Slashdot Mirror
Making Sense of the Cellphone Landscape
Charlie Stross has a blog post up that tries to make sense of the mobile phone market and where it's going: where Apple, Google, and the cellcos fit in, and what the point of Google's Nexus One may be. "Becoming a pure bandwidth provider is every cellco's nightmare: it levels the playing field and puts them in direct competition with their peers, a competition that can only be won by throwing huge amounts of capital infrastructure at their backbone network. So for the past five years or more, they've been doing their best not to get dragged into a game of beggar-my-neighbor, by expedients such as exclusive handset deals... [Google intends] to turn 3G data service (and subsequently, LTE) into a commodity, like Wi-Fi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at. They want to get consumers to buy unlocked SIM-free handsets and pick cheap data SIMs. They'd love to move everyone to cheap data SIMs rather than the hideously convoluted legacy voice stacks maintained by the telcos; then they could piggyback Google Voice on it, and ultimately do the Google thing to all your voice messages as well as your email and web access. (This is, needless to say, going to bring them into conflict with Apple. ... Apple are an implicit threat to Google because Google can't slap their ads all over [the App and iTunes stores]. So it's going to end in handbags at dawn... eventually.)"
Picked up an N900. T-Mobile unlimited for 10 bucks a month. Could probably get away without it anyway, since there's so many open hotspots around in NY. I hate AT&T. Hate Verizon. Probably hate T-Mobile in a month. :-) There's no way I want to pay 80-120 bucks a month though. Ridiculous.
Haida Manga
I can't wait for someone to deregulate the Australian telco business. I'm with Telstra due to my remote location, and I pay exorbitant prices for voice and data. It's disgusting.
I want an Android's brain in an iPhone's body.
Pretty soon, we'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional (if needed at all).
All we need is Google to get their phones coming with a VOIP client as standard. Big unique selling point that no matter what network, or if you're not even on a network but just have wireless at home/work/in car/train/plane, you can make/receive calls.
Using phone numbers and keeping a local phonebook of addresses makes as much sense as using IP numbers in a browser to get to a website. Google providing their DNS to allow new services to be added like this was another one of the steps needed to be done. Google Voice is a stopgap, their newly acquisitioned VOIP stuff is the next step.
Shortly, it'll be standard to call someone using an email address and the data-networks will route as needed to their phone/home/business.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
I fail to see how this puts Google into direct competition with Apple. When did Apple become a telco?
Here's one reason for the Nexus One that I haven't seen yet.
Google wants it's employees to use Android and test new versions and be inspired to come up with interesting applications. The best way to do this is to give all your employees phones. If you're doing that, you might as well come up with a cool phone. It's not like Google doesn't have the money to do this.
So, no, there's no ulterior motive about breaking the cellphone companies' grip on the market. There's no plan to sell it through T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, or even Mosaic telecom. All there is a phone that Google can give to their employees for testing and being creative with. That's it.
I know, I know. It's far more fun to believe that these corporations are doing all of these things as a battle that we can sit back and enjoy. But the reality is usually far more mundane.
So for the past five years or more, they've been doing their best not to get dragged into a game of beggar-my-neighbor
Because the game of "bugger-my-customer" is so much more fun...
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Scary or neat?? that is the question. here's a thought, what if they (cel/tel cos) are already packet switching and making people pay for circuit switching?
As soon as I can buy an unlocked Google Android phone for $199 I'm in. Worse: I have $250 fidobucks (my carrier basically gives me $4-6 a month towards a new phone, and it's been a few years) so I could get an iPhone for almost free at this point, but I'd rather have an unlocked Android (I suspect I may get the iPhone to sell to someone to recoup the cost of my Android) that does WiFi then some crap data plan from fido (currently 600 megabytes a month on the *ahem* "unlimited" plan).
As WiFi migrates from Laptops to Desktops 3G chipsets will start to be standard items in Netbooks, then Laptops. This will help push data only plans down in price. And then 3G will migrate everywhere. Your car, your GPS (handheld, bike, car), cameras, etc etc.
Five years from now your 3G provider bill will have a list of your many 3G enabled devices. Perhaps one or two might have traditional voice plans. All will have data plans.
Carriers that allow you to aggregate devices and total transfer at reasonable prices will survive.
Carriers that stick to the current voice plus optional (expensive) data will not.
The only question is how long it takes to get there.
AT&T and Verizon become the main bandwidth providers. T-Mobile and Sprint will cease exist on their own. Google provides services as Google does Anything Google can monetize via ads is something Google goes after. This doesn't make Google a direct competitor to Apple or any other handset maker as long as the handset maker adopts Android or at least Google services. The iPhone has Google Maps, YouTube and Google Search by default. Google can provide other apps on this platform and with Admob, provide advertising services to 3rd party apps. The X million iPhones that have been sold to date have added to Google's bottom line just as much as each Android that has been sold. Google's desire to develop Android was solely to get a platform out to manufacturers that would fully adopt Google services. From Google's perspective, they're saying, "the iPhone is great, RIM is ok, but what happens if WinMo gets most of the other handset manufactures?"
Is there something I don't understand? I don't think unlocking a US cellphone has any additional value than an unlocked US cellphone. The phone's most value is on its original network and it's almost worthless on any other network.
All GSM is not equal. Unlock a T-Mobile cellphone and move it to AT&T and you get a degraded EDGE speed. And I assume that's true in reverse. An unlocked AT&T cellphone presumably has poor speed on T-Mobiles network.
All CDMA is not equal. A Verizon phone cannot necessarily be switched to Sprint -- my experience is that Sprint has to support that phone explicitly in its own network, including a possible new firmware load. And presumably vice versa.
And of course a GSM phone cannot be activated on a CDMA network or vice-versa.
So even if you can unlock your phone, there doesn't seem to be ANY interoperability with respect to carriers. Your unlocked phone has the most value on the network it came from, and almost no value on any other network.
So what's the point of unlocking it?
Please feel free to correct me and point out all the things I don't understand about cellphones. Cause I don't get it, and I assume it's due to my ignorance.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with people's grammar these days? Collective nouns such as company names are almost ALWAYS considered to be singular. Yet I have seen a rash of idiotic grammatical errors due to someone trying to be cute and different with subject-verb agreement.
Look it up.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm
(under "Collective Nouns, Company Names, Family Names, Sports Teams")
So just in case you could not figure out the proper subject-verb agreement, it is "Apple is..." in your last sentence.
si vis pacem, para bellum..."if you wish peace, prepare for war"
You know, if I were the paranoid type, I might be prone to think there were some high level shenanigans going on.
Remember the Apple patent enforcing ad viewing or the Apple patent on OS advertising?
Google is known for its advertising business, and has been putting ads everywhere. Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board from 2006 to 2009, when he resigned (or was forced out?) due to Google's entering "more of Apple's core business" with Chrome and Android. The new, unlocked, Google phone has plenty of speculation surrounding it, but one of the more interesting bits was that it could show up in two forms: (1) expensive, not subsidized, and (2) cheap, with advertising subsidizing it somehow, perhaps forced ad viewing or something?
Given Schmidt's time on the board, I wonder if he deliberately or inadvertently revealed any of these plans, or if Apple found itself aware of these plans through some other means. Regardless, if Apple has a patent on OS-level ad displays and/or forced ad viewing on a device, it would seem that they would be in a position to try and extract money from Google if they go forward with an ad-subsidized phone.
So now this begs the questions: Was Apple's patents on these concepts the result of information about Google's upcoming plans (either acquired legitimately or otherwise), or were they plans they had for a device of their own? Tough to say.
Personally I'm all for the carriers to be reduced to a conduit provider only. It's about time too. If they all had to compete as nearly identical providers of bandwidth instead of a myriad of services, then perhaps we'd see some improvements in the network quality. In fact, they'd have a lot more network capacity if they'd deliver one type of service instead of fragmenting it between different technologies. A friend and I often lament the poor audio quality people have come to expect from wrieless phones now that we are 100% digital. Sure there's no more "static" - but audio quality has suffered to get there.
I'm hopeful LTE will improve things - though I'm not holding my breath for it. It's going to be an expensive network upgrade that won't happen overnight. Sprint is banking on wimax and outsourcing their network, Verizon is claiming latter half 2010 for LTE. And along the way comes Google's Android and the exclusivity of the iPhone on AT&T nearing expiration (was it renewed? last I read it was all talk but I didn't see anything come from it), perhaps we'll finally have some heavy hitters that can break the carrier strangleholds. Should be interesting if they can.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Can it be used with netbooks with cellular wireless technology like Gobi? That would rock.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Google really needs to rip off Apt and Synaptics and make a version for their phones. All the way. Not only do they need to make multiple version specific repositories (and tested, don't let Debian and its ability to break stable regularly set to much of an example). The ability of users to add custom repositories for our apps that Google wont stamp with approval would be nice as well. We really need the carriers and their inability to do anything but lump surcharges on top of crap out of the way.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I'm so tired of the PC-style ignorant logic that there cam be only one of anything. HBO and ad-supported TV co-exist quite nicely, and so do Apple and Google. Even with the Windows PC and Microsoft's deliberate monopolization and lemming tech industry, the Mac has done very well. In phones, there is even less chance of us ending up with only one system because the uses are more diverse and the user base is many times larger.
It is also tiresome to keep hysterically talking about how Google is going to kill everyone in phones. It's 5 years since they bought Android and they have less than 2% of the US market, less than 2008-2009 Palm.
Having said that, I agree that Google wants data only. Why wouldn't Apple want that also? iChat is about 8 years old. In 4G we will probably see the entire market move to data only because voice calls will require only 1% of the 4G pipe and video calls will be more popular.
My blackberry already did this.
I can download whatever I want ever, written by whomever, whenever I want.
All I have to do is pay for bandwidth and the basic voice package..
jack ass!
The really annoying part is trying to get a phone that actually is any good. Because of spotty coverage, different phones on each carrier, etc. it is remarkably difficult to figure out which phone actually works the best just for "making calls" by any absolute measurement, which gives makers a lot more leeway on quality (since they don't really have to compete against any standard).
stuff |
Uh, no.
Imagine if this were applied consistently. It would convert ALL nouns into plurals.
A corporation is composed of many people in a certain sense, yes (although see below.) A person is composed of many cells. An object is composed of many molecules, a molecule of many atoms, even atoms are composed of other things. By this logic we would eliminate the singular cases entirely and simply treat every noun as plural. We would be saying "I are going to those store." This is broken English, nothing more. I is a singular noun, and it doesnt matter how many individual things we can distinguish making up that I, it's still a singular noun. You can say "all the cells in my body are going to the store" if you want, just as you can say "all the employees of apple are x" and that's fine, because the subjects in those sentences are grammatically plural (cells and divisions) but "Apple are" is just as broken as "I are".
And your explanation, even if it were valid (see above, it isnt) still is mistaken, because if we follow your suggestion and read the statement with the singular noun "Apple" with "Apple's management and employees" we change the meaning of the sentence quite a bit. "Apple are a threat" or properly "Apple is a threat" doesnt meant the same thing as "Apples management and employees are a threat" - it may look close if you are a sloppy thinker, but they still arent the same thing. The first refers to Apple as a corporate entity - the threat comes from Apple as a company, not from the individuals who work for it. In fact, it seems certain that is exactly what the OP intended to say - you could fire and replace every employee of the company, management and otherwise, but the company itself would continue to be (or not be) a threat regardless.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
While the GOOGLE PHONE is USB wired to the computer, not only could the phone get recharged, but it could:
-use the computer's ISP network to make wired VOIP voice calls without using the expensive 3G network.
-act as an adjustable WEB CAMERA. This would eliminate the need for a microphone/webcam accessories because they are built into the phone already.
-act a secondary adjustable hands-free conference speaker. This would eliminate the need to use the stereo speakers because there's a LOUD RINGTONE speaker built into the phone already.
-stand on its own. No stand required.
Your argument is pretty stupid.
Just because we break things down to the level of the _individual_ doesn't mean atom's and molecules get a say. We do the same for team's "Arsenal are amazing, Manchester United are shit", treating it as a collection of individuals (which they are) makes as much sense as treating them as a single entity.
So calling it "broken English" is pretty ridiculous.
NO U.
Did you even read my last paragraph which directly anticipated and refuted this before you even scribbled it?
A team can be amazing without having any standout players (this is called "teamwork,) and on the other side a team of "all stars" can play like shit (if they lack cohesion and play as individuals, rather than as a unit.) In other words "Arsenal is amazing" tells us about the qualities of the team as a team not necessarily anything about the individual players, coaches, etc.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
But surely there's no difference? The qualities of the team are that of the collective of players, teamwork is as much of a skill as anything else.
The whole isn't greater than the sum of its parts. Although I'm not sure how much this matters, my beef was more with you calling it "broken English" Which it isn't as thats how everyone that speaks British English speaks.
And since when has grammar obeyed the rules of logic :-)
No, there is a huge difference. Anyone that's played any team sport competitively would know that. "There is no I in team."
If everyone in Britain now speaks broken English then I suggest you start importing teachers from a country that hasnt forgotten how to speak your native language. And shoot all the nitwits that told you lot that singular nouns take verbs in plural case. Immediately.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
when people believe what the telcos, who bought the data folks years ago, and which we now think of as the data guys.
If the telos tell you they can't make money on a simple data network, you should be busy looking under the other shells.
There is only one things you an be sure of with the telcos: They are not telling the truth. They never, ever do that.
They cannot support their bloated payroll and archaic systems on just data? OK, I'd buy that. Then the business model of hiring as many people as possible to influence politicians (and therefore spending as little as possible on systems which don't require humans) needs to change.
Your telco needs to adapt. Its failure to adapt is not an indication of an impossible situation -- It is just an indication of its lack of desire to adapt.
Hear hear. I was thinking - an article written as if Apple and Google are the only phone companies? And believes the myth that the Iphone is a "runaway hit"? (Actual market share figures disagree.)
TFA only mentions Symbian briefly, dismissing them as you say, on the grounds that they are losing share. Well yes - at 40% market share, I'd expect over time that to lower as other companies enter. That doesn't mean Apple are remotely near overtaking them. And anyhow, even if they want to focus on the newcomers - where on earth are RIM/Blackberry, who are also ahead of Apple?
It talks about "Version 1" of 3G - but my old 3G feature phone from 2005 had full unrestricted access to the Internet (including tethering). I do agree that ultimately, phone companies need to transform themselves into mobile Internet providors, but it's clear that we're heading in that direction anyway, and I don't see why Apple are so special in this. Indeed, I hope Apple don't play a strong part of this - if they become dominant, then our 2019 mobile Internet, even if it's an open Internet, will only be available on a locked down platform where all software needs Apple approval to run. How is that an improvement?
I agree it doesn't make sense to always restricting the market to only smartphones. It's not just that they're a minority of the market, but it's also so ill-defined. Anyone: why was my old 3G phone that could do Internet and run any applications a non-smartphone, yet Apple's original Iphone, which didn't have 3G, can only run Apple-approved applications, and didn't even support basic features like copy/paste, considered a smartphone? More generally, give me a definition that includes the Iphone, but doesn't include most "feature" phones?
It's not just Nokia - Samsung, LG, Motorola are all companies that have bigger market share, yet you hardly ever hear about them.
What do you mean now? We've always done it this way.
Fact is it's not broken English, its perfectly correct British English according to any Dictionary or authority you care to look at. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong.
Surely attempting to fix all those irregular verbs would be a more useful use of your time :-P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Presence_or_absence_of_syntactic_elements
But with supermarkets, you'd expect it to be more focused on the country. E.g., a UK programme talking about supermarkets would only mention Tesco, Sainsbury etc, and you wouldn't expect to hear a mention of Wal-mart.
But imagine a UK programme talking about the latest in computer technology, and then focusing solely on Acorn Archimedes and RISCOS as if that's all that existed? Wouldn't you think that a bit bizarre? Now imagine those stories getting pasted all around the Internet. That's how it looks to us with all these nothing-but-Iphone stories.
And your example is flawed anyway, because Wal-mart does operate in Europe, just under a different brandname (Asda in the UK). So they would get a mention in my hypothetical UK programme.
Nice troll. The entire island of Britain speaks broken English? Do you even know what English is?
I don't think the competition between Google and Apple is the issue here, but the point about telcos as commodities seems spot on. Apple could sell unlocked phones just as easily as Google, there have been rumors about a Verizon iPhone for months. Also, having the telcos as commodities doesn't hurt Apple's ability to be an "experience company." Apple's machines plug into the same internet, the same power grid, the same USB connectors, etc. as all the rest. The way Apple controls the experience is buy selling both the hardware and the software together.
But there is a "me".
"[Google intends] to turn 3G data service (and subsequently, LTE) into a commodity, like Wi-Fi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at."
So let's say I get this proposed affordable, unlocked Google phone with advanced data features...
What network is it on?
When I go in to the ATT store to actually get that phone on the network, isn't it going to be the same old story? 2 year contract, expensive limited 'unlimited' data plans, SMS messages for a quarter, and all that other nonsense?
I have seen the Google phone hailed as putting the internet in everyone's pocket, but in the current business climate I don't see how that is possible, unless Google builds or buys a network of cell towers. The network question has been avoided in all the material I have read so far, but maybe I have not found the right news.
If I am wrong, and Google is going to be my new, affordable phone company, someone please post and strike me down--because that would be great news. Even if Skynet listens to my voice mail to better sell me stuff.
(Hah: I originally had a typo above: adfordable. I'm going to keep that word.)
That's the only way to optimize the cellular networks. Everyone adopts a standard, with a standard stack, so that everyone uses each other's towers. Really, who cares if AT&T or Verizon has the better network? Let them all adopt the same 5G, and if they still can't fully develop the cell network, then the government goes into the business of rural cellphonication. You pay for your own cellphone/computer.
If we had developed railroads at different gauges, with no sharing of right of way, we'd be living in the Confederate States. If we allowed the power grid or the telephone networks or the radio and TV infrastructure with so little demand for standards, what would we have by now? A society and economy even more feudal, segmented into segregated economic units -- in other words, backwards. What is the power of these stupid companies? I can see the reason for the competition at the beginning, but really, we've got some idea now how we want this to develop now.
Break up the exclusivity and the insularity of our networks. It should be much more like the Internet.
I don't do much calling so I use Virgin Mobil pay as you go. My bills are under $100 for the year. It's $0.18/minute to call anyone in the U.S. and they cover large metro areas. I've used it all along the Frontrange in Colorado and anywhere in NJ. It makes a good low usage inexpensive phone if you live in a coverage area(map).
If Google wants to reduce the wireless carriers to dumb pipes, then it needs a network of its own. Otherwise, the carriers will simply block VoIP over their networks or, simpler yet, refuse to sell data service without a voice plan. However, if there's a competitor to the existing carriers, then customers will presumably flock to it, forcing the established players to change the way they sell service.
I realize that building a nationwide network will cost a small fortune and take time, but that's what it's going to take. Either that, or Google could buy one or more existing networks. Sprint, perhaps? Or what about snapping up Cricket and MetroPCS?
For this to be a threat to Google, Apple would have to have exclusive content way superior to anything Google could ever get its hands on.
If Google really wanted to promote their own phone and force carriers to move toward a more web centric connectivity model, they could make a deal with a carrier that would completely pay for the phone and the data service, like the following: Most data services from the carriers run from $30 to $50 per month. Many unlocked smart phones run about $600 to $650, which over a two year period, works out to be about $25 to $30 per month. If a carrier would be willing to provide an 'unlimited' data plan for around $39.99, then for about $69.99 per month, on a two-year contract, the phone could be sold for $100 up front, or even given away free, and over the course of the two years, the phone and data would be completely paid for, with Google sweeping up the profits from the ad revenue from the users' web browsing. If they wanted, Google could even sweeten the to compensate for the carrier not making any 'traditional' cell phone plan income, by giving that carrier a small cut of the ad revenue. The real trick would be for Google to convince a carrier that they would bring in enough new users to make it worthwhile to support a program like that - could Google accomplish that?
Cheers! - Steve from MyBrotherSteve.com
There was nothing stopping Verizon and Sprint from launching 21 Mbps HSPA+ networks in the US like their CDMA counterparts in Canada did this November. Verizon is going to drag out the LTE deployment as long as they can because nobody is pressuring them to change their game plan and they can milk the marketplace for every cent possible using CDMA. Most Americans seems to think that CDMA is "good enough" but it is slower than HSPA 7.2 let alone 21 Mbps HSPA+. Heck, even Sprint's "4G" Wimax is twice as slow as HSPA+.
If you want real cellular competition, go to the source of the problem and pressure the CDMA carriers to beat AT&T at their own HSPA game. Canadians put on the pressure and the carriers did something about it. Are you really going to let us Canadians make your wireless industry look like a joke?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
From where I sit in Australia the US cell phone networks need a bloody good shakeup.
The whole sorry saga of exclusive handset deals and Apple's relationship with the greedy music industry are examples of corruption on a massive scale.
It seems the US has learned nothing about ethics and probity from the global financial crisis it caused.
I hope Barack Obama can save you from yourselves.
Ken of Oz
The iPhone is a GSM device. Sprint runs a CDMA network.
A company is a bunch of people. If you fired and replaced everyone, the company might still carry the same name, but it sure as hell would act completely different.
I went to Charlie's blog and read the entire atricle, including the comments. I found the entire discussion very insightful. In particlar, the discussion concerning the bandwidth decisions made by the cellcos and the push that Google and Apple are havaing on the market. I don't like the Google scenario. I am adverse to the depth and breadth of all the places that their tentacles are occupying. On the political front, the US government wants to extend high bandwidth to all the masses. This has the potential to fund the new technology that will support bandwidth needs of the mobile devices, but I doubt ti.
Seriously? I worked on Alltel's CellTop 2 years before the iPhone came out and CellTop looked and behaved UX-wise lightyears before anything before it. Where has it gotten us? No where: because it's built on layers and layers and layers of "channel partners" (read: toll gates) and layers and layers of code that has to ride on top of the native OS. How Firefox can outcompete Safari at it's own game is a mystery to me. Just because you (FF) might win a few upcoming benchmarking contests isn't going to make FF a winner. If it was, Apple could simply ride Safari mobile roughshod bareback over a bloated "platform independent" FF Mobile. Seriously.
Most of the posts here and on Charlie's blog (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/12/21st_century_phone.html) seem to support the original assertion made by Charlie.
"They [Google] intend to turn 3G data service (and subsequently, LTE) into a commodity, like wifi hotspot service only more widespread and cheaper to get at. They want to get consumers to buy unlocked SIM-free handsets and pick cheap data SIMs. They'd love to move everyone to cheap data SIMs rather than the hideously convoluted legacy voice stacks maintained by the telcos; then they could piggyback Google Voice on it, and ultimately do the Google thing to all your voice messages as well as your email and web access."
Tom in comment 37 (Charlie's Blog) makes an economic case to support Charlie's assertion:
"Information is different as a commodity. Sending 1 bit basically has no direct cost associated to it. Nearly everything stems back to the infrastructure costs. Operating costs are pretty minor in comparison. As such, whenever you have a situation where your pricing is primarily based upon fixed costs and amortization of infrastructure capital costs, with no real per unit marginal cost, the price invariably ends up plummeting as performance per price of technology increases, service offerings become standardized, and it results into a race to the bottom."
I do not believe Google will succeed in turning the mobile network operators (MNOs) into cheap data providers by driving the MNOs to commoditization. The service provide by the MNOs is not bits through the air "with no real per unit marginal cost." The core service provided by the MNOs is access to the mobile spectrum. This core service will become more valuable over time and combined with additional services (voice, Internet, video on demand, mobile banking, financial transactions, identity transactions, new advertising models, etc.) will insure the long term success of the MNOs.
Either directly through partnerships or indirectly through data charges, the MNOs will participate in all revenues that flow through their networks.
There is a key insight missed by Charlie and others who have posted on this topic: Unlike cable and fiber which in theory could be laid in infinite amounts, spectrum bandwidth is a finite resource and the dominant MNOs have already been awarded incredibly valuable allocations.
An idea of the complexities of frequency allocation can be gained by viewing frequency allocation charts:
U.S. Frequency Allocations
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDF
U.K Frequency Alocations
http://www.onlineconversion.com/downloads/uk_frequency_allocations_chart.pdf
Additionally, several of the posts here and on Charlie's blog make the mistake of equating higher throughput with greater bandwidth. While each generation of mobile technology has increased throughput, bandwidth (the usable spectrum range) remains a finite and very valuable resource which is leased primarily by the dominant MNOs.
In the United States, bandwidth is usually allocated through a government (FCC) auction process. As more bandwidth is dedicated ("unleashed") for mobile use, the dominant MNOs are in the best position to win the auctions. This is exactly what happened in the 700 MHz auctions held in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction)
Even with improvements in throughput, consumer demands for new services on intelligent mobile devices will eventually push the limits of allocated bandwidth. What this means is the dominant MNOs have a resource (spectrum allocation) that will become even more valuable over time. What this also means is that consumers will be charged based on their data usage.
SymbolNOBODY:
You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430
"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal
I took offense to the BOLDED part... & ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, my reply in the URL below was simple (and logical):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30428430#30430244
Additionally, "symbolNOBODY"? Well - the day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662
That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:
1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
2.) An "Essential Guide"
3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)
AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."
and
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"
Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com
----
THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk (and, ESPECIALLY about that which you said about myself, libelling me thus, as you have!
SymbolNOBODY:
You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430
"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal
I took offense to the BOLDED part... & ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, my reply in the URL below was simple (and logical):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30428430#30430244
Additionally, "symbolNOBODY"? Well - the day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662
That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:
1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
2.) An "Essential Guide"
3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)
AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."
and
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"
Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com
----
THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk (and, ESPECIALLY about that which you said about myself which I quoted from you above sho