Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But then you would be degrading the value of a nice cash cow. Part of the
> current value of the license is that knowledge that all terms have been
> negotiated before the purchase. By putting a "we'll see" into the mix,
you
> may very well see companies say, "That's fine- help us pay for the cost. "
> Do you really have enough faith in the government to hold its ground and
not
> subsidize any additional criteria? These subsidies would effectively
> diminish the return on the spectrum

And one could also make the same argument that, when the idiots finally
catch on, the customers will be less willing to sign one-sided service
contracts that give all the rights to the carrier and none to the customer.
Or that it's not the carriers' best interest to make contracts that are
so resented that customers demand a change in public policy wrt this sort of
contract. Just a random thought about how carriers might like to treat their
customers they way they themselves would like to be treated.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

---

› See More: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

"Donald Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > But then you would be degrading the value of a nice cash cow. Part of
the
> > current value of the license is that knowledge that all terms have been
> > negotiated before the purchase. By putting a "we'll see" into the mix,
> you
> > may very well see companies say, "That's fine- help us pay for the cost.
"
> > Do you really have enough faith in the government to hold its ground and
> not
> > subsidize any additional criteria? These subsidies would effectively
> > diminish the return on the spectrum
>
> And one could also make the same argument that, when the idiots finally
> catch on, the customers will be less willing to sign one-sided service
> contracts that give all the rights to the carrier and none to the
customer.
> Or that it's not the carriers' best interest to make contracts that are
> so resented that customers demand a change in public policy wrt this sort
of
> contract. Just a random thought about how carriers might like to treat
their
> customers they way they themselves would like to be treated.


Ooo....ooo....ooo....... another interesting one. I've read the terms for
all five (now four) major players and compared to other services. The
language is exactly the same as satellite TV (where an equipment subsidy
exists) and many of the broadband players (when discounted service is
involved) and even some ISP's (again where discount pricing is involved).
ETF's are mentioned, as well as expected contract period. The only real
difference ends up being to the cellular customers benefit- unlikethe ISP
and Broadband providers, the contracted price generally stays in effect as
long as the customer wants, and not the cellular provider.

I've always found this argument interesting, because it always invlolves
cellular carriers and the argument is that the terms are so restrictive. I
have always failed to see where the restrictions are. And in all cases here
is what they all boil down to:

-They generally sell you a phone below cost and for that consideration they
bind you to a term of service.
-They provide the service to the best of their ability (we are talking about
radio transmissions here).
-You must pay for the service.

Yes- at times, certain fees and taxes do increase, sometimes with limited
notice. My cable company is famous for whipping out a few price increases a
year (packaged as "improved channel packages"). What always seems to get
missed is a point I made earlier- all major carriers allow you to carry the
contract pricing forward month-to-month after the contract expires for as
long as you choose (minus any limited time promotions offered). As fees and
taxes stabilize, this means a pretty effective freeze on pricing for the
entire length of service. As much as I try, I can't think of a single
service provider that allows this. And with many other service providers,
you are forced to pay for services and functions that you may never use or
need as part of the "package." Ever sit down and figure out how many cable
channels you are paying for and have never seen? Does your ISP offer things
that you never use? You pay for it all and rarely (if ever) are allowed to
make a-la-carte choices. With cellular, it is easy to pick exactly the
services and functionality you need without paying for fluff. Want just
voice- you got it. Add text messages- done. Don't need data- no problem.
To me, it is one of the least restrictive and most cost-efficient service
industries out there.

"Donald Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > But then you would be degrading the value of a nice cash cow. Part of
the
> > current value of the license is that knowledge that all terms have been
> > negotiated before the purchase. By putting a "we'll see" into the mix,
> you
> > may very well see companies say, "That's fine- help us pay for the cost.
"
> > Do you really have enough faith in the government to hold its ground and
> not
> > subsidize any additional criteria? These subsidies would effectively
> > diminish the return on the spectrum
>
> And one could also make the same argument that, when the idiots finally
> catch on, the customers will be less willing to sign one-sided service
> contracts that give all the rights to the carrier and none to the
customer.
> Or that it's not the carriers' best interest to make contracts that are
> so resented that customers demand a change in public policy wrt this sort
of
> contract. Just a random thought about how carriers might like to treat
their
> customers they way they themselves would like to be treated.
>
One more thing- take a look around the Usenet cellular groups. There is an
overabundance of sheep waiting to be herded by the carriers. Oh sure, they
complain about their carrier whenever the opportunity arises, but they
continue to pay the bill every month. Consumer addiction to this product
means that the carriers will always have the upper hand.

Remember when WLNP was just around the corner? Everybody was guaranteeing
that the carriers would cut prices and be much more flexible in negotiating
with customers to retain them. There were guesses that churn rates would go
through the roof as people bailed on their current carriers. What happened
instead? There was a collective puckering of anuses as the carriers
tightened up their policies and there was only a vey slight change in
pricing. In the grand scheme of things, very few customers ported out. It
was actually much easier to get out of a contract before portability.
Industry reaction to the new rights of the consumer was to enforce already
existing policies even tougher than before. New activations continue to
increase, some at record rates. Why would the carriers feel like they have
any reason to change?

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> -They generally sell you a phone below cost and for that consideration
they
> bind you to a term of service.
> -They provide the service to the best of their ability (we are talking
about
> radio transmissions here).
> -You must pay for the service.

Yes, but.....
1. They require long-term contract even when you bring your own compatible
phone, so they don't have to provide any phone subsidy. Thus, the interest
is not in just recouping the subsidy of the phone, rather it is to lock you
in so that you can't bolt when their service does not satisfy your needs. Oh
yes. I almost forgot. Most carriers will not release the subsidy lock on
their phones even after the customer has fulfilled his contractual
requirements. So even after the subsidy has been recouped they continue to
bar you from the full enjoyment of your property. The whole issue of phone
subsidies is one which rankles me. I believe that they should be prohibited
and that the customers should have to pay the full price of the phone*. Can
you immagine the howls protest if Ford or GM sold a car for $5,000 but then
required that you return to the Ford dealer to buy gas at $5/gal? You don't
have to imagine what would happen if Kodak sold a subsidized camera but
required that you send it back to Kodak for development and reloading. That
issue was settled over 50 years ago. Same for Xerox's requirement to use
only Xerox paper. But somehow these wireless carriers have fooled the public
and regulators into believing that they should be treated differently from
other businesses. It is a huge distortion of free market ecconomics. The
phones should be sold independently of the carriers' control. Yes, top of
the line phones will cost the customers $800, but they will gain an
appreciation for the true value of the instrument, take better care of them
and stop demanding a new phone every year. This is the way it is done in
many countries and it seems to work quite well.
2. Do they really have to "provide the service to the best of their
ability"? I have not seen that in any of the contracts I've seen. All I've
seen that you get access to whatever they decide to provide; which may be
either a good usable signal, or no signal at all, ever. In any event, if
they decide to provide nothing, you still get access to it and agree that it
will be "good enough." In particular, they can start out with a very good
signal where you work or live on the day you sign the contract and a week
later permanently shut down the cells that serve those areas, but still hold
you to your end of the contract.
3. Oh yes, the customer has to pay no matter what. Even if there is a total
failure of consideration on the part of the carrier. They've worded that
part of the contract very carefully.

> entire length of service. As much as I try, I can't think of a single
> service provider that allows this. And with many other service providers,
> you are forced to pay for services and functions that you may never use or
> need as part of the "package." Ever sit down and figure out how many
cable
> channels you are paying for and have never seen?

None, I refuse to pay for cable when I can pick up almost 20 channels for
free. My brother has satellite TV: 200 channels and nothing worth watching.
(I do regret not having A&E and the History Channel.)

>Does your ISP offer things
> that you never use? You pay for it all and rarely (if ever) are allowed
to
> make a-la-carte choices. With cellular, it is easy to pick exactly the
> services and functionality you need without paying for fluff. Want just
> voice- you got it. Add text messages- done. Don't need data- no problem.
> To me, it is one of the least restrictive and most cost-efficient service
> industries out there.

WalMart, gas stations, grocery stores, auto parts, restaurants, the list
goes on and on. I walk in with cash in my pocket, select exactly what I
want, pay for it and leave. If tomorrow, a different restautant, gas station
or grocier has a better deal I take my business to them. Now *that* is the
free market at work. And that is that the wireless carriers call "churn" and
declare it to be something to be stamped out. Some of us are old enough to
remember when computer companies defined "customer loyalty" as "the
inability to interface any third party hardware to, or run any third party
software on, a computer made by this company." Those were the bad-old-days
we left behind in the mid-'80s. But this is exactly the attitude of today's
wireless carriers.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

*Actually, I feel that they can subsidize the phone as much as they want, as
long as they don't lock it.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> -They generally sell you a phone below cost and for that consideration
they
> bind you to a term of service.
> -They provide the service to the best of their ability (we are talking
about
> radio transmissions here).
> -You must pay for the service.

Yes, but.....
1. They require long-term contract even when you bring your own compatible
phone, so they don't have to provide any phone subsidy. Thus, the interest
is not in just recouping the subsidy of the phone, rather it is to lock you
in so that you can't bolt when their service does not satisfy your needs. Oh
yes. I almost forgot. Most carriers will not release the subsidy lock on
their phones even after the customer has fulfilled his contractual
requirements. So even after the subsidy has been recouped they continue to
bar you from the full enjoyment of your property. The whole issue of phone
subsidies is one which rankles me. I believe that they should be prohibited
and that the customers should have to pay the full price of the phone*. Can
you immagine the howls protest if Ford or GM sold a car for $5,000 but then
required that you return to the Ford dealer to buy gas at $5/gal? You don't
have to imagine what would happen if Kodak sold a subsidized camera but
required that you send it back to Kodak for development and reloading. That
issue was settled over 50 years ago. Same for Xerox's requirement to use
only Xerox paper. But somehow these wireless carriers have fooled the public
and regulators into believing that they should be treated differently from
other businesses. It is a huge distortion of free market ecconomics. The
phones should be sold independently of the carriers' control. Yes, top of
the line phones will cost the customers $800, but they will gain an
appreciation for the true value of the instrument, take better care of them
and stop demanding a new phone every year. This is the way it is done in
many countries and it seems to work quite well.
2. Do they really have to "provide the service to the best of their
ability"? I have not seen that in any of the contracts I've seen. All I've
seen that you get access to whatever they decide to provide; which may be
either a good usable signal, or no signal at all, ever. In any event, if
they decide to provide nothing, you still get access to it and agree that it
will be "good enough." In particular, they can start out with a very good
signal where you work or live on the day you sign the contract and a week
later permanently shut down the cells that serve those areas, but still hold
you to your end of the contract.
3. Oh yes, the customer has to pay no matter what. Even if there is a total
failure of consideration on the part of the carrier. They've worded that
part of the contract very carefully.

> entire length of service. As much as I try, I can't think of a single
> service provider that allows this. And with many other service providers,
> you are forced to pay for services and functions that you may never use or
> need as part of the "package." Ever sit down and figure out how many
cable
> channels you are paying for and have never seen?

None, I refuse to pay for cable when I can pick up almost 20 channels for
free. My brother has satellite TV: 200 channels and nothing worth watching.
(I do regret not having A&E and the History Channel.)

>Does your ISP offer things
> that you never use? You pay for it all and rarely (if ever) are allowed
to
> make a-la-carte choices. With cellular, it is easy to pick exactly the
> services and functionality you need without paying for fluff. Want just
> voice- you got it. Add text messages- done. Don't need data- no problem.
> To me, it is one of the least restrictive and most cost-efficient service
> industries out there.

WalMart, gas stations, grocery stores, auto parts, restaurants, the list
goes on and on. I walk in with cash in my pocket, select exactly what I
want, pay for it and leave. If tomorrow, a different restautant, gas station
or grocier has a better deal I take my business to them. Now *that* is the
free market at work. And that is that the wireless carriers call "churn" and
declare it to be something to be stamped out. Some of us are old enough to
remember when computer companies defined "customer loyalty" as "the
inability to interface any third party hardware to, or run any third party
software on, a computer made by this company." Those were the bad-old-days
we left behind in the mid-'80s. But this is exactly the attitude of today's
wireless carriers.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

*Actually, I feel that they can subsidize the phone as much as they want, as
long as they don't lock it.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Remember when WLNP was just around the corner?

Don't start with WLNP. A huge rip-off. I really resent paying that extra
80c/month to support a service I never plan to use. I wish that the people
who port their numbers were forced to pay the whole cost of the service.

Oh, and I agree with your comment about sheep.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"Donald Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > -They generally sell you a phone below cost and for that consideration
> they
> > bind you to a term of service.
> > -They provide the service to the best of their ability (we are talking
> about
> > radio transmissions here).
> > -You must pay for the service.
>
> Yes, but.....
> 1. They require long-term contract even when you bring your own compatible
> phone, so they don't have to provide any phone subsidy.

Sprint, Cingular and T-Mobile will all allow month-to-month, although IIRC,
Sprint charges an extra $5/mo. to do so.

>Thus, the interest
> is not in just recouping the subsidy of the phone, rather it is to lock
you
> in so that you can't bolt when their service does not satisfy your needs.
Oh
> yes. I almost forgot. Most carriers will not release the subsidy lock on
> their phones even after the customer has fulfilled his contractual
> requirements. So even after the subsidy has been recouped they continue to
> bar you from the full enjoyment of your property.

Not true- you have already been experiencing full enjoyment, just not any
flexibility. The other thing to consider- how much would you be willing to
pay to have your Sprint phone retrofitted to work on the Verizon network?
To do this would be a service that most carriers do not offer- the cost
would probably be pretty substantial.

> The whole issue of phone
> subsidies is one which rankles me. I believe that they should be
prohibited
> and that the customers should have to pay the full price of the phone*.
Can
> you immagine the howls protest if Ford or GM sold a car for $5,000 but
then
> required that you return to the Ford dealer to buy gas at $5/gal? You
don't
> have to imagine what would happen if Kodak sold a subsidized camera but
> required that you send it back to Kodak for development and reloading.
That
> issue was settled over 50 years ago. Same for Xerox's requirement to use
> only Xerox paper. But somehow these wireless carriers have fooled the
public
> and regulators into believing that they should be treated differently from
> other businesses. It is a huge distortion of free market ecconomics. The
> phones should be sold independently of the carriers' control. Yes, top of
> the line phones will cost the customers $800, but they will gain an
> appreciation for the true value of the instrument, take better care of
them
> and stop demanding a new phone every year. This is the way it is done in
> many countries and it seems to work quite well.
> 2. Do they really have to "provide the service to the best of their
> ability"? I have not seen that in any of the contracts I've seen. All I've
> seen that you get access to whatever they decide to provide; which may be
> either a good usable signal, or no signal at all, ever.

Something to think about- broadband providers advertise a download speed,
saying that you can connect at a lightning fast speed of x- mine is 4 gig
(the last time I looked). Do a speed test and see if you hit that number.
If you do, it doesn't happen every time. When pressed for an explanation,
they will explain that they make their best effort for you to hit that
speed, but do not guarantee it.

One of the funniest things I see is people complaining because they don't
have blanket service. I remember reading one thread some time ago where it
finally came out that the service had deteriorated due to the construction
of a 7 story office building between the user's house and tower. The user
was extremely irate with the carrier because they would not come out and
immediately put up another tower on the other side of the new building. The
user really thought the solution was that easy and that the carrier had no
choice but to resolve it that way. One of the biggest problems with the
consumer use of cellular services is that most have no idea of how the
technology works or can be affected by conditions that are beyond the
control of the carrier. This, along with very unreal expectations of
service are the reason for most of the perceived eveils of the cellular
industry.

> In any event, if
> they decide to provide nothing, you still get access to it and agree that
it
> will be "good enough." In particular, they can start out with a very good
> signal where you work or live on the day you sign the contract and a week
> later permanently shut down the cells that serve those areas, but still
hold
> you to your end of the contract.

Ah, but now you are talking like one of the shepp- "The cellular companies
can do whatever they want." We both know this to be untrue. Any material
change in service (as in your example of shutting down the towers) would
result in a no-questions-asked release from contract.


> 3. Oh yes, the customer has to pay no matter what. Even if there is a
total
> failure of consideration on the part of the carrier. They've worded that
> part of the contract very carefully.

The wording is no different than any other service provider- my cable
comany, ISP, broadband provider and landline company all have the same type
of language. And all of them are just as difficult to deal with when
ttrying to get credit for downtime.

>
> >Does your ISP offer things
> > that you never use? You pay for it all and rarely (if ever) are allowed
> to
> > make a-la-carte choices. With cellular, it is easy to pick exactly the
> > services and functionality you need without paying for fluff. Want just
> > voice- you got it. Add text messages- done. Don't need data- no
problem.
> > To me, it is one of the least restrictive and most cost-efficient
service
> > industries out there.
>
> WalMart, gas stations, grocery stores, auto parts, restaurants, the list
> goes on and on. I walk in with cash in my pocket, select exactly what I
> want, pay for it and leave. If tomorrow, a different restautant, gas
station
> or grocier has a better deal I take my business to them. Now *that* is the
> free market at work. And that is that the wireless carriers call "churn"
and
> declare it to be something to be stamped out. Some of us are old enough to
> remember when computer companies defined "customer loyalty" as "the
> inability to interface any third party hardware to, or run any third party
> software on, a computer made by this company." Those were the bad-old-days
> we left behind in the mid-'80s. But this is exactly the attitude of
today's
> wireless carriers.
>

I don't know that you can compare cellular to retail, as no propreitary
access is needed to use a retail store. When I said service, I meant a
company providing a service and not a product for sale. And when you do
that kind of comparison, my analogy stills has merit- more flexible and
cost-effective.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sprint, Cingular and T-Mobile will all allow month-to-month, although
IIRC,
> Sprint charges an extra $5/mo. to do so.

I can't answer for Sprint, but I believe you are in error WRT T-Mobile.

> Not true- you have already been experiencing full enjoyment, just not any
> flexibility.

We'll have to differ on the definition of "full enjoyment". I don't have
full enjoyment of a car if I alwasy have to return to the dealer to buy
gasoline or just park it in the driveway and look at it.

The other thing to consider- how much would you be willing to
> pay to have your Sprint phone retrofitted to work on the Verizon network?
> To do this would be a service that most carriers do not offer- the cost
> would probably be pretty substantial.

Well, that is what they'd like you to believe. The GSM carriers would like
you to believe that too, but enough people know better so they don't try to
sell that song and dance to their customers. Phones are pretty standard
devices. Only the programming changes between carriers. OTA provisioning
allows most carrier specific settings to be changed fairly easily. I moved a
phone from Cellular South to AT&T simply by entering a couple
carrier-provided codes on the keypad and waiting a couple of hours for the
OTA provisioning to take effect. GSM phones just require you swap the SIM
from phone to phone.

> Something to think about- broadband providers advertise a download speed,
> saying that you can connect at a lightning fast speed of x- mine is 4 gig
> (the last time I looked). Do a speed test and see if you hit that number.
> If you do, it doesn't happen every time. When pressed for an explanation,
> they will explain that they make their best effort for you to hit that
> speed, but do not guarantee it.

I guess we'll have to differ on the defintion of "best effort" too.

> One of the funniest things I see is people complaining because they don't
> have blanket service. I remember reading one thread some time ago where
it
> finally came out that the service had deteriorated due to the construction
> of a 7 story office building between the user's house and tower. The user
> was extremely irate with the carrier because they would not come out and
> immediately put up another tower on the other side of the new building.
The
> user really thought the solution was that easy and that the carrier had no
> choice but to resolve it that way. One of the biggest problems with the
> consumer use of cellular services is that most have no idea of how the
> technology works or can be affected by conditions that are beyond the
> control of the carrier. This, along with very unreal expectations of
> service are the reason for most of the perceived eveils of the cellular
> industry.

It's true that most complaints I've read involved service "inside my house",
to which I have to respond that if one has service in his driveway there's
no use in complaining about no service inside the house.

> Ah, but now you are talking like one of the shepp- "The cellular companies
> can do whatever they want." We both know this to be untrue. Any material
> change in service (as in your example of shutting down the towers) would
> result in a no-questions-asked release from contract.

Not always true and not required by the one-sided T&C. The customer agrees
to accept whatever the carrier is willing to provide, no guarantees. I may
go out on some websites and get some examples if I get the time. Of course,
some companies out of the goodness of their li'l ole' corporate hearts may
cut the customer some slack, to avoid adverse filings with the FCC, FTC &
BBB or writing to congressmen. Shutting down a tower is not a material
change in service, changing the T&C usually is.

> > 3. Oh yes, the customer has to pay no matter what. Even if there is a
> total
> > failure of consideration on the part of the carrier. They've worded that
> > part of the contract very carefully.
>
> The wording is no different than any other service provider- my cable
> comany, ISP, broadband provider and landline company all have the same
type
> of language. And all of them are just as difficult to deal with when
> ttrying to get credit for downtime.

And your point is? Does this mean that service industries should not warrant
their services the same way other companies do? Not even a warranty of
fitness and merchantability? Nice business to be in, zero accountability.

> I don't know that you can compare cellular to retail, as no propreitary
> access is needed to use a retail store. When I said service, I meant a
> company providing a service and not a product for sale. And when you do
> that kind of comparison, my analogy stills has merit- more flexible and
> cost-effective.

OK; barber, lawn service, mechanic. Back to my analogy of the computer
companies of the pre-PC era. What shut down their game was standards. The
customers wised up and stopped buying proprietary systems. Rather than
buying a DEC VAX with VMS they started buying VME-based computers running
some form of Unix. Before long the PC architecture came along and you could
mix and match pieces and parts. At first DOS was the only game in the PC
town but before long alternatives came along, SCO-Unix, Linux, OS2, etc. IBM
tried to reassert the "do it our way" regime but fell flat on their faces.
The customers weren't buying. I agree with your previous observation about
wireless customers being like so many sheep. If customers stopped buying
proprietary access and started demanding standards, the industry would
change, just the way the computer industry changed.

The wireless industry is largely grounded in the Ma Bell mentality. The two
largest wireless companies were formed, to large extent, from Bell
spin-offs. The stated intent of the Congress, FCC and FTC are to move the
industry from one based on a regulated monopoly (or duopoly) model to a
competitive market model. IMHO, so far it is only a partial success, while
there is competition in some functional areas; in areas where the sheep
(customers) don't seem to take notice, the companies still act in a
monopolistic manner. One of these areas is the contracts that customers are
asked to sign. Frankly, I think if you dangle "a pretty" in front of some
people they'll sign anything. The other area is designing to proprietary
standards, rather than to open international standards.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"Donald Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Sprint, Cingular and T-Mobile will all allow month-to-month, although
> IIRC,
> > Sprint charges an extra $5/mo. to do so.
>
> I can't answer for Sprint, but I believe you are in error WRT T-Mobile.
>
> > Not true- you have already been experiencing full enjoyment, just not
any
> > flexibility.
>
> We'll have to differ on the definition of "full enjoyment". I don't have
> full enjoyment of a car if I alwasy have to return to the dealer to buy
> gasoline or just park it in the driveway and look at it.

Why would where you get your gas limit the enjoyment of driving the car?

>
> The other thing to consider- how much would you be willing to
> > pay to have your Sprint phone retrofitted to work on the Verizon
network?
> > To do this would be a service that most carriers do not offer- the cost
> > would probably be pretty substantial.
>
> Well, that is what they'd like you to believe. The GSM carriers would like
> you to believe that too, but enough people know better so they don't try
to
> sell that song and dance to their customers. Phones are pretty standard
> devices. Only the programming changes between carriers. OTA provisioning
> allows most carrier specific settings to be changed fairly easily. I moved
a
> phone from Cellular South to AT&T simply by entering a couple
> carrier-provided codes on the keypad and waiting a couple of hours for the
> OTA provisioning to take effect. GSM phones just require you swap the SIM
> from phone to phone.

But if it became a free-for-all, with phones coming from everywhere, the
cost of getting that OTA provisioning becomes a lot more expensive to the
carriers. More requests, more headcount, more cost. And you aren't
guaranteed full phone functionality with a SIM swap on GSM phones, only the
ability to use basic funtions.


>
> It's true that most complaints I've read involved service "inside my
house",
> to which I have to respond that if one has service in his driveway there's
> no use in complaining about no service inside the house.
>
> > Ah, but now you are talking like one of the shepp- "The cellular
companies
> > can do whatever they want." We both know this to be untrue. Any
material
> > change in service (as in your example of shutting down the towers) would
> > result in a no-questions-asked release from contract.
>
> Not always true and not required by the one-sided T&C. The customer agrees
> to accept whatever the carrier is willing to provide, no guarantees. I may
> go out on some websites and get some examples if I get the time. Of
course,
> some companies out of the goodness of their li'l ole' corporate hearts may
> cut the customer some slack, to avoid adverse filings with the FCC, FTC &
> BBB or writing to congressmen. Shutting down a tower is not a material
> change in service, changing the T&C usually is.

Ah, but the fitness of merchantability you are looking for in writing comes
into play here. A contract agreed to because service is available at point
A is no longer valid if point A no longer gets service due to the actions of
the carrier- that would be a change to the services agreed to in the T&C.

>
> > > 3. Oh yes, the customer has to pay no matter what. Even if there is a
> > total
> > > failure of consideration on the part of the carrier. They've worded
that
> > > part of the contract very carefully.
> >
> > The wording is no different than any other service provider- my cable
> > comany, ISP, broadband provider and landline company all have the same
> type
> > of language. And all of them are just as difficult to deal with when
> > ttrying to get credit for downtime.
>
> And your point is? Does this mean that service industries should not
warrant
> their services the same way other companies do? Not even a warranty of
> fitness and merchantability? Nice business to be in, zero accountability.

My point is that to single out one provider for having the same customer
expectation as the rest is unfair. And I would state that the
accountability for all of these is sadly lacking. Now, whether that is the
fault of the government for lax standards or the consumer for being too
quick to agree I don't know. Why can a broadband provider be allowed to
provide speeds at 25% of their advertised best effort with no penalty? Why
can my landline phone service go dead for a period of time with no
compensation to me? Is it legal? Apparently it is. Is it good business?
You already know the answer to that one.

Having said that, cellular does have one differentiator in this mix- how do
you guarantee service when your product depends on so many factors that are
outside of your control? Can you guarantee service when atmosphere,
weather, foliage and development all have a direct effect on the quality of
your service?

>

>
> OK; barber, lawn service, mechanic. Back to my analogy of the computer
> companies of the pre-PC era. What shut down their game was standards. The
> customers wised up and stopped buying proprietary systems. Rather than
> buying a DEC VAX with VMS they started buying VME-based computers running
> some form of Unix. Before long the PC architecture came along and you
could
> mix and match pieces and parts. At first DOS was the only game in the PC
> town but before long alternatives came along, SCO-Unix, Linux, OS2, etc.
IBM
> tried to reassert the "do it our way" regime but fell flat on their faces.
> The customers weren't buying. I agree with your previous observation about
> wireless customers being like so many sheep. If customers stopped buying
> proprietary access and started demanding standards, the industry would
> change, just the way the computer industry changed.

Too late for that- none of the big four are in a position to finance a
complete redeployment of their networks to a single standard, and cellular
penetration is high enough to discourage a maverick attempt at this. The
time for it was five years ago, when the networks were not complete and
cellular penetration was much lower. And the only way to have this done at
this point in time would be for the government to mandate a completely new
technology. To pick a current technology would only create lawsuits by the
losers that would drag on well after my death.

>
> The wireless industry is largely grounded in the Ma Bell mentality. The
two
> largest wireless companies were formed, to large extent, from Bell
> spin-offs. The stated intent of the Congress, FCC and FTC are to move the
> industry from one based on a regulated monopoly (or duopoly) model to a
> competitive market model. IMHO, so far it is only a partial success, while
> there is competition in some functional areas; in areas where the sheep
> (customers) don't seem to take notice, the companies still act in a
> monopolistic manner. One of these areas is the contracts that customers
are
> asked to sign. Frankly, I think if you dangle "a pretty" in front of some
> people they'll sign anything. The other area is designing to proprietary
> standards, rather than to open international standards.
>

The carriers have no incentive to change a thing. All are profitable and
growing. The government has no need to change the staus quo, because the
current environment is the most profitable for them. And being a huge
proponent for smaller government, I don't see the need for more regulation.
Your run-of-the-mill consumer is a very uneducated and unsavvy creature that
relies on others to get them out of problems of their own creation and can't
differebtiate 'wants' from 'needs.' The solution is not to shackle private
businesses- it is to make individuals accountable for their own actions and
decisions. And no matter what anybody says, we are talking about a
convenience item here. Until 10 years ago, most people got along fine
without them. Yes- I am a cellular user, but I could go back to landline in
a heartbeat and be able to be just as productive as I am now. I would run
into some dilemmas, but I overcame them in the past.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why would where you get your gas limit the enjoyment of driving the car?

Clearly, if I can't do what I want with the car (within the law) my
enjoyment of it is restricted. The auto industry was long ago "persuaded" to
give up attempts to require that cars be only serviced at the dealer, use
manufacturer branded oil & filters, etc. Rather these service items,
including fuel, are made and sold to a standard. If you use a particular
grade of fuel, oil, etc. the manufacturer has no grounds to deny a warranty
claim.

>
> But if it became a free-for-all, with phones coming from everywhere, the
> cost of getting that OTA provisioning becomes a lot more expensive to the
> carriers. More requests, more headcount, more cost. And you aren't
> guaranteed full phone functionality with a SIM swap on GSM phones, only
the
> ability to use basic funtions.

Sorry, been there done that and know better. An unlocked GSM phone with a
new SIM and a quick OTA setup carrier are good to go. Yes, the SIM only
gives you account, voice and SMS settings, but the rest is so easy the
customer would have to be brain dead to mess it up. And yes, I'm sure there
are some brain dead customers, but the carriers in most of the world manage
with this situation just fine.

> Ah, but the fitness of merchantability you are looking for in writing
comes
> into play here. A contract agreed to because service is available at
point
> A is no longer valid if point A no longer gets service due to the actions
of
> the carrier- that would be a change to the services agreed to in the T&C.

I'm glad you say so, but Verizon does not agree. A few years ago they had a
"preferred" roaming plan. Everywhere on the map of a particular shade you
got free roaming on other carriers. In the unshaded areas you paid roaming
charges. Many people signed up for the plan. Then one day Verizon did an
OTA update to their PRL and greatly reduced the area where roaming was free.
Some smart customers (a very small minority) noticed the difference. One or
two had copied the original PRL off their phones and compared it with the
new PRL and announced on Usenet & HoFo that Verizon had changed the deal
without even bothering to inform anyone. What was Verizon's response? Did
they apologize, restore the old PRL? Give refunds? Let people off without an
ETF? Nope. They attacked the whistleblowers for stealing the company "trade
secrets" off their phones and publishing the information. They claimed it
was their right under the T&C to change the service map without notice.

>
> My point is that to single out one provider for having the same customer
> expectation as the rest is unfair. And I would state that the
> accountability for all of these is sadly lacking. Now, whether that is
the
> fault of the government for lax standards or the consumer for being too
> quick to agree I don't know. Why can a broadband provider be allowed to
> provide speeds at 25% of their advertised best effort with no penalty?
Why
> can my landline phone service go dead for a period of time with no
> compensation to me? Is it legal? Apparently it is. Is it good business?
> You already know the answer to that one.
>
> Having said that, cellular does have one differentiator in this mix- how
do
> you guarantee service when your product depends on so many factors that
are
> outside of your control? Can you guarantee service when atmosphere,
> weather, foliage and development all have a direct effect on the quality
of
> your service?

See the Verizon example above.

>
> Too late for that- none of the big four are in a position to finance a
> complete redeployment of their networks to a single standard, and cellular
> penetration is high enough to discourage a maverick attempt at this. The
> time for it was five years ago, when the networks were not complete and
> cellular penetration was much lower. And the only way to have this done
at
> this point in time would be for the government to mandate a completely new
> technology. To pick a current technology would only create lawsuits by
the
> losers that would drag on well after my death.

Actually, they use just two standards: GSM & IS95. Everything else is just
set-up details. The third standard iDEN was only used by Nextel and Southern
LINC which I beleive were well below the top 4 on the list. Oh and TDMA is
on the way out.

> The carriers have no incentive to change a thing. All are profitable and
> growing. The government has no need to change the staus quo, because the
> current environment is the most profitable for them. And being a huge
> proponent for smaller government, I don't see the need for more
regulation.
> Your run-of-the-mill consumer is a very uneducated and unsavvy creature
that
> relies on others to get them out of problems of their own creation and
can't
> differebtiate 'wants' from 'needs.' The solution is not to shackle
private
> businesses- it is to make individuals accountable for their own actions
and
> decisions. And no matter what anybody says, we are talking about a
> convenience item here. Until 10 years ago, most people got along fine
> without them. Yes- I am a cellular user, but I could go back to landline
in
> a heartbeat and be able to be just as productive as I am now. I would run
> into some dilemmas, but I overcame them in the past.

I mostly agree with this except to the extent that the carriers act as
though they were a monopoly. When you look at the standards used to
determine if a market is competititive or not*, the US wireless market can
be argued to be at the cusp of becoming non-competitive. We tried laissez
faire capitalism up until the turn of the last century, and had to institute
government intervention when we learned that it was too easy to thwart the
competitive forces that make the free market work. You just have to find a
way to gain control over most of a scarce resource. A good example of this
today is DeBeers Diamonds or Saudi oil. They don't control all the diamond
and oil production in the world but they do control enough to set the price.
Similarly, control of most the scarce RF spectrum in key markets may allow a
few carriers to dominate the wireless market and set the price for services,
by preventing new competition to enter the market. And with that I think
we've come full circle.

*I don't claim to be an expert in this field but can referr you to the
filings made by Consumers Union and others in the ATTWS/Cingular merger.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"Donald Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Why would where you get your gas limit the enjoyment of driving the car?
>
> Clearly, if I can't do what I want with the car (within the law) my
> enjoyment of it is restricted. The auto industry was long ago "persuaded"
to
> give up attempts to require that cars be only serviced at the dealer, use
> manufacturer branded oil & filters, etc. Rather these service items,
> including fuel, are made and sold to a standard. If you use a particular
> grade of fuel, oil, etc. the manufacturer has no grounds to deny a
warranty
> claim.
>
> >
> > But if it became a free-for-all, with phones coming from everywhere, the
> > cost of getting that OTA provisioning becomes a lot more expensive to
the
> > carriers. More requests, more headcount, more cost. And you aren't
> > guaranteed full phone functionality with a SIM swap on GSM phones, only
> the
> > ability to use basic funtions.
>
> Sorry, been there done that and know better. An unlocked GSM phone with a
> new SIM and a quick OTA setup carrier are good to go. Yes, the SIM only
> gives you account, voice and SMS settings, but the rest is so easy the
> customer would have to be brain dead to mess it up.

The same customers that don't understand the contract? Sorry- I've been
there. The stories are pretty incredible- stupidity does rule from a
techncal standpoint.

> And yes, I'm sure there
> are some brain dead customers, but the carriers in most of the world
manage
> with this situation just fine.

But the carriers in most of the world don't subsidize phones.

>
> > Ah, but the fitness of merchantability you are looking for in writing
> comes
> > into play here. A contract agreed to because service is available at
> point
> > A is no longer valid if point A no longer gets service due to the
actions
> of
> > the carrier- that would be a change to the services agreed to in the
T&C.
>
> I'm glad you say so, but Verizon does not agree. A few years ago they had
a
> "preferred" roaming plan. Everywhere on the map of a particular shade you
> got free roaming on other carriers. In the unshaded areas you paid roaming
> charges. Many people signed up for the plan. Then one day Verizon did an
> OTA update to their PRL and greatly reduced the area where roaming was
free.
> Some smart customers (a very small minority) noticed the difference. One
or
> two had copied the original PRL off their phones and compared it with the
> new PRL and announced on Usenet & HoFo that Verizon had changed the deal
> without even bothering to inform anyone. What was Verizon's response? Did
> they apologize, restore the old PRL? Give refunds? Let people off without
an
> ETF? Nope. They attacked the whistleblowers for stealing the company
"trade
> secrets" off their phones and publishing the information. They claimed it
> was their right under the T&C to change the service map without notice.

My only question in response to this would be, "Was the change in coverage
because Verizon chose not to offer it or because the other carrier decided
not to do business with Verizon any longer?" If the former, then it does
smell a little funny. If the latter, how can Verizon be held responsible
for the actions of another service provider?

>
> >
> > My point is that to single out one provider for having the same customer
> > expectation as the rest is unfair. And I would state that the
> > accountability for all of these is sadly lacking. Now, whether that is
> the
> > fault of the government for lax standards or the consumer for being too
> > quick to agree I don't know. Why can a broadband provider be allowed to
> > provide speeds at 25% of their advertised best effort with no penalty?
> Why
> > can my landline phone service go dead for a period of time with no
> > compensation to me? Is it legal? Apparently it is. Is it good
business?
> > You already know the answer to that one.
> >
> > Having said that, cellular does have one differentiator in this mix- how
> do
> > you guarantee service when your product depends on so many factors that
> are
> > outside of your control? Can you guarantee service when atmosphere,
> > weather, foliage and development all have a direct effect on the quality
> of
> > your service?
>
> See the Verizon example above.

I don't see how the example above applies to what I posted.

>
> >
> > Too late for that- none of the big four are in a position to finance a
> > complete redeployment of their networks to a single standard, and
cellular
> > penetration is high enough to discourage a maverick attempt at this.
The
> > time for it was five years ago, when the networks were not complete and
> > cellular penetration was much lower. And the only way to have this done
> at
> > this point in time would be for the government to mandate a completely
new
> > technology. To pick a current technology would only create lawsuits by
> the
> > losers that would drag on well after my death.
>
> Actually, they use just two standards: GSM & IS95. Everything else is just
> set-up details. The third standard iDEN was only used by Nextel and
Southern
> LINC which I beleive were well below the top 4 on the list. Oh and TDMA is
> on the way out.

All true, but any government move to one of the standards would bring
litigation from those using the other. We will never see a single standard.

>
> > The carriers have no incentive to change a thing. All are profitable
and
> > growing. The government has no need to change the staus quo, because
the
> > current environment is the most profitable for them. And being a huge
> > proponent for smaller government, I don't see the need for more
> regulation.
> > Your run-of-the-mill consumer is a very uneducated and unsavvy creature
> that
> > relies on others to get them out of problems of their own creation and
> can't
> > differebtiate 'wants' from 'needs.' The solution is not to shackle
> private
> > businesses- it is to make individuals accountable for their own actions
> and
> > decisions. And no matter what anybody says, we are talking about a
> > convenience item here. Until 10 years ago, most people got along fine
> > without them. Yes- I am a cellular user, but I could go back to
landline
> in
> > a heartbeat and be able to be just as productive as I am now. I would
run
> > into some dilemmas, but I overcame them in the past.
>
> I mostly agree with this except to the extent that the carriers act as
> though they were a monopoly.

Microsoft, any of the cable providers in the US, any utility (gas, water,
electric)....... many industries operate with the same philosophy. If
Microsoft can't be determined by the government to be a monpoly and if cable
providers can operate with no forced competition (unlike cellular), how is
it that cellular is the big evil industry?

> When you look at the standards used to
> determine if a market is competititive or not*, the US wireless market can
> be argued to be at the cusp of becoming non-competitive.

You reference to the Consumers Union would invalidate your very good
argument. They have been a very vocal opponent of cellular policy since day
one and appear to have a very well documented bias against the industry.

> We tried laissez
> faire capitalism up until the turn of the last century, and had to
institute
> government intervention when we learned that it was too easy to thwart the
> competitive forces that make the free market work. You just have to find a
> way to gain control over most of a scarce resource. A good example of
this
> today is DeBeers Diamonds or Saudi oil. They don't control all the diamond
> and oil production in the world but they do control enough to set the
price.
> Similarly, control of most the scarce RF spectrum in key markets may allow
a
> few carriers to dominate the wireless market and set the price for
services,
> by preventing new competition to enter the market. And with that I think
> we've come full circle.

Except that no carrier can hold a monopoly in any market, which
differentiates today from a hundred years ago. Monopolies were easier to
attain back then because it was easy to hold market control of the entire
pie. The government does not allow that now, even with cellular. This is
why Cingular had to divest in certain markets to get merger approval.