "lowest" churn in such a high churn business as cellular is
akin to winning a ribbon for Best Complexion at a leper colony! Wireless
customers are extremely fickle, and follow the latest shiny object.
There is no reason to believe iPhone sales would increase significantly
if all four carriers magically started carrying it, other than from a few
stubbon loyalists, and perhaps a significant portion of _your_ local PTA
if your local coverage reports are to be believed. Most likely it'd just
cannibalize AT&T iPhone sales, leaving Apple with the same number of
phones sold as today, and without whatever ransom they're currently
extorting from AT&T.


> This is is good news for AT&T, whose subscriber growth is almost
> entirely due to the iPhone, but bad news for Apple.


Not at all. Most likely the iPhone's very competitive price is due to
AT&T's ransom. Once the iPhone loss exclusivity, it loses the power to
dictate favorable terms, becomes a $300-400 phone again, and sales
suddenly drop.

> Dropping in a CDMA/EVDO radio is trivial. It's almost certainly
> already been prototyped, if not for the U.S., for South Korea.


And poof goes the economy of scale that offering only one model wordwide
nets them. That might make little sense, particularly on the eve of LTE
becoming a worldwide interoperability standard, negating any avantage of
producing market-specific models.



Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2009, 11:34 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

At 07 Jul 2009 15:37:39 -0700 SMS wrote:

> > Why do you assume that everyone does, or will, want an iPhone? If
> > you GAVE me one, I'd sell it and keep right on using my current phone!

>
> Where did I ever say I assumed that? Not everyone, but there are a lot
> of Verizon subscribers that would like an iPhone, just not enough to
> leave Verizon. Apple can't reach that market. Even if just 5% of
> Verizon subscribers wanted an iPhone, that's more than 4 million iPhones.



And if only a conservative 75% of your 4 million subscribers lived in an
area where AT&T offered equivalent coverage, those 3 million have already
defected to AT&T for their JesusPhone.

Where do the 8 million former Verizon subscribers that leave every year go,
Steve?

It's a mature market- wireless carriers trade far more existing
subscribers than they acquire new ones.

When I was getting out of the cellular business, the standard retailer
joke was "everyone who wanted a cellphone had a cellphone." Soon, (if
not already,) the same will be true of the iPhone, at least until a new
form factor come along. I'd wager any amount of money that more
potential iPhone sales are lost due to the lack of a model with a keyboard,
the mandatory data plan, or the lack of a more pocketable "iFlipPhone"
than due to it being an AT&T exclusive.



Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 12:08 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 07 Jul 2009 15:10:09 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> They are extremely interested in making those products, but they can't
>> do it because of the AT&T exclusivity arrangement.

>
> Did I miss the story where Stan Sigman threatened Steve Jobs with
> embarrassing photos taken at the 2006 Apple Christmas party?


Yes.

> Unless I missed that, Apple was a willing participant in the exclusivity
> deal. What makes you think Apple wants it to go away any more than AT&T
> does?


Because Apple would get the best of both worlds if the feds say that
these deals are monopolistic. They get out of the exclusivity
arrangement without technically breaking it, and they increase the TAM
for the iPhone by 168 million subscribers.

Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 12:09 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 07 Jul 2009 15:37:39 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>>> Why do you assume that everyone does, or will, want an iPhone? If
>>> you GAVE me one, I'd sell it and keep right on using my current phone!

>> Where did I ever say I assumed that? Not everyone, but there are a lot
>> of Verizon subscribers that would like an iPhone, just not enough to
>> leave Verizon. Apple can't reach that market. Even if just 5% of
>> Verizon subscribers wanted an iPhone, that's more than 4 million iPhones.

>
>
> And if only a conservative 75% of your 4 million subscribers lived in an
> area where AT&T offered equivalent coverage, those 3 million have already
> defected to AT&T for their JesusPhone.


Where would those areas be? None of the major metropolitan areas in the
United States, as you are well aware.

Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 12:14 AM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:08:38 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <jrR4m.6981$iz2.876@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:


>> Unless I missed that, Apple was a willing participant in the exclusivity
>> deal. What makes you think Apple wants it to go away any more than AT&T
>> does?

>
>Because Apple would get the best of both worlds if the feds say that
>these deals are monopolistic. They get out of the exclusivity
>arrangement without technically breaking it, and they increase the TAM
>for the iPhone by 168 million subscribers.


It's not that simple (except to you). Breaking the agreement would
change the deal with AT&T, which might well result is worse economics
for Apple.

If Apple didn't benefit from the AT&T exclusive, it wouldn't do it, your
unhappiness with the iPhone being an AT&T/GSM exclusive notwithstanding.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 12:30 AM
tlvp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come underscrutiny"

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:34:09 -0400, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@anoospaml.com> wrote:

> At 07 Jul 2009 15:37:39 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> > Why do you assume that everyone does, or will, want an iPhone? If
>> > you GAVE me one, I'd sell it and keep right on using my current phone!

>>
>> Where did I ever say I assumed that? Not everyone, but there are a lot
>> of Verizon subscribers that would like an iPhone, just not enough to
>> leave Verizon. Apple can't reach that market. Even if just 5% of
>> Verizon subscribers wanted an iPhone, that's more than 4 million iPhones.

>
>
> And if only a conservative 75% of your 4 million subscribers lived in an
> area where AT&T offered equivalent coverage, those 3 million have already
> defected to AT&T for their JesusPhone.
>
> Where do the 8 million former Verizon subscribers that leave every year go,
> Steve?
>
> It's a mature market- wireless carriers trade far more existing
> subscribers than they acquire new ones.
>
> When I was getting out of the cellular business, the standard retailer
> joke was "everyone who wanted a cellphone had a cellphone." Soon, (if
> not already,) the same will be true of the iPhone, at least until a new
> form factor come along. I'd wager any amount of money that more
> potential iPhone sales are lost due to the lack of a model with a keyboard,
> the mandatory data plan, or the lack of a more pocketable "iFlipPhone"
> than due to it being an AT&T exclusive.


Speaking for myself, Todd, my primary reasons for sticking with my T-Mo account
rather than getting an iPhone with at&t has been at&t and their rate-plans.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 12:49 AM
John Blutarsky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news3p755prqrd13spp1i8vuo6d9u48571aq9@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:08:38 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <jrR4m.6981$iz2.876@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>
>>Todd Allcock wrote:

>
>>> Unless I missed that, Apple was a willing participant in the
>>> exclusivity deal. What makes you think Apple wants it to go away
>>> any more than AT&T does?

>>
>>Because Apple would get the best of both worlds if the feds say that
>>these deals are monopolistic. They get out of the exclusivity
>>arrangement without technically breaking it, and they increase the TAM
>>for the iPhone by 168 million subscribers.

>
> It's not that simple (except to you). Breaking the agreement would
> change the deal with AT&T, which might well result is worse economics
> for Apple.
>
> If Apple didn't benefit from the AT&T exclusive, it wouldn't do it,
> your unhappiness with the iPhone being an AT&T/GSM exclusive
> notwithstanding.
>


The only benefit to Apple at this time is the subsidy paid to them by AT&T
for each unit sold. The same subsidy paid to most other manufacturers by
all carriers, I might add.

Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 01:47 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"


"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:jrR4m.6981$iz2.876@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...

>> Unless I missed that, Apple was a willing participant in the exclusivity
>> deal. What makes you think Apple wants it to go away any more than AT&T
>> does?

>
> Because Apple would get the best of both worlds if the feds say that these
> deals are monopolistic. They get out of the exclusivity arrangement
> without technically breaking it,


What makes you think they want to break it? They've obviously negotiated
some sort of financial benefit that would evaporate with the contract. If
they didn't want to be in a exclusive arrangement with AT&T, they wouldn't
be.

> and they increase the TAM for the iPhone by 168 million subscribers.


*Sigh* You really need to look up the definition of "TAM." You're
(intentionally) conveniently forgetting the TAM for the iPhone is already
the entire population of all markets that AT&T serves. Just because a
potential customer is currently a subscriber of another carrier doesn't
prevent them from switching to AT&T to obtain the object of their potential
desire. An (admittedly dumb) analogy to your argument is that DISH Network
and DirecTV should also build cable boxes to increase their TAM by the 70 or
so million cable TV subscribers in the US, or Burger King should sell Big
Macs. Like with satellite TV, or fast food, the game in wireless is to
steal your competitors' market share by switching them to YOUR product.

> > And if only a conservative 75% of your 4 million subscribers lived in an
> > area where AT&T offered equivalent coverage, those 3 million have
> > already
> > defected to AT&T for their JesusPhone.

>
> Where would those areas be? None of the major metropolitan areas in the
> United States, as you are well aware.


All of the major markets in the US have perfectly adequate service from
multiple carriers, most within the "margin of error" according to your
beloved magazine surveys. Even assuming that Verizon covers a few nooks and
crannies no other carrier does, you still haven't answered my oft-asked
questions:

1. Why haven't the 150-plus million non-Verizon customers in the US not have
already switched to the "obviously superior" Verizon service anytime in the
last two decades?

2. Where do the 10% of Verizon's customer base that churns annually go?

That's EIGHT million people. More than double the number you assume would
suddenly buy iPhones if available on Verizon. For a company who's
subscribers are, according to you, "especially loathe to leave..." due to
the "...quality, coverage, and service," they manage to drive away 1 out of
10 customers every year. Where do they go?

Let's even forget Sprint and T-Mobile and their "value pricing to compensate
for smaller networks" approach for a moment, and just concentrate on the
evil twins: AT&T's and Verizon's pricing are seemingly in a virtual lockstep
right down to data add-ons, Verizon now even offers a fairly decent
selection of world phones (negating the potential "international traveler
advantage" that might have previously favored AT&T,) so why haven't the 60
million AT&T subscribers not using iPhones jumped to Verizon already if
AT&T's coverage is such crap compared to Verizon?

If we assume, as you apparently believe, that Verizon's network is orders of
magnitude better than AT&T's, that leaves us two theories:

1) That the 60+ million AT&T customers are either complete idiots or just
coincidentally and luckily avoid the vast areas of the country where Verizon
has service and AT&T doesn't, or,

2) That Verizon is such an insanely horrible company to do business with,
that only those forced to do business with them by virtue of their amazingly
superior coverage, willingly do so.

Otherwise, we can assume that the network differences, at least in most
users' experiences (places they live, work, play or travel,) are close
enough, or only come in to play in so few areas, that it has little effect
on the vast majority of customers, who use coverage as one of just many
criteria in choosing a wireless company.

In a truly competitive, mature marketplace, there is never one clear market
leader superior in every way, or it would've absorbed, killed off, or
marginalized all competitors. The existance of strong, profitable
competitors proves there are effective alternatives to Verizon.


[Only tangentally related, this was an interesting read:
http://www.costquest.com/costquest/d...ion_Report.pdf

By zip code, nearly 97% of the US population has 3G coverage available, and
86% has it available from two or more providers. And that's 3G- not just
good ol' voice coverage.]




Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 02:26 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

Todd Allcock wrote:

> If we assume, as you apparently believe, that Verizon's network is
> orders of magnitude better than AT&T's, that leaves us two theories:


You left out some other theories.

1. While Verizon does offer world phones, it's not as seamless as having
AT&T or T-Mobile unlock your GSM phone so you can stick in a SIM card
when you travel to a GSM country.

2. Bundling. AT&T has a lot more customers that they're selling landline
service and TV service to than Verizon. People like bundling landlines,
cell phones, TV, and DSL.

3. Many subscribers don't understand the coverage differences,
especially when they go outside of metro areas. They've been told "no
carrier has 100% coverage" and in their minds that means everyone is
equal. I see this all the time when I travel to places like national parks.

And of course I never said that Verizon's network was orders of
magnitude better than other networks. No one would argue that Verizon's
network is superior, but 10x better or greater is something I never
claimed that so don't make unfounded attributions. Let's just leave it
at "in the areas of the country I go to most often, which include South
Florida, the Atlantic Seaboard, the Pacific Coast, Nevada, and
California, there are many areas where Verizon has coverage and AT&T
does not. This isn't even debatable, just look at the coverage maps!

Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 05:12 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

At 07 Jul 2009 19:26:31 -0700 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > If we assume, as you apparently believe, that Verizon's network is
> > orders of magnitude better than AT&T's, that leaves us two theories:

>
> You left out some other theories.
>
> 1. While Verizon does offer world phones, it's not as seamless as
> having AT&T or T-Mobile unlock your GSM phone so you can stick in a SIM
> card when you travel to a GSM country.

I suspect few customers actually take advantage of that, but, assuming
they do, the world is full of $50 900/1800 unlocked handsets. Is the
occasional trip abroad justification for choosing the "wrong" provider
the other 50 weeks of the year?

> 2. Bundling. AT&T has a lot more customers that they're selling
> landline service and TV service to than Verizon. People like bundling
> landlines, cell phones, TV, and DSL.



You are aware Verizon controls much of that business on the east Coast,
right?>

> 3. Many subscribers don't understand the coverage differences,
> especially when they go outside of metro areas. They've been told "no
> carrier has 100% coverage" and in their minds that means everyone is
> equal. I see this all the time when I travel to places like national
> parks.


I carry a PagePlus (Verizon) phone as a backup when going to areas I know
T-Mo doesn't service, like National Parks. That generally means I'm
carrying two phones that have no service, instead of one!

I just gave my PagePlus phone to my wife when she took our daughter toa
girl scout camp near the Colorado/Wyoming border. In fairness to
Verizon, she told me the PP phone had signal several miles down the road
after her iPhone (on T-Mo) crapped out, but neither had a lick of service
at the camp. Another case of carrying two useless phones instead of one!

[To be fair to Verizon, both our Page Plus phones are Samsung smartphones
that both a) lack analog, and b), aren't notorious for great reception..]

> And of course I never said that Verizon's network was orders of
> magnitude better than other networks. No one would argue that Verizon's
> network is superior, but 10x better or greater is something I never
> claimed that so don't make unfounded attributions.


Poetic license. You seem to think the difference is significant enough
to keep "millions" from defecting from Verizon to AT&T for an iPhone, and
I haven't seen significant coverage differences in the places I've
traveled- the Midwest, the Southwest, and the Northeast. The only place
I've been in the last several years where Verizon had a significant
coverage advantage (as opposed to the occasional dead spots for oe
carrier or another) was the Washington D.C. subway system, where Verizon
has an exclusive underground network (an exclusive that ends, IIRC, in
three years.)

> Let's just leave it
> at "in the areas of the country I go to most often, which include South
> Florida, the Atlantic Seaboard, the Pacific Coast, Nevada, and
> California, there are many areas where Verizon has coverage and AT&T
> does not. This isn't even debatable, just look at the coverage maps!



I do- that's why I sent the PagePlus phone with my wife- the coverage
maps told me she'd have digital service at the girl scout camp, but didn't,
just like the coverage in Rocky Mountain National Park it promises but
doesn't deliver!

In my experience living in Colorado and traveling the places I mentioned
the last six years, I've found T-Mo's coverage maps to be pretty darn
accurate- even understated, AT&T's to be _slightly_, but not tragically,
overstated (perhaps within the range of phone variations), and Verizon's
maps to be the apparent product of a fevered imagination! Either our
local Colorado "Can you hear me now?" guy is a schizophrenic*that thinks
the voices in his head indicates cell reception, or Verizon's terrain
modeling software needs some serious updating by our good friends at Rand-
McNally.

I can't speak to Sprint's accuracy, since it's the only big four carrier
I haven't used out here in any capacity, but it worked in my neighborhood
(my neighbor uses Sprint for personal use, and Nextel for work) as
predicted when we moved here, and neither Verizon nor AT&T did at the time.
(Ironically, my Verizon-packing realtor had to keep borrowing my lowly T-
Mo phone to set up the next house viewing when we looked at several homes
in the valley we eventually bought a house in. All four carriers work
here now, but six years ago it was T-Mo and Sprint only. I used to bea
big 800MHz snob until moving here!)



Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 07:41 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

At 07 Jul 2009 20:30:04 -0400 tlvp wrote:
> > When I was getting out of the cellular business, the standard
> > retailer joke was "everyone who wanted a cellphone had a cellphone."
> > Soon, (if not already,) the same will be true of the iPhone, at least
> > until a new form factor come along. I'd wager any amount of money
> > that more potential iPhone sales are lost due to the lack of a model
> > with a keyboard, the mandatory data plan, or the lack of a more
> > pocketable "iFlipPhone" than due to it being an AT&T exclusive.

>
> Speaking for myself, Todd, my primary reasons for sticking with my T-Mo
> account
> rather than getting an iPhone with at&t has been at&t and their rate-

plans.


My wife uses an unlocked iPhone on her TMobile account. I'm sure it'd
work great on your grandfathered account as well.



Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 06:46 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:41:09 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote in <A5Y4m.246$oG1.57@newsfe12.iad>:

>At 07 Jul 2009 20:30:04 -0400 tlvp wrote:


>> Speaking for myself, Todd, my primary reasons for sticking with my T-Mo
>> account
>> rather than getting an iPhone with at&t has been at&t and their rate-
>> plans.

>
>My wife uses an unlocked iPhone on her TMobile account. I'm sure it'd
>work great on your grandfathered account as well.


Only if you're happy with EGPRS (EDGE) and Wi-Fi -- the 3G S doesn't
support T-Mobile 3G.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 06:52 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"


"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news9q955dredjon9hcbi7h44jvial5mn7i6n@4ax.com...
>
>>> Speaking for myself, Todd, my primary reasons for sticking with my T-Mo
>>> account
>>> rather than getting an iPhone with at&t has been at&t and their rate-
>>> plans.

>>
>>My wife uses an unlocked iPhone on her TMobile account. I'm sure it'd
>>work great on your grandfathered account as well.

>
> Only if you're happy with EGPRS (EDGE) and Wi-Fi -- the 3G S doesn't
> support T-Mobile 3G.


The guy is on a $29 grandfathered plan with several hundred included
minutes, texts, and unlimited _international_ data. I'd put up with CSD for
that price!

Kidding aside, yes, using an iPhone on T-mobile means settling for EDGE
data. Pretty much using any non-T-Mobile phone requires the same sacrifice
until 4-band or 5-band 3G radios become available/economical.

Using unlocked/unbranded handsets will let him keep his grandfathered plan,
however, now that T-Mobile is forcing "modern" data plans on all new
smartphone purchases. Preserving that $29 Talk 'n Text plan is probably
more important to tlvp than the bump in data speed.





Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2009, 08:25 PM
Steve Sobol
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

In article <5VV4m.13957$dd4.4911@newsfe10.iad>, elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com
says...

> > 2. Bundling. AT&T has a lot more customers that they're selling
> > landline service and TV service to than Verizon. People like bundling
> > landlines, cell phones, TV, and DSL.

>
> You are aware Verizon controls much of that business on the east

Coast,
> right?>


Not just the East Coast - that's primarily old Bell Atlantic territory,
and Verizon was a result of the merger between them and GTE.

GTE served a bunch of places, all over the map.

In fact, here in Southern California, the region that contains the 2nd-
largest city (Los Angeles) and the 9th-largest (San Diego), the Big Two,
as well as a bunch of other smaller cities, are divvied up between at&t
and Verizon.

I can point to San Diego neighborhoods that are at&t - and others that
are Verizon.

Here in the Victor Valley, we're Verizon. Drive about an hour west, into
Los Angeles County, and Palmdale is at&t.

Etc., etc.



--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjsobol@JustThe.net

Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 05:11 AM
tlvp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come underscrutiny"

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:41:09 -0400, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@anoospaml.com> wrote:

> At 07 Jul 2009 20:30:04 -0400 tlvp wrote:
>> > When I was getting out of the cellular business, the standard
>> > retailer joke was "everyone who wanted a cellphone had a cellphone."
>> > Soon, (if not already,) the same will be true of the iPhone, at least
>> > until a new form factor come along. I'd wager any amount of money
>> > that more potential iPhone sales are lost due to the lack of a model
>> > with a keyboard, the mandatory data plan, or the lack of a more
>> > pocketable "iFlipPhone" than due to it being an AT&T exclusive.

>>
>> Speaking for myself, Todd, my primary reasons for sticking with my T-Mo
>> account
>> rather than getting an iPhone with at&t has been at&t and their rate-

> plans.
>
>
> My wife uses an unlocked iPhone on her TMobile account. I'm sure it'd
> work great on your grandfathered account as well.


Thanks for the idea, Todd. But: (1) can I afford an unlocked iPhone? and
(2) will it stay unlocked after the next OS update Apple pushes out? (Yes,
I *know* you meant un-SIM-locked, not jail-broken; but the question stands.)

Actually, if there were something like the MiFi for T-Mobile, I'd seriously
consider such a unit along with an iPod Touch, in preference to an iPhone.
Voice service, then, through a headset with microphone and Skype.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 05:14 AM
tlvp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come underscrutiny"

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:46:09 -0400, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:41:09 -0600, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote in <A5Y4m.246$oG1.57@newsfe12.iad>:
>
>>At 07 Jul 2009 20:30:04 -0400 tlvp wrote:

>
>>> Speaking for myself, Todd, my primary reasons for sticking with my T-Mo
>>> account
>>> rather than getting an iPhone with at&t has been at&t and their rate-
>>> plans.

>>
>>My wife uses an unlocked iPhone on her TMobile account. I'm sure it'd
>>work great on your grandfathered account as well.

>
> Only if you're happy with EGPRS (EDGE) and Wi-Fi -- the 3G S doesn't
> support T-Mobile 3G.


Not even T-Mobile supports T-Mobile 3G in my neck of the woods :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 05:25 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

At 09 Jul 2009 01:11:38 -0400 tlvp wrote:

> >> Speaking for myself, Todd, my primary reasons for sticking with my T-

Mo
> >> account
> >> rather than getting an iPhone with at&t has been at&t and their rate-

> > plans.
> >
> >
> > My wife uses an unlocked iPhone on her TMobile account. I'm sure it'd
> > work great on your grandfathered account as well.

>
> Thanks for the idea, Todd. But: (1) can I afford an unlocked iPhone? and
> (2) will it stay unlocked after the next OS update Apple pushes out?

(Yes,
> I *know* you meant un-SIM-locked, not jail-broken; but the question

stands.)

Well, as far as "affording it", used iPhone 2Gs run under $300- more than
a shiny new iPhone with a contract, but not much more than an iPod touch.
The 2G lacks 3G (which wouldn't work onT-Mo's AWS 1700MHz 3G service
anyway) and GPS, but apparently once unlocked stays unlocked, unlike the
3G.


>
> Actually, if there were something like the MiFi for T-Mobile, I'd

seriously
> consider such a unit along with an iPod Touch, in preference to an

iPhone.
> Voice service, then, through a headset with microphone and Skype.
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp


The problem will be your grandfathered plan- virtually any device that
allows "MyFi"-like functionality on 3G won't be alowed on your plan.
Symbian and Windows Mobile phones have software available to turn them
into MyFis, but any you get from T-Mo, with T-Mo-compatible 3G, would
require a new T-Mo data plan ($25 with a voice plan, $40 without.)

There's one non-T-Mo branded Windows Mobile phone with T-Mo 3G you could
use with your Talk 'n Text plan, the Pharos Traveler 137, but it's $500
and reportedly as buggy as an ant farm.



Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 01:43 AM
tlvp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come underscrutiny"

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:25:36 -0400, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@anoospaml.com> wrote:

> At 09 Jul 2009 01:11:38 -0400 tlvp wrote:
>
>> >> Speaking for myself, Todd, my primary reasons for sticking with my T-

> Mo
>> >> account
>> >> rather than getting an iPhone with at&t has been at&t and their rate-
>> > plans.
>> >
>> >
>> > My wife uses an unlocked iPhone on her TMobile account. I'm sure it'd
>> > work great on your grandfathered account as well.

>>
>> Thanks for the idea, Todd. But: (1) can I afford an unlocked iPhone? and
>> (2) will it stay unlocked after the next OS update Apple pushes out?

> (Yes,
>> I *know* you meant un-SIM-locked, not jail-broken; but the question

> stands.)
>
> Well, as far as "affording it", used iPhone 2Gs run under $300- more than
> a shiny new iPhone with a contract, but not much more than an iPod touch.
> The 2G lacks 3G (which wouldn't work onT-Mo's AWS 1700MHz 3G service


Not a big issue -- while in T-Mo territory I'm generally at home, where DSL
connects everything I need on the net; it's when I'm abroad that I need 3G
and an unlocked cellular data modem, for use with a local prepaid data SIM,
and there, not covering T-Mo's odd-ball 1700 MHz snip of the spectrum is OK.

> anyway) and GPS, but apparently once unlocked stays unlocked, unlike the
> 3G.


Now that's good news (2G) I wasn't aware of -- and confirmation of the bad (3G).
Thanks on both counts :-) .

>> Actually, if there were something like the MiFi for T-Mobile, I'd

> seriously
>> consider such a unit along with an iPod Touch, in preference to an

> iPhone.
>> Voice service, then, through a headset with microphone and Skype.
>>
>> Cheers, -- tlvp

>
> The problem will be your grandfathered plan- virtually any device that
> allows "MyFi"-like functionality on 3G won't be alowed on your plan.
> Symbian and Windows Mobile phones have software available to turn them
> into MyFis, but any you get from T-Mo, with T-Mo-compatible 3G, would
> require a new T-Mo data plan ($25 with a voice plan, $40 without.)
>
> There's one non-T-Mo branded Windows Mobile phone with T-Mo 3G you could
> use with your Talk 'n Text plan, the Pharos Traveler 137, but it's $500
> and reportedly as buggy as an ant farm.


I've bought new laptops for less than $500, so that Pharos, even if *not*
buggy, would be way beyond my price-point :-) .

But thanks for the discussion, Todd -- I've learned good stuff from it. So:

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 01:55 AM
nospam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

In article <op.uwtwe3jyo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> > anyway) and GPS, but apparently once unlocked stays unlocked, unlike the
> > 3G.

>
> Now that's good news (2G) I wasn't aware of -- and confirmation of the bad
> (3G).


also if the iphone is factory unlocked, it stays unlocked. only the 3g
& 3gs require careful upgrading.

Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2009, 04:53 PM
Ness-Net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"


"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:070720091141261380%nospam@nospam.invalid...

> plus the current iphone would not work on t-mobile's 3g network, so it too would need a
> redesign


Please tell us how you come to the above conclusion....

Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2009, 05:04 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny"

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:53:53 -0700, "Ness-Net"
<richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote in
<fcydncngUZo_-8bXnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:070720091141261380%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>
>> plus the current iphone would not work on t-mobile's 3g network, so it too would need a
>> redesign

>
>Please tell us how you come to the above conclusion....


Different radio frequency than the AT&T 3G network.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2009, 09:44 PM
Dennis Ferguson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come underscrutiny"

On 2009-07-13, Ness-Net <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote:
>
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:070720091141261380%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>> plus the current iphone would not work on t-mobile's 3g network, so it too would need a
>> redesign

>
> Please tell us how you come to the above conclusion....


T-Mobile's 3G runs in a band the iPhone doesn't have. Supporting that
would be the most trivial of "redesigns" if they did it by chucking out
support for one (or more) 3G band in the current phone in favor of that,
though it would multiply the models they would have to build. Then
again, lack of support for 3G in the 900 MHz band is starting to become
a hinderance to sales in certain European countries right now, and would
be a similarly trivial "redesign" if done that way, yet Apple hasn't
bothered with that either. And they could break into a new country
which clearly has an appetite for iPhones (almost 10% of the original
2G iPhones ended up there, mostly at unsubsidized, inflated gray
market prices) on a carrier with 0.5 billion customers in a market
of 1.4 billion people if they'd do a TD-SCDMA version of the phone,
which wouldn't be trivial but which wouldn't be so hard since
their current chipset vendor is doing an implementation (and, like
WCDMA, the upper layer protocols are quite GSM-like). Needless to
say, they haven't done that yet either.

So far Apple's behavior suggests that they value the efficiency of
selling a very few models through a very few carriers (55 of
80-something countries have only one iPhone carrier, many of the
remainder may have laws which force wider carrier availability) over
broadening their sales channels in markets already served and
multiplying the models to address local technology variations.
This might change but if Apple were keen to do so they've had
plenty of opportunity to do it already, yet they haven't.

Dennis Ferguson

Reply With Quote
Reply


« NEWS: Sprint to outsource network operations | CDMA Carriers adding Wi-Fi to new phones »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny" SMS alt.cellular.verizon 29 07-13-2009 09:44 PM
"Deals between cell phone makers and carriers come under scrutiny" SMS alt.cellular.attws 46 07-13-2009 09:44 PM
CNN: Prepare for the iPhone 'revolution' Meg alt.cellular.cingular 34 06-29-2007 02:04 AM
CNN: Prepare for the iPhone 'revolution' Meg alt.cellular.verizon 7 06-29-2007 02:04 AM
Apple's New Calling: The iPhone EGV alt.cellular.cingular 372 03-10-2007 12:07 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:01 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45