Slashdot Mirror
Apple Turning Cell Phone Market Upside Down?
joek writes "This MacRumors analysis puts some of the iPhone/Cingular pieces together and suggests that Apple may be turning the the cell phone market upside down. Everyone assumed that Apple's $499/$599 prices for the iPhone was subsidized by Cingular. But, it appears that Apple is not allowing mobile carriers to subsidize the iPhone. Why? Because when Apple comes out with the Touch iPod, they don't want it compared in price to a discounted/subsidized iPhone. Add to that rumors that Cingular may heavily discount service (but according to a Cingular rep, they will not be giving away service, as previously suggested) to attract Verizon customers. Without kicking in $100-$200 against the price of the phone, Cingular can discount the service as an incentive. Other cell phone manufacturers will certainly be interested in the outcome of this new model."
But anyone with a scanner can tune in and intercept your calls. Amateur license forbids encrypted communication of any kind.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
Unlock all the phones in your family. T-Mobile and Cingular are both GSM so all their phones will work with the new service. Problem solved.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
You make it sound like cellphones have only legal locks and can be listened to in the clear, or just with the help of a particularly powerful computer.
CDMA (both CDMA2000 and W-CDMA based systems like FOMA and UMTS) conversations are practically impossible to evesdrop upon. Even if you have the key (close to impossible), the timings and need for location information make evesdropping unbelievably hard.
On a technical level, the GSM system is easier to tap, but on a practical level it isn't. Early GSM networks used relatively breakable algorithms (at the behest, believe it or not, of British Intelligence who clearly hadn't heard of phone taps...), but after this was cracked most networks were upgraded to much more secure algorithsm. And just to identify a specific handset you need information only exchanged when the phone is turned on. These algorithms are publicly known, and there are as many people who want to break it as, say, SSL.
For all practical purposes, the only time your (post-analog/post-D-AMPS) mobile phone is going to be intercepted is if someone is working at the telco and has a tap on your line. Casual evesdropping is probably non-existant.
You HAM based system on the other hand can, and probably is given the frequencies, intercepted by casual evesdroppers all the time.
I know which I consider more secure.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.