["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-07-14, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> The Sprint guy may just be hedging his bets; the FCC is making noises
> about moving that direction with the new spectrum that's coming up in
> February 2009 when they shut down analog TV transmission.
Specifically, you won't be able to force people to use locked phones on 700
MHz, the band in question; I've never heard anything said about contracts.
Of course, the FCC wants people to be able to use any carrier with a given
phone. Surely they're intelligent enough to know there are TECHNICAL reasons
why a GSM (AT&T, T-Mo) phone won't work on a CDMA (Verizon, Alltel, SPrint)
carrier?
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-07-14, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> I think the model should change to a monthly discount for contract, sort
> of like a magazine subscription- Reader's Digest is $4 if I pick it up
> from the newsstand, but $2/issue if I commit to a year's subscription.
That's also something Sprint used to do. I initially signed up with Sprint
in Mentor, Ohio, in 2000, and paid $10/month extra for the privilege of not
having a contract. Once we determined that the phone worked everywhere we
needed, I locked myself into a contract and lost the $10/month surcharge.
> The idea of extending or starting a contract when you paid full price
> for the phone is insane.
I agree to a point. If other consideration is given (better rate plan,
plan discounts, etc.) in lieu of a discount on the phone itself, that's
fine too.
In the case of the iPhone, again, there's no "no-contract" price to
compare. If AT&T, for whatever reason, declared the lowly Nokia 6030 was
now only available with two year conteacts, and would henceforth sell for
$1, we'd understand that price was already discounted. Perhaps $799
would be the no-contract price for an "unlocked" iPhone? Perhaps the $20
unlimited data add-on is AT&T's consideration- who knows. In a free
market, the value of something is what a willing buyer will pay a willing
seller. A half-million folks were willing to pay $599 w/2-year
commitment andApple and/or AT&T was willing to take their money- who are
we to argue? ;-)
Steve Sobol wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
> On 2007-07-14, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> The Sprint guy may just be hedging his bets; the FCC is making noises
>> about moving that direction with the new spectrum that's coming up in
>> February 2009 when they shut down analog TV transmission.
>
> Specifically, you won't be able to force people to use locked phones on 700
> MHz, the band in question; I've never heard anything said about contracts.
>
> Of course, the FCC wants people to be able to use any carrier with a given
> phone. Surely they're intelligent enough to know there are TECHNICAL reasons
> why a GSM (AT&T, T-Mo) phone won't work on a CDMA (Verizon, Alltel, SPrint)
> carrier?
>
>
Not likely, some friends work in positions that involve them. They say
the FCC has little involvement in technical stuff and is simply the
rubber stamp for special interests.
Paul Miner wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Marriott wrote:
>>> If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
>>> I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
>>> for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
>>> the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
>>> Treos for an end-user cost of $75.
>>>
>> Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
>> iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
>> it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
>
> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business and move
> them into a whole new business model of having customers purchase
> their device outright and then use it without a contract. I'm in favor
> of that, but then again, I'm not the type who always has to have the
> latest model, so perhaps it wouldn't affect me.
>
Not really, it is a step in the opposite direction. You are required to
purchase the iphone outright and it requires a mandatory two year
contract with all of the normal provisions.
> Of course, the FCC wants people to be able to use any carrier with a
given
> phone. Surely they're intelligent enough to know there are TECHNICAL
reasons
> why a GSM (AT&T, T-Mo) phone won't work on a CDMA (Verizon, Alltel,
SPrint)
> carrier?
Who knows- they weren't intelligent enough to mandate a single US digital
standard when they should've- why care about interoperability now? You
reap what you sow...
"Todd Allcock" wrote:
> At 14 Jul 2007 09:07:09 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>> Actually, considering how much of the device's
>> non-telephonic feature-set is locked down, without activation/contract,
> I
>> almost wonder why the FTC isn't up in arms over it (hacks duly noted).
>
> Because it's a PROPRIETARY phone designed for use with a single provider?
> (AT&T.) It's not sold as an iPod, or Wi-Fi web tablet.
>
Really? The ads I watched sure as heck highlighted the iPod ("best iPod
ever") and Wi-Fi features (the speeds in the ads are not possible with
Edge).
> It's sold as a phone, with the magic words "two-year contract REQUIRED"
> in all the ads.
A reasonable person might expect that if the device is not under contract
that no non-911 phone functions would work. But to not be able to use it for
music or WiFi Web browsing--especially when paying $500-$600 for the
device--doesn't seem fair in my book.
> What possible reason, prey tell, could the FTC have to complain?
See above (hack noted, but don't think it should be required).
> Should
> they complain that a DirecTV satellite receiver can't receive free over-
> the-air broadcast TV?
If I bought a combo receiver that did both OTA and sat I sure the heck
wouldn't expect the OTA functions to cease in the absence of a sat
subscription.
Tinman wrote:
> "Paul Miner" wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
>>> iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to
>>> use it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
>>
>> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
>> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business
>
> That's very different than the iPhone model in which there is no
> subsidy *and* a requirement for a 2 year contract. I don't like that
> kind of precedent one bit. Actually, considering how much of the
> device's non-telephonic feature-set is locked down, without
> activation/contract, I almost wonder why the FTC isn't up in arms
> over it (hacks duly noted).
The FTC isn't up in arms over it because they haven't been flooded with
complaints about it. AT&T and Apple are free to market it any way they
choose and let the market decide if their model is viable. As long as
there are plenty of alternatives to obtaining mobile service the
carriers and suppliers can pretty much do as they please - after all
nobody NEEDS an iPhone.
On 2007-07-14, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 14 Jul 2007 18:11:04 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:
>
>> Of course, the FCC wants people to be able to use any carrier with a
> given
>> phone. Surely they're intelligent enough to know there are TECHNICAL
> reasons
>> why a GSM (AT&T, T-Mo) phone won't work on a CDMA (Verizon, Alltel,
> SPrint)
>> carrier?
>
> Who knows- they weren't intelligent enough to mandate a single US digital
> standard when they should've- why care about interoperability now? You
> reap what you sow...
Of course if they'd done that they almost certainly have picked (for
good reasons) the only digital standard which, under the anything-goes
regulations, was eventually found (for good reasons) to be not worth
keeping, and we'd all stll be wondering whether it was even possible
to build a mobile phone network on CDMA technology rather than having
all 3G networks based on that now-proven technology. I suspect their
view is that not mandating a single digital standard is one of their
great successes.
Then again, the "open access" they are talking about is not the ability
to use any phone on any network, but rather the ability for manufacturers
to be able to design devices for whatever networks are built, to
design applications for those devices, and to sell the devices directly
to consumers for use on those networks without needing the approval of
the network operators. It isn't surprising that Verizon seems to be
leading the opposition to this.
On 2007-07-14, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> advertise specifically when they say the iPhone is $499.
>
> The iPhone costs, at minimum, $499 plus the $175 ETF.
>
> What you're saying is that people are insane to pay that high a price
> for it. And the price they have to pay isn't really related to the
> price that's advertised.
People ARE insane to pay that, but the pricing is insane too. If I wanted
the phone badly enough I'd consider it, except that the contract would move
it into the "no way in hell, ever" category.
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4697f5c3$0$4710
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
> only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
> Regardless of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an
> unbalance in the contract that should be rectified.
>
When one party writes the contract and shoves it up the ass of the other
party for service, that one party can write anything it wants, and does,
into the contract, if it thinks it can get away with it. Any landlord is
playing the same game with his lease.
Verizon, or any of the other carriers, simply states that they can change
the contract at any time for any reason or can simply cancel it without
cause. The only requirement would be to state this up front and make the
customer agree to it....which, in cooperation with the US Government,
they've now got down to a science. You simply turn it on and you've
already agreed to everything.
I read the contracts to see if they've added anything about delivering
your first born child, attaching a lien to your house until the contract
is over, etc. They could do that at any time, with the full cooperation
of the government bureaucrats to enforce it.
Larry
--
While in Mexico, I didn't have to press 1 for Spanish.
While in Iran, I didn't have to press 1 for Farsi, either.
It just isn't fair.
Larry wrote:
> "BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4697f5c3$0$4710
> $4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>> A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
>> only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
>> Regardless of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an
>> unbalance in the contract that should be rectified.
>>
>
> When one party writes the contract and shoves it up the ass of the
> other party for service, that one party can write anything it wants,
> and does, into the contract, if it thinks it can get away with it.
> Any landlord is playing the same game with his lease.
>
> Verizon, or any of the other carriers, simply states that they can
> change the contract at any time for any reason or can simply cancel
> it without cause. The only requirement would be to state this up
> front and make the customer agree to it....which, in cooperation with
> the US Government, they've now got down to a science. You simply
> turn it on and you've already agreed to everything.
>
> I read the contracts to see if they've added anything about delivering
> your first born child, attaching a lien to your house until the
> contract is over, etc. They could do that at any time, with the full
> cooperation of the government bureaucrats to enforce it.
>
> Larry
Again, that's what courts are for. If a judge thinks a particular clause
or even the whole contract is "against public policy" or just thinks
it's wrong or unfair, he/she can nullify all or part of the contract.
Carriers, landlords or just about anyone who has the upper hand can and
will write whatever they want into a contract. Then they can point to
the egregious clause and say "Hey, you signed it!" Some (actually most)
will say, "OK, I guess I'm stuck," and pay up. Others will say "take me
to court!" If the clause really is egregious, you won't get taken to
court because they don't want to risk having to remove the "bully"
clause.
> Really? The ads I watched sure as heck highlighted the iPod ("best iPod
> ever") and Wi-Fi features (the speeds in the ads are not possible with
> Edge).
The ads also state "Two-year contract required." They don't specifically
state WHY or what the phone can't do without one, but the requirement is
stated.
> A reasonable person might expect that if the device is not under
contract
> that no non-911 phone functions would work. But to not be able to use
it for
> music or WiFi Web browsing--especially when paying $500-$600 for the
> device--doesn't seem fair in my book.
Nor mine. However, it isn't our decision- the phone is what it is, and
frankly it doesn't matter what "reasonable" people expect. The terms and
conditions are spelled out at purchase and/or activation and if you don't
like it, don't buy it (or return it.)
As consumers we don't have the right to demand a product work the way WE
want it to work- just to vote with our wallets. If Apple/AT&T wants to
disable their phone if not activated, that's their business. Just
because it has Wi-Fi doesn't mean it HAS to work as a web-tablet without
a cellular subscription.
> If I bought a combo receiver that did both OTA and sat I sure the heck
> wouldn't expect the OTA functions to cease in the absence of a sat
> subscription.
But if it did, and you were warned ahead of time that that was the case,
you'd have no recourse.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 14 Jul 2007 13:44:20 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>> Really? The ads I watched sure as heck highlighted the iPod ("best
>> iPod ever") and Wi-Fi features (the speeds in the ads are not
>> possible with Edge).
>
> The ads also state "Two-year contract required." They don't
> specifically state WHY or what the phone can't do without one, but
> the requirement is stated.
>
>> A reasonable person might expect that if the device is not under
>> contract that no non-911 phone functions would work. But to not be
>> able to use it for music or WiFi Web browsing--especially when
>> paying $500-$600 for the device--doesn't seem fair in my book.
>
> Nor mine. However, it isn't our decision- the phone is what it is,
> and frankly it doesn't matter what "reasonable" people expect. The
> terms and conditions are spelled out at purchase and/or activation
> and if you don't like it, don't buy it (or return it.)
>
> As consumers we don't have the right to demand a product work the way
> WE want it to work- just to vote with our wallets. If Apple/AT&T
> wants to disable their phone if not activated, that's their business.
> Just because it has Wi-Fi doesn't mean it HAS to work as a web-tablet
> without a cellular subscription.
>
>> If I bought a combo receiver that did both OTA and sat I sure the
>> heck wouldn't expect the OTA functions to cease in the absence of a
>> sat subscription.
>
> But if it did, and you were warned ahead of time that that was the
> case, you'd have no recourse.
There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop. One might
think that only the channel guide info would go away but actually the
whole unit just goes to sleep till you pay up. However, unlike the
iPhone, these units were sold at subsidized prices.
iPhones and Contracts (was: Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers)
> There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
> ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
> which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop. One might think
> that only the channel guide info would go away but actually the whole unit
> just goes to sleep till you pay up. However, unlike the iPhone, these
> units were sold at subsidized prices.
What this has to do with the NY state political appointee who's a shill for
Verizon going on the attack against Sprint I can't imagine... but
1) Whether you want to call it "subsidized" or not, Apple gets a $100 bounty
plus a cut of your monthly AT&T service fee. Without that, it would cost
potentially hundreds of dollars more.
2) Numerous reports state that you can activate the iPhone, then simply
cancel AT&T service within 3 days and pay nothing (not even activation). The
iPhone still works after that as a WiFi browser, email client, and music
player.
> There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
> ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
> which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop. One might
> think that only the channel guide info would go away but actually the
> whole unit just goes to sleep till you pay up. However, unlike the
> iPhone, these units were sold at subsidized prices.
True, but the subsidized price wasn't a gift, or a quid pro quo for
having to buy a subscription. It's a marketing scheme to increase
penetration and therefore increase subscription revenue.
In the case of iPhone, the hype and marketing, plus it's single-carrier
exclusivity made equipment subsidies unnecessary to make the unit
marketable. Belive me, if TiVo thought they could sell a significant
number of their 80-hour units for $499 instead of $99, they wouldn't
subsidize either! ;-)
Re: iPhones and Contracts (was: Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers)
"Bill Marriott" wrote:
>> There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
>> ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
>> which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop. One might
>> think that only the channel guide info would go away but actually the
>> whole unit just goes to sleep till you pay up. However, unlike the
>> iPhone, these units were sold at subsidized prices.
>
> What this has to do with the NY state political appointee who's a shill
> for Verizon going on the attack against Sprint I can't imagine... but
>
> 1) Whether you want to call it "subsidized" or not, Apple gets a $100
> bounty plus a cut of your monthly AT&T service fee. Without that, it would
> cost potentially hundreds of dollars more.
I doubt it. There is nothing in the iPhone that warrants a laptop-like
$700-$800 price tag. More likely Apple just wanted more profit than
traditional cellphone makers, hence the revenue sharing. They will also
likely be supporting it providing with ongoing updates, etc.
It's not like at&t is hurting over this. It's been fantastic PR, and great
for the at&t rebranding.
If the above is true and not a soon-to-be-closed loophole I am going to
reconsider an iPhone. Its price doesn't bother me much, but the two year
commitment to at&t certainly does.
"BruceR" wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> Tinman wrote:
>>> If I bought a combo receiver that did both OTA and sat I sure the
>>> heck wouldn't expect the OTA functions to cease in the absence of a
>>> sat subscription.
>>
>> But if it did, and you were warned ahead of time that that was the
>> case, you'd have no recourse.
>
> There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
> ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
> which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop.
They are subsidized too (and subject to ETFs). IIRC earlier non-subsidized
series 1 Tivos did not turn into doorstops (no guide or anything, but the
device can/could still be used to record like a VCR, and of course pause
live TV).
> One might think that only the channel guide info would go away but
> actually the whole unit just goes to sleep till you pay up. However,
> unlike the iPhone, these units were sold at subsidized prices.
Yes, non-telephonic functions being locked out on a non-subsidized device is
what irked me. But now it appears that you can not only use an
inactivated/cancelled iPhone without at&t for this (not that I would) but
you can also apparently use it with at&t without a contract (GoPlan).
Without the at&t ball-and-chain (prepay though) I am much more interested in
the iPhone. If I do I'll check with the NY consumer advocate first <g>.
TIVOs, was: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers
In <5fu295F3e42ekU1@mid.individual.net> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> writes:
>They are subsidized too (and subject to ETFs). IIRC earlier non-subsidized
>series 1 Tivos did not turn into doorstops (no guide or anything, but the
>device can/could still be used to record like a VCR, and of course pause
>live TV).
Eyup. I've got some of them right here.
Of course, thanks to teh Best Congress Money Can Buy,
they'll be foot rests in another year...
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
>> There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
>> ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
>> which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop. One might think
>> that only the channel guide info would go away but actually the whole unit
>> just goes to sleep till you pay up. However, unlike the iPhone, these
>> units were sold at subsidized prices.
>
>What this has to do with the NY state political appointee who's a shill for
>Verizon going on the attack against Sprint I can't imagine... but
>
>1) Whether you want to call it "subsidized" or not, Apple gets a $100 bounty
>plus a cut of your monthly AT&T service fee. Without that, it would cost
>potentially hundreds of dollars more.
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/new...-and-vodafone/
>
>2) Numerous reports state that you can activate the iPhone, then simply
>cancel AT&T service within 3 days and pay nothing (not even activation). The
>iPhone still works after that as a WiFi browser, email client, and music
>player.
And even if one chose not to activate the iPhone as a phone it is
still capable (as required by law) to reach 911. Something Verizon
FIOS can't due in a local power glitch.
Tinman wrote:
> "BruceR" wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> Tinman wrote:
>>>> If I bought a combo receiver that did both OTA and sat I sure the
>>>> heck wouldn't expect the OTA functions to cease in the absence of a
>>>> sat subscription.
>>>
>>> But if it did, and you were warned ahead of time that that was the
>>> case, you'd have no recourse.
>>
>> There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
>> ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
>> which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop.
>
> They are subsidized too (and subject to ETFs). IIRC earlier
> non-subsidized series 1 Tivos did not turn into doorstops (no guide
> or anything, but the device can/could still be used to record like a
> VCR, and of course pause live TV).
>
>
>> One might think that only the channel guide info would go away but
>> actually the whole unit just goes to sleep till you pay up. However,
>> unlike the iPhone, these units were sold at subsidized prices.
>
> Yes, non-telephonic functions being locked out on a non-subsidized
> device is what irked me. But now it appears that you can not only use
> an inactivated/cancelled iPhone without at&t for this (not that I
> would) but you can also apparently use it with at&t without a
> contract (GoPlan). Without the at&t ball-and-chain (prepay though) I
> am much more interested in the iPhone. If I do I'll check with the NY
> consumer advocate first <g>.
I'd be interested to see if it's SIM locked or whether a TMo SIM would
work.
Re: TIVOs, was: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers
danny burstein wrote:
> In <5fu295F3e42ekU1@mid.individual.net> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> writes:
>
>> They are subsidized too (and subject to ETFs). IIRC earlier
>> non-subsidized series 1 Tivos did not turn into doorstops (no guide
>> or anything, but the device can/could still be used to record like a
>> VCR, and of course pause live TV).
>
> Eyup. I've got some of them right here.
>
> Of course, thanks to teh Best Congress Money Can Buy,
> they'll be foot rests in another year...
Not necessarily. The cable companies will continue to offer analog
outputs on their boxes and may even keep the basic analog portion (2-78)
of their system alive. As long as one or both occur, the boxes will
still have a useful life. At least I hope so - I have 7 at this house
and 4 at the other one!
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4699fdb7$0$32574
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>
> Tinman wrote:
>> "BruceR" wrote:
>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>> Tinman wrote:
>>>>> If I bought a combo receiver that did both OTA and sat I sure the
>>>>> heck wouldn't expect the OTA functions to cease in the absence of a
>>>>> sat subscription.
>>>>
>>>> But if it did, and you were warned ahead of time that that was the
>>>> case, you'd have no recourse.
>>>
>>> There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
>>> ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
>>> which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop.
>>
>> They are subsidized too (and subject to ETFs). IIRC earlier
>> non-subsidized series 1 Tivos did not turn into doorstops (no guide
>> or anything, but the device can/could still be used to record like a
>> VCR, and of course pause live TV).
>>
>>
>>> One might think that only the channel guide info would go away but
>>> actually the whole unit just goes to sleep till you pay up. However,
>>> unlike the iPhone, these units were sold at subsidized prices.
>>
>> Yes, non-telephonic functions being locked out on a non-subsidized
>> device is what irked me. But now it appears that you can not only use
>> an inactivated/cancelled iPhone without at&t for this (not that I
>> would) but you can also apparently use it with at&t without a
>> contract (GoPlan). Without the at&t ball-and-chain (prepay though) I
>> am much more interested in the iPhone. If I do I'll check with the NY
>> consumer advocate first <g>.
>
> I'd be interested to see if it's SIM locked or whether a TMo SIM would
> work.
>
>
>
It's "Apple" locked- the usecess to the SIM, much like the battery.
Re: iPhones and Contracts (was: Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers)
In news:llrj93pp12q9qt7l8qn11t1u1fhq8htt87@4ax.com, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net <karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> typed:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:52:54 -0400, "Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org>
> wrote:
>
>>> There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
>>> ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
>>> which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop. One might
>>> think that only the channel guide info would go away but actually the
>>> whole unit just goes to sleep till you pay up. However, unlike the
>>> iPhone, these units were sold at subsidized prices.
>>
>> What this has to do with the NY state political appointee who's a shill
>> for Verizon going on the attack against Sprint I can't imagine... but
>>
>> 1) Whether you want to call it "subsidized" or not, Apple gets a $100
>> bounty plus a cut of your monthly AT&T service fee. Without that, it
>> would cost potentially hundreds of dollars more.
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>> http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/new...-and-vodafone/
>>
>> 2) Numerous reports state that you can activate the iPhone, then simply
>> cancel AT&T service within 3 days and pay nothing (not even activation).
>> The iPhone still works after that as a WiFi browser, email client, and
>> music player.
>
> And even if one chose not to activate the iPhone as a phone it is
> still capable (as required by law) to reach 911. Something Verizon
> FIOS can't due in a local power glitch.
>
>
My Verizon Cell Phone has always worked during power outages to make phone
calls - Including 911 I would guess My internet connection - which is
required for WiFi - did not work. But I could use my laptop tethered to my
cell phone to get online.
> As consumers we don't have the right to demand a product work the way WE
> want it to work- just to vote with our wallets. If Apple/AT&T wants to
> disable their phone if not activated, that's their business. Just
> because it has Wi-Fi doesn't mean it HAS to work as a web-tablet without
> a cellular subscription.
The real question is: You plop down a grip for an iPhone and walk out
of the store with your shrink-wrapped box - Who really owns the contents
of that box? Its obviously not the tutu-wearing fairy with the iPhone
box under his arm...
Oh well, I wonder how many weeks until theres a $129 minor upgrade
package for the iPhone's operating system?
I really think Jobs-and-friends are wondering just how deeply they can
screw consumers before they finally start wising up. If only Woz would
have crossed Job's LSD with Cyanide back in the early 80s... :P
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:52:54 -0400, "Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org>
> wrote:
>
>>> There is certainly precedent for this type of sale. Look at TIVO and
>>> ReplayTV. Both have a monthly (or optional lifetime) activation fee
>>> which, if not paid, turns the unit into a hefty doorstop. One might think
>>> that only the channel guide info would go away but actually the whole unit
>>> just goes to sleep till you pay up. However, unlike the iPhone, these
>>> units were sold at subsidized prices.
>> What this has to do with the NY state political appointee who's a shill for
>> Verizon going on the attack against Sprint I can't imagine... but
>>
>> 1) Whether you want to call it "subsidized" or not, Apple gets a $100 bounty
>> plus a cut of your monthly AT&T service fee. Without that, it would cost
>> potentially hundreds of dollars more.
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>> http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/new...-and-vodafone/
>>
>> 2) Numerous reports state that you can activate the iPhone, then simply
>> cancel AT&T service within 3 days and pay nothing (not even activation). The
>> iPhone still works after that as a WiFi browser, email client, and music
>> player.
>
> And even if one chose not to activate the iPhone as a phone it is
> still capable (as required by law) to reach 911. Something Verizon
> FIOS can't due in a local power glitch.
>
The old ATT TDMA sites that are going/gone away had backup generators.
The GSM sites just have a minimal amount of battery. So with anything
other than a short term power failure you aren't calling 911 (or anyone
else) on your iphone.
Re: iPhones and Contracts (was: Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers)
"Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote :
> "Bill Marriott" wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> 3) You can indeed get an iPhone without a contract. If you don't meet
>> credit standard, you can use your iPhone with an AT&T prepaid plan.
>>
>> http://www.tuaw.com/2007/07/02/iphon...the-right-way/
>>
>>
>
> If the above is true and not a soon-to-be-closed loophole I am going to
> reconsider an iPhone. Its price doesn't bother me much, but the two year
> commitment to at&t certainly does.
Well I did it, I bought an iPhone.
Long story short I did the iTunes hack till I decide what to do about at&t
(prepay with no contract Vs. post-pay with contract). So for the moment it's
not really a phone. But I have had the chance to get to know the device a
lot better (compared to playing with it in an Apple store).
I bought it at an at&t store and was that interesting. The salesperson
seemed intent on having me have the credit pre-approved, the reason
being--according to her--so that I wouldn't be hit with the 10% restocking
fee should it be denied. I politely told her that I didn't think that would
be a problem and that I'd rather wait. Weird that she said I could not even
touch the box till I paid for it (and she enforced that).
Have to say as a Web device this thing is nothing like any PDA or PDA
Phone-or smart phone--that I've ever owned. The rendering speed of the
browser via WiFi is amazing. Can't quite describe it but the ease and speed
of zooming in and out makes it feel as if you are not using such a small
device.
My biggest fear is at&t coverage, particularly at home. I only saw a single
"bar" which seemed to coincide with at&t's street-level coverage map of
"moderate." Sure wish at&t had T-Mobile's neat cell-to-WiFi feature.
> The old ATT TDMA sites that are going/gone away had backup generators.
> The GSM sites just have a minimal amount of battery. So with anything
> other than a short term power failure you aren't calling 911 (or
> anyone else) on your iphone.
If any other GSM carrier is operating (like T-Mobile) the 911 call would
go through them.
And forgetting the doom and gllom scenarios, backup batteries are good
for several hours- longer than than Vast majority of power outages. In
this post-Katrina world, AT&T has decided to spend their "backup"
resources on things like an increased number of COWs (Cells on Wheels,)
stored regionally, to deploy to areas in a true state of emergency,
rather than try to increase backup capacity of every cell tower in their
network.
In my nearly 20-years of using cellphones, I've never lost service due to
power outages- even in outages lasting for over two-days. I suspect the
cellcos know what they're doing in that area by now!
Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers 
Linear Mode
