DISQUS

Jophus · 6 months ago

You should be able to put any sim card in any phone and we should have universal phone chargers.

Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas · 6 months ago

Oh yeah right...like our Congressmen are going to stop sucking on that rich teat from telecon. ROFLMAO

ColJack · 6 months ago

Germany required unlocked iPhones, so T-Mobile sold them for $1500. Is that really an improvement?

I agree about Universal phone chargers - preferably USB, so existing cords and power supplies will work. My last two phones (Motorola and HTC) have used USB chargers, and that's much better than the proprietary Siemens and LG connectors.

NealB · 6 months ago

I know there's been a little progress with the long-term contracts required for mobile service, but I still think forcing customers to commit to an additional one or two year contract every time they start or change their service is a crime. I can live without an iPhone or a Pre if I prefer one carrier over another, but the requirement of long term contracts and automatic extensions is anti-American.

SCLiberal · 6 months ago

I also find the whole contract idea repulsive. My late husband and I had Verizon cell phones with contracts. Toward the end of his battle with cancer he lost his voice. I called Verizon to try and cancel the contract and even after explaining the situation to a supervisor was told No. So I called the local news station and they came out to interview me. They aired the segment the following day, making Verizon look like the dolts they are. The company called to apologize and offered to let me use his phone for free for the remainder of the year. I told them NO, I didn't want anything further to do with them.
I now have a Virgin Mobile cell phone on the pay as you go plan. It costs me $7 per month. (I don't talk on it much)

BooksAlive · 6 months ago

Same here, SCLiberal. I bought my first Virgin Mobile in a Best Buy and have loved having no contract, etc. My son got burned by extra charges when they used their phone a lot while they were relocating to N Carolina, so he and his wife switched to Virgin. BTW, have you noticed the online ads for their phones? I see them on some of my favorite blogs, so congrats to Sir Richard Branson.

Judas Peckerwood · 6 months ago

"What ever happened to the old fashioned America idea of competition?"

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Government-backed monopolies are the essence of a free market economy.

What part of yes-equals-no don't you understand, Chris?

UnkaWillbur · 6 months ago

I was appalled by this whole scheme from the beginning. I was lucky though, to be able to use a certain carrier, that's been flat-rate since its inception, and that my needs did not include roaming, which is a moot point now, as my carrier has coverage everywhere every other cell phone company and at almost the same rate I've paid since 1998. My rate is just under $56/Month. It would cost me about $100 for full cell and 3G coverage.

This company has had this wide coverage and has been available in most markets for about 6 years now. Anyone who still stays with the big three, unless they have a truly compelling requirement met only by one company, is just cheating themselves. You'd save more dumping a big-3 contract, paying the fine and moving to a flat-rate carrier.

No ad intended, hence the company is not stated, but it's an easy enough guess.

psychodrew · 6 months ago

Cell phone service in America is horrible. I lived in China for five years and the service was much, much better.

BH · 6 months ago

Two main points:

1. Exclusive contracts permeate nearly all industries. If you don't like it, start or invest in a company that makes a better product than the one you crave. It's capitalism and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

2. Even if the iPhone 3G or 3GS were available on a non-exclusive basis in the U.S., it would only work on the the slower GPRS/EDGE data network of T-Mobile and a few smaller GSM carriers. It could never work on the Verizon or Sprint networks, since they use CDMA 1X and EV-DO. You're not insisting that Apple spend money developing multiple versions of all of its platforms simultaneously, are you? With that kind of requirement, we'd never have any innovation.

I realize that this is a frustrating situation, but in this country, government intervention in these types of scenarios is simply untenable.

nicho · 6 months ago

One main point. If these corporations really believe in "free market" capitalism, why do they have exclusive contracts. Let me pick my phone and pick my carrier. May the best company win.

Free-market capitalism is absolute bullshit. No corporation wants a free market. They all want the playing field tilted toward them.

And, it's pretty clear that Apple wants to get out of its exclusive deal with AT&T. This is one of the reason they added all the goodies on the phone that AT&T doesn't support, but the European carriers do.

I'm holding off on the iPhone until I have a choice of carriers.

And, how the hell did Steve Jobs get a liver. I have a friend who is on a list to get a new liver. He's been there for two years. He's in bad shape, but they've pretty much told him there will be no liver until the vultures are actually circling his house. Jobs hops on his private jet, flies to TN and gets one the next day. I guess it pays to be a billionaire.

addisonx · 6 months ago

Were you not aware of how much Steve Jobs had wasted away? The vultures may very well have been circling.

yawn · 6 months ago

Apple would create multiple versions in a hot second, and I'm sure they would already if they didn't already have an exclusive contract with AT&T.

sturgidson · 6 months ago

I've wanted to comment on a related issue in France: Consumer internet broadband / television / phone access as it compares to the states.

In the states, I rent an apt in NYC, where we are offered at most 2 companies to purchase television services from, and maybe 3 for telephone. both offer broadband, but at pretty steep rates for anything beyond piddling speed. The reality, however, is this: You have two basic choices: a telephone provider who offers TV, or a TV cable provider who offers phone and internet. Your choice, right?

Either costs about $30-$35/ a month PER service, WITH a 2 year exclusivity deal, and WITH those rates going up to $50 / month after the first year. So, after a year, you pay upward of $150 for all three services. This is considered "normal" practice for consumers in the states. A bad choice between two pretty bad companies.

In france, they have things called "Free Box" and "Neuf," companies which do provide exactly the same.

Right now, we're staying in yet another private apartment with yet another Freebox service, which provides more channels in its basic cable than we have in NYC; that provides a MINIMUM of 3.0 kbps broadband; and that provides phone service: free long distance in France, and FREE long distance to almost 50 nations in the world, including anywhere in the US. (I forgot to mention: the TV is all HD, as well).

There are at least 3 companies that provide this service, in addition to the normal cable and telephone companies. So you have real choice.
The price for this service per month? 30 Euro, or roughly $45 right now. Everything is included in that.

I bring this up because the manner of creating this competition is interesting. The telecom companies are held legally bound to sell a small slice of their bandwidth on the market at low rates to competitors like Freebox and Neuf, who then can price their services as they see fit. Turns out there's a sweetspot at about 30 euro for them, and it creates a real competitive atmosphere- each has distinct services they offer within an appropriate price framework.

And none of it would have been possible if the govt didn't step in and create the space for competition to benefit the consumer and the society rather than solely benefiting the company. The contrast is clear: I'd rather have choices from among 5 or 6 service providers at a third the cost than be locked in to one of two providers, both of whom are absolutely absent in their customer service behavior (because, frankly, they don't need to be present.)

But maybe that's just me.