Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Why the U.S. cellphone system is un-American
dvice.com — Any TV you buy will work with any cable or satellite TV service you have. Any PC you buy, even a Mac, will work with any Internet service provider you use. Any landline phone, wired or cordless, will work any phone company's landline service. So can you buy any cellphone you want regardless of who your carrier is? Of course. Unless you live in USA
mklopez- 2077 diggs
- digg it
- WhiteRaven, on 04/18/2008, -92/+40Uh... you have it backwards. It is very American to have competing, incompatible technologies and brands. Any attempt to artificially unify competing standards requires authoritarian regulation that is contrary to liberty.
The dictates of the FCC and other bodies are anti-freedom and exceed the legal authority of the federal government.
Is freedom really of such little value to you that a little chaos just isn't acceptable?- ljkelley, on 04/18/2008, -5/+39Actually I think competition is much better in the UK for example where all networks are standardised yet the networks are jumping over each other to give you free phones for less contract time (1 year to 18 months) than here in the US (where 2 years is now the norm).
- vinnyvenus, on 04/18/2008, -17/+3But what if some develops a different standard which is provide more efficient management of cellphone towers and additional functionality to the end user? What are they going to do? We need to have a competition among cellphone technologies instead of standardizing them.
- yetAnotherCroc, on 04/18/2008, -1/+19Competing technology results in more expensive products as RnD, and infrastructure costs soar. Agreed upon standards generally benefits both customers and businesses. Thats why we have one measuring system in most of the world. Now competing technology can still exist but they must interface with eachother in a standardised way so that they can compete on fair terms. Otherwise a big player can close their protocolls and force all competitors to build their own infrastructure and thereby inflate prices. The internet would have never been possible if the world hadn't agreed on tcp/ip as a standard protocoll of communication. The same with HTML etc.
- Charlotte_Web, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7I think you're on the right track.
The homogenization of products and technologies is a result of the maturing of a particular industry.
- Charlotte_Web, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7I think you're on the right track.
- jgzman, on 04/18/2008, -7/+6I might note that AT&T doesn't use different technology from Verizon, of Nextel, or Sprint. They all use the same technology, with a few notable exceptions.
I don't object to actual technical incompatibility. I object to engineered incompatibility. Take the iPhone for example. (no, I don't own one, no, I don't want to) There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it should be locked to AT&T. It has been shown that it is perfectly capable of working on any other network, but it is restricted. That's not competition.
Now, if the iPhone only used a spiffy new method of wireless communication, say, subspace radio, and only AT&T has subspace radio towers, that would be OK. That would also be competition, because other companies would be racing as fast as they could to produce their own subspace radio towers, so they could play too.
Also, see pre-standardization railroads.- ChildeRoland420, on 04/18/2008, -0/+12This is simply not true. Verizon and Sprint/Nextel use one standard (CDMA) whereas AT&T/Cingular use GSM. They are incompatible regardless of what you want to believe.
- jgzman, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3I stand corrected.
- Blandyman, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1HOWEVER, AT&T and T-Mobile both use GSM, and the iPhone works on both, as has been proven, so in a WAY, you are still right jgzman. Unfortunately, you were about the Sprint/Nextel thing.
However, let me give you one better: I wanted to buy a Nokia N95i (i found it to be a super-sexy phone and I am indeed a technophile) and put it on MetroPCS (a provider with unlimited services for a lot cheaper.) Although the phone is CDMA, I'm not allowed to put any phone that they don't sell on their network. Huh wuuuhhh?
- MWeather, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3"But what if some develops a different standard which is provide more efficient management of cellphone towers and additional functionality to the end user? What are they going to do?"
Then they license the tech to all comers.
But that's not what this is about. I can't use my 3g phone on all 3g networks, ditto edge phones, etc.
- yetAnotherCroc, on 04/18/2008, -1/+19Competing technology results in more expensive products as RnD, and infrastructure costs soar. Agreed upon standards generally benefits both customers and businesses. Thats why we have one measuring system in most of the world. Now competing technology can still exist but they must interface with eachother in a standardised way so that they can compete on fair terms. Otherwise a big player can close their protocolls and force all competitors to build their own infrastructure and thereby inflate prices. The internet would have never been possible if the world hadn't agreed on tcp/ip as a standard protocoll of communication. The same with HTML etc.
- vinnyvenus, on 04/18/2008, -17/+3But what if some develops a different standard which is provide more efficient management of cellphone towers and additional functionality to the end user? What are they going to do? We need to have a competition among cellphone technologies instead of standardizing them.
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -3/+17I can't figure out whether you are joking or not...
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I'm not joking. What confuses you about valuing freedom?
- klco, on 04/18/2008, -12/+80That is such a crock of *****. I am tired of this ***** about "America is the land of freedom... for corporations to exploit consumers." I am sorry but if We The People can't stand up against exploitation and monopolies then we don't have liberty either.
- BigMrWiggly, on 04/18/2008, -16/+7Lets have the government standardize everything. They are so smart they can solve all of our problems. Why let the consumer decide?
- jgzman, on 04/18/2008, -3/+9I hate that idea. I say we let the companies decide what's best for us. After all, it's pretty clear that everyone was happy with their AT&T iPhone, their RROD X-Box, and I can't think of anyone who has had problems with Comcast.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Your sarcasm aside, you really don't get it. Those companies MUST be allowed to choose what services they offer under what plans and prices. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT FREEDOM MEANS. There is no way to regulate the companies you apparently want to regulate without giving up your own rights. I am not going to let you give up our rights. If your just to stupid to think things through than don't bother forming an opinion in the first place. There is absolutely not excuse for this. You are a little bit inconvenienced by how some other people choose to do business so you want to strip them of basic human rights? Go screw yourself. You know damn well you wouldn't tolerate other people interfering in your life this way, how selfish and simple-minded do you have to be to be so cavalier about doing it to others.
You are a free agent who is ALWAYS free to do without products and services if you don't like the terms under which they are offered. If you think you deserve to have that right, and you do, how can you be so hypocritical as to deny others the rights to *offer* what they want?
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Your sarcasm aside, you really don't get it. Those companies MUST be allowed to choose what services they offer under what plans and prices. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT FREEDOM MEANS. There is no way to regulate the companies you apparently want to regulate without giving up your own rights. I am not going to let you give up our rights. If your just to stupid to think things through than don't bother forming an opinion in the first place. There is absolutely not excuse for this. You are a little bit inconvenienced by how some other people choose to do business so you want to strip them of basic human rights? Go screw yourself. You know damn well you wouldn't tolerate other people interfering in your life this way, how selfish and simple-minded do you have to be to be so cavalier about doing it to others.
- jgzman, on 04/18/2008, -3/+9I hate that idea. I say we let the companies decide what's best for us. After all, it's pretty clear that everyone was happy with their AT&T iPhone, their RROD X-Box, and I can't think of anyone who has had problems with Comcast.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2klco, do you really not grasp that the in the current situation, ALL parties are free. Were the government to formulate and enforce standards, NO ONE would be free.
Your "us vs them" mindset is just ignorant. Regulating big business means regulating ALL PEOPLE. Your desire to control others is not only inexcusable, it is self-destructive. These are *your* rights you want to toss out. - zephyrxero, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1"I am sorry but if We The People can't stand up against exploitation and monopolies then we don't have liberty either."
That is precisely the problem of today. These awful corporations exist because the average American WON'T stand up to them. If 95% of our population actually gave half a sh*t and wasn't so damn apathetic and lazy toward such issues there wouldn't be any of these problems in the first place. The US government can't fix it, they're only going to make it worse. Read a damn history book!
- BigMrWiggly, on 04/18/2008, -16/+7Lets have the government standardize everything. They are so smart they can solve all of our problems. Why let the consumer decide?
- GeauxLSU, on 04/18/2008, -10/+3Explain how Cell phone companies are Monopolies? Do so while using the word companies!
- MWeather, on 04/18/2008, -6/+3AT&T has a monopoly on the iPhone. Other companies can't use it.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1That's like saying Lays has a monopoly on Lays potato chips. The iPhone is merely one of a countless number of phones. Maybe someone really likes Lays chips above all others and that's what they want... so what? It's still just one of many choices available to them.
- GeauxLSU, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5That was apple's choice....they wanted the kick back and Verizon refused to pay (apple went to them first). Most estimates show apple makes more on the kick back than the phone itself. BTW- This is no longer the truth either....You can unlock the iphone and use it with T-mobile. I don't have a parting gift, but thanks for playing!
- MWeather, on 04/18/2008, -6/+3AT&T has a monopoly on the iPhone. Other companies can't use it.
- senatorpjt, on 04/18/2008, -11/+5I don't know why you're getting dugg down, you're right. Freedom isn't always what it's cracked up to be - often it means that corporations will exercise their freedom at the public's expense. Maybe if corporations weren't considered to have the same rights as actual people it might not be such a problem.
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5Being a Libertarian does not mean you have to be pro business. This is the really ***** up side of libertarianism that I hate its followers for. They all think corporate welfare is somehow consistent with their free market beliefs.
- djbon2112, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3I'm a libertarian who hates big business. I know exactly what you mean.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1How did "corporate welfare" enter this discussion? The topic is the basic rights of self-determination we ALL share.
- zephyrxero, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Did you read the last sentence of Senatorpjt's post? Most of the problems in our country involving corporations involves how they are treated as legal persons and none of the shareholders and such have any kind of responsibility or reprocutions for their actions. Don't confuse free markets and freedom for business owners and businesses (over 2/3s of all businesses in the US are still small locally owned businesses) as turning a blind eye on our screwed up corporate situation. Remember, libertarians want the government as small as possible, but that doesn't mean we don't think you should ever restrict any one or organization like an anarchist, it just needs to be well thought out and well justified. Looking at things in a long term scale, government regulation usually just leads to more corruption and a worse situation that it was brought in to fix originally. In fact most of the over blown corporations would not be as big as they are without government subsidization and other well intended programs that have backfired in the long term.
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5Being a Libertarian does not mean you have to be pro business. This is the really ***** up side of libertarianism that I hate its followers for. They all think corporate welfare is somehow consistent with their free market beliefs.
- DarkSamus, on 04/18/2008, -5/+3a big standing facepalm for you
- billbugger, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3
You mean like... Stop signs, driving rules and regulations, FCC, ISO standards, TCP/IP, etc...?- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1You mixed up so many completely different concepts there it's impossible to answer.
Laws regulating trafic on *publicly owned streets" are reasonably the purview of the government.
Dreaming up the phony concept of "public airwaves" on the other hand is another matter entirely. The EM spectrum should be treated exactly the way real-estate is. We have no problem understand that land can be owned. Like the EM spectrum, land is non-portable. Rather than being liscenesed from the government and granting the government power over this resources, the spectrum should be owned outright. It is because people have meekly allowed the FCC to get away with inventing the concept of "public airwaves" that he have censorship.
The other standards you mentioned have nothing to do with government and do not have the force of law so they are immaterial. Everyone who uses them does so voluntarily... which is the way it should all work.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1You mixed up so many completely different concepts there it's impossible to answer.
- turkoftheplains, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2in after common sense-deficient kneejerk libertarian response.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry, I thought that "when the people loose rights, *I* loose rights" was about as logical as it can possibly get. Maybe you don't care about your freedom but I do.
- turkoftheplains, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1I'm perfectly willing to loose a few rights as long as I don't lose them too.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry, I thought that "when the people loose rights, *I* loose rights" was about as logical as it can possibly get. Maybe you don't care about your freedom but I do.
- juniorb, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7America: where corporations have more freedom than you.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 04/18/2008, -4/+1Here's a simple solution - don't buy a cell phone...or a computer.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1juniorb, that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. In what way do they have a single right that you do not? Are there laws regulating the decor in your house or who you invite into it? No? Then shut the ***** up.
All I am asking is that you allow ALL people to have the rights you expect for yourself. But you're so wrapped up in your own concerns you can't even recognize when others are being bullied.- WileEPeyote, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1What does house decoration have to do with any of this?
He is talking about corporations. Are you saying corporations should have the same rights as individual citizens?- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1I am saying that anything that applies to a corporation necessarily affects individuals. It is individuals that must alter their behavior to comply with the rules that apply to corporations. Therefore, any rule that infringes on an individual's right may not be applied to a corporation.
Take laws again discrimination in hiring, firing and promotions. Why is it that the individual that is free to deny someone entry to their home for any reason they like is forced to allow the same person entry into their privately owned place of busienss? It's still the same person who should have all the same rights *you* enjoy in your home. Why the double standard?
Why is there this pervasive belief among some that people operating a corporation somehow turns an ordinary citizen into something less than human? It is a logical impossibility to impose a regulation on a corporation without thereby limiting the freedom of individuals. NO, just because they are working for or own a corporation does not rob a person of their basic civil rights. That is obscene.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1I am saying that anything that applies to a corporation necessarily affects individuals. It is individuals that must alter their behavior to comply with the rules that apply to corporations. Therefore, any rule that infringes on an individual's right may not be applied to a corporation.
- juniorb, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1It's called hyperbole, WhiteRaven, and it was a joke. Tell me to "shut the ***** up" again, and I'll get an internet tough guy to kick your ass.
Oh, by the way, "freedom for everyone blah blah blah shut the ***** up" makes you almost sound like someone with opinions! Keep up the good work!
- WileEPeyote, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1What does house decoration have to do with any of this?
- WileEPeyote, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Freedom to rip-off the little guy is not Liberty.
Going by your logic, the founding fathers were un-American for infringing on King George's liberties to do whatever he wanted to his subjects. Monopolies and under-regulated corporations are the new Monarchy, but we don't mind because it means we get cheap, shiny toys to play with.
Most of our founding fathers would be sickened by what America has become.- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2"Freedom to rip-off the little guy is not Liberty."
YES IT IS. There's really no other way to respond to your statement. "What the market will bear" represents the same ideals that the term liberty does.
And King George had the force of law and an Army... your comparison is retarded. Ever deal you've ever made with any private company of individual was voluntary. There is no company anywhere that can "do anything it wants". It MUST satisfy couspomers or it won't have any. Your ignorant comments boggle my mind. In what world are you living where any company is forcing you to do anything you don't want to? Where is the gun to your head?
What you really want is the ability to pu a gun to the head of OTHER people and force them to give you things on your terms. YOU, WileEPeyote, resemble King George a hell of a lot more than AT&T or Verizon.
The founding fathers would be sickened by the notion of using the government to force other citizens to bow you your wishes you ass. YOU ARE THE TYRANT HERE.- WileEPeyote, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Explain how stealing from the taxpayers is liberty? That is what is being done. Most of our taxes go to defending small feifdoms called corporations.
No, not every deal I have made with corporations has been voluntary, there are a good number of deals made with or for corporations in which I have absolutely no say (ever head of NAFTA?).
If you don't think corporations have the force of Law and the Military behind them then you haven't been paying attention.
I don't want to force other PEOPLE to do anything. I want to regulate CORPORATIONS more effectively. PEOPLE should be free, CORPORATIONS should be regulated, just as we regulate ALL trade and commerce. It should be one of the few purposes of a federal government.
I don't think you know a whole lot about the founding fathers outside of whatever libertarian pamphlet you've read lately...- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1"Explain how stealing from the taxpayers is liberty? That is what is being done. Most of our taxes go to defending small feifdoms called corporations."
What are you talking about? I honestly don't know what you mean.
"No, not every deal I have made with corporations has been voluntary, there are a good number of deals made with or for corporations in which I have absolutely no say (ever head of NAFTA?"
You MORON!! NAFTA has absolutely NOTHING to do with you. NAFTA is a trade agreement made between nations. I explained to you that all of your dealings with companies and private individuals have all been voluntary. You answer this truism with a non sequiter involving national treaties. You are still free to do business or not with whomever you want. NAFTA is a completely unrelated issue. Are you intentionally raising a smoke-screen or do you really not understand the difference between government and private enterprise?
"I don't want to force other PEOPLE to do anything. I want to regulate CORPORATIONS more effectively. PEOPLE should be free, CORPORATIONS should be regulated, just as we regulate ALL trade and commerce."
it is physically impossible to regulate corporations without regulating people. It is monumentally dishonest to pretend that regulating the actions of a business does not constitutive a restriction on the rights of the people who compose that business.
You honestly expect me to sit here and let people get away with this end-around of basic freedom? "Sure, we are all free to do what we want... unless you happen to work for or own a corporation." That is completely unacceptable. NO, you may NOT require people to surrender their rights in order to conduct busienss in this country. You hypocritical, conniving bastard. You can't excuse your tyranny by saying it only applies to "big corporations". Limiting the rights of some robs ALL of their rights.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1"Explain how stealing from the taxpayers is liberty? That is what is being done. Most of our taxes go to defending small feifdoms called corporations."
- WileEPeyote, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Explain how stealing from the taxpayers is liberty? That is what is being done. Most of our taxes go to defending small feifdoms called corporations.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2"Freedom to rip-off the little guy is not Liberty."
- Obzerva, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Wow, 50 people buried this comment...I've never seen that before
- WileEPeyote, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1WhiteRaven - I've read through several of your comments and all I can say is you need to read some of the documents from the founding of this country. You also need to understand the difference between individual liberty and chaos.
A famous saying (paraphrased from memory) - "The freedom to swing your fist ends where it meets my nose." - zephyrxero, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1It's a shame how few people on this thread understand freedom and economics. These corporations primarily get away with their reprehensible behaviors because the general public puts up with it. If people would actually boycott these companies and stand up to them they wouldn't be treating us this way. Too many people in the country expect the government to step in take care of them. I hate how we've become a nanny state for the lazy and apathetic majority. The founding fathers would be ashamed.
Now on the topic of cell phones and the FCC it is a little more complicated since they have sold and licensed the public air waves to these guys. In this case there is no way for a free market to occur because of the regulation of the FCC. This just helps to show why government regulation that may seem like a good idea in the short term will usually come back to make things worse in the long term.
- ljkelley, on 04/18/2008, -5/+39Actually I think competition is much better in the UK for example where all networks are standardised yet the networks are jumping over each other to give you free phones for less contract time (1 year to 18 months) than here in the US (where 2 years is now the norm).
- h4ckler, on 04/18/2008, -28/+14It is hard to have what you site when companies like verizon cling to dieing technologies... (CDMA cough cough)
- vinnyvenus, on 04/18/2008, -11/+3Actually cdma is growing, especially in developing countries. Although it's declining in some developed nation but overall it still has a positive growth rate.
- bjornski, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3In the sticks?
Great!- celticchrys, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2well, south america
- luchid, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2What? It's mostly GSM down here.
- SteveMax, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4The biggest operator in Brazil (Vivo) is just completing its transition to GSM/Edge (with an upgrade to HSDPA just waiting for the government's approval). It was the only CDMA operator here, and its market share has been declining for a very long time. It once represented over 50% of the market, it's now under 30%. Its share only started to grow after it started offering GSM phones.
If you look at the page given below, quite a few CDMA2000 operators have been transitioning to GSM/Edge/UTMS/HSPA. You don't see any coming the other way around. CDMA is long past its time, only a few big operators keep it alive.
- vinnyvenus, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000
- celticchrys, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2well, south america
- System6, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8and in Asia. CDMA technologies still have the fastest data rates in most American cities.
- bjornski, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3In the sticks?
- celticchrys, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2No, this still applies to a great degree. There are many dual band phones out there that would work on either type of carrier. There are also many CDMA phones out there that Sprint will not let me walk in with and add to my account.
- System6, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Right now. Verizons any handset initiave looks to try to shift the industry away from that.
- celticchrys, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I'm really looking forward to that, too. I, for one, might see that as an incentive to switch to Verizon when my current contract ends if other carriers do not follow suit. Just to support that open ideal.
- System6, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Right now. Verizons any handset initiave looks to try to shift the industry away from that.
- pasher1221, on 04/18/2008, -5/+6"cling to dieing technologies" It cost money and time to upgrade a network. Do you have any idea what is involved?
Here is a brief idea..
Spend $4.5 billion in new spectrum so you can build the new network while having the old one in place
Spend $2-5 million per switching center (about 200) placing equipment to support the new technologies.
Spend $5 billion a year to order thousands of DS1s, DS3s, OC48s, OC192s and/or Ethernet circuits to connect this new network. Remember it is only wireless to the tower that is usually less then a mile away from you. This will take about 2-4 years to build out.
Spend $20k-$40K per tower (a good provider has from 10K-35K towers) to upgrade the radios in the towers.
The are also tons of other issues and cost. Lease land for towers, FCC regs, leasing tower space, growing your service area, testing handsets so they do not interfere with other wireless communications.- MiDri, on 04/18/2008, -3/+7You forgot the best part: Have the government subsidize and pay for most of the work!
- pasher1221, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Really....
Can you provide a refrance for that? Charging $4.5 billion for spectrum is not subsidizing.
- pasher1221, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Really....
- smacksaw, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2There's no transparency or accountability for how these companies use the public airwaves to do that.
If you're talking 10bn a year (which I think is high because it's repetitive to have competing/differing technologies covering the same area), with 100 million wireless subscribers that works out to $100 a year.
I'd say it's half that. $5 a month in infrastructure tax that bypasses the cell companies is all we should pay. And then anyone can sell access to the network. We could have unlimited usage phone and data for $20/mo and they'd still make a lot of money selling service. And that's $5 for just one year. We don't keep ordering backbone and bidding on spectrum all the time.- pasher1221, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I think that is how they do it in China.
- MiDri, on 04/18/2008, -3/+7You forgot the best part: Have the government subsidize and pay for most of the work!
- ZombyWoof78, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9GSM provider are now introducing W-CDMA into their network to handle mobile broadband. Code Division multiple access is a much better technology when dealing with packet switching.
- SteveMax, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1CDMA as a multiplexing method is better than TDMA.
CdmaOne and derived network technologies are terrible. CDMA is being used here in this context, as a catch-all term for CdmaOne and CDMA2000 in all its forms (1x, 2x, 3x, EV-DO, EV-DV). The fact that they used a better multiplexing method doesn't make them better than the competing, global standard technologies
- SteveMax, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1CDMA as a multiplexing method is better than TDMA.
- neodorian, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8Yeah, dying tech that gives me higher speeds than any other system. I find it funny that people always call CDMA dying and yet I can get unlimited broadband speed data for $15/month on a CDMA Rev. A provider while the so-called modern GSM providers are slower and more expensive and switching to W-CDMA for their broadband.
- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2GSM can also give you high speed. try a service with UTMS or HSDPA, there are quite a few in Europe i hear.
- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1also, what provider do you use that gives you $15/month for unlimited data !? is your base plan already really high or something? i have to pay $20 over my voice plan for BB data.
- tomz17, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6Yeah... except that CDMA is VASTLY superior in almost every technical respect to the TDMA current GSM is based on. In fact, GSM carriers are expected to start a transition to W-CDMA based GSM in the near future!
CDMA is far from dead. - camino262, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1FYI, The new GSM 3G standard is using parts of IS-95 (CDMA standard).
- tacohead, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2CDMA, particularly the 800 and 900 MHz CDMA have better signal reception than most GSM systems.
CDMA works most everywhere I go.
High frequency GSM just doesn't work well in a lot of places I go, but is the most sold. - x252, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Oh *****, he just said CDMA was "old."
gb2/the80s/
- vinnyvenus, on 04/18/2008, -11/+3Actually cdma is growing, especially in developing countries. Although it's declining in some developed nation but overall it still has a positive growth rate.
- santaliqueur, on 04/18/2008, -84/+19Is it now popular to trash America to get to the front page? How many of you that hate this country actually have plans to leave?
- klco, on 04/18/2008, -3/+33they aren't trashing america... RTFA
- Eivo, on 04/18/2008, -7/+73Criticizing one's country (which this article isn't doing by the way) does not mean you are trashing it or hate it. It's a ***** democracy, things are always changing, being criticized, and debated. If you don't like that, then you can make plans to leave, becuase democracy is the only thing that is "American".
- Profiler38, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6Actually democracy was around long before the US.
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -1/+16What I love most about this whole thing is how being an American automatically means your association with *insert ideology here.*
- celticchrys, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10The wonderful thing about America is that normal citizens have the Constitutional right to criticize the government. This includes the FCC. This is the way our country was created, and one of our founding principals, that people have the right to voice dissent from the majority opinion. You need to re-take your Civics classes from Jr. High School.
- staeiou, on 04/18/2008, -5/+13Not everyone on Digg is the the U.S., by the way.
- orangefly, on 04/18/2008, -3/+7i say if you say "if you don't like the way america is then get out", you should get out....
- senatorpjt, on 04/18/2008, -2/+14If you're not pissed off about what's wrong with America, you're not being patriotic, you're just being apathetic.
- zelig, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1Sorry, dude. I'm happy. Life is good. Digg me down.
- DarkSamus, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6i hate many things about this country, but i love this country
noob - Rakutenka, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3I am American and though I do like this country, I don't like how it is being run by the conservative right and Corporate America. Hence why I am moving to my Fiancé's country of Japan. She was going to move here, but based on how the current administration has run the economy into the ground and taken away our freedoms she doesn't want to now. Don't get me wrong; Japan is not perfect, but I am more willing to deal with their problems then the ones we have here right now. Don't worry, I haven't given up on America. I will still cast my vote from there to try to do my duty as a good American to get my country back on the right track. =)
- Sokkratez, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Just because you hate the state of the country doesn't mean you should leave. You could, you know, spread awareness and try to make things better.
- gr3yn3t, on 04/18/2008, -23/+7Even a mac? Really?!
- Spuy767, on 04/18/2008, -3/+6Good to know that I can still dial up my NetZero account. Apparently, it takes me to the same internet, for half the price. I do wonder, however, why I shoot my load before the first picture gets downloaded.
- schnikies79, on 04/18/2008, -6/+58You can buy an unlocked phone and run it on any carrier you want, assuming it's the same system.
In my area, it's Verizon or AT&T. No one else has a signal.- Dumbledorito, on 04/18/2008, -0/+8If it runs on a SIM card, yes. However, with some of the smart phones, many features won't work with every network.
Sprint and Verizon phones are still unusuable on any network but their own, I believe.- maisis00, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5That should be resolve in the next few years. There is a certain mobile equipment maker who starts with an "Ericc" and ends with a "son" :) that plans to release bothe phone and air card dvices that will operating on either GSM or CDMA network. These phones will only be sold by Ericcson and in an unlocked fashion. The last time I talked with the guys at Ericcson was at the 2007 GSM conference in Barcelona and they were talking about a 2009 roll out.
- fr34k5h0w, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Actually, no. CDMA is used by Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, US Cellular, etc. I currently have a Razr V3c from Verizon running on the Alltel network. My friend has a black Sprint Krazr with the Alltel UI on the Verizon network. We also just took a Verizon Envy and tricked Alltel to running it on our friend's plan with no modifications to the phone. If anything it is a virtual block as all that is needed is the ESN, and optionally the WAP and MMS server names and authentication information for each network if the rest of the features are to be enabled. Alltel and Verizon both use Brew apps, making them semi-portable.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1As I'm mostly familiar with SIM card phones, may I ask how you transferred your "account info" or whatever to your phone? Is it a software patch?
- fr34k5h0w, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1You'll need your MIN and MDN off of the network (you can get it from your current phone), and the ESN off of your new phone (below the battery). These three numbers are what are required to get your phone on the network. But I would recommend having someone who knows what they are doing do it for you. Also, HowardForums is your friend.
- jhandfield, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Remembering back to my Radio Shack days, the phones had a numeric code you'd enter (##[some digits]* on Sprint, I think it was) to get into some variety of provisioning menu, throw in a few numbers and the phone would register itself on the network. Presumably the act of telling the provider the phone's ESN caused their system to add that phone to their database and actually allow it to connect, so I doubt it's anything one could do strictly from the phone.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1That sounds like "unlocking," which I've seen done either via a code (as you describe) or via a software package that "flashed the bios" or something to make it work with anything.
But what I'm asking is about how the network knows that it's your account and phone #. I just bought an unlocked Cingular phone that I'm using on T-Mobile, but it reads my SIM to know I'm legit. How do you tell a phone with no SIM that you are you? - SolitarySoviet, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1actually its not unlocking, hes referring to older TDMA network devices (like startac or n 6160 old...) all those old phones you had t program to tell the handset its own number, and also tell the service provider its ESN so it could call out... so yes if your wondering changing the number on the handset to someone elses would in fact "steal" their calls if the tower made contact with the cloned phone first... the only flashing you would want to do to a TDMA phone would be to clone its esn into another model allowing you to Call out and use their service as well...
- Dumbledorito, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1That sounds like "unlocking," which I've seen done either via a code (as you describe) or via a software package that "flashed the bios" or something to make it work with anything.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1As I'm mostly familiar with SIM card phones, may I ask how you transferred your "account info" or whatever to your phone? Is it a software patch?
- L3on, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Verizon also makes it a point to sell phones that don't use SIM cards. Although I haven't used them in 2 years, this used to be the case.
- andrew7667, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1It's still the case.
- mjw2025, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0Recently I read a couple of news articles where Verizon announced that by the end of this year they would start opening their system to allow other phones to be used. It didn't state it as such but it sounded like manufacturers were going to offer CDMA phones that use a SIM card .
- celticchrys, on 04/18/2008, -8/+6In my area, every single carrier tells me that the phone must have been originally purchased from them. No, they do not care if it uses the same network type, etc. It it did not come from one of their stores, no-go.
- Dunnix, on 04/18/2008, -2/+21They are lying to you.
- CountSessine, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7Uh...no they aren't. In the case of the ***** CDMA IS-95 system that the US invented, whether or not you can use a cell phone that was sold to you my another carrier on their network is entirely up to them. They know from your ESN where that phone came from and they can disallow it if they like.
Carrier policies vary. Verizon generally won't activate non-Verizon phones. Telus and Bell won't activate any non-Telus and non-Bell phones. It seems Alltel is more liberal about this. Good if you want to run a Verizon phone on Alltel, but tough ***** if you want to run an Alltel phone on Verizon.
Contrast with the European/French GSM system where it's none of the damn carrier's business at all what phone you're using - you just slip in a SIM card and they can't do a damn thing about it.- marm0lade, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1PSSSSSSSST.
We have GSM in the US too.
- marm0lade, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1PSSSSSSSST.
- CountSessine, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7Uh...no they aren't. In the case of the ***** CDMA IS-95 system that the US invented, whether or not you can use a cell phone that was sold to you my another carrier on their network is entirely up to them. They know from your ESN where that phone came from and they can disallow it if they like.
- Dunnix, on 04/18/2008, -2/+21They are lying to you.
- senatorpjt, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5I thought they still used different signaling, so you need a different phone for some carriers. Although, say, you can unlock an iPhone and use it with T-Mobile (GSM) it'll never work with Verizon.
- camg188, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0I bought a Cingular phone/plan from wirefly online in 2003. When I read that phones bought online are often unlocked, I checked and sure enough my phone was unlocked. I've now used it with Cingular, Cincinnati Bell and T-Mobile. I got a Nokia from Cincinnati Bell, got instructions online how to unlock it and used it with T-Mobile.
- CountSessine, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Yes - you are correct.
- L3on, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Iphones are immune, hahahaha! Now if only we had 3G :-(
- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -0/+8Actually, not to the extent that you think.
Try to walk into a t-Mobile or Cingular store and tell them that you would like to purchase a SIM card with a particular plan on it. see if you get very far. chances are they'll want to "see" the phone. in say, Switzerland or Germany, you could most certainly walk into a T-Punkt and purchase a SIM card without even taking the phone with you.
(heh heh try purchasing a myFaves SIM card or a unlimited data SIM card -- US carriers actually charge different rates depending on *what* device you use. it's so screwed up, the data and voice plans actually depend on the phone being used -- and they'll probably not sell you one if your phone is not something they recognise. and heck, if you want cheaper service on your Treo, walk into the store with a RAZR and get a SIM card, then take it home and swap it into the Treo, hmm...)- Phisolo, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3This is not entirely true. Prior to my iPhone, I used t-mobile. I NEVER had a locked phone. My preference at the time was the Sony-Ericcson p900 series. I never got hassled when i needed a new sim for the phone. I just bought it and put it in myself.
I did get grief from their tech support, until i learned to lie and say I was using one of the SE models they carried. I think this is just ignorance on the part of their support centers.
I use the same trick with DSL support when I'm calling in about an issue. Instead of telling the call center I'm on a Mac, I just mentally convert their XP instructions to the Mac equivalent.- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0i think it largely depends on the store and how nice they are.
furthermore, go to www.tmobile.com and try order a SIM card. you can't! you have to select: 1. Phones, 2. Plan. there is no option to say you don't want a new phone.
now go to www.orangeclick.ch and take a look, for example. swiss carrier ... they'll mail you a just SIM card, you pay online with a credit card, that's it. or walk into a Sunrise store in Switzerland and just take a SIM card and fill out a form. nowhere does it ask or do they ask what phone you have.- camg188, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0You can buy SIM cards for US carries online from 3rd party vendors. I don't know anything about their usability though.
- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0i think it largely depends on the store and how nice they are.
- jhandfield, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Back when I worked for an electronics chain that was also a Cingular agent, I think we did offer SIM cards for something like $20. Only thing was we'd get screamed at by corporate if we did it since we didn't get jack for selling the cards bare (same kind of screaming if we sold an unactivated phone) and I recall it being a pain to get new batches of SIMs if the phone count didn't match, but it was a valid SKU in our system.
- Phisolo, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3This is not entirely true. Prior to my iPhone, I used t-mobile. I NEVER had a locked phone. My preference at the time was the Sony-Ericcson p900 series. I never got hassled when i needed a new sim for the phone. I just bought it and put it in myself.
- absurdist, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1And if you're lucky, you'll get voice and text messaging. Want net access, etc...? Forget it. Go do a search and see all the forums dedicated to the problems people have using unlocked devices on the supposedly open US GSM networks. I just went through this with ATT and a Razr V3 and V3i. Both were unlocked. Both work for voice and text. For anything else, ATT's response is "sorry, not our phone, not our problem." Same thing with T-Mobile. Even though I can take the ***** phones ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD, drop in a prepaid SIM, and everything works.
- ethnicman, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0I bought a IPaq 6945 unlocked and it worked fine for all services (Vioce,data, text). I called T-Mobile for support and there was no problem with them helping me eventhough the phone is technically not supported.
- SolitarySoviet, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1seriously its probably just ATT with the way they send OTA wap settings... most mobile carriers use suites to do it(Sony ericcson licences a program called Mformation) and if your phone isnt on the list they dont have premade setting package for your phone to configure MMS and WAP
if you have another phone that does work online with the same sim just hand copy the settings into the new one...
GSM is GSM and thats kind of the point... US EU no matter..
- pedo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I think the point is that all cell phones should be unlocked....
- CountSessine, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1At the very least they should be forced to unlock it for you after your contract is up. Presently, they have no such obligation in North America.
- mjw2025, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0 I have a friend who's unlocked a bunch of phones for others. He usually does a search and eventually finds the procedure for that particular phone.
In one of the malls near Atlanta there's a little store that advertises phone unlocking for $20. Not that anyone should have to pay but that store is one option for the Atlanta area.
- mjw2025, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0 I have a friend who's unlocked a bunch of phones for others. He usually does a search and eventually finds the procedure for that particular phone.
- CountSessine, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1At the very least they should be forced to unlock it for you after your contract is up. Presently, they have no such obligation in North America.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/18/2008, -0/+8If it runs on a SIM card, yes. However, with some of the smart phones, many features won't work with every network.
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -32/+60This is what happens when you have unregulated markets in a capitalistic system! It's called market failure and all it needs is a small taste of government intervention.
- bjornski, on 04/18/2008, -16/+32Ron Paul wouldn't like your attitude.
- fracktica, on 04/18/2008, -11/+6Ron Paul is the superman of all grandpas.
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -8/+42I'm pretty sure that if the above post said "Ron Paul is against government intervention and he's wrong" that this would be immediately dugg down due to Digg's fervent love of him. What Ron Paul doesn't get is that free markets are GOOD, but they aren't bloody perfect. Ron Paul libertarianism is wrong in the same way that socialists are wrong: Too much reliance on either free markets or government intervention will lead to problems. The best is a balance that exemplifies the good qualities of both: A capitalist society that honours the free market spirit with government intervention that encourages competition. So many libertarian-leaning conservatives now flock to this idea that being pro free market means automatically being pro business. It isn't, and sadly, much of the right wing economic ideology deployed by republicans lately has violated the free market traditions they say they so deeply honour.
- jackalsclaw, on 04/18/2008, -5/+9wow this is the best series of comment i have seen in weeks. people who know about economics are confronting Ron Paul fanatics with logic. JOY!
- xenuxenuts, on 04/18/2008, -0/+11Ron Paul got a lot of support from social liberals and anti-war people. I suspect there are also a lot of people like me who believe in a mostly free market, except where it doesn't work well. Some good examples are: the military, police, fire dept, roads, and (imo) health care. Just imagine if ALL of our troops in Iraq were mercenaries -- that would be a purely capitalist military.
Due to the no-bid contracts, Bush & co are anything but pro-free market, they're almost feudalistic . Democrats have become the party of the balanced budget and lower government spending over the last 30 years. While there's still a big difference between libertarians and democrats, in modern reality I think they're closer in reality than libertarians and republicans are.- senatorpjt, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7If the military were actually organized the way it was intended by the second amendment, we wouldn't even be in Iraq, or anywhere else. The idea was that everyone would be trained in small arms and could provide defense if such a situation were to arise, more like how the Swiss military is organized. (although Switzerland has compulsory service)
- serif69, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2"Democrats have become the party of the balanced budget and lower government spending over the last 30 years."
Truth be told, neither party has been responsible for any sort of reduced spending in the last 8 years. Before George W. Bush, it was a Republican Congress and Democrat President that helped curb spending, and before Clinton, a Democrat Congress and Republican President. While I would agree that libertarians are closer to Democrats, just because of the social liberalism, in terms of style and size of government, libertarianism couldn't be any further from the current two party system.
- ACityInOhio, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Big props to you Spudster--that was an eloquent and well-constructed defense of limited (but necessary) government intervention in an otherwise free market system. I only wish that more people accurately understood the benefits and limitations of unregulated capitalism (just as most now understand the failures of communism). It would certainly make political debates more interesting.
In any event, good form and good comment. - afruff23, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2@Spudster
By intervening, you remove what makes capitalism...capitalism. You intervene to bail out malinvestments, which ultimately leads to a system full of inefficiencies. Claiming that the cell phone market and its locked-down nature is because of capitalism is grossly misleading. The FCC regulates and sells bandwidth as it sees fit. Furthermore, just about any handset device has huge regulations since there is all the hype about radiation.
Capitalism works because it weeds out that which does not work by providing a feedback system of prices. What does a socialist system do? It allocates resources based on whims, rather than what is the best use of the resources. See: star wars, massive military, roads to nowhere, etc. These are not exceptions to a rule of efficiency. These are merely extreme and glaring examples of how a non-capitalistic system cannot be solvent. The same thing applies to anything governments fund; they just may not be as obvious because you are only seeing what the government has created, not what it has destroyed to create that (e.g. war spending creates massive and impressive tanks at the expense of less business in other areas at home). - AbsurdParadox, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Spud, can you give me an example of how you can use government intervention to encourage competition? And, if you mention something about "monopolies", please provide an example of one that doesn't involve government collusion.
- w3bsmith, on 04/18/2008, -17/+19It's not market failure you idiot. It's called government intervention! Regulations and licensing of airwaves allowed the elite corporations to be what they are. Bailouts keep them there.
Just because the American form of government intervention doesn't appear to be the same as foriegn forms, doesn't make it any less true. It means that we have a Fascist form of government, whereas France is a Democratic form, England Parliamentary, etc. The people have no say in the American form. Only the few have a say, and thus we have this mess.
Don't like it? Great! Stop spreading lies, learn the truth, and spread that instead.- brundlefly76, on 04/18/2008, -6/+16Actually, spudster is right - it is market failure. Unlike Europe and other countries where there was a government-enforced selection of a singular wireless technology which would insure interoperability, the US govt decided that it wasn't their place and the free market should decide - this resulted in carriers walling their gardens between each other with technology.
As much as I would like to blame the US govt or the carriers, they actually both acted appropriately to their roles in the system, although the outcome for consumers was unpredictably undesirable. ***** happens.- intangible, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4It couldn't possibly be caused by government granted monopolies over all parts of the spectrum... nah... that would make too much sense.
- bjornski, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Don't forget the allowed buy-outs and mergers. That's hardly competition. That's blessing monopolies.
- brundlefly76, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1actually buy-outs and mergers are part of a free market system.
- brundlefly76, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1You have it backwards - our current telephone system is the result of deregulation of monopoly which was the foundation of our *original* telephone system.
- intangible, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4It couldn't possibly be caused by government granted monopolies over all parts of the spectrum... nah... that would make too much sense.
- DreKor, on 04/18/2008, -3/+9If you're suggesting that America should deregulate RF spectrum, I hope you don't own a TV, cell phone, anything with WiFi, a radio, or anything else with an antenna. They'll stop working really fast as people start moving to a "might makes right" mentality and start broadcasting anything and everything on any frequency they want. If they hit interference, they'll just boost their signal to get around it. Eventually, the entire spectrum will get so polluted, all you'll ever see is noise.
- bowe, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1I think companies have figured out how to work around each other in the past. From a game theory standpoint there's two choices. Try to enter: One, a crowded spectrum, spend lots of money on boosting power, & anger potential consumers, or enter a less crowded spectrum for a low amount of money. In the case of Wifi, and Cellphone, It's also possible for many signals to coexist on one frequency without interfering with each other, just like two people can share the same telephone line, you can share the same frequency. TV and Radio are both going digital, so that similar things will be possible. If companies do try to take anti-competitive positions, that's where anti-trust law comes into play.
- intangible, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Isn't the reason WiFi took off BECAUSE of the open spectrum in those bands?
- afruff23, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2@DreKor
I can't believe how much you Statists sound like Creationists (without a leader, everything will be chaotic!)
- camg188, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2Let me get this straight. You claim that the US government is a fascist form of government because mobile phone companies lock the phones that they sell to their own network?
You say France is democratic and the US is fascist. Please let Bridget Bardot's lawyer know this immediately. - turkoftheplains, on 04/18/2008, -3/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism/ -- learn it, you *****.
Also, Godwin's Law.- bjornski, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Godwins Law only implies that the longer a topic gets discussed, the more likely someone will reference Hitler.
It doesn't negate *****.
- bjornski, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Godwins Law only implies that the longer a topic gets discussed, the more likely someone will reference Hitler.
- vexingmodstwo, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2You know what's really funny? When morons throw around the word Fascism when they clearly have no idea what it means.
- brundlefly76, on 04/18/2008, -6/+16Actually, spudster is right - it is market failure. Unlike Europe and other countries where there was a government-enforced selection of a singular wireless technology which would insure interoperability, the US govt decided that it wasn't their place and the free market should decide - this resulted in carriers walling their gardens between each other with technology.
- BigMrWiggly, on 04/18/2008, -7/+2Where's the failure looks like things are fine to me.
- Herostratus, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4What? To make it even worse?
- skipdog172, on 04/18/2008, -5/+5I do not understand how this is a "market failure". I have all sorts of different options for my cell carrier AND for my cell phone. The government should be swooping in and telling all of these companies that they need to MAKE all cell phones work with their service? That seems pointless to me. Is it really that hard to get a contract with a cell carrier and use the phone they give you? Are there really cell carriers out there that offer so little choices on phones??
I don't see a reason why I need to pay a higher monthly bill while all of these cell companies spend money on upgrading their infrastructure just to make ALL CELL PHONES work with their service. Government Intervention is not the answer. - Extracheese, on 04/18/2008, -1/+10This is a REGULATED market. someone already beat me to it, but yes, the FCC sold public airwaves to these companies to use exclusively. Yes, the different cellphone companies have a lot of power and the market is inefficient, but that is decreasing because competition is actually increasing. The U.S system is moving towards the European system. Regulation thats relevant to prevent abuse of market power is good......"Federal intervention" itself though, never goes well because the Government can concentrate market power just as well as it can dissipate it..and more often than not, it is the government's naive, corrupt or obsolete intervention which has lead to the current state of affairs.
- AbsurdParadox, on 04/18/2008, -4/+5Unregulated...? Have you ever heard of the FCC?
Market failures in a free market system do not exist. Every single one I've ever seen was due to regulation or force being used. Don't pretend to know what you're talking about.- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Market failures unequivocally don't exist? You've got to be kidding me. So you're telling me big oil and gas companies are just going to bend over backwards and make their operations carbon neutral without government intervention?
- captZEEbo, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1this is getting a little offtrack, but the reason big oil and gas companies ARE making a carbon imprint is because the government has deemed the "acceptable" levels of pollution. If you were a true believer in property rights (from the austrian school of economics), you would see how no government would be better for the environment than government.
http://www.mises.org/story/1844
In a more general sense read the wiki criticisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure - Spudster, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3I'm well aware of the austrian school and its view of free markets. There is a lot to be said for the role of private property determining how well the environment is cherished in land rights cases. But how could a free market solve global warming? It's such an immense and problematic issue that affects everyone's property collectively, yet the problem is brought about by only specific members of society who emit copious amounts of greenhouse gases. There is no way in HELL that a pure free market could solve that problem and you know it. There is zero incentive for carbon emitters to consent to the will of the rest of society if there are no legal punishments if they don't comply. Sorry, but sometimes the collective will and good of the people must be expressed through government action.
- AbsurdParadox, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2If the "collective will" wanted a greener, safer world, these polluters would simply go out of business due to lost revenue to competitors that ARE "green". Therefore, there is no reason to use government force.
I argue that we would have a MUCH less polluted world if there were no governments to decide how much was "okay". And that doesn't even get into the fact that the government greatly stifles innovation in the first place. Without it, we could have super safe mega-clean nuclear power by now (speculation, of course, just an example).
http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/ - This is the best argument I know of, for an entirely free market society. - captZEEbo, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1global warming is an infringement on property rights, plain and simple. All damages of global warming will be dealt with in court as if they were a physical attack on your person. The free market says, "any attack will be penalized". The government says, "you are allowed to break everyone in the world's toes, but no more." The government MANDATES how much damage is permissible. The free market says, no amount is permissible without repercussion. Therefore the free market (btw it's not what we have today), ENCOURAGES companies to not pollute to the greatest extent, whereas the government allows pollution to be an ongoing, longterm problem.
Here is a great article that explains the downfalls of government regulation on pollution. It also explains how the free market would work much better.
http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty12.asp
- AbsurdParadox, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2If the "collective will" wanted a greener, safer world, these polluters would simply go out of business due to lost revenue to competitors that ARE "green". Therefore, there is no reason to use government force.
- afruff23, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2@Spudster
First off let me say that I think man-made GW is a bunch of hype like DDT, anthrax, mercury, etc.
Anyways, let me just examine how a free market can deal with man-made GW if it were true. Now, first of all, since you value the lack of greenhouse gases so much, I can only assume you would buy insurance against global warming. There is no way to subject China to stop giving off greenhouse gases, so you would buy some insurance against any bad effects.
Now that you have bought insurance, your company will use its tools to prevent the onset of global warming. Rather than pay out $$$$$$$ to every policy-holder if global warming occurs, it will stop at nothing to stop man-made global warming. There are numerous things it can do such as build strong levees to stop rising sea levels, invest in research for alternative fuels, encourage use of nuclear energy in the meantime by giving people who use it a small bonus, as well as invest in greenhouse gas REVERSING technology (e.g. certain types of planting).
So, you can clearly see that a free market is more apt to solve man-made GW since it actually forces people to place a value on such a cause rather than having somebody invest and re-invest into things which cannot be proven to be effective (e.g. ethanol).- AbsurdParadox, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2I think your argument is sound, however, to someone who's not familiar to the role insurance companies may play in a 100% free market economy, this might be a little "wtf insurance!?" to them.
- StaticThunder, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3I don't think its sound. An insurance company has to keep those funds on hand to pay out if the events occur to cover your losses due to GW. If it spends them trying to prevent the bad outcome, and then the bad outcome happens anyway, it just defrauded every person who bought the insurance. Thats not the free market; thats a scam. Because you're worried about GW, we'll take your money, and then not insure you... just invest in a bunch of crap that might or might not work.
- afruff23, on 04/19/2008, -2/+1@StaticThunder
The free market is not without its errors. The difference between it and the government is that the free market is naturally self-correcting. If the insurance company invests its plant-reducing budget in something completely useless for getting rid of greenhouse gases like flowers, then soon that company will face criticism and go out oif business as its competition provides better services. When a government does something wrong, there is no competitor to take its place since it threatens all those who oppose them.
The point is that even if there are a few mistakes from individuals in the free market, these things tend to self-correct. Furthermore, in any society where something is not valued (e.g. property rights or man-made GW), no form of government or business can change this since that is human nature. - afruff23, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1@Static Thunder
"If it spends them trying to prevent the bad outcome, and then the bad outcome happens anyway, it just defrauded every person who bought the insurance. Thats not the free market; thats a scam. Because you're worried about GW, we'll take your money, and then not insure you... just invest in a bunch of crap that might or might not work."
I just noticed that this pretty much describes the governmental approach to solving GW, except for the fact that you are FORCED to partake in the scam.
- captZEEbo, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1from that article:
"As factories began to arise and emit smoke, blighting the orchards of neighboring farmers, the farmers would take the manufacturers to court, asking for damages and injunctions against further invasion of their property. But the judges said, in effect, "Sorry. We know that industrial smoke (i.e., air pollution) invades and interferes with your property rights. But there is something more important than mere property rights: and that is public policy, the 'common good.' And the common good decrees that industry is a good thing, industrial progress is a good thing, and therefore your mere private property rights must be overridden on behalf of the general welfare." And now all of us are paying the bitter price for this overriding of private property, in the form of lung disease and countless other ailments. And all for the "common good"!
That this principle has guided the courts during the air age as well may be seen by a decision of the Ohio courts in Antonik v. Chamberlain (1947). The residents of a suburban area near Akron sued to enjoin the defendants from operating a privately owned airport. The grounds were invasion of property rights through excessive noise. Refusing the injunction, the court declared:
In our business of judging in this case, while sitting as a court of equity, we must not only weigh the conflict of interests between the airport owner and the nearby landowners, but we must further recognize the public policy of the generation in which we live. We must recognize that the establishment of an airport? is of great concern to the public, and if such an airport is abated, or its establishment prevented, the consequences will be not only a serious injury to the owner of the port property but may be a serious loss of a valuable asset to the entire community."
The government is the one that is to blame, because they have taken away our property rights for the claimed "greater good".
- captZEEbo, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1this is getting a little offtrack, but the reason big oil and gas companies ARE making a carbon imprint is because the government has deemed the "acceptable" levels of pollution. If you were a true believer in property rights (from the austrian school of economics), you would see how no government would be better for the environment than government.
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Market failures unequivocally don't exist? You've got to be kidding me. So you're telling me big oil and gas companies are just going to bend over backwards and make their operations carbon neutral without government intervention?
- captZEEbo, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1The real problem is not making a law to mandate what companies can and can't do about some random, specific issue. The REAL problem is that the government has a monopoly of the airwaves which DRASTICALLY limits new competition from coming and offering these phone services you would want. Free the airwaves altogether, and let any firm use them, no matter how big or small. If a small company is bad, it will go out of business. There is no NEW business that is coming in that can offer all the things you would want, because the very few companies that have special privileges are moving things along as slowly as possible.
- bjornski, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Hey, totally deregulated airwaves! We can do what we want!
What, my transmitter is ***** with everyone for miles around me? TOUGH *****! I've got more money than your puny transmitters, so you should just go shove off!- captZEEbo, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1yeah, that's not a valid concern. Deregulation doesn't mean chaos. If your transmitter ***** with everyone elses transmitter, that is a property rights violation and will be dealt with in court or however they would decide to deal with it
- bjornski, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Hey, totally deregulated airwaves! We can do what we want!
- pinklebabe, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4The FCC is the regulator you retard...
- bjornski, on 04/18/2008, -16/+32Ron Paul wouldn't like your attitude.
- deviouskoopa, on 04/18/2008, -9/+44Go Android Go!
(unrelated)- jonms83, on 04/18/2008, -5/+2Android is the rebel that Americans will purchase simply because of that fact. Not playing by the rules... compatible on any network... yes please. (the OS i'm sure will be sweet too, so... there are more reasons than the prior mentioned,.. just the biggest i think)
- serif69, on 04/18/2008, -0/+13Android is just a platform, like Symbian and WinMo. The carriers will deploy phones that use Android in the same way they deploy phones that use any other platform: proprietarily. Don't expect Android to be a game-changer in terms of how phones are sold.
- jonms83, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I'm completely aware of the fact it's just an OS. Either way I want it. (that and maybe the iphone)
- bubba9999, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1I can't wait - I am all about it.
- OutAndAbout, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Yep.
Yet another huge company has the solution to all of our our problems that the last huge company (the one that swore that it would solve all our problems) was unable to solve.
- purplehaze420, on 04/18/2008, -11/+75I can't believe you are complaining down there... Have you ever checked out Canadian cell-phone plans / pricing ? We have to pay 6.95 per month just for a "system access fee" which our govt apparently charges us... this is ON TOP of your plan...
- mike17032, on 04/18/2008, -22/+16Socialism has its costs.
- TheSpook, on 04/18/2008, -14/+6Digg shows its true colors digging this down.
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -2/+7More like Canada isn't socialist at all... We have this thing called "democracy" and this economic system called "capitalism." We also have government services we view essential to people's needs, you know, like free health care and subsidized education?
- Magicmasta, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Socialism isn't a form of government but rather an ideology.
"Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." -http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587 - afruff23, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1@Magicmasta
"Free" health care and subsidized education most certainly fall under the realm of socialism. Socialism and capitalism are not black and white things. There are various degrees of each. I use the term "free market" to connote the most capitalistic society. I'm not sure what socialists would call the most socialist society.
- TheSpook, on 04/18/2008, -14/+6Digg shows its true colors digging this down.
- terminalpariah, on 04/18/2008, -1/+33The government doesn't charge the system access fee. The wireless carriers used to call it "government fees" until Industry Canada ordered them to stop (only a small percentage goes to the government in the form of spectrum licenses). They changed the name to the system access fee and continued to blame it on the government until Industry Canada again gave them a beatdown.
- ElectroBot, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7And now they have a class-action lawsuit against them for charging the fee for YEARS after they were told to stop. (Source - http://www.thestar.com/article/258049)
- RevChris, on 04/18/2008, -1/+41sigh , the $6.95 a month USED to be charged by the companies to cover a fee paid to the government in the early days of cellphone use. The government stopped charing the phone companies the fee YEARS ago , and the phone companies kept the "fee" going to line their own pockets.
This has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with predatory capitalistic practices.
The gov has gone so far as to pass a law telling cell phone dealers and providers to STOP telling customers it is a government charge , in fact several lawsuits are ongoing for their practice of lying to consumers about what the fee is.- afruff23, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1How is lying to people a "predatory captialistic practice"? Capitalism is based on honest, voluntary exchange. This sort of practice is not capitalism, but mercantilism.
- smacksaw, on 04/18/2008, -4/+2System access fees are going to go away. Read about Koodo Mobile.
- Comanche, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Koodo Mobil = Telus' "young" person brand. Its not a new company.
- smacksaw, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1And Telus sucks, but they still don't have the SAF.
- CountSessine, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3No they aren't. Koodo is Telus selling to young people. Special market.
Bell tried to eliminate the SAF a few years ago and fold it into their monthly rate (which is the only thing we can realistically expect them to do in the beginning because the SAF is just part of their revenue model). They got killed in the marketplace because everyone comparison shopped based on the advertised plan prices and Bell's plans were $7 above Rogers' and Telus'.
Everyone hates the SAF - customers hate it because it's a form of bait-and-switch. Salespeople hate it because they hate having to make stupid and disingenuous explanations to customers. Even the carriers would be OK if it went away, but no one wants to disarm unilaterally...- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Good point. Classic game theory solution to a social dilemma like this: Require that all carriers remove it at the same time through government intervention! If not government intervention, a contract could work too. Basically you just need something implemented by a third party that is impartial and will enforce the deal.
- Comanche, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Koodo Mobil = Telus' "young" person brand. Its not a new company.
- celticchrys, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9There are a lot of little fees like this in the USA as well. On TOP of your plan. Local 911 fee, this misc fee, that misc fee, blah blah.
- DarkSamus, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1who's gonna bloody pay for this suit??
- rudy23, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7I India all phone are unlocked. however none of them are subsidized. If you want a free phone expect it to come with some restrictions.
- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4India also has a ridiculously large second-hand market for everything, so nobody would ever buy something they couldn't sell later.
- maddog, on 04/18/2008, -3/+8I'm not your friend, buddy!
- ElbertF, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5I'm not your buddy, - ah ***** this.
- jo21, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6i am not your ***** buddy, ahh this!
- ElbertF, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5I'm not your buddy, - ah ***** this.
- DeFex, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1telus is going to have to pay people back system access fees if they never used long distance.
- abctuba, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, pretty sure I am getting hosed down here in the US with taxes and extra fees the carriers pass from the gov'ment to the consumer.
- pyrates, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I'm on fido and don't pay a system access fee because I didn't want a free cell phone. That is what it is truly meant to cover. I came to their network with an unlocked cell phone and made sure they didn't charge me it. And I haven't paid it for years.
- Scrappy1850, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1we call that "tax"
- mike17032, on 04/18/2008, -22/+16Socialism has its costs.
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -3/+81If you think it's bad in the United States, it's even worse in Canada. Up here we don't even have the bloody iPhone yet due to licensing and all the carriers have such a monopoly that they have essentially colluded to keep prices high. Prices up here are ridiculous.
- bjornski, on 04/18/2008, -7/+18Then c'mon down!
You can save $6.95 a month on your cellular plan, and use up those minutes while looking for a health care provider you can barely afford to pay with a currency that's falling through the floor.
I think I'd rather pay the $6.95 a month.
And as for no iPhone? Blame Apple.- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7I totally agree with you. But Canada could be doing a lot better in providing reasonable cell phone service. Is it me or have Canadian telecommunication laws been seriously out of whack as of late? First I'm reminded on Digg why Bell is evil, and now I'm reminded that we get ***** in the ass on cellphone prices. *sigh* At least we have the cheap health care...
- bjornski, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6The companies in your country are just emulating what companies in this country are getting away with.
- jackalsclaw, on 04/18/2008, -5/+2how is this heath care?
- bjornski, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Not following the discussion?
- smacksaw, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Well, I'm in Canada right now and I used my phone to call in 2 prescriptions for painkillers for my wife and it cost me $6.75.
/non sequitur? - Dragular, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5I'm in the US right now and just called in my blood pressure meds and pain meds for $4 each, no insurance...
- bjornski, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2What meds are those?
- senatorpjt, on 04/18/2008, -5/+3Canada's problem is that you have a few idiots who insist on living more than 20 miles away from the US border who probably insist on having cell service too.
- cameycam, on 04/19/2008, -1/+4I don't think I'd say Canadian health care is cheap. Billions and Billions of dollars go into the system every year. It's just that it's funded by tax dollars rather than personal finances.
- stoanhart, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2"I think I'd rather pay the $6.95 a month"
Then c'mon up!
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7I totally agree with you. But Canada could be doing a lot better in providing reasonable cell phone service. Is it me or have Canadian telecommunication laws been seriously out of whack as of late? First I'm reminded on Digg why Bell is evil, and now I'm reminded that we get ***** in the ass on cellphone prices. *sigh* At least we have the cheap health care...
- Testiculese, on 04/18/2008, -2/+10No iPhone? Isn't that a good thing?
- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6i hate the iPhone. i respect people who like it, but it's just not my taste. i like my BB Pearl 8120, actually. for one, i actually don't like touch screens on phones.
- Skootles, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6Screw the lack of iPhone, it's data rates that suck.
- digjam, on 04/18/2008, -7/+2its
- sum33t, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3No.
- digjam, on 04/18/2008, -7/+2its
- digjam, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Whats your point? so if you dont have a iphone ...your market sucks ?
- BIim, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2You forgot the obligatory "Eh?"
- Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3We don't have the iPhone, and more importantly... the carriers here are involved in serious price fixing and collusion!
- awilke, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Get an unlocked(jailbroken) iPhone if you really want one, they are a bit more but still in line with other unlocked phones. Most unlocked phone shops carry them.
I do agree that Canada gets ripped on phones and not because of the iPhone. Rogers nor Fido get any of the N-series or E-series Nokias, none of the touch screen LG phones, no high end Samsung phones and the good Sony Ericsson phones come out a good 6-8 months after launch.
- bjornski, on 04/18/2008, -7/+18Then c'mon down!
- forgottenhope, on 04/18/2008, -20/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
There is a reason the elections and the debates are jokes. The game is fixed. Wake the ***** up.- rudy23, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1flagged the ***** down
- jackalsclaw, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1they showed him a video of world trade center 7 that only showed the northwest side. the building was hit by tons of debree and burned for 8 hours be for it caved in. it looks like an implosion because the building colapses torwards a center of the northside that lost 6 of the 14 beams supporting it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wtc7_collapse_p ...
- mandregorax, on 04/18/2008, -2/+6What about that open moko phone? The one that runs linux? It should work with any carrier everywhere... Here in chile, the system runs the same way, but if you go to any carrier with an unlocked phone, you're pretty much done...
- i88gerbils, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4We'll see. The OpenMoko system and the OpenMoko devices are in no state for consumers right now.
- troye, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6The OpenMoko has been waved in my face for about 3 years now. I wanted to buy one but the company is not selling.
That phone is old. It has GPRS instead of EDGE or HSDPA. I think that phone is vaporware simply because they have been advertising about it so much. That and Android is coming out. OpenMoko has no chance against the Android.
- SirVizor, on 04/18/2008, -7/+12I live in a developing country and the cell phone system here is way better then the USA. But... For all the "capitalism is bad" bull. Remember, it was capitalism that created the system to start with including the cell phones. Now, the system is old and the products offered are out of date. However, the "good government" intervention couldn't even happen without the "bad capitalists" to create it to start with.
- nickcozy, on 04/18/2008, -18/+12iphone sucks.
- rudy23, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1no comments
- pell, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Why?
- ninja0, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1You fail
- jackalsclaw, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4could you at least try to make a logical point? facts -> analyst->conclusion ? I'm sure digg is well aware people don't like the phone ,it would help the anti-phone cause more for there to be a rational complaint. Like it is overpriced or that apples software kneecaps it. Speaking of kneecapping something potential i time to get back to commenting about cellphone policy as a whole.
- taintedzodiac, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Wasting your time, I think. Feeding the trolls won't get them to realize their errors.
- jackalsclaw, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1so true :-(
- taintedzodiac, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Wasting your time, I think. Feeding the trolls won't get them to realize their errors.
- System6, on 04/18/2008, -8/+26This article is terrible and misinformed. The reason GSM is so popular, is because it was adopted earlier. CDMA is actually a newer technology, and far from dying. In my area, a major city I might add, GSM is a joke.
Verizon is working towards an "any device" protocol, which looks as though it will eventually push the market, and lead to hybrid phones or networks from carriers. Sprints service is AMAZING in america, and the technology hub of the world, asia, has also partially adopted CDMA. (Although GSM is still more popular)
How on earth could people be upset or feel ripped off by having "choices". What if CDMA develops and is a lot better? What if it's GSM? What if a new technology comes along that is even better?
This is what craigslist/ebay is for. Sell your old phones and quit whining. You can get a good cellphone for less than a couple videogames.- smoothdogg00, on 04/18/2008, -0/+25I think the main reason GSM is so popular is the use of SIM cards. I know that is why I use it. Then you can take your phone anywhere you go and just get a SIM card in any country to make calls.
- System6, on 04/18/2008, -4/+5Yeah, Sim cards can be useful. They are also one more thing that can go bad, and I know a lot of kids around here jack each others sim cards. I think it weakens security measures, but it definitely has its strong points.
- MiDri, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Its not hard to copy sim cards either, Their just little flash mem sticks with a few kb of space. You can steal a GSM phones sim info in under a minute if you have access then make all the calls you want on it.
I still like SIM cards though, i have an iphone so its not really usefull for me atm -- but on my old SLVR i used to take the sim out and put it in a cheapo phone when I went out to the river or lake so I did not have to worry about my expensive phone.
- MiDri, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Its not hard to copy sim cards either, Their just little flash mem sticks with a few kb of space. You can steal a GSM phones sim info in under a minute if you have access then make all the calls you want on it.
- System6, on 04/18/2008, -4/+5Yeah, Sim cards can be useful. They are also one more thing that can go bad, and I know a lot of kids around here jack each others sim cards. I think it weakens security measures, but it definitely has its strong points.
- scamper22, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8is there any technological reason CDMA could not have followed the SIM-card way?
- rudy23, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I would like to get a serious answer to this question. Anyone? Why couldn't they make some sort of identifier chip which could be swapped between phones?
- troye, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3They get to lock you in with the device that you purchased to use their services with --> TO MONOPOLIZE YOU!
- scamper22, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2we know the business reason...we're trying to see if there's a real technological reason CDMA could not have used SIM-CARDs of some sort. Could they do it now?
- rudy23, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I think we took a wrong turn. this is more of a slashdot question.
- troye, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3They get to lock you in with the device that you purchased to use their services with --> TO MONOPOLIZE YOU!
- scamper22, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0apparently they have such a thing in asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUIM (CDMA sim-card)
- rudy23, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I would like to get a serious answer to this question. Anyone? Why couldn't they make some sort of identifier chip which could be swapped between phones?
- nartvq, on 04/18/2008, -0/+8If you travel outside the US, GSM phones are definitely the way to go. Being able to swap out SIMs is a great way to save money while keeping all your critical info intact on your phone.
- CountSessine, on 04/18/2008, -0/+31. In the European cell phone system, GSM, the cell phone makers are in control because SIM cards let you use any phone you want without interference from your cell phone company. This is as it should be. Consumers and cell phone makers have all the power and shop for network services as a commodity.
2. In the American cell phone system, CDMAOne/CDMA2000, there are no consumer protections, no SIM cards, and your cell phone company has to allow you to use a particular cell phone on their system. They do this my activating your phone's ESN. Some carriers are pretty liberal about this (Alltel, apparently), most are not (Verizon, et.al). This gives them all the power and it means you can't easily move your $700 smart phone to another carrier. This means higher switching costs, lower consumer mobility, and all of the classical economics fallout that that implies (higher prices, poorer service, etc). In CDMA2000, the telephone company has all the power.
3. Go ahead and try to sell your old cell phone. You'll never get more than about $80 for it no matter how much you paid for it in the first place because no one wants to buy what might turn out to be a toilet phone. That possibility ruins the market for used cellphones.
4. Verizon was bought out by European cell carrier Vodaphone. Vodaphone has made it clear that Verizon will be moving to the GSM side with the next network upgrade (LTE, actually), which means SIM cards for everyone. This is the open 'any device' protocol you're talking about, and it's just good-old European 3GPP GSM. CDMA2000, with it's most significant champion changing sides, is an evolutionary dead end and will die a well deserved death. Good riddance.
4. CDMA signalling itself has some advantages over the TDMA signalling used in GSM (although battery life certainly isn't one of them). The GSM side has been using CDMA for awhile in their 3G tech.
- smoothdogg00, on 04/18/2008, -0/+25I think the main reason GSM is so popular is the use of SIM cards. I know that is why I use it. Then you can take your phone anywhere you go and just get a SIM card in any country to make calls.
- viewofeverlast, on 04/18/2008, -7/+10Yes but you can't use any one cable box with any cable provider, you can't use a DSL/Cable modem with any provider you choose...
Services like these all have service-specific hardware.- myrddin97, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5I can't speak for the cable boxes, but there's no reason for you to get your DSL or cable modem from the ISP if you don't want to. Though I believe the modem is free from ATT-only have to return it if you cancel before your 1-2 years is up. They may not help you troubleshoot it, but there's no reason they shouldn't work as long as they stick to industry standards.
- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0right ... DSL just has a lot of standards ... pppPOE, pppPOA; aDSL, iDsl, sDSL; etc.
if you have the right kind of modem you can always use it. with phones however there are perfectly compatible phones with compatible plans that providers won't let you use.
- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0right ... DSL just has a lot of standards ... pppPOE, pppPOA; aDSL, iDsl, sDSL; etc.
- MiDri, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2Any cable company I've ever used just requires you to give them the MAC address of your cable modem, you can use whatever one you want.
- myrddin97, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5I can't speak for the cable boxes, but there's no reason for you to get your DSL or cable modem from the ISP if you don't want to. Though I believe the modem is free from ATT-only have to return it if you cancel before your 1-2 years is up. They may not help you troubleshoot it, but there's no reason they shouldn't work as long as they stick to industry standards.
- SnowCrashv5, on 04/18/2008, -1/+12It may work on a Mac, but i remember the 56k days. I remember the days growing up when i was too young to pay for my own ISP and my parents wanted AOL and their ***** proprietary software kept me from using Linux for a long long time. I'd say it's normal in america.
Hell I had to use proprietary software on a windows box to setup my comcast connection AND i had to spend time cloning the mac address from that pc to my router so i could use more than one machine on this network b/c comcast wanted me to pay 5 extra bucks PER COMPUTER on my connection. Good thing i'm not old and technophobic.. b/c when you consider my media center, my file server, my mail / web server, my pc, my girlfriend's pc and a spare machine, i'd be paying through the nose.- northernmunky, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2We had AOL here in the UK a long time ago now, they started gaining a lot of market share but of course they started implementing American style business practices and everyone stopped using them! Also poor service and I'm sure people never liked their software either.
- troye, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Damn, Comcast charges you extra money if you have more than 1 pc on you home network. OMG.
- crossmr, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4Not buying it.. you were 20 when Linux was first released (1991) if your digg profile is accurate. 56K modems also didn't really become mainstream until the mid to late 90s which would have put you in your early to mid 20s at the earliest. You can get your own ISP as soon as you turn 18. There was no way you were "too young" when this happened.
- SnowCrashv5, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1my digg profile is not accurate, i don't give my personal details to the world. As to being too young, regardless of my age, i paid most of my way through college. My parents took on tuition, i took on my housing( no dorms), my travel, my food and my entertainment. So another bill isn't something i needed when i got to share what my parents had for free.. and when you're eating ramen 3 days a week, it makes financial sense.
- fr34k5h0w, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Not a smart idea cloning your MAC address to the router unless you changed NICs in your computer or changed that NIC's MAC address, otherwise you might have problems with layer 2 addressing. But I'm sure you already knew what you were doing, so I'll just shut up now.
- X1pher, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Cloning the MAC is actually very common. The interface it's cloned to is just the external, so it doesn't have any interference what so ever on your internal LAN environment. The only problem with duplicate MAC addressing is if it's in the same broadcast domain, once something exists that realm the MAC is stripped away with the other layer 2 data.
- PeachCobbler, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately embarq is lazy as hell and the nearest they offer DSL from me is 1.5 miles down the road, and it is only 768k. And I am under 18, and my mom works for Time Warner, so she gets AOL for free. So I have been stuck with it for far too long. I am forced to use a proxy server running on a windows box in order to share my connection across my network to use Linux. It is a royal pain in the ass. The deplorable thing is that on a good day I connect at 44,000 bps. :(
I say embarq is lazy because AT&T serves just beyond the scope of where i live. They have 3mbit dsl for miles and miles of part of the most unincorporated part of my semi-large county of 300,000 people.
***** AOL. ***** Embarq.
- mike17032, on 04/18/2008, -14/+11*****. Most US providers allow you to use any compatible device.
Most people just dont because of the sweet price reduction that comes with getting one from your carrier with a contract.- devophl, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5Any compatible device for that network. Each network uses different encryption keys, etc so that devices from one provider doesn't work on another providers network. You can't use a Treo for Sprint on a Verizon network.
Where this is different is for roaming. You can roam to any network digital or analog (these are going away) but using these networks will cost you an arm and a leg. - celticchrys, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4In my area, every single carrier tells me that the phone must have been originally purchased from them. No, they do not care if it uses the same network type, etc. It it did not come from one of their stores, no-go.
- devophl, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5Any compatible device for that network. Each network uses different encryption keys, etc so that devices from one provider doesn't work on another providers network. You can't use a Treo for Sprint on a Verizon network.
- viewofeverlast, on 04/18/2008, -3/+7Oh, and by the way, Free Market Capitalism ≠ American. I'm assuming thats what you mean?
- foosed, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7Try to stay up to date before you go complaining. The recent bidding war for the wireless spectrum (700MHz) freed up by the end of analog broadcast television (the spectrum was won by Verizon) carried with it a few rules, one of which was open devices, which, you guessed it, puts an end to locked phones. The earlier argument that this would stifle competition in some way is completely false, as the ability to use any phone regardless of service forces companies to offer something unique to draw customers, rather than creating monopolies around individual phones.
- yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2*****... yee-ha, more incompatibility with the rest of the world. 700mhz, wtf. why can't they do some good for this country and introduce the 900mhz and 1800mhz bands to a GSM carrier like the rest of the world uses so that nobody has to make this quad-band crap anymore. i hate the fact that there is a standards difference between USA and Japan and [the rest of the world] in cell phone protocols.
- Tahiri, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Yes because those new phones that are coming out in 2010 will help us now.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/18/2008, -2/+8For those bitching about how opening these networks is somehow "uncompetitive," let me remind you of a little history: AT&T used to mandate that you had to get your phone from them and them alone; third party telephones were illegal.
Now just imagine if you still had to buy your landline handsets from your carrier all these past decades.
We should be able to use whatever cell phone we want with whatever carrier we want. Unlocking is nice, but its not a solution for everyone.- viewofeverlast, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3This is true. AT&T had one of the few rare government approved monopolies.
- BigMrWiggly, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2If you don't like your carrier's service switch to another provider.
- i88gerbils, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3If you don't like living in the ghetto, move out. Works for them too am i right?
- BigMrWiggly, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Actually plenty do move out. It may be hard but the determined people do.
- i88gerbils, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3If you don't like living in the ghetto, move out. Works for them too am i right?
- spikyface, on 04/18/2008, -6/+2Dunno if this works but apparently the iPhone can be unlocked http://www.dialaphone.co.uk/blog/?p=523
Sucks to have a cell phone in US I guess- Ocelot13, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2whoa. you serious? the iphone can be unlocked?
i guess all those stories that got posted like 8 months ago about it getting unlocked have proven true.
/sarcasm
- Ocelot13, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2whoa. you serious? the iphone can be unlocked?
- j0ew00ds, on 04/18/2008, -6/+18It's my RIGHT to own a cell phone! It's my RIGHT to choose both the phone and the carrier! It's my RIGHT to lower prices!
Gimme a break. If you don't like it, don't pay them.- captZEEbo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1This argument is all well and good, but it fails because the government has a monopoly of the airwaves and doesn't let new companies form to offer new competition. That is the major reason why the technological advances are slow...lack of competition.
- Blacksheep34, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0Another liberal Obamonster crying liberal foul cuz the government or mommy and daddy want them to work for something and not give them a hand out...welfare argument.
- NicePaul, on 04/18/2008, -0/+8Its the same in the UK. Don't think it's just the USA that has it bad.
- fuseideas, on 04/18/2008, -7/+1This is incorrect. You can buy a cell phone anywhere they are sold without a plan. They just cost a fortune. Except for 1 or 2 providers, all you need to do once you buy the phone is get an account at your provider of choice, open it up and put in their chip. You can't do this with iPhone, or Verizon. The iPhone and Verizon phones don't have chips as far as I know. I'm guessing that once the AT&T contract is up the iPhone will be able to be synced with whatever provider you want whether through software or a chip.
- Canuck, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2The iPhone doesn't have a chip? It is on the GSM network so of course it has a chip. It is called the SIM card.
- MiDri, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2The iphone has a sim card, it is a gsm phone afterall -- but there are a few quirks with it and only its orginal activated sim and prepaid will work with out using a hack (in which case you can use tmobile sim cards in it.)
- smacksaw, on 04/18/2008, -2/+10Again, this is all very simple. Public airwaves are not the charge of private telecom providers. The gov't should not be selling spectrum to gain revenue AND then cede control of it.
Look. It's easy to do. You pay a tax for the spectrum access to the gov't and your cellphone provider collects it for you. $5/mo should be more than enough to keep technology going. And remember, access should be EVERYWHERE. Not where it's profitable for the company. We have so many dead spots in the US. Ridiculous. Then, your cellphone provider bills you for the service.
That's it.
Your bill would be:
$5 FCC fee
$12 Verizon service
$10 Unlimited off-peak minutes
$5 Caller ID and Voice Mail
The fact we don't pay the gov't directly f
