I'm not trying to bait anyone.

I posted this for exactly the same reasons you stated about it being an interesting way to look at things.

The stupid part was that the author's comparisons would have been much more relevent had he been referencing Verizon.

so true. half the stuff on there is not even right.

I don't defend my cell provider tooth and nail. Lord knows if I had it my way the whole structure of our industry would be completely different. I just get annoyed when these columnists keep rambling on about contract this, restriction that, penalty fees etc... It just gets old even if it is supposed to be in good humor.

Amen, brother!

What effect does their column(s) have on you? None.

The only reason you are up in arms is because this particular article mentioned your company. Sub VZW with AT&T in the article, and you would have laughed.

What effect does this have on me? Hmmm lets see. Customers read this and come into my store and get mad at me for something I can't control. I always offer them no contract sollutions but we are "ripping them off" by selling the phones at retail and ripping them off again by subsidizing their handset with a 2 year contract. What columnists like this should do is tell customers in plain english how the industry works and if they demand subsidized pricing then they can't complain about "unfair" termination fees. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Sorry got off on a tangent there. And PS. I sell at&t yeah, but I am impartial because I have sold every provider so don't think I drink the Koolaid too.

not if its satire... This has gotten WAAAY too serious... 🙄

I know, I wasn't trying to be serious but when people argue with me I get a short fuse.

One also has to remember that 'open systems' in other countries generally came about because of strict regulations on the nature of technology. I suspect (I might be wrong) that it's easier to have an open system when all of the carriers are GSM or CDMA, rather than split down the middle.

If the United States moved to a non subsidized handset market as they have is Europe, etc. we would not only have higher handset costs but we would have higher service costs.

We don't have to guess at this, the proof is in the service plans available to consumers there.

And there is a choice here in the United States. Cingular has had no contract plans for years. Nobody wants them. You are not sacraficing coverage, they are the same individual plans as we offer now without free MTM.

True. Buy your own handset on e-bay, and you can go on a 30 day contract on any of the currently offered plans just without the mobile 2 mobile.

Keep in mind the 30 day buyer's remorse, so you aren't really ever tied to a contract.

If people weren't so lazy they could understand this.

Well, for those who post here on this particular topic their object is not understanding.

They are here to post their agenda and wish to have government enforcement of their personal wishes rather than letting the market decide what should or should not be offered.

I thought we had gone over this already.

As much as you like to beat your chest and champion the free market of the wireless industry, you fail to realize that it is not a true free market to begin with.

Once again, I'll reference Columbia law professor Tim Wu's paper regarding the situation.

Do wireless tubes need to be neutral too?
By Tim Lee | Published: February 14, 2007 - 07:59AM CT
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070214-8839.html »

As the debate over network neutrality regulations has raged over the last year, the focus has been on wired networks, and especially the "last mile" in residential broadband networks. Commentators on both sides have tended to hold up the cell phone market as an example of...
(continues)

Can't speak using your own words can you.

It still comes down to choice. That is what you and all these other fools cannot understand. If Americans decided they did not like this system they could make a market stand. They are fine with it. YOU don't like it, this dude you cite does not like it but too bad. YOU are not the majority.

How many people know that they can get a cell phone without a contract? Definitely not the majority. People put up with cell phone contracts because they think they have to. You know about a way around the contract because of where you work. AT&T doesn't really advertise that you can get a phone without a contract so does it really surprise you that most people don't even know it's an option?

Can people really make a stand and say that they want something else to emerge? I'm not convinced that's possible at this point without government intervention. A smaller company might start offering service without a contract if you provide your own phone, but that company would get bought out by one of the bigger players before that small c...
(continues)

I make sure all customers buying from my stores are aware of the no contract provision. On many of the lower priced plans I would make more selling the phone than I do on the plan, plus there is no risk of chargeback on the commissions.

Out of the thousands of customers I sell to each year from my stores 3 or 4 a year choose that option. I did this at the previous company I ran and had the same results.

Chicken or the egg. If more consumers knew, would they really buy it? Or because consumers knew and did not choose the carriers went with the business model of service agreements. In the entire time I have been in business the customer has driven the business plans of the companies. When I was in CA where handset sale regulation w...
(continues)

texaswireless said:
If more consumers knew, would they really buy it?

Yes. No one is going to buy something if they don't know it exists.


I'm not saying that you don't inform your customers, but do you really think that every rep does? I've never seen it advertised by AT&T. It's not in any commercials, and it's not on the front of their web page. Do you see what I'm getting at?

But it was available before. That used to be the only option. Then came the choice and the choice was overwhelmingly in favor of subsidies and contracts.

I don't believe every rep does, but every price tag in AT&T stores inform the customer. Every ad (I know, fine print but it is there) states prices w/o contract are higher.

I am looking at history on this one. And history has shown the American consumer prefers subsidies even when no contract is available.

The point thats being made here, is that the way this system is set up currently, prevents a HUGE amount of innovation in cel phone development. If a carrier cant directly benefit from a feature on a phone, they stifle it. Blackberry, for instance, has a wonderful and FREE GPS program that in theory one should be able to download directly to their phone and use for free.

Dont insult Plooky for using a source... Id rather hear the opinion of a smart man with some knowledge and expertise on free marketing than the opinion of some random guy who works FOR a wireless company.

Look guy, there is a history here to which you are not aware. I appreciate your comments but your 11th hour criticism of my conversation with pookie bear is lost upon you.

AT&T (Cingular) allows a significant amount of innovation when it comes to Bluetooth, etc. as they have been allowing virtually any Bluetooth profile on their network (unlike Verizon which has truly stifled that development). Furthermore anyone can pop in their AT&T SIM to any quad band GSM phone. Phone manufacturers who develop GSM products have very few limits when it comes to selling phones to U.S. consumers. Now, that being said, AT&T will not always subsidized ALL those handsets. They choose to subsidize a few of them. They choose to subsidize handsets that w...
(continues)

Besides, there will b e alternate options in the future. We will see if there is enough private investment in this type of auction. I truly hope there will be, as more competition is only good for the marketplace.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/bs_nm/wireless_a ... »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The winner of valuable wireless airwaves the U.S. government plans to sell by early next year would have to permit consumers to connect using any device or software, U.S. regulators decided on Tuesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Federal Communications Commission voted to shake up the wireless market by approving a set of ground-rules for the upcoming auction that would require the winner to make them accessible to any phone, other device o...
(continues)

🤣

You might want to read more about the subjects you are trying to use to bolster your point.

If anything, the current situation regarding the article you posted is proof positive of the wireless industry trying to maintain the status quo and prevent competition.

This news isn't hidden or hard to find... you just have to read the news.

For example:

Google Fear Hits AT&T Square In The Jaw
Submitted by Jason Lee Miller on Mon, 07/23/2007 - 09:48, Webpronews
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/07/23/google- ... »

As predictable as daylight, AT&T isn't happy about Google's plan to bid on the 700MHz wireless spectrum. The telecommunications giant is poised to claw any competi...
(continues)

Here is the big difference between you and me;

I lived the changes in the industry, you only read about (and typically whine about) those changes.

I don't need to find these obscure article supporting my point. My beliefs are based on experiences in this industry. You don't have to like them, but you look like a fool when you rant and rave about how everyone is wrong yet you make posts with others criticizing those who might do the same.

I happen to believe in the power of the consumer. IF AT&T and Verizon buy up much of this spectrum it will be with the new rules in place. If they choose to pass because of the rules then some newbies will get a chance. Either way it looks to be good as it will allow for more choices.

Whethe...
(continues)

🤣

Obscure? Hardly.

Believe all you want, that does not change the present reality.

I think it is quite clear who here is being foolish.

We have differing opinions. You wish to have the government impose your views, I believe market forces can allow for change if consumers wish to make said changes.

When others disagree with you you just hold your breath and turn blue like a child. You have never agreed to disagree, have you? Do you even understand the concept?

You wish to have the government impose your views, I believe market forces can allow for change if consumers wish to make said changes.

I have never said any such thing.

I simply am tired of the billions of dollars spent to win influence in policy decisions that are counterproductive for citizens.

Keep trying.

Counterproductive based on YOUR views and a minority of the population.

And you have said it many times. You advocate government intervention.

Counterproductive based on YOUR views and a minority of the population.

🤣

Can you dig any deeper?

When I based my views on the professional analysis and thoughtful examination (which I cite), you ridiculously scorn such information as meaningless because I posted it and it runs contrary to your "experience".

Understand, you can't have it both ways.

Professional analysis?

Everytime you post something in regards to or in reply to me you disregard my vast experience in the profession but expect me to just believe your random sources?

That is laughable. You give no respect and yet you want to get it. Both ways you say? I could give a rats a$$ if you respect me, not my goal here. But you expect me to believe your posts and your sources as fact. That is the MINORITY OPINION dude. I don't agree with government intervention to resolve market challenges. You (and your sources that you use to state your opinion) do believe in that.

I have never said I agree with everything AT&T, Verizon or whomever does to the consumer (and to the agents who represent them) but it is my choice to...
(continues)

Selling cel phones does not make you an expert and certainly doesnt make you more qualified than the sources hes cited.

You claim this is the opinion of most of the population, but that opinion is one based on ignorance rather than a thoughtful decision.

You're also siding with the industry you work in to your own benefit. You're your own advocate. The fact is, allowing more freedom would make the companies less profitable, but they would still be very profitable.

If all competing companies agree to universally restrict features and innovation on their phones, then we have a monopoly situation. This is bad for EVERYONE except those who work for the company. It restricts free marketing, which btw, is what capitalism is about. This ...
(continues)

Well, I don't just sell cellphones. I own a chain of cellphone stores and have been in the business since 1992. I have significant firsthand experience with almost every aspect of this industry. I have seen the changes in the U.S. markets (we used to only sell phones without a contract, then when given a choice consumers overwhelmingly supported the contract/subsidy model we offer now and network expansion/investment went through the roof) and can comment on them directly. Thoughtful decision or the fact that I have directly sold hundreds of thousands of phones over the years. You decide.

I am not here to make you believe in what I say. You can choose to believe it or choose not to believe it. Unlike many others on here my identity...
(continues)

That, again, was before they started restricting, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

brandonabe said:
That, again, was before they started restricting, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

That, being what?

What % GSM phones sold all over the world are restricted to a certain carrier?

🤣

You really cant stand not having the last word can you?

I was refering to the features.

😛

I am sorry, I thought we were having a civil conversation. I thought you were going to be different then the rest of the crowd.

I was hoping you could answer my question. I believe your "feature crusade" is somewhat misguided. I guess I will answer it then. There is currently only one GSM handset that is restricted to be used on a certain carrier. That, of course, is the iPhone.

I think you might be in the wrong forum to criticize a carrier about not allowing features. You can pop your AT&T sim into virutally any GSM phone from around the world.

The degree doesnt matter, they all do it. And they dont SELL the unlocked phones, you have to find one, which is a challenge if you dont know where to look or dont even realise they make phones like that, and few people do.

Thats about all I can say on the subject, as I have some actual work to do now.

Well, to offer a correction to your last statement. AT&T does sell unlocked phones, you simply must show proof of paying a non-subsidized price. Also, most manufacturers sell their handsets unlocked directly through their website or self branded stores.

Lack of consumer awareness of the availability of unlocked handsets is not the carriers or manufacturers fault as you seem to be alleging. There have been numerous posts as to how to get them unlocked. At some point the onus must also fall to the consumer. If they want a product a few minutes of research online will produce numerous results.

And yes, on this subject, I did want to respond (or have the last word as you wanted to put it). Your post was ignorant on the facts. They s...
(continues)

Thanks for the arrogance and patronization... 🙄

We'll see who the US government agrees with in the very near future... 😛

If google has their way, people will be very very happy in the near future 😁

Thanks for showing your true colors.

np, cheif

I agree! The rich get richer. And I....well I work way too much for mediocrity.

Only about a third of that frequency is going to be open access. The majority of it will function regularly. This was linked from the Phonescoop main page. You can read their synopsis if you don't want to read this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070731/ap_on_bi_ge/airw ... »

FCC approves rules for airwaves auction

WASHINGTON - The FCC approved rules Tuesday intended to give people greater choice when it comes to their cell phones and wireless devices following completion of a pivotal airwaves auction next year.

ADVERTISEMENT

The vote clears the way for the auction, which by law must take place no later than Jan. 28, 2008. It is expected to raise as much as $15 billion.

The Federal Communications Commission approv...
(continues)

I am well aware that not all of the spectrum will be open access. We will see if there is enough private investment money to make this happen.

Very true... he is hesitant to answer a question/statement in which he can't post someone else's opinion as a rebuttal.

2005
http://www.bbb.org/alerts/article.asp?ID=663 »

First off, you are correct when you point out that I was wrong in stating that more people contact the BBB about cell service than fast food - let me restate what I meant - More people contact the BBB about fast food service than people who contact the BBB about "locked" devices. I apologize that my previous statement was not as precise as it should have been, and in that case, somewhat misleading.

You seem to like to put words into my mouth, as evidenced by your post, so I will do the same.

So are saying that the wireless providers are afraid of competition and enjoy having imperfect competition, non-price competition, and other perks that come with being an oligopoly market.

You do not believe that competition dr

...
(continues)

When products are made, with specific limitations for American markets (to increase revenue), it should be clear that deregulation has resulted in a market that is disproportionately in favor of the industry.

When companies are more inclined to pay "blocking premiums" to keep competitors of the market than to actually compete with them,it is clear that the market is flawed.

Kevin Martin demonstrated this quite poignantly at the recent FCC open meeting discussing the 700Mhz spectrum, as did At&t by their reaction and actions in regards to the auction.

If you want to believe different, by all means please do, but at least critically examine your ideas against the information on hand.

Also as for your fast food example, I am curio...
(continues)

So why not buy the products direct from the manufacturer the way you want them?

You win by getting the product with a feature you may like, you win by getting a less expensive service then prepaid, you win by not having to sign a service agreement if you do not wish to sign one.

The next auction may force carriers like Verizon to offer no contract options as AT&T does now. I am very open to more offers to consumers such as these. I just want them to be because of choice, not government regulation.

If you look who was opposed to the open services and networks from the FCC panel, you will see that one was former telecommunications lobbyist (McDowell) and the other a strong DRM advocate (Taylor) - both of which are Bush appointees.

I think the Bush administration has been quite clear with their record of treading on the consumer in favor of big business.

I just want them to be because of choice, not government regulation.

Yet you do not seem opposed to the regulation that works in favor of the wireless industry.

How unsurprising.

Here we go again. Having a civilized conversation degrades to mudslinging and politicizing issues.

I see significant competition in this industry with choices for consumers. You do not. You wish to bash AT&T because of some unknown bias yet many of your issues apply more to Verizon and you do not spend the same energy attempting to create change with them. Why, I do not know and really do not care. Go organize your restraining orders and have a great night.

captainplooky said:


Also as for your fast food example, I am curious. How would you even know? I seriously doubt the BBB keeps such statistics readily available.

No. I should think that you are simply trying to backtrack from that asinine statement. Too bad it sounded so fantastical that I actually took the time to look into eh?

You're right - the BBB just throws out all the details of each complaints and sticks it in the category that makes the most sense. Sounds good to me, eh? (It sort of fun acting like you Plooky - brings out the inner @$$ in me!)

Link your reference then please.

Or did you go down to your local BBB (and not to mention the ones around the country) and dig through each claim meticulously cataloging fast food versus the wireless industry?

🤣

Give it up.

You got called out on your blatant lie, now deal with it.

But to answer your questions truthfully, whenever a consumer contacts the BBB with a complaint, that complaint (and the details of it) are forwarded to the company. Every major carrier (and I would assume company for that matter) keeps statistics on how many complaints they recieve and what they are about.

You act as though you are the only one on this site intelligent enough to peform research on this industry. I am sorry to disappoint you, but that is not the case. Until enough consumers demand change, change will not happen. You can scream all you want on these forums, put it in your blog, take it to the steps of Congress, but until Americans as a majority do the same, change will never happen.

Think through some of our country's ...
(continues)

um just to put this into perspective, the abolition of slavery required a bloody national schism. Getting cell carriers to port numbers did not, THAT merely required a congressional vote. big difference between social/economic and strictly economic American policy

So do you have a link that shows the number of complaints about locked cell phones vs. fast food industry?

No, you don't. Just give it up. You have done 0 research about that aspect, and anyone with rational thought can see right through your garbage.

But to answer your questions truthfully, whenever a consumer contacts the BBB with a complaint, that complaint (and the details of it) are forwarded to the company. Every major carrier (and I would assume company for that matter) keeps statistics on how many complaints they recieve and what they are about.

You act as though you are the only one on this site intelligent enough to peform research on this industry. I am sorry to disappoint you, but that is not the case. Until enough consumers demand change, change will not happen. You can scream all you want on these forums, put it in your blog, take it to the steps of Congress, but until Americans as a majority do the same, change will never happen.

Think through some of our country's...
(continues)

Are you saying consumers have made a choice? Oh my goodness, what will happen next?

You still did not answer his initial question.

There is market that exists at this time that allows for the options you make clear you wish consumers to have. They have these options at a higher cost per minute, per month and per phone.

So, would you choose these higher costs in exchange for this open system?

Hopefully in the coming months we will have an option that will allow you to not have to move to Paris to have this choice (Bon Voyage pooky bear!). I am very intrigued to see if there will be enough private money to invest in this new open network.

Yes.

However, to simply say that there prices are significantly higher is quite misleading and nothing more than a red herring.

There are a lot of things that are more expensive in Europe, many of these the result of taxes (like gas).

All one has to do to see how afraid the industry is afraid of competition is look at how they reacted to the recent 700Mhz auction. They argued for the right to buy spectrum merely to sit on it, and staunchly opposed being forced to resell it in the wholesale market instead of just sitting on it.

These arguments are nearly identical to the arguments being made before the breakup of Ma Bell to frighten people into remaining in a broken system.

Arguing that prices will skyrocket simply because con...
(continues)

The cost of these handsets overseas are higher BEFORE taxes. They are unsubsidized. While they may vary from model to model handsets here are all subsidized save one phone (iPhone) when you do this service agreement.

Rates are also more expensive BEFORE taxes.

Service agreement = lower prices on handsets and service.

No service agreement = higher handset prices and higher service prices (but still much lower than our overseas counterparts).

The great thing is AT&T offers this choice to their customers. Many of the issues you present are indeed problems but more of them apply to Verizon and the other carrier that DO NOT offer no contract options.

So why again are you not making these same ramblings in the Verizon forums?

...
(continues)