Slashdot Mirror


Why Everyone Should Hate Cellphone Carriers

The Byelorrusian Spamtrap writes "Wired Magazine's made its position clear on the state of play in America's cellular industry, delivering a long, satisfying screed on why all of us should stop complaining and do something about it. 'They own politicians - Sure, it's just phones. In a world where worse things happen all the time amid the muck and despair of human existence, having to pay for premium text is hardly worth worrying about, is it? You can (and should) opt out, and not sign on the dotted line to begin with. But today's cell towers might be tomorrow's Pony Express: they're TV stations, internet access, emergency 911 and news networks all rolled into one. WWAN could well end up supplanting copper sooner than anyone expects: do you want these companies in charge of it?'"

35 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. How about the source of the problem... by saleenS281 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me get this straight... polticians are corrupt, so we shouldn't buy cellphones? Am I reading that correctly? Politicians are corrupt... so in response... we punish ourselves by not using a very convenient technology. Are we really that apathetic? Is that what this country has come to?

    HOW ABOUT PUNISH THE POLITCIANS!? I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt. Vote for an independent, hell, write in yourself, but don't whine that you'd just be *wasting a vote*, and continue to support people who are not serving you! Then tell people they should live the life of a hermit to *stick it to the man*. It is NOT the corporations fault that they attempt to maximize profits. That is the job of a public company. Our government allowing them to do so through shady practices is a problem with the GOVERNMENT!

    1. Re:How about the source of the problem... by moderatorrater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's just one of their reasons, and you know what? You're both right. The political system is fucked up beyond all reason. But when it comes down to it, the absolute worst companies I've ever had to deal with were cellphone companies. If you like a cellphone company, it's because you've never had to deal with their customer service, and I believe that to be true in 99% of the cases.

    2. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt."

      Incumbents don't lose. 93% of House elections (and something like 96% of state legislative elections) were decided shortly after the 2000 census. Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers).

      "Vote for an independent,"

      Also doesn't work.

      "write in yourself,"

      Even if you did live in a state that allowed write-in candidates and you filed the necessary paperwork (and paid the necessary fees) to be counted as a write-in candidate, we still have a plurality voting system. If every person who normally didn't vote went in next year to vote for themselves, the results would not be different.

      "but don't whine that you'd just be *wasting a vote*"

      "Whine?" It's essentially a mathetmatical certainty. Rhetoric doesn't trump political science demonstrated by centuries of practical examples.

      "Our government allowing them to do so through shady practices is a problem with the GOVERNMENT!"

      Yeah, OK, go start the revolution, then. We'll be right behind you.

    3. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact, I would argue that by knowingly supporting a company involved in corruption while chastising others for not punishing corruption in government would make someone a hypocrite.

      There's no false dichotomy there, at least not in the real world. Many people who choose to live in society, and have a job, may require wireless telephone service. This means they'll have to support a company involved in corruption, because there's no other choice (all the companies in this cartel are corrupt, after all). The only organization that can do anything about it is the government, which is also corrupt, but is under control (theoretically) of the voters, if they would bother to vote intelligently. The only alternative is to simply not use cellular service, which may cause much worse problems socially for any individual who tries this approach.

    4. Re:How about the source of the problem... by KillerCow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the absolute worst companies I've ever had to deal with were cellphone companies.


      Scam Industries:

      1) Telecom
      2) Health-Care
      3) Personal Banking

      feel free to add to the list.
    5. Re:How about the source of the problem... by moogied · · Score: 1, Insightful
      ACTUALLY. You sir, are the reason all of the above cited reasons occur. Its a democracy, you might of heard of them.

      If enough people voted for canidate A, and B won.. people would then search and see the popular vote was indeed for A. If the margin was high enough, all hell would break loose as we claimed the system to of collasped. B would be impeached asap, and A enstated.

      If that didn't happen, I myself would loose faith in goverment. As would many others. And then every punk whoever said guns should be illegal would regret saying that. As every american walks out with there guns and starts demanding changes.

      Fact of the matter:

      military + police is LESS than Registered Gun Owners.

      --
      So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    6. Re:How about the source of the problem... by vimh42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with realists is they admit the democracy is dead in America. The problem with idealists is they believe the system works. The problem with America is that...never mind, my TV show is on.

    7. Re:How about the source of the problem... by sleigher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You guys are nuts. You're actually asking Americans to stop and think about what they are doing BEFORE they do it. Well, let me know how that works out for you...... Sorry if I sound like it is an absolute lost cause.....

      What's sad is that there are a lot of smart people in America who are either blinded by religion and this code of morals/ethics attached to it, or they too have lost hope and couldn't be bothered to vote. And thus I give to you.... America!

      I vote. And I vote my conscience after learning about candidates/issues.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    8. Re:How about the source of the problem... by xstonedogx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with people is that they never ask themselves, "What the fuck is my problem?"

    9. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I vote. And I vote my conscience after learning about candidates/issues.

      I do too, at least I do my best in doing so. However, it doesn't help much voting for Candidate B when everyone else is voting for Candidate A. (It's even worse if you vote for Candidate C.) You can't control everyone else when we all have equal votes. You can try to make noise about it, raise awareness, etc., but in the end, if everyone else makes the wrong choice, you're stuck with it.

      A lot of Slashdotters really don't seem to understand this concept, judging by the responses to my post here.

    10. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be such an idiot.

      In the "real world" people get along just fine without cell phones.

      Many people have jobs which require them to be on call. What would you say to them? Quit? I guess you don't really want medical care, right?

      In the "real world" people make ethical decisions for their company every single day even when the "real world" makes that supposedly impossible.

      What does this have to do with anything? I never advocated making unethical decisions while on the job.

      However, lots of companies make unethical decisions all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it.

      In the "real world" people get the companies they pay for and the government they deserve.

      Maybe so, at the societal level, but at the individual level, there's nothing you can do about what everyone else does. You can become a hermit if you wish.

      In the "real world" not everyone waffles on their principles because they are afraid or because someone waives a dollar under their nose.

      Right, those are the hermits. Everyone else has to compromise because they have to live in a society with other people, who don't abide by the same principles. Do you buy services from any large, evil company like Comcast, Cox, Verizon, etc.? After all, you're here on Slashdot, so I presume you have an internet service provider. Well, you just compromised on principles by buying from a company with poor ethics. Do you grow your own food? If not, you're probably buying from some large agribusiness with poor ethics. I can cite lots of other examples.

      And in the "real world" claiming something is unavoidable and not in our control (especially when we're funding it!) is just a way to apologize for our own hypocrisy.

      So you think you're not a hypocrite? How do you explain your post here? You're using the products and services of large companies which have committed ethical transgressions in the interest of profit. It sounds like you're the hypocrite.

    11. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt."

      Incumbents don't lose. 93% of House elections (and something like 96% of state legislative elections) were decided shortly after the 2000 census. Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers).
      The problem is that too many people vote for the familiar when they don't know anything about either candidate. If people would follow a simple rule, "Vote the ins, out," it would change things immensely. If you don't have an overwhelmingly compelling reason to vote for the incumbent, you should vote against him/her, even if you think the other guy is a bad choice. You can always vote him out next election. He won't have the chance to do much harm in one term. The longer a person is in the legislature the more harm he/she can do.
      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:How about the source of the problem... by E++99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Incumbents don't lose. 93% of House elections (and something like 96% of state legislative elections) were decided shortly after the 2000 census. Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers).

      Voting doesn't matter? Because people vote in a way that you don't like? I don't think that one necessarily follows from the other. It shouldn't be surprising that most the time people will vote for the same person in election N that they voted for in election N-1.
    13. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If people would follow a simple rule, "Vote the ins, out," it would change things immensely."

      The vast majority of elections in this country consist of two candidates. After that come the ones with only one candidate. The number of elections where third parties have the ability to get their candidates on the ballot is smaller even than that. The result of your philosophy is to replace the Replublocrat with a Demican.

      Even if there are more than two candidates on the ballot, if the "vote the bastard out" people distribute their votes randomly among the non-incumbents, the party faithful from the two major parties will still ensure that one or the other will be the one with the plurality.

      "You can always vote him out next election."

      Many (if not most) ballots feature the same two names as last year's. You would simply be voting in the bastard you voted out last time.

      "The longer a person is in the legislature the more harm he/she can do."

      You assume that legislators act individually, rather than voting along strict party lines, which they do 90% of the time. Term limits have done nothing to change the political makeup of the legislatures, and the party in power is more important than the names of the people the party whips command.

    14. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't control everyone else when we all have equal votes. You can try to make noise about it, raise awareness, etc., but in the end, if everyone else makes the wrong choice, you're stuck with it.

      A lot of Slashdotters really don't seem to understand this concept, judging by the responses to my post here.
      Idealists. They can be exasperating. For the most part, their notions of the ideal world we should be working towards are prefaced with "If only everyone would...". Well, the problem with idealists is that they don;t realize that everyone NEVER will.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    15. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Timeburn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      0) Insurance

      --
      "Not one shred of evidence points to the notion that life is serious" -- Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain
    16. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Arramol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Music industry

      Film industry

      (Also known as the copyright litigation industry)

    17. Re:How about the source of the problem... by pthor1231 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the candidate who most people think is the fittest will win, not necessarily the fittest.

  2. A Scary Monopoly by lmnfrs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I doubt carriers could suddenly gain control over all of these things, but it is something that needs to be avoided, however it may happen. The real reasons that would be a problem lie in their customer relations practices.
    A billing error that can't be fixed at local stores, and the subscriber is forced to lead resolution of the issue while waiting on hold for 10 minutes every time an attempt is made, then arguing with customer "service" to convince them a problem exists. (AT&T)
    Quality of tech support is laughable - I was told by a tech supervisor that data transfer on my phone was very expensive because the screen was large. Not just physically, but it had a high resolution too. (Cingular)
    Salespeople lying directly to customers about plan availability when a similar plan with higher commission is available. (T-Mobile)

  3. Article failed in one minor, but disappointing way by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously... how can you have a segment on "They have annoying commercials", and not even mention ATT/Cingular's "idk my bff [name]" commercials? They have the dubious honor of being some of the only commercials (Axe being the other one, for the curious) to make me feel like my iq was lowered just by watching it.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  4. It doesn't matter by rastoboy29 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While the general public is apathetic/oblivious of these issues, nothing will happen.

    It seems to take about ten years for the general public to really get their heads around technical issues.

  5. Pony Express? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Could someone explain the Pony Express reference to me? Is the article referring to the company that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in startup costs, never got a government contract, delivered very little private mail for a very short time, and went bankrupt the same day the trans-continental telegraph was turned on?

    Yeah, that's exactly what I'm afraid of cell phone carriers turning into...

  6. out-innovated? by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The first reason out of the given 10/15/whatever... was amusingly self-defeating.

    To witness Sprint's $5bn investment in WiMax is to witness a future planned so far in advance no-one should be comfortable with it.

    Such futures can't be relied upon if innovation is permitted So, no company should invest heavily in innovation because that stifles progress. Check.

    The remaining [author couldn't be bothered to count] reasons are similarly kvetching and dripping with angst.
  7. Re:What can you do? It's hopeless--for now by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I must be a dynamo of a person because I don't own a cell phone, yet manage to keep in touch with my family and business partners.

    the subspace you mention is known as 'the internet'.

    Basically you toss out what you say you think is right for convenience. Well done.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Voicemail Airtime Gouging by kozmonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Has anyone considered that the excessively long voicemail introductions used by almost every cell carrier amount to conspired gouging? We pay airtime when we are leaving a voicemail, right? When you get voicemail on my cell you get my brief away message, followed by the phone company's useless 20-second blather. For example:

    ring... ring... ring... (me):"Hello, I'm not here right now, please leave a message" (sprint): "To leave a voice message press 1, or just wait for the tone. To send a numeric page press 2 now. At the tone please leave a voice message. When you are finished recording, you may hang up, or press pound for more options"

    Several gripes here.
    1) 20 seconds of instructions doesn't sound like that much on its own. But if that pushes your phone call to roll one minute longer it's a minute of possible airtime charge the phone company gets. You start paying the minute the call is answered, even leaving voicemail.

    2) A typical voicemail message is probably 2 minutes or less. The phone company's instructional message here is taking up a significant portion of that airtime.

    3) These instructions are ridiculous and seem to be there only to draw out the duration of the call. They couldn't be phrased more verbosely. Oh, I can hang up when the message is done? I didn't know that. I can press pound for more options? How about you tell me about those AFTER I've left a message.

    4) The features are really ridiculous, too, and I suspect some 1% even use them. Send a numeric page? Why the hell should I do that? Cellphones have caller ID already. Send a FAX?? Please Slashdotters tell me who has sent a FAX over a cellphone. Do you have to make the modem sounds with your voice? If anyone DOES use these features they probably don't need the help message to remember what button to press to initiate their cellphone fax.

    5) There is no option to turn these messages off. They probably also require you to add your own greeting. Resulting in a totally redundant 30-second prelude to leaving any voicemail.

    6) Every mobile company I know of has these messages, some worse than others. Is this an unspoken or conspired arrangement between the mobile carriers? Sprint doesn't necessarily make money when someone has to listen to their God-awful pre-message, but they might. They certainly will make money when my Sprint phone is waiting on Verizon's equally obnoxious introduction, or T-mobile's, etc...

    7) The worst part of this, in my perspective, isn't that I might pay, if I totally screw up, 50c or 5 bucks some month because a few extra minutes were incurred waiting to leave my friends voicemail - or dropping coffee on the bus trying to press 1 to bypass the spiel. The worst part is I leave a moderate amount of voicemail messages, and this amounts to Minutes, Hours, or God knows, even Days of my life eventually wasted listening to a robot tell me how to leave a voicemail and that it's ok to hang up. It's robbery, I tell you!

  9. Everyone should hate them? Even stockholders? by unassimilatible · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Seems to me if you have Verizon stock you should love the company. I just don't understand the Slashdot mentality. Nobody is forcing you to buy a cell phone (you can always go month-to-month with a non-subsidized phone or a pay-as-you-go) or Windows (build your own PC) or anything else. I lived most most my life happily without a cell, but now cellphones are something everyone deserves to own, and own cheaply, on their own terms? You know, it costs millions and millions of dollars to build a modern cell network. Go down to South America and see what communication would be like without cell carriers investing millions. Do they not deserve a return?

    If you don't like the product, don't buy it as the article submitter says. Don't buy the contract, accept the contract, then bitch about it later.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  10. TAKE our AIRWAVES back !!!! by zymano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They belong to us! Do not sell them to rich corporates that then monopolize,horde and charge ridiculous fees. As long as you people sit on your hands and don't organize then the dream will never happen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum

  11. Re:The real question by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason is cell phone companies are spending billions to upgrade their equipment. Those billions have to come from somewhere. We went from analog to digital 1x to data over 1x to 2G to 3G. Even after 3G was introduced we had data rates increase in leaps and bounds.

    Customers demand performance and features. While mobile companies could probably provide you with voice-only service pretty cheaply, they'd lose customers to other companies that provided a fancier service.

    I work in the business, and I have no idea why people want to watch videos on those teeny tiny screens. But they do, and the networks have to be modified as a result.

  12. Why no "Bring your own phone" plans? by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One clear evidence of how badly the "market" for cellphone service is performing is the lack of any "bring your own phone" plans. With T-Mobile and most other carriers, it is simply impossible to sign up for a monthly contract that does not have a minimum term. I would like to buy my phone on eBay and sign up for monthly service, but without the 1 or 2 year commitment. I am prepared to pay a reasonable "connection fee". However, most carriers simply don't offer this, except in the form of the more expensive (per minute) pre-paid phones. Why can't I do this?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  13. Re:What can you do? It's hopeless--for now by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You sounds like someone who's single and lives in his parent's basement. No offense; I used to be single too.

    Personally, my wife places a lot of value on being able to reach me any time she has an important question or concern, whether I'm shopping, at work (I'm not always next to my desk phone), etc.

    Many people have jobs which require them to have cell phones and be on-call. Obviously, you don't have such a job, but don't deride people who do, and tell them they don't need a cellphone, because that would get them fired.

    Most people require telephone service of some kind for the daily lives, even if it's not a cellphone. Guess what? The landline companies are the same evil companies that provide cellular service, so you're not getting away from them by using a landline. Do you go without a phone altogether? Most people with jobs don't have that luxury. I certainly don't.

    "the internet" isn't like subspace; it's a shared infrastructure just like that provided by cellular providers. How do you access the internet? Do you use a pringle's can and steal from your nearby Starbuck's? Most people have to pay for internet access, and this usually means using another big, evil company like Qwest, Cox, Comcast, Verizon, etc. So you're not getting away from these companies by using the internet either.

    So unless you have some way of keeping in touch with family and business partners which doesn't involve using a big, evil company like one of those above (and you live in the USA, as this discussion is irrelevant elsewhere), then you're completely missing the point and your argument is invalid.

  14. Re:Article suggests unrealistic alternative by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No shit. The author seems totally disconnected from simple logic. On the one hand he's all bent out of shape because of the monopolistic abuses of the cell phone companies. On the other hand, he claims that we can do without their services. Hello? If people don't really need their services, how did they become monopolies?

    The submitter refers to the story as a "long satisfying screed". In other words, it feels good to read it and yell "right on! you go!" That's the problem with current political discourse: it's designed to make you feel good, not to actually accomplish anything.

  15. Well, who SHOULD run it? by briancnorton · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The problem with statements like "Don't let big [evil] corporations run anything" is that there isn't really an alternative. Who do you propose runs the telecom grid? Ma Bell so we can get another hundred years of rotary phones? The government that pays $20,000 for a hammer and holds fake press conferences? The sad fact is that there aren't any alternatives to letting a corporate entity run things. Not only that, but the gouging that has transpired over the last 20 years has financed the R&D that allows stuff like wireless internet.

    While I sit here and defend the obvious, I do not own a cell phone, and probably never will again. I realized that I REALLY don't need one. If you sit down and think about it, 90% of you probably don't either.

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

  16. Re:iPhone? by bmajik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What would compel me to put up with all of the nonsense associated with the iphone?

    The company works overtime to try and brick my phone; on a limited-data plan like what i've described, an iphone doesn't sound very useful anyway.

    OpenMoko has no features explicitly designed to piss me off. That puts it head and shoulders above the iphone. When it's done, I'll buy one.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  17. Re:Well of course by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's a great idea until an FBI agent is standing on your neck when they track down illegal activity to your connection. I'm not trying to be cynical because I really do think your idea is great. However, I have a hard time believing the government will buy (or even understand) all the precautions you are taking when they find out someone is snarfing kiddie porn through your wireless.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  18. Am I the only one happy with their cell phone? by director_mr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a Motorola V3. It does more than I even use as a cell phone. It has a camera, mp3 player, voicemail, cell phone and other stuff. I only use it as a phone, and every now and then I take a couple of pictures of my kids. It has great battery life, sounds very clear, and gets great reception. My cell phone rate per month is reasonable. Its actually cheaper than having a land-line phone in my house. Why should I be all upset about cell phones again? I remember what cell phones were like 20 years ago, and think they are progressing very nicely at this point. (My carrier is T-mobile)