Slashdot Mirror
Skype Asks FCC to Open Cellular Networks
Milwaukee's_Best writes "Skype has just asked the FCC to force wireless phone companies to open their networks to all comers. Skype essentially wants to turn the wireless phone companies into just another network of the kind currently operated on the ground. This would require carriers to allow any phone to be used on their networks, and for any application. Users would simply purchase a voice or data plan (though these could easily converge into a data plan if VoIP calling is used) and then use the device of their choice to access the network of their choice. Think of it as network neutrality for cell networks. Given the competition that exists within the industry, is this needed?"
This is nothing but Skype trying to get the government to regulate a market for itself. If the cell provides saw business benefit in opening their network, they would do so. As it is now, they own the equipment because they paid to build it. They are free to do whatever they feel they can to capitalize on their investments. So as a humble user who wants to chat on IRC over a wireless carrier.... who am I to MANDATE to these sovereign owners any sorts of conditions?
Bah to this proposal!
Skype essentially wants to turn the wireless phone companies into just another network of the kind currently operated on the ground.
Yes, and the kind currently operated on the ground are facing a dead-end business model.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Skype should go first, by documenting their protocols and allowing 3rd party clients to connect to the Skype network.
I'm I right in understanding that the way cell phone companies control their towers now, I to call it a cartel?
Additionally, the cellphone makers are leasing public property (the airwaves) and building a fence around them to keep the public out (unless you buy a key / plan from them)
Are these metaphors off base?
Mikey
I've always been the kinda guy to fall for the girl dressed like an eskimo.
"Network neutrality" in the case of the Internet is about customers' traffic getting the usual "common carrier" treatment. In the case of the Skype proposal, it's nothing less than an attempt to get something (access to cell towers and related equipment) for nothing (without having to pay for it). The writeup is both disturbing and misleading.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Competition? As in where I get to choose from one of [Verizon|Cingular|Sprint], all of which charge mostly the same, and whichever one I pick, I'm either stuck with them for 2 years or stuck paying exorbitant fees to "fire" them and switch to one of their clones? I'm intentionally glossing over the prepaid services (Virgin Mobile, for example) because they tend to piggyback on other carriers' networks (Virgin is actually Sprint's network, so in essence if you use Virgin Mobile, you're really using Sprint).
Saying there's real competition in the wireless industry is like saying that because Sony, BMG, and Warner all make CDs, there's "real competition" in that industry. Cable companies were forced to accept all comers (see Time Warner's cables being used by Earthlink, often at a lower fee than TW's RoadRunner service) - and hell, my cable company doesn't even lock me into a 2-year contract...
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
If the cell provides saw business benefit in opening their network, they would do so.
And if Ford saw business benefit to requiring Ford Gasoline in their engines, they would want to do so as well. Or if they wanted to create the Ford Expressway, allowing only Fords to be driven upon it.
Skype is arguing that we'll have a better wireless system if we have an wholly integrated wireless system -- that the spectrum, as a common good, should be shared in an open manner.
This isn't exactly rocket science or "New Deal" style expansion of government power. It's a request for a federal agency to take a look at the market, and do what it is legislatively required to do.
(And you don't get a vote on this. The entire reason for the FCC is to insulate the descision about the airwaves from politics.)
This article seems to be a mishmash of specious and self-serving claims on Skype's part.
And the problem here is exactly what? It sounds to me like Skype is saying, "Hey guys, if you let us use your networks we'll undercut all your prices and undermine your business models. Then all that money you spent to build out your cellular networks will benefit us instead of you! Deal?"
No doubt it would. They're trying it in Venezuela. What's the basis for doing it here? Why should Skype benefit and the cellular carriers gain nothing?
"Block consumer choice" is an interesting choice of wording here. I've heard most of these complaints before. Then again, T-Mobile allows me to install third-party apps on my BlackBerry, and I can even use it as a wireless modem if I hook it up to my laptop. Presumably I could then run Skype on the laptop (though how well it would work is another story). Kinda makes me wonder what Skype is actually hoping to achieve.
What do WiFi and Bluetooth have to do with running Skype over a cellular network? This sounds like a red herring to allow them to start talking about "crippling" again. How have the carriers "crippled" their WiFi-enabled phones anyway? This one I have not heard of.
And they manage to avoid the most important question: If Skype is encouraging the government to pass regulation to allow Skype into the telcos' markets, can we therefore assume that Skype is willing to itself be regulated, exactly as the telcos are regulated today?
Breakfast served all day!
The real question here is whether it is in the public interest to have a heavily fragmented market of incompatible cellular networking.
Yes, it is their equipment, but it would be illegal to use it on public airspace. Is it in our best interest to allow companies to sell back what was once a public commons?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I've often wondered why data sent through the mobile networks (voice, internet etc) is so much more expensive than land based traffic. I mean you wouldn't sit around browsing the web over a mobile phone, even if it did have a huge screen, since you'd go bankrupt. Surely it costs more to dig up a whole city and lay cable than it does to erect some mobile masts, so why is data transferred by cable so much cheaper? Also aside from the initial expense of digging up a city, surely maintenance is more expensive for cable companies since it also involves digging and disrupting traffic etc. It seems to me that we are being massively ripped off.
As a free market libertarian, I vote against this.
I lost all respect for Libertarians after I heard one complain about how his town wouldn't plow his private drive.
Unfortunately, we tried the "libertarian" take early on in the US; business used to be largely unregulated. What did they do with this freedom? Grossly abused the workforce- preferring to employ children and women, who had little socio-political power and thus were easy to control and work to death. Polluted the hell out of groundwater and rivers by dumping their byproducts whereever they pleased, consequences be damned. Today's working conditions are what they are, purely because the government has raised the bar (slowly) on how workers may be treated after public outcry forced legislation. We're not alone.
Maybe if you grew up in a state like Massachusetts where children died getting crushed by weaving machines in fabric mills, and where PCBs were dumped by GE into rivers simply because they COULD...well, maybe just then you'd feel a little differently about regulating industry. Hell, they recently found near the Alewife T station, on the cite of an old dye plant, that people who grew up in the area had cancer rates that were astronomically high. These people, as kids, played on the site- and many of them remember that the ground was so contaminated, puddles would form spontaneously in depressions in the ground that were every color of the rainbow.
Please help metamoderate.
I personally dont think theres any cell phone competition in the US.
/really/ gone down. My minutes have gone up slightly for the price, but with the ubiquity, thats the least they could do.
/every/ feature.
I mean look, my cell phone bill has never
These guys charge for things that barely use infrastructure thats already up (10c a text message? cmon).
They dont compete directly on price either. Or service. You can never have it all with these guys, its al a carte and they take you to the bank.
They neuter phones, and find other great ways to take your money.
If there was competition, wed all be paying $40 or less for
If the cell band opens up, the cell companies are screwed. People will come along and offer service and make a reasonable profit for 1/4 of the prices offered now.
Sorry for the tired, bitter, rant.
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
Given the competition that exists within the industry, is this needed?"
I don't know if I consider this industry all that competitive--it's an oligopoly mixed with a cultural monopoly (what I mean by that is it's the same type of people running all of the companies. The people who run what we now call, again, AT&T, are basically old phone company fuddy-duddies who think it's a privilege (I'm using that word in the worst way possible) that we all have phone service. The same applies to Verizon and to a lesser extent T-Mobile and Sprint/Nextel.)
I'm not sure what I think of the idea. Half of me thinks it would be great, and the other half thinks that the companies would decline to upgrade to 3G, thinking that they'd be better off financially keeping the network slow enough so that Skype couldn't work on it.
Please do not confuse a free market with an anti-market. Something that is as highly controlled (rightly or wrongly) as the radio spectrum doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being a free market. This is, in fact, nearly the textbook definition of an anti-market, where economic entities collude with governments to retain market control.
If you want real free markets, then you don't regulate at all. No spectrum allocations, no power regulations, nothing. Of course, that's chaos. So what do we do? We use governmental institutions to balance the needs of all stakeholders. And Skype is quite definitely a stakeholder in this area.
Everyone, everywhere, needs more competition; that's not just a good idea, it's a Natural Law. Eventually, the telcos will learn this.
From TFA: "Unfortunately, the "invisible hand" has been a little too invisble here, and no operator actually offers a wide-open network."
Hmm, let's see. With T-Mobile, I can:
- Buy any GSM phone that I pretty much want to, unlocked,
- Put in my SIM card,
- Use all of the T-Mobile services,
- Enjoy wi-fi,
- Enjoy unfettered Bluetooth,
- Enjoy an all-you-can eat data plan (albeit, at EDGE speeds only).
So why doesn't everyone jump on T-Mobile? Well, on the other hand,
- I pay more for my service (no one is subsidizing my phone),
- Can't use all of T-mobile's services or voice plans (no "five friends" for me),
- Can't get any tech support (see, your phone is not supported, bye)
- Get scary warnings on the "my T-Mobile site" since they cannot identify my phone.
I have no interest in Skype. But I do have interest in a BYO phone plan at lower cost, and the option to enjoy all of the plans that T-Mobile offers. Perhaps they have a point.
jh
It's seems unlikely that anyone would want to buy Ford cars, if they did that.
It does seem unusual, doesn't it, that consumers would continue to choose a product when it continually locks them in tighter and tighter to the MotherCorp? It is, alas, not at all unlikely. Standard Oil, Microsoft and AT&T are all textbook cases wherein people continue(d) buying a product that ultimately cost them more than the alternative.
The market is not free, practically speaking. There is a constant need to outside forces to provide a tempering influence on some of its worst excesses. Government is not a good candidate for this role, but it's the best available candidate, I'm afraid to say.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
We keep coming up on this question since the divestiture of AT&T by Judge Green in 1984. The problem with current carriers is that they want to control the transport, and the value that can be added. This really is the same debate as breaking the stranglehold on the local loop. He who controls the last mile wins!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
The second largest bidder in the C Block Auction was BDPCS. They bid $2.5 billion. They did their bidding from the offices of US West (now Qwest). They then immediately defaulted, because... they were not actually a real company. They'd never existed before the auction, had never sold a product or service.
They had bid on all the territories in which US West sold cell phone service.
The court cases in which they contested their default lasted for years. Years in which there was no fourth competitor in US West's markets.
The FCC was fine with this.
Oh, and the bidding process? For each round of bidding, you had to download the results via a proprietary Windows application, over modem, from a 900 number. The download speeds you would get from this number, no matter where you dialed from, amounted to approximately one tenth of the speed of the modem connection.
Yes, the FCC is a public government agency, the data belonged to the public, and the Internet did, in fact, exist back then. But I added it up, and whoever ran that deal must have made millions from that procedure. A cousin of an FCC commissioner, perchance?
What I'm getting at, is that if you expect the FCC to enable competition for Skype or anybody else, in the best interests of the public, well. The FCC now, ten years later, is *much* more corrupt than it was then. When Colin Powell's son Michael became head of the FCC and was instrumental in approving the AOL-Time Warner deal (Colin was on AOL's board of directors at the time; the deal made him about $4 million)... Powell was when it started to get really bad.
Now, the FCC operates purely in the interests of those who can afford their favor.
True, but they couldn't have made a useful network without the government's assistance. If everyone was able to their own radio devices and broadcast one whatever frequencies they wanted then the airwaves would be a useless mess. The government has put regulations in place in order for radio to be a usable medium and exchange people and companies who are given license to broadcast on part of the spectrum have to play by the governments rules. It's a fair trade I'd say.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Why won't this happen? Because Verizon, Sprint/Nextel, AT&T/Cingular will not let their networks be opened. These companies spent truckloads of money building networks that they will not let be taken away and I cannot see an administrative agency getting any sort of go ahead to do this.
Is it a good idea? No. They are private networks and they should not be taken away from their owners.
MEF
The fact is, with the way the major carriers are at this point it would be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate all the networks so that so long as there is a tower in range of your phone, your phone will work despite what carrier owns the tower or what carrier provides your service....
Because when it comes down to it all the major carriers use completely different signal types:
Sprint: CDMA*
Nextel: iDen
Verizon: TDMA/EvDO*
Cingular/AT&T Wireless: GSM
*I could have these two switched but I don't feel that double checking this detail is necessary to make my point as the general idea remains the same.
When it comes down to it you cannot unify the cell phone networks the way the landline networks have been unified....
The landline networks all use essentially the same protocol for communication. POTS (plain old telephone service)
And THEY'RE not even actually integrated! If the lines going to my house were put in by Verizon originally and I want AT&T to be my local and long distance provider, Verizon still comes in and runs the line from the pole to the network interface jack. The only difference is AT&T pays them to do it! Then an AT&T guy comes in (and if you live in the sticks it's a subcontractor not even a real AT&T guy) and does my inside wiring and then syncs me to the VERIZON network. However, the verizon account attached to my home phone line is billed to AT&T instead of me and then AT&T bills me in turn.
Isn't legislation great?! People demand to be able to choose whatever service they damn well please. this makes sense and is fair. but rather than investigating feasibility, the lawmakers said "YES! THIS IS IMPORTANT! SO IT IS WRITTEN SO IT SHALL BE DONE!" and POOF! they all integrate with a snap of some congressman's fingers! Right?! Wrong... instead all the phone companies had to come up with a scheme to give people a choice using hardware that wasn't really designed for this.... and so you wind up with a kluged* together billing and passing system. And the only reason it works is because the technology is all the same and so when your bill comes from AT&T you don't know that Verizon still owns the wire and AT&T is just acting as a middle man now and offering you their (very similar) plans.
*Kluge: To force something to work by cobbling it together poorly... think of forcing the square peg into the round hole. That's kluging.
So let's get back to cell phones... without the same hardware you can't even begin to try to kluge it the same way. In my honest opinion, Skype has opened a can of worms that if the FCC sides with them, we'll feel the pain from for years to come as the cell phone companies scramble to comply with an outrageous demand.
Ford Expressways, GM Streets and Chrysler Highways are usually four lanes wide, nicely maintained and have a practical speed limit of 80 MPH, and cost $100 per month. Daewoo Roadways are constantly mocked by late-night TV comedians for being slow and narrow, and they almost never go exactly where you want them to, but they only cost $20 per month to use. Just for the elite, let's say Lamborghini has a small system of double-lane highly elevated roadways that let their drivers reach speeds of over 200 MPH, but cost in the neighborhood of $10,000 per month. For the many places they don't serve, they have an arrangement with the big three to let their drivers use their roads.
Finally, there are public access streets that are little more than overcrowded, rutted, muddy, pot-holed goat trails, but they're free. Because the motoring public shuns them, they never get enough funding to fix them up, and so they remain the last roadways available to the poor.
You'd most likely buy a Ford (or GM or Chrysler) because that's what the vast majority of ordinary people use, and the roads are both cost effective and superior to the cheaper alternatives. You'd probably pick a car manufacturer based on whose roads carried you closest to your home and work, and what kind of discounts the dealer was willing to throw in. (And Eric Raymond would be out there encouraging people to buy and drive road graders in their spare time, but now I've carried the analogy too far.)
John
Skype is trying to go down the path trod by MCI back in the day where it used a combination of litigation and whining at the government to convince them that the only way to "protect" consumers from the big, bad meanie that was until recently Ma Bell was to force AT&T to allow MCI to use their existing infrastructure for free, so that a competitor stood a chance of getting their foot in the door.
Going on thirty years later, we've all seen how well this particular arrangement has benefited consumers.
More to the point, Skype doesn't even have the old telephone/Internet argument that the American government or public at large has directly paid for the construction of the current US cellular network. The private firms and their customers have paid that as a cost of doing business.
Even though I don't use VOIP, I've held these companies in fairly high esteem up until now. But after this, I'm classifying Skype with the same bozos who write botting programs for MMORPGs. Quit leeching off other people's work and start a real business, jackholes.
If the cell provides saw business benefit in opening their network, they would do so.
This is exactly why America has, IMO, the most retarded mobile communications systems in the world. From the article:
Skype essentially wants to turn the wireless phone companies into just another network of the kind currently operated on the ground. This would require carriers to allow any phone to be used on their networks, and for any application. Users would simply purchase a voice or data plan (though these could easily converge into a data plan if VoIP calling is used) and then use the device of their choice to access the network of their choice. Verizon, Cingular, et al. hate this and would love to keep crippling WiFi and Bluetooth access on their phones in order to keep traffic flowing through their network, using their (high-priced) services.
Here in Europe there are organizations that keep the playing field level, by forcing mobile service providers to do just what Skype asks. Here it doesn't really matter which provider you chose; the're all good because they all have to compete in the same playing field. Why should it matter for a provider what 'type' of data is sent over their network, and by what device this data is sent? Data is data, and the more bits they transport the more money they get. Apparently in America this isn't so. Amazing.
-- Cheers!
Skype does not want wireless (or wired carriers for that matter) blocking their VoIP calls. This request is a warning to the wireless carriers that Skype will push for very disruptive regulatory changes if their traffic is blocked. While Skype likely has low probability of successfully lobbying the FCC on the matter, the impact to the carriers is huge so they likely won't want to gamble since call revenue lost to Skype traffic is only at least at the beginning is only a minor ammount.
That's the refutation to the argument that cell companies shouldn't play because they built the infrastructure. The deal is, they built the infrastructure on a property we all own. It reminds me of something I once heard Utah Phillips complain about (paraphrasing here): the federal government leases our assets to companies who then turn around and sell back to us the stuff we already own at a profit to themselves. He said it much better and more humurously.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Bah - here come the arguments by analogy. Yegads!
But first, on topic stuff:
TFA notes that Skype's motivation is clear - to boldly place their traffic where its traffic has not gone before. Not argument here from me.
My understanding of regulation in the land-line telecommunications world is that it was driven by the desire to enable service additions and competition in a business where there were - and maybe still are - significant barriers to entry. It's expensive to get into the telecommunications business, and when long-standing infrastructure is in place, it makes sense to ensure access to that infrastructure is available to competitors, given fair remuneration for the incumbent. The alternative is duplication of infrastructure - for example, last mile cable - which is bone-headed and, as noted, expensive. Regulate for re-selling of that infrastructure. You get competition which is a Good Thing, which should be fair, encourage innovation, etc. and the incumbent opens an additional revenue stream via the re-sale.
I think it is a fair comment to say that these barriers are not the same for a wireless service. The physical transport - the atmosphere - is already there, so it's not a question of a barrier to entry as a result of cost, at least not in the same way or to the same extent as it is with land infrastructure.
However the spectrum is a shared medium - that's what removes the cost barrier above. Just because someone occupies that shared medium before you do, should they gain an element of exclusivity? I say no. Of course, everyone can start banging their service out over the spectrum, but this doesn't scale, I don't think. Sooner or later, we reach a limit on the co-occupation of the spectrum. I don't know enough about RF communications to know where or when this is, and as such I may get hammered here. If service providers can reasonably co-occupy the spectrum, then this house is made of cards and no doubt someone will tell me.
So if co-occupation if a problem, then a regulatory mechanism to force resale of infrastructure is reasonable.
But Skype doesn't want resale - it wants unencumbered use for customers on wireless networks so that its service can operate in this space. This desire sits at the core of net neutrality, and I'm for it. The service provider is paid for the user's access to the transport, and as long as this is the case, it's none of the service provider's business what I choose to put on the 'line'. You're getting paid for your minutes - don't tell me what I can or cannot say or do.
OT:Re: arguing by analogy - I can hear the 'you must be new here comments', etc. already, but what the hell. Argument by analogy is attractive because it can help others understand the *concept* of what is being discussed or asserted. But it doesn't *prove* anything - it's just a method to clarify. And mainly, it just leads to people trying to talk about one thing by talking about something else. Predictably, this takes you, well ... somewhere else.
I'm not flaming here - but for god's sakes, what do Ford cars and Chevy highways have to do with Skye, net neutrality, or whatever? And moderators seem to encourage it - got a Good Analogy? That's +5: Insightful, baby! So you can't even configure your way out of it.
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
Ayn Rand would just love you to pieces!
While I don't like Skype per se, they bring up a good point and have Congress's ear. The current mobile providers do everything they can to reduce customer choice and therefore competition. They lock phones, force users into long contracts, and charge outrageous prices. Look to Asia and Europe for examples of successful, open networks with no locked phones and no contracts (yes, you can get a contract for a lower price but you're not required).
Common carrier laws should be applied to the telcos and to Skype; in fact to any large network. The government is supposed to server the people, not businesses. Everyday I hope that somebody in Congress will remember this.
- I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
The governement does manage land. We pay taxes on our land - roughlay analagous to how the providers license the spectrum. The government does also maintain parks and other such public resources, much like how there are sections of the airwaves set aside for public use.
I'm trained formally, as an economist,
Obviously not as a typesetter.
Wall of text crits you for 4362. You die.
How about the FCC making Skype open their protocol in exchange? This would be fair, right? :)
WikiCreole - a common wiki markup language
Here in Europe there are organizations that keep the playing field level, by forcing mobile service providers to do just what Skype asks. Here it doesn't really matter which provider you chose; the're all good because they all have to compete in the same playing field. Why should it matter for a provider what 'type' of data is sent over their network, and by what device this data is sent? Data is data, and the more bits they transport the more money they get. Apparently in America this isn't so. Amazing.
And Europeans generally pay more than Americans for that level playing field. You can call almost anywhere in the US to anywhere else for one flat monthly fee and don't have to worry about going from Georgia to Texas and getting hit with roaming charges; plus your fee includes the phone so you don't have to buy it seperately.
Is it "better" - no ; just different. I prefer lower rates to portability. I alos like no roaming rather than worrying what I will be charged if I use my Portuguese carrier's phone in Germany or having to buy a new SIM to get local rates.
Since US carriers offer cheap unlimited data plans Skye could make a decent client for PalmOS and Windows Mobile based phones; but they don't. I used their client on my WM Treo and it was less than impressive; plus since my service already allows me to call anywhere in the US without a surcharge it offered no advantages other than being able to make international calls for a lot less.
Skype should focus on making decent software rather than forcing the government to help them out when they fail in the marketplace.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Excellent, well reasoned reply. Thank you.
:-|
Except, of course, that it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread in question. Sometimes I think Slashdotters have the attention span of a flea.
Here on long island land is at a premium. Cell carriers pay A LOT of many to get their towers mup. Their networks should not be opened up because they pay a lot of money for thier towers for things like the land it sits on, the ata conenctions to the towers and the equipment to run them. That would not be right. I know verizon and cingular are huge companies but that does not make this right.
Your comment would be SO MUCH more insightful, if studies hadn't shown that many government-run socialized medicine systems provide better care than the US's private system, at about half the cost per citizen, per year.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Of course it shouldn't be free.
But we shouldn't allow them to lock us into particular handsets - just because they don't want competition in that market. And we shouldn't allow them to block non-harmful forms of traffic they already support (data) for no reason other than they don't want competition from that market (VoIP).
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
This is a reasonable position, except for one thing: libertarianism and the whole concept of sovereignty is antithetical to the very premise of the discussion! Once you start talking about highly regulated businesses such a cell network providers, it's already assumed that such positions are rejected.
If you or I were allowed to open and operate a competing cell network right now, without having to beg government's permission, pay various fees and bribes, etc, then it would make sense that government has no right to interfere with how we use that network. But that's not the world we live in -- this is already a semi-public infrastructure, so squabbling over details of how the government, rather than the "owner", decides how it is used, is appropriate.
I'm offended as well, by the idea that government might tell me what to do with my network. But these people knew what they were getting into, when they came crawling to the FCC on their hands and knees (with a bag full of cash) in the first place. If you think it is inappropriate for the FCC to tell these people how to use "their own" networks, then the first thing to do is to abolish the FCC. Get rid of the other 1000 things that government is already telling these people to do. Is drawing the line at 1001 things, really upholding libertarian principles?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yes, for the simple reason that one must always buy a new cell phone if one wants to change providers. There is no reason for a cell phone to be locked to a service provider other than to "lock in" customers. Just like software and those proprietary file formats everyone hates so much.Cell phone companies use the "discount" on "their" cellphones to justify charging early termination fees. This keeps customers from switching companies and so companies can provide crappy service with little repercussion.
If cell phones were unlocked, then there would be no reason for the high termination fees and one could take their cell phone with all the contacts, settings, etc, and use them on a competitor's service (assuming they are compatible services). The result would be companies providing better service.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You've driven in New Jersey, then?
Ugh.
More socialism. And don't mistake, what you are suggesting IS a form of socialism. While the doctors won't be directly employed by the government, the fact that the government would be the only payee is socialism and a serious mistake. Why? Because the government has a limited pot from which to draw funds to pay out for citizen's medical bills. What happens when the money runs out? There are only two choices at that point. Ration the health care, or raise taxes. Historically, the Canadian government has chosen to do BOTH.
The U.S. system relies more on a capitalistic system to fund health care. It works quite well. It isn't perfect, but it is one of the best, if not the best systems around. Why? The national economy, via MULTIPLE payees, has a nearly unlimited pot of money to pay for health care. Thusly people are able to get the health treatment they need at prices they can afford. The only problem our system is having is a LACK of competition due to the government mandated health insurance, and government "price controls" (which always drive UP prices rather than hold them down.)
I always hear liberals and socialists talk up Canada's socialized Health Care as if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. As an Ex-Canadian now living in the Buffalo NY area, I can tell you it's not all that it's cracked up to be. It works just as badly as I described in my first paragraph, if not worse.
One of the things that I hear about all the time from my doctor acquaintances is how more and more Canadians are coming to the Buffalo area for surgery. Why? Because they are getting rationed in Canada and are having to wait insanely long times to get lifesaving surgery. So long, in fact, that MANY people are dying before they can get the surgery they need! Many Canadians are now coming to Buffalo (and other border cities) and paying CASH to get their surgery done so they can live! If we end up getting socialized medicine here in the U.S. I don't know where they will go. I guess many more people on both sides of the border will just die waiting for surgery. Gee, that just makes me want socialism even more! NOT!
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory