It's ignorant to think that just because a device wasn't exclusive to one carrier that they still wouldn't subsidize the handset. If anything, having a device on more than one carrier would be great for consumers, the price would actually drop across the board. In addition carriers would fell immense pressure to improve and advance their networks and lousy ones like Sprint would be absorbed by others. Bring on the DOJ, I hope they get busy and crack some skulls.
I totally agree. The big carriers have been milking this cow for way too long. Subsidizing with contracts will probably never go away. But if I have "own" (aka unsubsidized, out of contract) a phone, and I want to use it on a certain network that the phone has the ability to work on, why should another network have a say in if I can or cannot? I'm glad that Apple finally broke up the "proprietary" software requirements that networks enforced on the phones. Now it's time to break up the exclusivity. Anybody who's ever heard of AOL should know what "proprietary" and "exclusivity" does to a company. It hinders innovation and keeps you in the stone age while the world passes you by.
Live and learn people, and try not to screw yourself over by repeating mistakes already made by others.
On the other hand, oh yeah, the decision makers still make millions in "bonuses" even while the company and all the employees they screwed goes under so why should they care.
totally agree w/ you guys. as much as i hate the iphone, I WISH that it would jump onto sprint or at&t...or especially t mobile. Even if the handsets were the same price, i'm sure many more people would jump onto sprint or tmobile because of cheaper data/messaging. This would force at&t to bring their absurd prices down, and hopefully bring my monthly data charge down as well. or MAYBE at least have them offer a very very low # of montly limits like t-mobile does (i think their base is like 250 for $30 vs 400 for $40 on at&t.). i'm pretty sure the whole iphone thing was actually something that, believe it or not, john kerry was looking into some months back.
on top of that, i really wish this one senator would hurry and start looking at the cell phone providers, and how they're basically colluding w/ one another double SMS rates (all around the same time) for a feature that effectively costs them nothing. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
“The basic layout of the HD2 is uncluttered and uncomplicated, providing only a few hardware buttons, and leaving the rest of the navigation up to that beautiful screen.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
It's ignorant to think that just because a device wasn't exclusive to one carrier that they still wouldn't subsidize the handset. If anything, having a device on more than one carrier would be great for consumers, the price would actually drop across the board. In addition carriers would fell immense pressure to improve and advance their networks and lousy ones like Sprint would be absorbed by others. Bring on the DOJ, I hope they get busy and crack some skulls.
I totally agree. The big carriers have been milking this cow for way too long. Subsidizing with contracts will probably never go away. But if I have "own" (aka unsubsidized, out of contract) a phone, and I want to use it on a certain network that the phone has the ability to work on, why should another network have a say in if I can or cannot? I'm glad that Apple finally broke up the "proprietary" software requirements that networks enforced on the phones. Now it's time to break up the exclusivity. Anybody who's ever heard of AOL should know what "proprietary" and "exclusivity" does to a company. It hinders innovation and keeps you in the stone age while the world passes you by.
Live and learn people, and try not to screw yourself over by repeating mistakes already made by others.
On the other hand, oh yeah, the decision makers still make millions in "bonuses" even while the company and all the employees they screwed goes under so why should they care.
totally agree w/ you guys. as much as i hate the iphone, I WISH that it would jump onto sprint or at&t...or especially t mobile. Even if the handsets were the same price, i'm sure many more people would jump onto sprint or tmobile because of cheaper data/messaging. This would force at&t to bring their absurd prices down, and hopefully bring my monthly data charge down as well. or MAYBE at least have them offer a very very low # of montly limits like t-mobile does (i think their base is like 250 for $30 vs 400 for $40 on at&t.). i'm pretty sure the whole iphone thing was actually something that, believe it or not, john kerry was looking into some months back.
on top of that, i really wish this one senator would hurry and start looking at the cell phone providers, and how they're basically colluding w/ one another double SMS rates (all around the same time) for a feature that effectively costs them nothing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss