Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Carriers Accused of Antitrust Violations
phoneboy writes "From Wireless Consumers Alliance: A class-action lawsuit was filed on April 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of wireless consumers seeking to end the control of the handset market by wireless carriers. Read the Antitrust Complaint. While the complaint is fairly short and easy to understand, a summary is in order: The carriers basically dictate required features to handset manufacturers. Phones are tied to specific carriers and cannot be moved between carriers. Carriers refuse to allow handsets on their network they didn't approve. Handset manufacturers thus cannot sell handsets that aren't approved by carriers because carriers will not allow them to be used. All of this rises costs for the consumer, making it difficult and more expensive to switch carriers, and unfairly restrains trade for both handsets and cellular services. As someone who recently tried subscribing to AT&T's new GSM service with an unlocked GSM phone (they didn't allow me to "activate" the service unless I bought one of their phones), I'll be watching this case very closely."
The question is, what is the current state of regulation in the wireless arena? Do regulations currently exist similar to the old phone regulations? If not, how do the wireless carriers enforce their hardware requirements?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Is MCI part of the Wireless COnsumers Alliance?
Bravo!
This is highly needed. I am a big fan of Nokia phones, to the point where I won't use any other brand of phone. Unfortunately, I signed up for access with Sprint PCS 2 years ago, and a little over a year ago I extended my contract (it won't be over until May).
When I signed up with Sprint PCS, Nokia phones were an option. Today they aren't, and no matter how many times I've contacted them things don't seem to be changing.
My only choices are to (A) continue to use my 3 year old phone, (B) move on to a new provider, or (C) get a non-Nokia phone.
None of those options are satisfactory to me.
(A) my phone is outdated and no longer has the features I require. It is over large, gets horrible reception in my new Apartment, and the battery hardly lasts a day.
(B) I would have to change my phone number as I was told I could not switch my current phone number over to the new provider (it is owned by Sprint). Secondly, my options are AT&T and Verizon who are both far worse companies than Sprint (in my experience anyway).
(C) There are few phones I like, and after past experiences with current cell phone companies I've chosen to remain with Nokia, not just because I like their phones but because I like the way they run their business.
As you can see, I am in a no win situation. Any choice I make leads me to make some sort of a compromise. While this lawsuit will unfortunately not go through the courts quick enough to be a benefit to me, it is long overneeded and I can only hope it helps keep others from experiencing these same problems in the future.
Bryan
Pesky 'standards' getting you down? Consumers switching willy-nilly from one provider to another? Don't like the idea of this new-fangled 'interoperability'? There's an easy answer! Just make your own additional rules and refuse to allow devices that don't meet them. And the best part is, you can do this while still claiming to comply with the standard!
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Carriers set phones' SIDs and MDNs so that they work with only one provider (AT&T, for example). They add encryption on top of that so that it's hard to reprogram a phone. Carriers are currently regulated only in terms of tariffs on the service (i.e. federal tax), not on the handset-to-service binding. The latter is unregulated, hence this filing with the district court.
Next year, the Ontario government will be posting a list of approved automobiles for travel on the Highway 407 Electronic Toll Route. Only Chevrolet, Buick, and a couple Pontiac vehicles will be compatible with the new concrete technology. ;-)
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The point of requiring all phones used on their networks isn't necessarily an unfair business practices. The wireless carriers may just want to alleviate the threat of abuse over their networks. In this time of attributing fault to various people in the hierarchy of responsibility, handsets could be potentially damaging if they were modified to be scanners. So, to eliminate that possibility, carriers may examine all potential handsets and only approve the ones that could not easily be modified to do such damaging things. One thing I don't understand, though, is how this could bring antitrust accusations against these companies. The only case I can think of is possibly collusion between the carriers, but with the competition between low rates occurring with such viciousness, I don't believe that is even a possibility.
As opposed to... what? Putting up with explaining over and over why random feature 'x' of gee-whiz gollywag phone doesn't work on their network?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
In a similar vein, carriers have stalled and delayed the government's wish that consumers be allowed to keep and transfer their cell phone numbers between carriers.
Actually, a friend of mine bought an unlocked t68 on eBay. AT&T activated it with few problems. This was even before AT&T was selling the t68. His biggest problems were that the WAP site sometimes had problems rendering on the t68. Works fine now, as does the t68 that I got from AT&T when I switched to their GSM service.
On a slightly different note, they told me that after my 1 year contract they would unlock my phone.
Non portable numbers are the biggest issue with switching carriers. I wonder whether most of the handset manufacturers like the way things are. It must increase handset volume.
Anyway, it is in the carrier's best interest to control the equipment used to access their network. In the newspaper today, there was an interesting article on the HDTV standard, which while a somewhat different scenerio is still relevant. The studios want all newer TV's manufactured to contain DRM type stuff, which would make the previously sold HDTV's obsolete. Now whether or not they can do this over the airwaves is the debate. Over cable is one thing, but over airwaves they've paid the FCC for the rights to, can they control what type of equipment has access to it. I see this as very much the same argument, and believe that if this antitrust case goes through, the TV network companies will in the future see very much the same case.
The future isn't what it used to be.
Sheesh, you can use your same phone In Hong Kong, catch a flight to South Africa, then hit London and Amsterdam, stopover in Canada, but when you come to the states- NO SERVICE FOUND!!!
Damn us stupid americans! If the rest of the world adopts 900 or 1800MHz, we decide we have to be different and go along with a 1900MHz system either SOLELY to sell more expensive Trimode handsets, or to make people fork over more cash to buy a second phone.
---------------
I sig, therefore I was.
I just bought an unlocked Ericsson T68 with a voicestream plan. Voicestream don't yet supply this phone (maybe in June), however they still paid my supplier a $150 rebate for selling the voicestream plan, which they passed onto me.
Voicestream tech support even know about the phone and help with the GPRS/istream configuration.
In Europe, with the GSM system there, you usually ahve two options.
1) An open GSM phone. You can use this anywhere, on any network. Either roaming, or with a sim card from that network.
2) A branded phone, where it is locked to a certain carrier. So you can't just take any sim card and use it, you have to use that network.
With #2, they usually sell the phone cheaper, because you are stuck with their network. Which makes sense.
But.. a carrier will not refuse service or differentiate at all as to what phone you use.
I work for a wireless billing software company. About Item (B)... the FCC is requiring cellular companies to make their numbers "portable" in the near future (more on that later). In other words, you will be able to keep your current wireless phone number, bringing it to another competing wireless provider, provided that it's in the same market.
The problem is, every time the FCC has set a deadline for this to happen, all the big wireless companies whine a lot, petition the FCC because implementing the switch/billing software/etc upgrades would be "too difficult" (i.e. costly), and the deadline gets postponed. As it stands now, it was supposed to already have happened over two years ago, and the latest deadline in late November is probably going to be pushed out another six months (if it hasn't been already). The net result is that it really sucks to be the consumer, 'cuz folks like you have to face decisions like the one you're faced with now.
Sprit was apparently a visionary. They don't need to artifically disable unapproved phones from working... They just build their own propritary PCS system, and NOTHING can even potentially communicate with it unless it uses that same PCS protocol.
Kinda like MSN specifically disabling connections from non-Windows machines, and with AOL it isn't even possible to connect from non-Windows machines in the first place. (Yeah, yeah, Macs. I know.)
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
It's time the governments of the world realize a free market doesn't work everywhere.
Standards need to be set by a regulatory authority. Otherwise competing businesses will not just have the opportunity to create their own standards, they'll be forced to do so. There'll always be one business that'll use dirty tricks, so to survive, all must use them.
The U.S. cell phone market is a joke. Over here in Europe where I live I can buy any phone from anywhere. It'll work with any operator (as long as I pay for their service - duh). It will operate in any country in the world (except the U.S. and some other exceptions). There are no usage restrictions.
A few years ago when I visited the U.S. the phone I rented worked in New York, but not in Iowa! And I'll be moving to Boston next year, forcing me to get a U.S. phone. I hate you people! (well your phone companies at least...)
P.S. Is it true that text messaging doesn't always work between operators in the U.S?
My Sig: SEGV
Life is about survival of the fittest and company's need to do what they need to do to survive. It's the law of the jungle. Yup, it's a dog-eat-dog world out there and there isn't much we can do about it.
Think about this: if the West had to share all of its technological goodies and advancements with the other 5/6ths of the world, that would mean less for us. That's not a world that is acceptable to me and that's just not the way the free market is designed to work.
If you're too poor to deal with reality, find somewhere else to live.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
As most of us know, there are six widely used technologies, Analog, GSM, CDMA 800mHz, CDMA 1900mHz, TDMA 800mHz, and TDMA 1900mHz.
Most carriers only have their towers equipped for one, maybe two frequencies. In your case, while Sprint used to use the GSM technology, they now only use the CDMA 1900mHz for their phones.
Only phones made for that technology will work on that system.
The other issue that is run across quite a bit is knowledge. Most wireless representatives will have no idea how to program handsets they do not actually sell, even if they run on the same technology and frequency. A person who sells only Nokia and Motorola handsets will have no clue how to program an older Ericsson or Samsung, for example.
Another reason they require their own handsets deals with the fact that many companies (AT&T and Sprint for example) upgrade the software in the phones before sending them to the stores.
They do this to make sure you have the ability properly access their networks.
I agree that wireless providers should provide quite a bit more selection in stocking their handsets, but I would don't expect them to sell and support every type of handset out there.
Thats like requiring car manufacturers to make sure all their vehicles can use diesel, gasoline, petroleum, electricity, fuel cells and ethenol, and have them interchangable.
All it will do is drive the price of the service and handsets up, not just for the added technology, but for the additional training and expertise the representatives will need.
Bah. Hey, guys. Yeah, you wireless phone manufacturers. I'm talking to you. I have the perfect, non-legislative/judicial solution for you.
MAKE YOUR OWN NETWORK.
See? It's quite simple. When the Internet was getting bogged down and the universities wanted it faster, did they sue AOL and Napster? No, they made their OWN NETWORK.
This is another arena for competition, and if it works right, it will force closed networks to open up - and if they don't, they die. Or, if it doesn't really work out, and the consumers (the only ones that matter) don't mind being confined to a single network, then it won't force the closed networks to open.
Personally, I'd prefer an open network, but not if it's the most profitable, no one has any right to tell them how to run their property.
Use the capitalist solution. Either play along with those who have put money and labor and resources into building a network - You have no intrinsic right to their labor - or combine money, labor and resources, and make your own network.
There's no need to drag the government into one of the most free markets we have.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -Dostoevsky
Because if ignorance is bliss, Slashdot moderators are in heaven.
Your wallet stays open. Our source remains closed. We are MSFT
Someone brought up . hey.. make a cell phone scanner.. Exactly.
There goes digital cellular security right out the window.
Though i'm certain that someone could already do it, it'd probably be a lot easier to hack up a phone to do some crazy whack ass shit like scan other digital calls, if that phone was allowed to access the network.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
I called VoiceStream about allowing a certain phone on their network. They initially indicated it wouldn't work, but when I pointed out it had the proper band, they said I was free to try it.
I don't think the complainers have much of a case. Phone systems are different because their designers start with different frequency allocations, and since they won't get any hardware reuse, they don't bother to make consistent protocols either. And nobody's telling them to do so.
This is the reason you don't want laissez-faire in some consumer industries. You get what you wish for.
--Blair
As for the .sig, I thought it was flamebait too until I actually read the journal entry. Quite interesting. Being a Linux user myself, I think that one of the main reasons I use it is because it is FREE. I'd hesitate to label myself as cheap, but the price certainly does have its appeal. Though I do believe the same article was published on CNet or some such place a few months ago.
The future isn't what it used to be.
We need to get across the message that sensible, rational debate is required. The true virtues and deficiencies must be recognised, and evangelism and zealotry stamped out at all costs. Once forums such as these are seen as frequented by sensible people who are interested in the real truth, the community as a whole will be taken more seriously -- and we may see an upturn in prospects, ultimately giving you a chance at a better career and, ultimately, a better life.
You can make a difference, by turning this forum into something more honest, and more impartial. How? Well, you have moderator points.. start off by modding up this post, so as many as possible can read the message. Then, expand your thoughts on the issue, and post your updated version -- other readers will then be able to mod up your enhanced post.
Imagine -- a forum as flexible as Slashdot, but one which offers a realistic outlook on the world. You can make this happen, today.
It's unfortunate that issues like these are treated as legal matters in the US, not policy choices. Cell phone carriers have a valid argument that by tying phones to their service, they can offer more integrated and customer friendly service (sounds familiar?). But that is likely to be outweighed by the benefits to consumers of giving them phone and number portability between carriers. The choice between the two is a policy choice, not a legal matter (I think the same applies to Microsoft's business practices, which are quite similar).
One of such lawsuits was dropped. ;) ) phones for the full price.
;)
In att wireless newsgroup there was a storm of messages about the suite.
But there is even more questions about the merit of this litigation:
1. Affiliate definition (page 13, paragraph 56). I can be in "ROAMING" area, does that mean roamer is an affiliate? Even though I was charged for it?
2. Paragparh 58 is not true for VoiceStream -- they allow you to unlock your phone and use different SIM card, and different SID-related logic
3. Handset with incompatible standards cannot be moved to another carrier even if it was possible (as well as special software for network-depended features).
4. Paragraph 62 is baseless. There are dual-system (and triple-system) telephones, those that support TDMA and GSM, TDMA/AMPS and GSM
5. Paragraph 64: carriers still offer cheap/free/subsidised phones of correct system. Therefore argument "I want my GSM nokia on Sprint" is not valid. Consumer benefits of having old model from different system ported onto new carrier network are questionable at least. GSM Phones (VoiceStream) can be ported if needed, and carriers do not prevent people from buying unlocked (and very expensive
I would love if they instead sued FCC for imposing charges that actually represent undeclared tax and can be up to 30% of the service cost (which is true for land lines as well) and for allowing postponding of Cellular Number Portability requirement. I bet it will be postponed again this year
Hyperom.com
The people making this lawsuit have no idea what
they are talking about.
I lived in Japan for two years, and just returned to the US. I found that the cell phones in Japan are literally years ahead of phones in the US, and data and Internet features like iMode, email, and Java apps on the handset, which simply work
in Japan, are completely hopelessly brokne in the US.
As far as I can tell this lossage is due precisely to the lack of any leverage that carriers have over handset makers in the US. In Japan, NTT DoCoMo, and the other carriers, dictate exactly what features they want, and thus
they get high quality user experience; all the phones have compatible web browsers, color displays, internet email, and other features. The features all work almost perfectly across the different handset models from different manufacturers.
Contrast this to the pathetic piece of junk called WAP in the US, where each phone has different incompatible implementations. Some phones have color WBMP support (hah!), others handle GIF, other PNG, others JPG. Some carriers gateways have byte limits of 1 kbyte, others higher, no telling which is which though. Chance of actually displaying a color picture, or a proper web page on your phone: about zero.
Email does not work consistently on US phones, and Java applets are still science fiction. People have the WAP forum to thank for this
pathetic situation. They were so greedy that they
tried to get all the carriers to standardize prematurely on technology that solved non-existent problems. NTT DoCoMo just went ahead and basically just built HTML 2.0 into thier phones (iMode) and it works an order of magnitude better than WAP.
Just to be clear, I'm not sure if I can get a Treo with AT&T or not. I have made 0 inquiries about it. I haven't tried to because a long time ago I tried to go from Sprint to AT&T. Result? I had to buy a new phone from AT&T. Fortunately, I didn't mind at the time because the Sprint phone I had was crap. But this basically stuck the idea in my mind that if I don't get the phone through AT&T, I won't be able to use it.
The Treo's I've seen at Best Buy had 'Voice Stream' marked all around them. So I just shrugged and decided to wait. I really don't want to switch from AT&T, but I would like to get a PDA phone in the next 6 months or so.
Curious, though: Are there any AT&T customers with a Palm based phone?
"Derp de derp."
I suggest VoiceStream. I have had no trouble using several phones with them. It's just a matter of popping the sim card out and moving it to a different phone. I have so far resisted getting a triband phone (I prefer Nokia and their triband is $$$) and so pop my sim card out of one Nokia 69xx series and in to another. I have had no trouble using the service in the US, Canada, UK, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Greece, or Spain.
This is probably because VoiceStream is owned by Deutsch Telekom.
Thanks!
Whole new meaning to "meta-moderation" there.
-knots
Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
There's no explaination needed. My nokia phone has the ability to add and take away some features. If my carrier doesn't give me the code, said feature doesn't exist.
I thought Microsoft was the only one allowed to be accused of such a thing? :P
Yeah those damn europeans and their PAL and SECAM.
I want to carry my video equipment everywere too.
I hope there are more I don't know of... I hope... But you can get a phone from USTronics (and I hope someone post links to more, it's sad they are the only company I know of, I have no connection to them but give them credit for this).
GSM 900 is a standard, but low and being phased out. GSM 1800 is the EU and World standard, and now that the US is doing GSM they "have to be propriatary" and only offer 1900 band, not 1800 band. That honestly has more to do with the FCC and bandwidth avaliablity than it has the standard, but it has a bit to do with both.
Your best bet, as a consumer is that wants service, is to get a tri band GSM that does 900/1800/1900) and is unlocked and will accept a SIM card.
iMode uses cHTML (compact HTML). cHTML is a subsite of HTML plus some additional tags, characters and features. It still has a long way to go for full HTML support.
WAP may be worse, but you can get the Ericsson T68 in the US, this has a color display, internet email (POP3, SMTP), animatated messages, etc. etc.
How many sites are designed for cHTML in the US anyway? Do we need iMode?
Well that Outback comment was hardly justified! What do you think, we use cans with a bit of string between them to communicate down here?
I've travelled quite a bit, and you know what? My Nokia GSM triband (the very latest piece of kit too, none of that stuff you're stuck with in the USA) works just as well in the Australian Outback as it does across Europe and Asia.
Only sometimes could I get it to work without hassle in what the rest of the world considers to be a telecommunications backwater: the USA.
-- A very bemused Sydneysider
You have to consider, they many not lock you out of switching companies as much now (because they "lock you in" in other ways, like 1 year service contracts.)
But, the lock codes still "criple" the phone companys software on the phone.... Those Nokia and Ericsson phones do a LOT more than the company want's to provide support for, so they "LOCK" the features out to keep you from asking "why isn't my email/text messaging working, I found the option on the phone!
I wonder how much of this comes as a result of pressure from handset makers. By not allowing handsets to be transfered between wireless companies Motorola (or whoever) might get to sell two (possibly identical) handsets instead of one.
Also, this restricion might allow the wireless companies more better deals with the handset mfgs. As far as I can tell it would generally be in the best interest for the wirless company to allow any handset (lowering the barriers for cusomters to switch to their service).
So how much of this is the result of wireless companies being bullied by handset makers (just has PC mfgs are bullied by MS)?
~Adam
SPAM
First, whenever I walk into one of the Verizon stores, they have hired Playboy supermodels as "greeters."
Second, Cellular has been around for 20 years, and there has been little real progress. So it's digital now, big deal. Phones are still too expensive, and service still costs, at the very least, 10 cents a min (I think it's cheaper in Afganastan because they never had a wired infrastructure to "compete" with -- or be bought out by -- and some plans are over 50 cents per minute. What a ripoff. I think that's at least as bad as $450 for Windows XP Pro, retail.
bah.
I've got 50 karma (about 14 today), so...
so what?
All this talk of the US cell phones being so broken compared to Europe and Japan? Tsk tsk tsk...
Shame.
and all those intelligent, educated software engineers sitting at home reading the want ads, deciding whether to become a plumber or an electrician....
really is a shame...
see any CONNECTION HERE?? MANAGEMENT???? HELLO?????????
Well, of course you don't. Hurry along now, you're late for your all-day meeting!
Someone said "it'll get worse before it gets better?" I sure hope not.
The dealer doesn't need to know how to program phones, just the SIM card with the customer's telephone ID.
You show me the SIM card in my Nokia 8260 and I'll give you $10 billion.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
...well, some level of precedent.
I'm technically not old enough to remember any of this, but from what I recall, there was some issues with the phone company not selling phone equipment to people -- only leasing.
There was some issue about the use of non-Bell phones on the system. Could someone respond with more intelligent and enlightening information regarding this?
The gist of it is that the general population won the right to use their own phones on their phone connection without being hassled by the phone company about it.
Not specifically this case - but I would like to point out that "Class Action" lawsuits mainly benefit the lawyers who file them and basically no one else.
Here is how the scam works - One million plaintiffs each of whom gets say $10 - the lawyers pocket 15% or more of each judgment; so the lawyers take down a cool couple of million.
Very cute - if anyone but lawyers pulled a similar scam they would be in prison for fraud.
BTW, Qwest sucks bad, and is not a "wester US provider" for Cell service, but a "big provider in mid and southern Arizona" PERIOD. They are known outside of that area, but that is thier KEY hardcore stronghold for cell service.
So to say Qwest is any kind of big company is laughable, and only serves to prove you spent way to long in Southern AZ and need to travel more... (which isn't totally a bad thing, I grew up in Tucson, and loved it... it just shows you don't get out as much as you should).
As far as I can tell this lossage is due precisely to the lack of any leverage that carriers have over handset makers in the US.
This is actually due to several other factors, beginning with cultural--the Japanese, and for that matter, Europeans, look at cellphones very differently from Americans. Studies have shown that Americans see cell phones for one thing, and that pretty much is talking on them--web and email features are much lower on their list of priorities (and Americans have not proven themselves interested in paying for that stuff.) Part of this is because of billing issues--cell phone use is charged differently here (outgoing is cheaper than in europe, but we pay for incoming which is not paid in europe--the person making the call pays for charge, whereas land line here is a flat rate. Flat rate landline makes for cheaper internet service, whereas I suspect that having per minute charges for internet makes it more likely for the consumer to use the cell phone to browse the net, since the cost is the same anyway.)
Then there is the issue of the cells themselves. Japan can upgrade its cell phone system much faster since the country is smaller land area wise and the population is much more dense--meaning that 3G could be rolled out very quickly since far fewer new towers needed to be erected. Europe is more or less the same--especially since all cell phone companies in Europe use the same cellular system.
Moving on past that, the American cell phone companies have a lot of say in how their phones are designed--not as much as NTT DoCoMo, who designs the phones themselves, but quite a lot nevertheless.
3G is coming to the US...albeit slowly. And what you will likely see is a pretty small rush for the technology.
In the late 80's wireless carriers were hitting bandwidth limitation on their 800MHz analog systems, so they asked the FCC 1) more bandwidth, and 2) which digital technology that were available they should adopt.
For 1), FCC looked to the europeans, who were setting up their 1800MHZ GSM standards. But in the states, part of that spectrum is occupied by the military, so they chose the 1900MHz, which is close enough to help out handset designers.
For 2), FCC thought the US govt sanctioning an European standard wasn't a good idea, since ATT and others were already using TDMA (IS-136), which is more spectrum efficient (more calls/MHz) than GSM, and Qualcomm was promising even more spectrum efficiency with CDMA (IS-95), then still in development. So they told the wireless carries "you can decide on your own. The market will sort it out".
Now 15 years later, it turns out that CDMA really is more spectrum efficient, so the GSM consortium chose W-CDMA as it's 3G technology. But because of Qualcomm patents on CDMA and IS-95, they tried to avoid license fees when developing W-CDMA. Because of this, W-CDMA is incompatible with CDMA2000, the IS-95 compatible 3G standard.
So now we're back to 2 different standars, with no clear direction from the FCC except "the market will sort itself out".
And the confusion will go on for the another 15 years.
I lived in Japan before and the cell phone service and phones there kick the US's butt!!!
It made me mad as an American that we were so lacking in the US. From what I have heard from friends in Europe, the US is 5 years or so behind in, I guess that you could say, mobile communications. That is a long time in technology years. The web (not the internet) was just beginning about 5-6 years ago.
To me the US government has to take the ultimate blame on this one. I am sure that all of the companies in most of the world did not say hey lets all use the same technologies so that we can make it easier and cheaper for customers. It was more than likely some companies and the governments around the world that set the standards that all of the service providers and vendors had to adhere to.
I have been mad about this one for about 6 years. BTW if you think that the cell phones that we have in the US now are small.... Japan had them 6 years ago. Back then all we had was the CRAPPY Motorola Big Grey Brick phones (people still thought they were cool to have them - LAME). We are still a generation or two behind everyone else. They make the new stuff for the home markets and then sometime come out with a version for the US of A. This pisses me off.
OK I will be a good boy and shut up now. I just do not like being in second place which where the US definitely is in this technology.
AndyMcL
And if you buy a new european TV and/or VCR chances are good that it will playback PAL, SECAM and even NTSC.
Unlike TV and VCR's in the US that will only accept NTSC.
Now, who is more compatible?
NTSC - Never The Same Color
Sprint actually obeys one of the CDMA standards. However, they were the only carrier offering CDMA for a while, and they do use the GHz range while most TDMA/GSM services stuck to the UHF of conventional cellular.
There are *serious* advantages to CDMA over TDMA, especially in terms of the number of concurrent handsets that can be served off a single cell. Yes, the service was still sucking, but at least Sprint did it by erecting far fewer towers- some people consider those things a blight on the landscape, after all.
The other problem with older GSM was the weak encryption/authentication used. There's now a new GSM standard that uses CDMA (remember, CDMA and TDMA are channel-division/modulation techniques, only 'physical layer' issues) but combines it with SIM cards (a good idea) and a possibly-hardened update to the old GSM crypto.
Personally, I'm not too concerned about the crypto from the privacy perspective (law enforcement can wiretap anyway), but I do like the idea of making it as hard as possible for someone to monitor the airwaves and clone my phone, racking up charges on my bill.
Anyhow, the new CDMA-based GSM standard would be great, if the authentication/crypto has been worked out, and the SIM cards are a definite advantage. However, the older GSM standard was wasteful of limited spectrum resources (by basically requiring TDMA), *and* wasteful of power at the handset end. (Again, there's a reason why GSM Nokias use big chunky batteries vs. my old Samsung CDMA phone- and the Samsung could talk about twice as long as a comparable GSM phone.)
So, I am definitely for SIM-card style carrier switching, but that doesn't mean we should throw the CDMA baby out with the bathwater, as Europe did. (Qualcomm's old CDMA standard was invented for the US market, and didn't include the same SIM card access mechanisms.. Europeans wanted SIM cards, so they went for GSM and lost all the other advantages of CDMA)... It would be pretty trivial to work a physical-token-based authentication mechanism into CDMA equipment, and AFAIK, both CDMA2000 and the new GSM standard (similar to CDMA2000 but for crappier crypto) support it.
I ordered a phone online in September. They charged me $100 for the phone, and a $500 security deposit. I hastily called them up and told them to cancel the order, and bought service at a store in town. Two weeks later I got a phone in the mail. I packaged it up, sent it back, called them, said I didn't want it, and that I wanted my money back.
Months later, I kept getting bills saying I had $600 in credit, but never a check. At least twice I called up customer service and was told that they would put in a request to have the money sent to me, but I never received anything. I didn't get the process to actually move until this past week, when I had to speak to a sales manager just to get my money back.
Has anyone else experienced anything like this? The persistence of it leads me to believe that this is a somewhat under-the-table policy, not just a fluke. "If the customer doesn't want to fight for their money, then we'll just keep it."
I can't see any possible way for this suit to succeed on its merits. The courts have held, again and again, that a "unilateral refusal to deal" is not a violation of the antitrust laws. As far as I can tell, there isn't any allegation the companies conspire not to use each others' phones -- and, of course, there would be no reason for them to conspire _not_ to cooperate.
But, like most class actions, this suit can succeed without the slightest hint of merit, since the real point is just to extract fees for lawyers by making it too expensive for the defendants.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
As a developer for a wireless handset maker, I understand the pain of the carriers. We as a manufacturer want to provide a low cost, simple to use phone, devoid of assanine features that not even we hardcore phone user / developers use. Each carrier has a different set of requirements getting as picky as what text/icon set we use, or what size/shape charger jack we offer. The cost of development is very high because of this, and often we cannot sell the same phone to multiple carriers, increasing our cost. I hope the proliferation of GSM (the card-phones, Euro-style) changes this, as the phones can be sold separatly easily. Oh, and the carriers are making a fortune on the one/two-year contract crap. Once they've paid for the phone they get to keep charging you the subsidy rate for service, even though your phone is paid for!
Have you noticed people pay $60-250 for a home portable phone, yet cell phones have to go for less than $50 to the public? The phones themselves are actually quite expensive to manufacture, and the handset makers are making razor thin margins. We could drop the cost of the phones significantly if we were allowed to provide only the features users cared about.
i'm amazed, usually here in Europe we have to sneer and hide our jealously behind sarcastic comments in all things communication related, eg you have always on DSL, we're still waiting (well, DSL is /starting/ to become more a bit widespread in some EU countries), you have 155Mbit/s OC-3c's while for the same price we get E2's (4Mbit/s), you have free local calls - we're still getting screwed by former state monopolies who still control the local loop and do their damnedest to make it difficult for the competition to get access... etc..
But at last we europeans (and those asians even more so) have a chance to cast a gloating data communications eye across the water: the USA is still in the mobile phone dark ages!
Over here, you can buy any phone and have it work anywhere in europe with any carrier. It's all GSM here. (well, actually there are pre-paid phones, and bill phones) and I can go on holiday to a little greek island and my phone could roam on either of the 2 greek carriers that covered the island. I go to london, get off the airplane and my phone has a choice of a whole bunch of networks!
My dad travels a lot, so to save on roaming costs he bought a pre-paid GSM SIM card in each country that he regularly spends time in. So when he gets off the plane, he just puts whichever SIM card into his phone according to which carrier has the best rates. the only disadvantage is that to reach him i might have to dial 4 numbers (Dad, Dad-FR, Dad-NL, Dad-ES). But hey..
Also, do people in the states have to pay full price on the handsets? At least here in EU, most of the cost of handsets is subsidised by the carriers (low-end nokia's are about EUR30 to EUR70 depending on the carrier's deal - used to be they gave them out free, but not anymore)
anyway.. GSM - we pee in your general direction! hu hu..
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
according to http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:zKZIOZMN65gC: www.cs.uiuc.edu/whatsnew/newsletter/winter97/crock ett.html+carter+phone+Bell+lawsuit&hl=en
After earning his PhD, it was back to IBM where Crockett worked on silicon compilers
and computer simulation techniques for designing computers. Then they wanted him to work
on communications again. "It was interesting," he said of IBM's first modem
development. "They didn't bother to patent it; they didn't see any future in
it." Because of the Carter phone case, a famous lawsuit in the mid-1950s that
prohibited anyone from physically connecting to AT&T phone lines, people had to
connect using their telephone's receiver. "Bell Labs said it couldn't be done,"
said Crockett, "but the acoustic coupled modem worked very well. IBM produced 25,000
for internal use to communicate with timeshare computers." The modem was nicknamed
Crockett Box, and it formed the basis for Livermore Data Systems and many of the other
modem manufacturers to follow.
________________
All my sig are fjdklafjkldafjkldafdaklf
Well it's good to know that we all have this in common: getting shafted by phone companies. In my area in Canada there's probably at least 5 or 6 different providers, each have phones that are common across all of them. Of course owning one of those phones still forces you to go with the company you originally bought it from.
Maybe the US are just technologically inept? Or more likely, it's just the effect of companies too comfortable with their power.
Certainly not a matter of being technologically inept. (stop reading now if I'm repeating what's already been said - I was reading at +3) The US had a rather kick-ass analog cell network(s) in place before GSM took off. Since then each carrier had to make decisions on future technology based on things like their target market, available spectrum, and their network infrastructure. The GSM/TDMA vs. CDMA struggle here is largely due to the fact that they use different network protocols to link the cell sites to the higher network layers. I imagine this was an issue when 2G digital standards first came about, but I'm sure it's the reason AT&T's upgrade path was from TDMA to GSM and not TDMA to CDMA. So we'll (the US) have competing standards for quite some time yet.. and your small (as in non-multi-protocol) phone won't work everywhere.
Here, we can send SMS from any carrier to any other carrier, even from GSM network to CDMA ones.
I believe that Motorola has a turnkey "SMS gateway" product ready for service providers to buy.. if/when it's financially beneficial for them to do.
I was able to get Cingular to give me the code to disable the SIM-lock on my Nokia 8290. I called up and they passed me up to another support level and I talked to them and they didn't hassle me at all. They then e-mailed me the code (3 steps, very easy) and I unlocked it. I then walked into a store that sold Voicestream and the salesgirl let me put her SIM card in my phone and we were able to then make a call with the Voicestream network.
In europe, the carriers all use gsm networks either 900 or 1800 mhz. This allows anybody to purchase a phone and not know what carrier they will be choosing but they can also buy a phone directly from providers (usually at a chepaer price) and that phone is LOCKED - will only work on one provider. This is almost the same as in America.. except for the fact that in America, the phones apporved and sold by carriers are models 1-5 years old - just look at the NOKIA 5160 still being sold!
The phone manufacturers generally make GSM based phones before they make phones for the US providers, as these phones are sold world wide, where almost every country but the US uses the same std. of GSM. So its financially sound for them to create the phones for the largest market share.
What the US non GSM based providers do, is look at the phones as they are released, and strike up a deal with said manufacturer to create a phone that they can use on their network, with whatever "special" additional functions they want in the phone that they offer on their services. The reason you cannot use a sprint phone on ATT is cos PCS is different from Analogue or digital.
I'm no fan of this type of crap, if all the providers used sim cards (which they could have easily done with ALL phones), I would not have 4 phones lieing in my drawer.
I recently dropped ATT, which has provided me with great service, cos they are yet to offer GSM on the east coast. I moved to Voicestream, they don't lock out any phones, and they don't even tell you to use only their selection of phones, if its GSM 1900, you can use it. If ATT ever gets GSM out on the east coast, and its on the STD GSM 1900, and they don't start pulling this proprietary crap, I'll change back.
American companies have this tendency to not want to share, voicestream included, which is why I can't send SMS messages out of the voicestream network without changing my message center number to the message center of the telco I want to send messages to (which works, but then youc annot recieve voicestream SMS's, and said telco may get cranky with you hopping onto their network uninvited). Thats just one point, there are many, granted you can pretty much send a text message from any phoen to another using phone_no@provider.tld but thats not the same as sending it to just phone_number, which is much more convenient. If US companies got off their fat lazy asses, and worked togethor on anything for the better of their consumers, we would not have this bull. The main reason for non interoperability, as most consumers would rather stick with their crappy service, then go out and buy a new phone and get new service, as that can get costly (my nokia 8260 cost me $450 for ATT as they had no specials at the time).
Anyways, enough rambling
I have a few associates who have been in the US over the past few years, plus other people I know from the US. All have the same complaints you guys talk about, yet over here we simply look and wonder....HOW?
Over here, we can buy any handset we want, plug it into any network we want, and thats the end of the story. Handsets are subsidised by the committment to a contract you purchase, usually now for 24 months, at a rate of something like $50 AU.
What your carriers are up to simply sounds like anti competitive bullshit.
The description of the SID seems wrong. SID = System ID. It's different for each market that you're in...
The SOC (System Operator Code) is what's coded into the phone and won't change.. that's what keeps a phone you bought from Verizon from operating on (whoever else)...not the SID.
Regardless of the SID programmed into your phone, your phone will be able to communicate with other carriers. It's called "Roaming."
Sounds like a fairly whiny lawsuit to me.
In fact, our state (which is *NOT PART* of Sprint's "nationwide network") has our very own CDMA provider - Alaska DigiTel. They aren't affiliated with Sprint. I suspect there may be similar carriers in other small markets not important to Sprint.
Nextel could be percieved as the worst provider with regard to proprietary phones... only Motorola phones, and their phones will not work on anyone else's network.
... have you noticed that the most feature-rich phones (that is, those which have wireless web/text capability, ability to install colored faceplates, etc...) seem to have the WORST antennas? I'm a ham radio operator, so I know the value of having a proper antenna... and that most of the antennas used on newer phones are a complete joke. In most cases, all you get is a small rubber-coated coil about 1/8 wavelength long. On some phones, the antenna doesn't even protrude over the top of the phone, so the signal from it is being absorbed in your hand. That cute little lack of an antenna could easily mean the difference between being able to get through or being stuck when you have to call for a tow after your tire blows on the highway. How I miss the archaic old analog handsets that had an SMA jack on top, allowing the addition of a *real* antenna...
However, with regard to compatibility, every feature available on the network and phones works.
On some combinations of phone/network with other providers, you wind up with features that don't work or don't work properly, such as wireless web/WAP or text messaging. On some providers you may also be limited to getting only one particular type of phone to be able to use services such as SMS.
Just a side note
I use Voicestream, and I can SMS my friend that uses AT&T without any problems. I've never had that work with any other carrier though.
Curiously my Nokia has a hard time picking up in my office, about 2km from Parliament House. I get much better reception out in the bush. And if you believe Telstra and Vodafone you can get TDMA (as opposed to GSM) anywhere in Australia - a landmass roughly the same as the continental U.S. and with half the population of California. Not that I know anyone with TDMA, GSM works fine anywhere there are paved roads - except for my office. The dig at the Australian bush was pretty unfair. Now a dig at Canberra - that would be fair.
Before there was CDMA, the days when there was cellular ONLY the phone was "Free!!" - ...but there was a contract.
The thing was the phone cost nothing, a penny or maybe $100 in the case of the "cooler" ones. The phone was being paid for by the cellular provider because you were signing a contract.
But what was the contract for? In many cases the contract wasn't for service at all. Sure, it's nice to have a steady customer for years - but you just gave some idiot a $400 phone for free so you need to collect on that.
It would be like the cable company giving out Tivo's for "Only $20!!". They may disable some features and not let you move with it but you would have to sign something right?
I'm guessing that there is a loophole that let's them not "unlock" the phones. They are taking a loss on every phone sold.
Who believes the phones with wireless web and vibrating features cost $39.95? I don't.
Get your Unix fortune now!
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
Over here, the carriers have tried to do the same thing:
1. Telco pays handset distributor to 'kit' (lock) phone. Going rate is $20/unit. The idea being to subsidize the anonymous prepaid subscriptions that are the norm here.
2. Distributor sells to another distributor for cost less kitting fee plus some profit.
3. New distributor unlocks phone and sells to Indonesia or Malaysia, where a new distributor often repeats the process.
So each carrier likely subsideses each phone more than once. Someday they will realize that relying on subsidy and non-circumvention doesn't work in the third world...
After hearing nothing but horror stories and and now reading this article I will probably never buy one.
What real advantages do I get? Oh, thats right. My boss can call me anytime he wants. Oh boy. Sign me up. Or have my annoying parents or friends call. I prefer screening with my answering machine at my convience thank you. There really is no advantage of a cell phone except that the office follows you where ever you go. And do not be decieved that carrying a cell phone somehow increases your job performance and efficiancy. It just doesn't. Can you think of anyone who has got promoted because his cell phone made him or her like %40 more productive? Its all bs. If I need to call someone, I can just find a pay phone. A standard old fashioned rj-11 line meets my needs just fine. Infact my father is an executive and even he never uses one. I asked him why because he is a VP. He answered when I leave my office, I want my office to stay where it is thank you.
Also I give a message to the phone companies that I will not be jerked around. Give me cell phone access for $20 a month( same as regular phone line) or I wont switch. I find a simularity between the MPAA and megaTeleco trying to persuade everyone that the world will leave without you if you do not buy there latest products. I just laugh at them and count the money saved in my wallet.
http://saveie6.com/
"and, of course, there would be no reason for them to conspire _not_ to cooperate."
Two words
Captive audience. All the reason one needs to not cooperate with a competitor.
Well you would have a point if I hadn't PURCHASED a phone AND signed a contract with a carrier.
A lot of other carriers have a similiar arrangement.
There ARE accessories that couple a "real" antenna to those types of phones.
In the UK most phones that you can buy are locked to the only work on the network which they are first sold for use on and can only be used on that network.
But by either paying about £30 to the phone company, or about half that to an "unlocker" you can easiliy get your phone unlocked to work on any network. And the phone companies seem to allow any phone to work on their network. After all, its in their interest to try to prevent you from using your phone on other networks, but in their interest that you use your unlock phone on *their* network rather than another one.
And the cost of calls seem to be considerably less here that in the USA from what I've seen
Sig is taking a break!
2 year contracts, and whatnot.
I swear there was a meeting of the wireless providers and each took a section of the country and decided to not compete with each other.
in europe, you have the choice of what provider to use each call you make. That should be the case here too.
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
These phones usually have no SIM-lock, so SIMs from other providers can be used without problems, which is ideal if you travel somewhere on a regular basis and have a second SIM for that country.
The other system whish the original story was about is to allow visitors to roam, but to forbid foreign handsets from using local SIMs, I believe Thailand does this.
Get off your collective asses America!
These companies are obviously doing this simply because they CAN.
When intervention positively impacts the welbeing of most, at the cost of a little profit for the few so be it. The government giveth and the government taketh away, without the FCC they'd have no spectrum and no protection of it at all.
When did capitalism start trumping democracy?
For what it's worth, in Ireland the three GSM operators have started SIM-locking their phones. This does make a certain amount of sense, since the phonese are generally highly subsidizied.
BUT if you have a SIM-free phone, any operator's SIM will work in it.
Also, they generally agree to un-SIM-lock the phone after a certain period (e.g. a year) or if you pay a small charge (50 euros).
Ah, computer dating -- it's like pimping, but you rarely have to use the phrase "upside your head" -- Bender
Yeah, the gizmos are cool, but the service quality is awful. I literally get dropped 25-30% of the time when using my imode phone in Tokyo, vs. ~5% of the time in the US.
If phoneboy's summary is correct, this lawsuit is a joke. Let's look at each piece separately:
The carriers basically dictate required features to handset manufacturers.
I've seen these requirements, and they don't generally dictate anything other than what the GSM standards require. It's a way to ensure that all the phones on the network have the same set of features for the customer. Take Orange for example, a major operator in the U.K. They require 2-line support on all their phones, so they can offer phones with 2-lines to all their customers. This is a customer win, and is a key reason to pick Orange over someone else in the U.K.
Phones are tied to specific carriers and cannot be moved between carriers.
Absolutely! No question! And they should be! That lovely little Nokia 8290 you just got was likely subsidised to the tune of $100-$150 by your new operator. If the operator wants any chance of getting their money back for that subsidy, they have to prevent you from getting a cheap phone from them and then grabbing a SIM from another operator.
Most operators will gladly unlock your phone for you so you can use it on another network, especially in Europe. Just call them up and ask. They might charge you ~$50, but that's still less than their subsidy. Even Voicestream in the US will do this for free if you ask them, I've had it done.
Carriers refuse to allow handsets on their network they didn't approve.
This is flat out wrong. I've been using tri-band phones that I purchase in Europe over in the U.S. for years with my basic Voicestream SIM. In fact, I've never purchased a phone from Voicestream. Cingular does this as well. AT&T currently doesn't sell SIM-only packages, but they are going to. (Keep in mind they *just* started GSM service, and are still trying to get everything sorted out).
Manufacturers thus cannot sell handsets that aren't approved by carriers because carriers will not allow them to be used.
True, you cannot sell a handset *to an operator* that the operator hasn't approved for sale on their network. This is because the operator is responsible for all the support calls, replacement, and management of the phones on their network. Would you buy 1,000,000 phones from a company if it hasn't passed your quality assurance tests? Heck no!
If your phone fails these tests then it just means that you can't sell your phone to the operator directly and have to make it available through other channels. But (and again, if I've seen these tests) if you can't pass the tests then something is *seriously* wrong with your phone.
While it hasn't hit the U.S. yet, there are companies in Europe that make a killing selling phones that are not tied to a specific operator. Carphone Warehouse is a great example from the U.K., and you can bet that now that the U.S. has woken up to cellular it won't be too long before the same types of companies are available here.
All of this rises costs for the consumer, making it difficult and more expensive to switch carriers, and unfairly restrains trade for both handsets and cellular services.
This is the statement that shocked me the most. Have you *looked* at cellphone pricing and plans lately? My newspaper is constantly filled with offers that include 1, 2, or even 4 phones for *free*, with tons of minues included. For $29.99 a month I can get a really nice phone and more airtime than I can possibly use in a month.
If the operators *couldn't* lock their phones to their network to guarantee they'll make back their subsidy, do you actually think the prices will go *down*?
Sure, there's plenty of reason not to cooperate. But there's no possible reason to conspire not to cooperate. If you don't want to cooperate, you just ignore each other and develop separately, which is the precise opposite of a conspiracy.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
>> Consider Europe, where there is only 2 general >> types (Both GSM, if you can call that 2
>> types). And they are everywhere in EU, yet
The European GSM networks actually use three different bands. 900MHz, 1800 MHz and 1900MHz. Most countries use some combination of two bands, and usually one of them is 900MHz.
In the US, GSM uses the 1900MHz band.
Since this Wireless Consumer's Alliance is giving these wireless providers some static, why don't we have a Literature Consumer's Alliance to protect the public domain from these monopolistic publishers?
While were at it, why not:
Movie Viewer's Alliance
and
Music Listener's Alliance
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Ok, you are not smart.
You bought a phone AND[!] signed the contract. Did you read the contract? Chances are they do in fact 0wn your phone.
I have worked with and around mobile phones since cellular and up until now and the big bust of digital carriers.
Many [i.e. Verizon] companies started out as Cellular and still work on the same principles. They are buying the phone for you and selling it to you at a significant loss.
A local company that is now part of Verizon would, for example, sell you a Star TAC for $99 but they still 0wned the phone. They wouldn't go to great lenghts to retrieve it if you canceled your contract because you would have to pay the lump sum to get out of it. That lump sum is for the phone itself - not for any service.
Your contract isn't for service at all. Maybe it is. You would have to be stupid or desperate to get into a wireless contract today. I was a GTE customer when they rolled out in my area [one of the first] and ever since then Cellular has been dead.
Great quality, CDMA, no contracts, low minute charges and cool phones.
The down side to this new wireless telephone access is that when you buy a phone at the mall it is a "Sprint Phone" or a "Cingular Phone" - it's not "My Phone".
Actually if you watch the ads you will see that they advertise phones as "Get this nifty, cool, Sprint phone" but not "Get this nifty, cool, Nokia phone".
Alas, this was the reason that if you had provided your own equipment in the old Cellular game you could get out of signing the contract.
Imagine your local ISP sells you a computer for $49. You pay them a monthly fee for net access. He isn't going to let you move with it and likely they are going to make you sign a contract to recover the costs of your machine.
Get your Unix fortune now!