Why would I need or want a watch as a peripheral ?
It's handy as an extension to the iphone. In my case, I generally carry the phone in my pants pocket. If i get a call or text, it's a PITA (not literally) to get the phone out of my pocket - especially while driving - to answer the call or glance at the text. Having all that stuff available at my wrist really has proved to be quite convenient. $400+ convenient? Don't know about that (my employer provided the watch). Could I have solved my issues with non-watch solutions? (belt holster, bluetooth earpiece, etc.) Sure. But not as conveniently as with the watch
All the little apps available? Dunno, after the initial "play with my new toy" period, I haven't touched any of them.
You're right - that's a horrendous price. Then again, nobody ever accused Verizon of being a champion for the budget-conscious. Don't rule out the regional and tier 2 carriers. You only need to worry about the coverage in one specific location - usually your home. No need to fund Verizon and their ilk for their national networks.
Try checking to see if the carriers servicing your area offer fixed wireless service. Basically, it's an LTE hotspot designed to be used in one place, usually operating on a less congested low band. In most cases it'll be similarly priced to an "unlimited" handset plan, but with more generous data caps and friendlier throttling policies. And, of course, no tethering restrictions. NB: As with any wireless/LTE connection data rates can vary anywhere from "awesome" to "why bother" depending on all the usual factors.
Yes, Apple has been wanting this - but not for the reasons you think. Apple's goal is to eliminate the carrier from the purchasing flow. In the past, you would typically pick a carrier, go buy a phone from that carrier (or bring your own unlocked device) and activate service. With an euicc (eSIM) that changes: you go buy your Apple phone from the Apple store, turn it on, and during the setup process you get presented with a list of possible carriers you can register for service with. You sign up, an SMDP+ package gets downloaded to your handset to program the euicc, and you're off and running all while staying within the "Apple experience".
When did "Unlimited" start meaning we throttle speed or charge you more if you actually attempt to use what is promised?
I'm honestly not sure. It could be: When the first chunks of spectrum were auctioned in the high 9-digit $ range. Possibly when people discovered an unlimited tethered LTE connection was a great substitute for home internet service. Or maybe it was always written into the first unlimited plans and not widely enforced until congestion started becoming an issue. I really don't remember, but I'm sure one or more of those are related.
What you're talking about is the QCI value. This affects the device's access to resources at the enodeB scheduler. Typically ranging from 1-9 with 1 being the highest priority. Most carriers set the default value to 9 (or 8, if they want to reserve 9 for banishing data hogs to a lower priority). Government sanctioned plans (including FirstNet) for first responders typically are contracted to have a lower QCI (higher priority) for these subscribers.
I guess Fiat really is changing Chrysler. Normally it takes 3-4 years for defects like this to surface in a Chrysler - about the time your car note is so upside down it looks a trailer for the Poseidon Adventure.
Cell towers - both GSM/CDMA and eNodeB (LTE) - do have the capability to broadcast messages. In the US, carriers receive all alerts from IPAWS (a FEMA operated system) and then pick out and dispatch the geographically appropriate ones to their towers.
IMO, this would be no different than a beer company giving out free samples outside an AA meeting. Yet another reason none of my earnings will ever be used to build a flashy casino.
Much like other addictions, when a gambler gets hooked, all common sense and reason goes out the window.
Back in my drinking days, I'd hit the same bar every day after work. One of my friends there (a non-drinker) would be sitting in front of the "for entertainment only *wink, wink*" video slot machine for hours every day feeding it $20 at a time. The bar owner made no secret of the fact the machine was set to pay out only about 80% of it's take. And my friend was virtually the only person who ever put money in the machine.
To everybody but him, it was painfully obvious that very best he could possibly do was win back 80% of his own money he had put in. He could never see it that way though. He could only see "today". For example, he could go several nights in a row losing a few hundred bucks, but then on the next night maybe win $200 after only putting $20 in. He'd be so proud of that $180 "profit" but always lose sight of $250 he blew in the previous days.
I suppose he could have gone on like this for a while, only losing roughly 20% of his money. But eventually some other regulars in the bar colluded with the bartender to figure out when the machine hadn't paid out recently but was packed full of my friends money. And would play when the machine was fat and he wasn't around. It wasn't long before he was financially wrecked.
I had a job writing RPG. I didn't bother with tabs or spaces and just lined everything up nice and neatly. I didn't last long at that job. But I got the last laugh . . . because where's RPG now???? muahahahahaha
BTW, nobody opposes eSIMS technology. Not Verizon, not AT&T. In fact, it's integral for making wearables and very small IoT LTE-enabled devices. The problem is AT&T and Verizon are trying to corrupt the standards into giving them the ability to lock a device to their networks. I don't know anybody who thinks locked devices are a great consumer-friendly idea.
Most people would consider "physically obtaining a SIM card + setting up an account with a new carrier" to be more effort than just "setting up an account with a new carrier". Clearly your understanding is different. For the rest of us, this investigation seeks to keep the latter option the simplest without Verizon or AT&T putting hurdles in the way.
Regarding the actual article: "Verizon has said it needed to be able to lock down phones to prevent theft and fraud". I guess in theory, they don't want you to be able to take your eSIM device to another carrier while you have an outstanding balance at Verizon. I'd call bullshit on that - they have plenty of avenues to get the money they're legitimately owed without locking down devices.
Bad news, swb. The programming process is driven by the carriers. Normally via a webpage connected to their provisioning systems. You basically sign up for service with a carrier, the carrier sends a request to an SMDP+ provider, and the SMDP+ provider gathers up all the information (assigns an IMSI, etc.) and creates a profile and sends it to the device. This is a current project I'm involved with at work (I work for a large regional cell provider)
While Apple and other device manufacturers surely appreciate the increase in physical space due to the lack of a SIM slot, the real win for them is to completely put the carrier choice in the backseat of the user experience. Historically, carrier choice came first - you would go to a carrier's store or website, and then choose a device they offered. With eSIM devices, the device becomes the primary choice. For example, you could walk out of an Apple store with an LTE-enabled iPad - just turn it on, and it presents you with a menu of available carriers in your area that support the device - and you sign up for whatever carrier you want.
Verizon and co colluded to prevent people from switching from easily changed SIM cards to some electronic system that'd make it harder to switch carriers? Verizon?
And now they're being sued for being anti-competitive?
Is this bizarro world?
You really misunderstood something. In an ESIM device, there is no SIM slot. A generic SIM (or UICC) is permanently embedded into the device. When you activate it on the carrier, that ESIM is programmed with your carrier's data. AT&T and Verizon are being accused of trying to prevent (or just make it harder) for the ESIM to be reprogrammed if you move to another carrier. Essentially locking the entire device to their network after the initial programming.
That's the first thing I wondered. If this was carried out in anything other than crypto currency, it would seriously undermine my faith in either party's commitment to crypto currency.
I subscribe to Netflix for one, maybe two at the most, months out of the year. During which time I watch all the original/exclusive Netflix content I care to and then unsubscribe. Puts me near 100% viewing of Netflix only content. It's pretty much the same thing I do for HBO Go and Sling TV (for ESPN during college football season). With a plain ol' antenna for OTA local channels, it works great for me. Plus I never complain about $100-200 per month "cable" bills.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I need or want a watch as a peripheral ?
It's handy as an extension to the iphone. In my case, I generally carry the phone in my pants pocket. If i get a call or text, it's a PITA (not literally) to get the phone out of my pocket - especially while driving - to answer the call or glance at the text. Having all that stuff available at my wrist really has proved to be quite convenient. $400+ convenient? Don't know about that (my employer provided the watch). Could I have solved my issues with non-watch solutions? (belt holster, bluetooth earpiece, etc.) Sure. But not as conveniently as with the watch
All the little apps available? Dunno, after the initial "play with my new toy" period, I haven't touched any of them.
You're right - that's a horrendous price. Then again, nobody ever accused Verizon of being a champion for the budget-conscious. Don't rule out the regional and tier 2 carriers. You only need to worry about the coverage in one specific location - usually your home. No need to fund Verizon and their ilk for their national networks.
Try checking to see if the carriers servicing your area offer fixed wireless service. Basically, it's an LTE hotspot designed to be used in one place, usually operating on a less congested low band. In most cases it'll be similarly priced to an "unlimited" handset plan, but with more generous data caps and friendlier throttling policies. And, of course, no tethering restrictions. NB: As with any wireless/LTE connection data rates can vary anywhere from "awesome" to "why bother" depending on all the usual factors.
Yes, Apple has been wanting this - but not for the reasons you think. Apple's goal is to eliminate the carrier from the purchasing flow. In the past, you would typically pick a carrier, go buy a phone from that carrier (or bring your own unlocked device) and activate service. With an euicc (eSIM) that changes: you go buy your Apple phone from the Apple store, turn it on, and during the setup process you get presented with a list of possible carriers you can register for service with. You sign up, an SMDP+ package gets downloaded to your handset to program the euicc, and you're off and running all while staying within the "Apple experience".
When did "Unlimited" start meaning we throttle speed or charge you more if you actually attempt to use what is promised?
I'm honestly not sure. It could be: When the first chunks of spectrum were auctioned in the high 9-digit $ range. Possibly when people discovered an unlimited tethered LTE connection was a great substitute for home internet service. Or maybe it was always written into the first unlimited plans and not widely enforced until congestion started becoming an issue. I really don't remember, but I'm sure one or more of those are related.
You can't guarantee wireless speeds or bandwidth. Unlike "wired" internet (copper/fiber) there's far too many variables.
What you're talking about is the QCI value. This affects the device's access to resources at the enodeB scheduler. Typically ranging from 1-9 with 1 being the highest priority. Most carriers set the default value to 9 (or 8, if they want to reserve 9 for banishing data hogs to a lower priority). Government sanctioned plans (including FirstNet) for first responders typically are contracted to have a lower QCI (higher priority) for these subscribers.
When the fuck did it become my job to give these wackos "happy, comfortable lives"?
The burden should not be placed on the consumer to "solve" the problem.
Consumers are the best party to solve this problem - by not purchasing stuff they don't want.
BTW, Apple *almost* does it right on the Macbook power supplies - if only they would make the power prongs rotatable by 90 degrees.
. . . I keep hearing about?
I guess Fiat really is changing Chrysler. Normally it takes 3-4 years for defects like this to surface in a Chrysler - about the time your car note is so upside down it looks a trailer for the Poseidon Adventure.
For Apple, something costing "more money" isn't a problem, it's a FEATURE!!!!
Cell towers - both GSM/CDMA and eNodeB (LTE) - do have the capability to broadcast messages. In the US, carriers receive all alerts from IPAWS (a FEMA operated system) and then pick out and dispatch the geographically appropriate ones to their towers.
IMO, this would be no different than a beer company giving out free samples outside an AA meeting. Yet another reason none of my earnings will ever be used to build a flashy casino.
Much like other addictions, when a gambler gets hooked, all common sense and reason goes out the window.
Back in my drinking days, I'd hit the same bar every day after work. One of my friends there (a non-drinker) would be sitting in front of the "for entertainment only *wink, wink*" video slot machine for hours every day feeding it $20 at a time. The bar owner made no secret of the fact the machine was set to pay out only about 80% of it's take. And my friend was virtually the only person who ever put money in the machine.
To everybody but him, it was painfully obvious that very best he could possibly do was win back 80% of his own money he had put in. He could never see it that way though. He could only see "today". For example, he could go several nights in a row losing a few hundred bucks, but then on the next night maybe win $200 after only putting $20 in. He'd be so proud of that $180 "profit" but always lose sight of $250 he blew in the previous days.
I suppose he could have gone on like this for a while, only losing roughly 20% of his money. But eventually some other regulars in the bar colluded with the bartender to figure out when the machine hadn't paid out recently but was packed full of my friends money. And would play when the machine was fat and he wasn't around. It wasn't long before he was financially wrecked.
Good thinking! Direct her to Radio Shack so she could buy a cell phone to call somebody. Good luck with that strategy today . . .
I had a job writing RPG. I didn't bother with tabs or spaces and just lined everything up nice and neatly. I didn't last long at that job. But I got the last laugh . . . because where's RPG now???? muahahahahaha
BTW, nobody opposes eSIMS technology. Not Verizon, not AT&T. In fact, it's integral for making wearables and very small IoT LTE-enabled devices. The problem is AT&T and Verizon are trying to corrupt the standards into giving them the ability to lock a device to their networks. I don't know anybody who thinks locked devices are a great consumer-friendly idea.
Most people would consider "physically obtaining a SIM card + setting up an account with a new carrier" to be more effort than just "setting up an account with a new carrier". Clearly your understanding is different. For the rest of us, this investigation seeks to keep the latter option the simplest without Verizon or AT&T putting hurdles in the way.
Regarding the actual article: "Verizon has said it needed to be able to lock down phones to prevent theft and fraud". I guess in theory, they don't want you to be able to take your eSIM device to another carrier while you have an outstanding balance at Verizon. I'd call bullshit on that - they have plenty of avenues to get the money they're legitimately owed without locking down devices.
Bad news, swb. The programming process is driven by the carriers. Normally via a webpage connected to their provisioning systems. You basically sign up for service with a carrier, the carrier sends a request to an SMDP+ provider, and the SMDP+ provider gathers up all the information (assigns an IMSI, etc.) and creates a profile and sends it to the device. This is a current project I'm involved with at work (I work for a large regional cell provider)
While Apple and other device manufacturers surely appreciate the increase in physical space due to the lack of a SIM slot, the real win for them is to completely put the carrier choice in the backseat of the user experience. Historically, carrier choice came first - you would go to a carrier's store or website, and then choose a device they offered. With eSIM devices, the device becomes the primary choice. For example, you could walk out of an Apple store with an LTE-enabled iPad - just turn it on, and it presents you with a menu of available carriers in your area that support the device - and you sign up for whatever carrier you want.
Verizon and co colluded to prevent people from switching from easily changed SIM cards to some electronic system that'd make it harder to switch carriers? Verizon?
And now they're being sued for being anti-competitive?
Is this bizarro world?
You really misunderstood something. In an ESIM device, there is no SIM slot. A generic SIM (or UICC) is permanently embedded into the device. When you activate it on the carrier, that ESIM is programmed with your carrier's data. AT&T and Verizon are being accused of trying to prevent (or just make it harder) for the ESIM to be reprogrammed if you move to another carrier. Essentially locking the entire device to their network after the initial programming.
That's the first thing I wondered. If this was carried out in anything other than crypto currency, it would seriously undermine my faith in either party's commitment to crypto currency.
I subscribe to Netflix for one, maybe two at the most, months out of the year. During which time I watch all the original/exclusive Netflix content I care to and then unsubscribe. Puts me near 100% viewing of Netflix only content. It's pretty much the same thing I do for HBO Go and Sling TV (for ESPN during college football season). With a plain ol' antenna for OTA local channels, it works great for me. Plus I never complain about $100-200 per month "cable" bills.
(shamelessly stolen from Men in Black)