Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Steve Johnson
    > it could possibly plunge the entire wireless market into chaos.
    > Everyone would lose...

    This sounds just like AT&T in the early 80s before they were broken up. We
    have nearly the same situation here on the hardware side in that each
    company has its own little monopoly on hardware. One of the best benefits of
    the breakup of AT&T was the competition in hardware that became available
    instead of having to use (rent) h/w from Ma Bell. We heard the same argument
    from AT&T--equipment not provided/certified by them would not be compatible,
    cause problems, and possibly damage their systems. And I remember that when
    they were first forced to allow us to purchase and use our own telephones,
    we actually were supposed to register the equipment with them before
    connecting it to "their" lines. That didn't last long as the flood of new
    equipment came on the market.

    If we could require the mobile phone companies to work with all compatible
    phones they'd be forced to standardize equipment/protocols more on their
    end. And I think consumers can handle learning that there are two basic
    standards out there (GSM and CDMA) and they need to pick a phone that works
    with the provider(s) they intend to use or, more likely, get a phone that
    works with both standards--of which many will begin to surface.

    To answer your question of who would provide the warranty, that would be the
    same as any other thing we now purchase--the manufacturer.

    One could argue that with this change, vendors would no longer sell
    subsidized phones and prices would go up a lot for new phones. Two things on
    that point: (1) they'd still subsidize phones with a contract to make up the
    loss on the h/w as was their former reason for having a contract; and (2) it
    wouldn't be long before the Wal-marts of the world would begin selling
    manufacturers' phones in their electronics departments (as they sell
    landline phones) and that would provide enormous downward price pressure.

    We could argue on about the whole mindset of anyone arguing for the current
    status quo. The service providers don't currently make a profit on the
    phones they sell (former reason for requiring a contract) so why do they
    fight the change? Only because they know it would result in much more churn
    and their only competing factor would be service. And that's the way it
    should be since that is what they are--Service Providers. Why doesn't
    Verizon lock their phones now? Several reasons, one being the contract. But
    I think another one is the same as why they charge more than most other
    carriers--they know they have the best service/coverage and they don't have
    as high a churn rate as others do.

    <climbing on soapbox> So, I urge everyone inclined, to please go to and sign the letter to the FCC so we can get
    this sooner, rather than later. IT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY as most things
    move from proprietary to generic (commodity) in this world so let's do what
    we can to make it happen sooner. </soapbox>


    On 4/10/04 10:13 PM, in article
    [email protected], "TechGeek"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> "Topguy" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Consumers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
    >>>, is providing a free e-mail form for consumers to ask
    >>> the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers
    >>> change companies. The campaign follows the organization's successful push
    >>> last Fall for cell phone number portability, which required the wireless
    >>> industry let customers keep their phone numbers when switching companies

    >> Customers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) could
    >> benefit from this.

    > It would be a logistical nightmare. Who would handle the warranty?
    > If I take Verizon wireless phone that is tested and rated for
    > Verizon's network, there is no guarantee that it will work just as
    > well on Sprint's and vice versa.
    > What about accessories or testing? Sprint's equipment isn't set up to
    > rest, update, or troubleshoot Verizon phones. None of the stores sell
    > the accessories for the other carriers.
    > Also, Sprint's system won't allow a non-Sprint phone to be ativated,
    > so we'd have to request each ESN to be entered into the system.
    > The carriers would all lose a lot of money from this (sell a
    > subsidized phone with no chance of getting your money back), and get
    > less loss form activations (they don't take a hit on the phone sale).
    > You'd also have people in stores yelling and complaining why can't
    > their GSM phone be activated on a CDMA network and vice versa.
    > Honestly, if that passed, it could possibly plunge the entire wireless
    > market into chaos. Everyone would lose, but I think the one who would
    > lose the least would be Congular, since they now have a virtual
    > monopoly on the GSM market in the US.

    See More: Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones

  2. #2
    Steve Johnson

    Re: Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones

    I hate to reply to someone that uses such childish language, but I have to
    correct you in that this would benefit a huge number of Verizon
    customers--mainly those switching from Sprint as I have. I have 4 or 5
    locked Sprint phones that I can't easily use now (various hassles obtaining
    the MSL from Sprint) that I'm a Verizon customer. Yes, I have the MSL for
    some of them and even one I'd like to use on Verizon, but I haven't been
    able to obtain a method for unlocking it (Samsung N200 if anyone knows how
    to change the MSL, please let me know).

    And since Sprint sells a much better selection of phones that Verizon does,
    I think Verizon customers switching from Sprint would be the most benefitted
    from a change like this.


    On 4/10/04 4:12 PM, in article [email protected], "Steven J
    Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> "Stephan Bennet" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.

    >> There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
    >> love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.

    > Let me explain it for you, idiot.
    > The policy does not aid Verizon customers at all. You said it would benefit
    > both Verizon and Sprint customers.
    > Once again, talking out your anal cavity about something you know nothing
    > about. (Specifically, Verizon's service and network, which I've been using
    > for over three and a half years now.)

  3. #3
    Steve Johnson

    Re: Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones

    And why are they able to do that? Because there's no/little competition in
    the handset business when you only have one consumer seller--your service
    provider. If manufacturers had to compete with other manufacturers for
    actual consumer business, rather than the few service providers' business, I
    think this situation would improve as manufacturers got the blame for poor
    h/w rather than the service provider. Sure companies have reputations now
    for their h/w, but how much so for the service of that h/w since we have to
    go to the cellular provider to obtain that service.

    Who knows, but I still prefer to have consumers directly hold manufacturers
    responsible for what they make. Middlemen always seem to buffer that
    interaction with consumers so manufacturers don't see the direct consumer
    response to poor quality of products and services.


    On 4/11/04 10:17 AM, in article
    [email protected], "Robert M."
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <BC9EC0D4.5B4B%[email protected]>,
    > Steve Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> To answer your question of who would provide the warranty, that would be the
    >> same as any other thing we now purchase--the manufacturer.

    > Thats the excuse SprintPCS gives now for poor warranty service. "Sanyo
    > won't pay us back for a bleeding screen".

  4. #4

    Re: Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones

    O/Siris wrote:

    > "Many", huh? I'm curious, do you have a number, with some kind of
    > factual backing to it?

    Uh said the "F" word - factual. A word that is not in
    Phillipe's vocabulary.

  5. #5

    Re: Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones

    Bob Smith wrote:

    >>and I know there are others that I'm forgetting, but the bottom line
    >>is that there is plenty of competition between the brands.

    > Well, one manufacturer not mentioned was Sony (no Ericsson), with their 1101
    > & 1201 models. Don't remember whether the Z phone was a Sony model.
    > Bob

    The Z-Phone was a Sony. Mine still works.

  6. #6

    Re: Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones

    CharlesH wrote:
    > Several problems I see with requiring universal "porting" of compatible
    > technology phones:
    > 1) Support. Customers expect their provider to support their phone.
    > This would require the providers to have the software and required cables,
    > etc, to update all the various brands.

    A restructuring would be needed, and there may be a negative impact.
    Currently, there is a small amount of technical support and repair
    service offered at a number of store locations by each major cellular
    provider. Manufacturers don't offer this, for the most part. The shift
    would be either to have consumers start to expect the manufacturer to
    support the phone, or to have manufacturers simply authorize cellular
    retail locations to maintain a larger number of phones.

    > 2) Feature configuration. For exemple, as mentioned by another poster,
    > there is the issue of moving a Java-enabled Sprint Vision phone to a
    > Brew-enabled Get-It-Now Verizon Wireless phone.

    Again, this would benefit the manufacturer, so I suspect the
    responsibility should fall upon them. Each manufacturer should offer
    firmware to meet the network requirements of each of the carriers.

    > 3) Tuning. Systems can be configured slightly differently for optimal
    > performance.

    Yes. Here, I would expect a standard for configuration data. This would
    allow each carrier to tune a phone to their settings simply by applying
    some sort of performance update file that works for every phone.

    > 4) Digital protocols are complex, and a phone may not work quite right
    > with a given provider. If there are problems, the provider looks bad
    > ("but it worked FINE with my previous provider").
    > How do they address this problem in the GSM world, where phones are pretty
    > much commodities separate from the provider? Is the GSM protocol THAT
    > standardized with no variation in features, that all providers are willing
    > to accept any brand GSM phone? Does the customer just expect to go to the
    > phone manufacturer if there is a problem or software updates are needed?

    The provider doesn't really care what phone is in use in GSM. The phones
    are commodities, for the most part, and changing phones doesn't require
    a call to the provider. CDMA could offer the same thing, but I think
    there may be issues related to data and such. R-UIM cards could be
    released. I just fail to see this as difficult.

  • Similar Threads