reply to discussion
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 99
  1. #1
    Oxford
    Guest
    nospamatall <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I didn't really get in to this to defend FON which in my opinion has
    > numerous problems. All I am doing is challenging those who defend the
    > bastards who have ripped us off with expensive cellular 'service' in the
    > past and continue to fob us off with restrictions now.


    yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
    the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
    to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
    followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
    "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.

    BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
    keeping prices extremely HIGH. Apple will not allow that so it's going
    to be fun to watch as Apple takes over the cell market. They are just
    ONE download away from releasing a VoIP product (iChat) on all existing
    and future iPhones. Yes, steve is waiting for the right moment to kill
    off the cell phone industry, we ALL know that... but his extreme
    interest in FON *****s everything out very clearly.

    The Cell Industry is in for a serious lesson from the King of Low Cost /
    High Quality products... something they've never had to experience. AT&T
    is just a pawn at this point in the game.

    > Wi-fi could enable us to by-pass the parasites and force them to take
    > their rightful position in society as sellers of bandwidth on their
    > systems and nothing else.


    Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
    POOF, (except for extremely remote areas). It's going to happen, it's a
    matter of time, so let's get the ball moving in that direction. There
    should be NO REASON to pay Cell Companies a PENNY since they don't add
    any value to the market place. Their technology is obsolete... The
    public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.

    > Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
    > it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
    > celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.


    Well, it's as about as unlikely as a kid named Steve Wozniak invents a
    powerful, extremely low cost computer and creates massive social change
    on the order of the Light Bulb.

    FON is quite similar if you think about it... a one time $40 cost to
    share VoIP to 250 more people that ALSO have massive bandwidth "tied up"
    since nobody knows it's possible to break the rules and win.

    The FON concept is interesting and something can be done on a mass scale
    if / when Apple plays their cards.

    -



    See More: Hey Oxford - more reality




  2. #2
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
    On 2007-11-13, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
    > yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
    > the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
    > to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
    > followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
    > "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.


    Moore's law concerns computer hardware. You can get the cellular
    *hardware* for free or at low cost with a new contract or contract
    extension. Then there's the cost of building out and maintaining the
    network, billing, customer service, etc. Which is not to say that cell
    contracts couldn't be cheaper, but $4 or $5 per month? I doubt it.

    > BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...


    Bahahahaha. That's funny. Do you understand the meaning of the term "price
    fixing"?

    > The Cell Industry is in for a serious lesson from the King of Low Cost


    Bull****. Apple products have always brought a premium price compared to
    the rest of the market, from the first 128K Mac to today's iPhones.

    > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
    > POOF, (except for extremely remote areas). It's going to happen, it's a
    > matter of time, so let's get the ball moving in that direction. There
    > should be NO REASON to pay Cell Companies a PENNY since they don't add
    > any value to the market place.


    If that's the way you feel, don't pay for a cell phone.

    --
    Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
    Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol




  3. #3
    DTC
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    Oxford wrote:
    > yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
    > the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
    > to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
    > followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
    > "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.


    Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
    prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
    grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
    lower in cellular rates than you see now.

    > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
    > POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).


    And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.

    > Their technology is obsolete... The
    > public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.


    No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.




  4. #4
    Kurt
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    In article <[email protected]>,
    DTC <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Oxford wrote:
    > > yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
    > > the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
    > > to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
    > > followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
    > > "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.

    >
    > Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
    > prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
    > grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
    > lower in cellular rates than you see now.
    >
    > > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
    > > POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).

    >
    > And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.
    >
    > > Their technology is obsolete... The
    > > public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.

    >
    > No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.


    Cell phones are now primarily funded by teens text messaging.

    --
    To reply by email, remove the word "space"



  5. #5
    Oxford
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    DTC <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
    > prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
    > grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
    > lower in cellular rates than you see now.


    but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is skimming
    off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone companies, I
    also see Cell companies in new retail developments where rents per month
    are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and shows how
    uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy market, no
    company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store front.

    They can only sell at the market price, thus the Cell Industry is full
    of fat and inefficiency and I'm determined to set them right.

    > > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
    > > POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).

    >
    > And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.


    Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
    upgrading the towers.

    > > Their technology is obsolete... The
    > > public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.

    >
    > No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.


    No, I'm very good with numbers and spotting faults within a market. The
    Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to normal
    market behavior. It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
    will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
    like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
    the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.

    The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
    "major" expense after the towers are up.

    The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
    well run market.



  6. #6
    Oxford
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
    > > keeping prices extremely HIGH. Apple will not allow that

    >
    > Yeah. Apple is known for their low prices, aren't they!


    Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor. They charge a fair
    price, then you use the product for 2-4 years and resell it for a
    massive sum comparatively to PCs.

    So if you understand the concept of "Value", Macs are the cheapest PCs
    you can buy today.

    Real Macs go for 30-40% more upon resell compared to Mac Clones.

    Learn how markets work Bob, then you won't ask such silly questions.



  7. #7
    CozmicDebris
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > DTC <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
    >> prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
    >> grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go
    >> much lower in cellular rates than you see now.

    >
    > but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
    > skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
    > companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
    > rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
    > shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
    > market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
    > front.
    >


    Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?

    Damn, you're stupid.



  8. #8
    Ness Net
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality


    "Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > DTC <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
    > upgrading the towers.
    >
    > No, I'm very good with numbers and spotting faults within a market. The
    > Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to normal
    > market behavior. It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
    > will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
    > like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
    > the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.
    >
    > The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
    > "major" expense after the towers are up.
    >
    > The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
    > well run market.


    The idiot Oxford is totally out of touch with reality. The MINIMUM
    connection
    to a site is a T1. Many use a DS3 or bigger. Have any idea what that costs?
    Now, multiply by the hundreds of sites in an MSA. Then the metro fiber rings
    to tie it all together. Have any idea what an OC3 or bigger costs?

    I do....

    This is just the network to connect to the switches. Then, there are leases
    that can run
    many thousands a month. Then there is the electricity. Then, there is the
    connections to
    the POTS. Then there is the many millions for the switches.... and on and
    on....

    The above is just to maintain an existing network and existing sites.

    A new site nowadays costs a mil or more to build. Most all systems add some
    every year.
    Some, quite a few.

    Now, just how ludicrous is "$5, $6 range a month for unlimited access"....

    EVERY post of yours shows your complete lack of any actual knowledge.




  9. #9
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    At 13 Nov 2007 18:17:27 -0600 DTC wrote:

    > Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know
    > how prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't
    > seem to grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You
    > can't go much lower in cellular rates than you see now.



    Agreed. I will add the caviat, however, that cellphone companies have
    lowered per-minute rates so much, that they've compensated by abolishing
    their cheaper entry level plans, in order to keep ARPU up. Most
    carriers START plans at $39 these days whereas a few years ago, $19
    and/or $29 plans were readily available (but at a much higher per-minute
    cost.)

    Now, having said that, it really isn't a problem, since increased
    competition in the prepaid arena has compensated for this. Losing access
    to a 60 or 100 minutes for $19.99 plan isn't really a hardship when you
    can get a $0.10/minute prepaid plan and pay $6-10 for those same minutes.


    > > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry
    > > goes POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).

    >
    > And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.



    Not to mention the simple convenience of a consistant carrier, rather
    than constantly reconnecting to disparate WiFi networks, and,
    particularly in light of Oxford's continual regurgitation of the Gospel
    According to Steve WRT 3G power consumption, WiFi eats batteries like
    Homer Simspon goes through donuts. A standard "dumbphone" can go a week
    between recharges with casual use. Most WiFi-enabled handsets (cellular
    or cordless "Skypephones") can't make it through a single day's waking
    hours on a single charge.






  10. #10
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    At 13 Nov 2007 18:44:17 -0700 Oxford wrote:

    > but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user.


    I guess that depends on the level of service you want. A 1000 minute
    plan with T-Mobile with unlimited EDGE data can be as low as $46. A 450-
    minute iPhone plan with unlimited EDGE is $59. Heavy users get charged
    more to ensure bandwidth isn't oversold, just like a broadband ISP
    charges more for higher speeds. Both are methods of bandwidth allocation
    based on retail price.

    > So someone is skimming
    > off the top.


    I'll bet their margins are lower than Apple's!

    > I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone companies, I
    > also see Cell companies in new retail developments where rents per

    month
    > are $2,400-8,000 a month.


    And what does your Apple store pay for rent? What percentage of the new
    Nano's price covers the incessant "1, 2, 3, 4" ads I have to endure? Why
    after a boatload of free media hype and $200 in price drops do I have to
    watch a bunch of lame actors show me they've just used their new iPhone
    to do the same stuff I've done on phones for years? (A pilot checks the
    weather! A couple accesses a wedding registry website! What did we all
    do before the iPhone? Oh, that's right- we used all our other phones!)

    > That is just plain WRONG and shows how
    > uncompetitive the cell industry has become.


    Um, just the opposite. In a competitive market advertising is perfectly
    normal, AND cost effective, since it increases sales and profits in
    excess of the advertising cost. Jiminy Christmas, Oxy, this is marketing
    101 stuff.

    > In a healthy market, no
    > company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store front.



    "1, 2, 3, 4, why then all the Apple stores?/ 5, 6, 7, 8, why advertise
    products so great?"


    > They can only sell at the market price, thus the Cell Industry is full
    > of fat and inefficiency and I'm determined to set them right.


    So I see pricing strategy and marketing get added to the things you
    have no real understanding of.


    > Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
    > upgrading the towers.


    Nature abhors a vaccum, my dear Oxford. If cell carriers could offer
    lower price
    points profitably, they would, because it would increase market share and
    cripple less efficient competitors. Look at Metro PCS and Leap- they
    offer unlimited plans at the $50 or lower price point. They do this by
    offering service with poor coverage (compared to the national carriers.)
    Fewer towers, less capacity, lower costs equal lower prices. See the
    pattern?

    In fact, the marketing strategy of cell operators today is "kill 'em with
    add-ons." Competition in voice plans is so fierce and so low margin,
    texting, data, ringtones, etc. are used to increase, or even to attain,
    profits.


    > No, I'm very good with numbers


    The same guy who confused $0.04 and 0.04 cents? Who believed 1 out of
    every 100 people in the UK bought an iPhone in three days? You're good
    with numbers, alright- give or take a few zeros in either direction...

    > and spotting faults within a market. The
    > Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to
    > normal market behavior.


    It's actually quite typical of an infrastructure-intensive service market-
    where the cost of infrastructure is high compared to other costs and has
    to be spread out among all users, regardless of their usage. The
    carrier's actual "per minute" cost isn't fixed, like the price of a can
    of soda at a grocery store is. Infrastructure will cost $x
    regardless if it's used to 1/8th capacity or 7/8ths.

    Usage is controlled by charging more for higher usage, to prevent the
    capacity issues the flat-rate carriers like Leap or Metro face.

    > It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
    > will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
    > like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
    > the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.



    I'll grant you that's an interesting concept, but probably unworkable
    from a practical perspective- for starters, you'd have to get various
    competitors to agree. Even VoIP has very little inter-company
    cooperation- Skype users can't call MagicJack, Vonage or Packet8 users
    for free, so why would, say, Verizon agree to let AT&T customers access
    their network free of interconnect charges?

    Besides, most monthly cell plans include free in-network calling, plus
    many cell companies already offer low-cost prepaid plans with free in-
    network calling. Verizon and AT&T offer unlimited in-net calling for
    $1/day, charged only on the days you actually use the phone.

    Your "$5-6" number is way too low, BTW- a few years ago Sprint estimated
    their
    per-customer infrastructure costs- just customer service, billing and
    network, ran around $18. This led to the decision to eliminate a tier or
    two of low-usage plans, which at the time started at $15, and migrate
    them to prepaid which eliminates billing and some customer service costs.

    Again, you're trying to compare VoIP- a parasitic service that gets a
    free ride on the network of an ISP, to a wireless service who brings
    their own to the table. They aren't directly comparable.

    > The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
    > "major" expense after the towers are up.


    Wow. It's always hard to figure out if you're yanking our chains, or
    just that mind-bogglingly naive. What about maintenance, expansion,
    upgrades to capacity and bandwidth, handset subsidies, customer service
    expenses? What about interconnect charges to the PSTN- their largest
    telecommuncation expense next to infrastructure.

    > The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
    > well run market.


    "1, 2, 3, 4, explain Apple's ads a little more/ 5, 6, 7, 8, I suspect
    you'll make me wait..."


    Cellular is a very customer service intesive business. Customers want
    questions answered by real people, and want to touch and play with
    product before they buy. Both require employed bodies.

    As to advertising, you already know that answer- that Feist tune plays in
    your head as you dream about what Steve Jobs' warm embrace would feel
    like...





  11. #11
    Oxford
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

    > > but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
    > > skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
    > > companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
    > > rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
    > > shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
    > > market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
    > > front.

    >
    > Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?


    yes, and I fully agree.

    but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
    90,000 or more. Why?

    That is the question...



  12. #12
    IMHO IIRC
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    In news:[email protected],
    Oxford <[email protected]> typed:
    > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
    >
    >>> but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
    >>> skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
    >>> companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
    >>> rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
    >>> shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
    >>> market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
    >>> front.

    >>
    >> Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?

    >
    > yes, and I fully agree.
    >
    > but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
    > 90,000 or more. Why?
    >
    > That is the question...


    Perhaps they sell that much more. lol

    Did you see this: The Fifth Avenue Apple store just opened and was the most
    dramatic, exciting and star-studded store event in Apple's history. The Cube
    was conceived to be the perfect entrance, the spiral glass stairs make for a
    history-raising grand entrance, and the store space itself is breathtaking.

    http://ifostore.ord.cachefly.net/fif...nue/index.html






  13. #13
    CozmicDebris
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in news:colalovesosx-
    [email protected]:

    > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
    >
    >> > but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
    >> > skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
    >> > companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
    >> > rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
    >> > shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
    >> > market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
    >> > front.

    >>
    >> Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?

    >
    > yes, and I fully agree.
    >
    > but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
    > 90,000 or more. Why?


    They do more business. I would have thought that to be obvious. But of
    course you are never acquainted with the obvious.

    >
    > That is the question...


    No- the question is how can somebody as clueless as you actually survive?



  14. #14
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    At 13 Nov 2007 21:24:55 -0700 Oxford wrote:

    > but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
    > 90,000 or more. Why?
    >
    > That is the question...



    Different distribution methodsfor different companies. Nokia operates 3
    stores in the US- big, upscale "boutiques" designed to raise brand
    awareness, rather than to actually make a profit- basically they're a
    brick and mortar version of advertising.

    Cellular carriers, on the other hand, sell convenience- a large number of
    relatively cheap stores are designed to offer convenient points of
    contact for customer service and sales.





  15. #15
    Kurt
    Guest

    Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In news:[email protected],
    > Oxford <[email protected]> typed:
    > > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
    > >
    > >>> but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
    > >>> skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
    > >>> companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
    > >>> rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
    > >>> shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
    > >>> market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
    > >>> front.
    > >>
    > >> Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?

    > >
    > > yes, and I fully agree.
    > >
    > > but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
    > > 90,000 or more. Why?
    > >
    > > That is the question...

    >
    > Perhaps they sell that much more. lol
    >
    > Did you see this: The Fifth Avenue Apple store just opened and was the most
    > dramatic, exciting and star-studded store event in Apple's history. The Cube
    > was conceived to be the perfect entrance, the spiral glass stairs make for a
    > history-raising grand entrance, and the store space itself is breathtaking.
    >
    > http://ifostore.ord.cachefly.net/fif...nue/index.html


    Actually, it opened May of last year.
    FYI- Did you know that the cube entrance was so expensive, Jobs paid for
    it out of his own pocket? True story.

    --
    To reply by email, remove the word "space"



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.