South Korea to allow consumers more freedom in purchasing a phone

[Vatothe0]

I'd love to see a list of cdma phones which I can activate on Verizon without actually first sending it in to be "evaluated." I've never seen that list or even heard of it. But if you're referring to Verizon's offer of my sending in my cdma phone to them for testing and then having to wait until they get around to blessing it and returning it, then it really isn't an open network at all. That's just another way to keep the network closed while pretending it's open.

Just google Verizon Open Network and go to the page. Over 200 devices are certified so far.

Verizon has every right (and a responsibility to their customers) to ensure people aren't connecting devices that may cause a problem for the network.

If you have a device from another carrier, it should be a quick process but nobody has ever actually done it. They sure like to complain about how hard it is though....


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[kupe]

Verizon has every right (and a responsibility to their customers) to ensure people aren't connecting devices that may cause a problem for the network.

Hear hear! That's all we need is 90 million people demanding to have their no-name, Chinese-built, knock-off phone allowed onto the network.

[Sam73065]

Just google Verizon Open Network and go to the page. Over 200 devices are certified so far.

Verizon has every right (and a responsibility to their customers) to ensure people aren't connecting devices that may cause a problem for the network.

If you have a device from another carrier, it should be a quick process but nobody has ever actually done it. They sure like to complain about how hard it is though....


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Funny how out of that list of over 200 devices there is but one smartphone listed and no basic phones. There are also a few pda/handheld computers listed. The single smartphone listed is the only phone to ever make it through Verizon's open certification process and has never been brought to market. Plus Verizon does not list a certification process for individual phones, that a consumer would want to bring to Verizon, the process listed is for device manufacturers.

[Vatothe0]

There are actually 15 PDA/Smartphones certified. Since it seems nobody has even bothered to register for a free account as an individual to get the actual documentation, of course it's aimed at device manufacturers.

[every1nosme]

There are actually 15 PDA/Smartphones certified. Since it seems nobody has even bothered to register for a free account as an individual to get the actual documentation, of course it's aimed at device manufacturers.

So, you're saying they will let me activate an old alltel phone I have which is one that was active on verizon when the merger took place but has since been replaced on that line?

Sent from my DROID3 using HowardForums

[Sam73065]

There are actually 15 PDA/Smartphones certified. Since it seems nobody has even bothered to register for a free account as an individual to get the actual documentation, of course it's aimed at device manufacturers.

Just to be picky, Verizon classifies the category and PDA/Handheld Computer and only one of 16 approved devices is a smartphone, the others are specialty items which the average consumer would have little interest in. I suspect that somebody has attempted to register and have his device approved and probably bowed out since Verizon requires the individual to pay lab fees to have the device certified and one can only imagine the paperwork hurdles required by Verizon. Just google Saygus and read the Aug. 2 011 article about their experience in getting their phone certified.

So, you're saying they will let me activate an old alltel phone I have which is one that was active on verizon when the merger took place but has since been replaced on that line?

Sent from my DROID3 using HowardForums

Good luck, but don't go holding your breath.

[every1nosme]

Just to be picky, Verizon classifies the category and PDA/Handheld Computer and only one of 16 approved devices is a smartphone, the others are specialty items which the average consumer would have little interest in. I suspect that somebody has attempted to register and have his device approved and probably bowed out since Verizon requires the individual to pay lab fees to have the device certified and one can only imagine the paperwork hurdles required by Verizon. Just google Saygus and read the Aug. 2 011 article about their experience in getting their phone certified.


Good luck, but don't go holding your breath.

That was actually my point. And these are phones they know will work cuz they already were working to begin with.

Sent from my DROID3 using HowardForums

[Sam73065]

That was actually my point. And these are phones they know will work cuz they already were working to begin with.

Sent from my DROID3 using HowardForums

I agree if Verizon were truly interested in an open network, you'd still be able to activate the old Alltel phones since there was never a question of their working on CDMA/EVDO networks. By the same token, there shouldn't be any reason a Sprint phone wouldn't work on Verizon's network, although I guess it'd need some reprogramming for data and maybe too... And of course Wimax wouldn't work either. But you can't even but an iPhone 4s and put it on Verizon unless it was specifically set for Verizon already. So seems to be that Verizon is in no way an open network, not for the consumer in any case.

[veriztd]

Sam,

I agree with what you are saying, but unfortunately the Verizon network has never been a true "open network" and not likely to be so anytime soon.

[Morphling27]

The FCC has no power to compel private companies to do anything like this. Verizon would never agree to this, and if they did they would attach some sort of fee to it that would disincentivize it. The US system is far less restrictive on companies, some can argue this is anti-consumer but it is just part of the US system. If you went to a Ford dealer and demanded they service a Toyota vehicle they could refuse, they may not because it makes money for them to service it regardless, but I don't think the government should require them to. I think Verizon should allow any phone to be used because it makes them more money, but I don't feel they should be required to, they aren't a government institution and have rights as a private company to make decisions as they see fit. Even on ATT and T-mobile, their devices aren't 100% compatible and are required to be unlocked to be used at all (i.e. t-mobile and ATT using different spectrum ranges)

The FCC certainly could do this. They can and should put limits on the spectrum they LEASE to these companies. It is not owned by any of them, they get to rent it. The government can compel them to do certain things when they use this spectrum since they OWN it, NOT VZW or ATT or whomever. It's just like a lease when you rent a place to live. The landlord can mostly certainly not allow you to have a pet or no waterbed or any other such limitations they put.

[veriztd]

The FCC certainly could do this. They can and should put limits on the spectrum they LEASE to these companies. It is not owned by any of them, they get to rent it. The government can compel them to do certain things when they use this spectrum since they OWN it, NOT VZW or ATT or whomever. It's just like a lease when you rent a place to live. The landlord can mostly certainly not allow you to have a pet or no waterbed or any other such limitations they put.

Not entirely true. While the FCC may license the spectrum used by the cellular carrier, the carrier still owns the equipment and can establish guidelines how their customers have access. Unless it can be proven the carrier is doing something illegal, the FCC won't intervene. Frankly, I don't want more government regulation.

[Steveanderson13]

Ok, let me see if I can remember all the posts to respond to, since I don't know how to multiple-quote.

First and most importantly, johnhere, what do you do about the black and green stuff? Mine is more yellow, like an old waterlogged book.

Sam, a couple of questions for you. You will have to spoon feed this moron so you'd better be good at it. And moderator, I am not insulted but will be if I'm not spoon fed. Verizon and ANY other business, including yourself (isn't that amazing?) can operate itself ANYWAY as it sees fit; as long as it follows a FEW basics. Obvious stuff such as illegalities; inequities are a little more subtle. In general, inequity is illegal (perhaps not by statute but by case law). So state how their practice is inequitable. Are you financially harmed? Verizon is free to abuse their customers with insufferable terms and run their business into the ground. If everytime you walk into a store, you are greeted with "**** off", can you ask for redress or government intervention? Can everyone leave? I know I can. I don't like the present market because it is opaque. If I'm the buyer and Samsung is the manufacturer then I should buy from Samsung or Verizon should be a dealer like any other dealer. And an open market would be better. But there are plenty of dealers; GSM as you said, Apple, Google, ebay, Amazon, Walmart, etc. I nearly bought some E815's from phonestore.com a few years ago. Wish I had. If CDMA practices were perceptibly harmful to their business, they would drop them. Else someone would have to show that a COMPELLING PUBLIC interest required change.


I would like confirmation of your statement that any iphone 4s is capable of running on any network.

South Korea's practices may be unique to them or they may migrate. I don't know of them.

To the poster who said the government owns the airwaves, we have a problem. We have a democratic republic, not a kingdom, not a dictatorship of the proletariat, not whatever Ghaddafi called his schtick or Saddam or Syria. No green book or red book. Our government owns nothing in its own right but is invested in managing property which belongs to the public (you and me). This is not the papacy.

To the poster who spoke of a Prius, how are they?

All I can remember, now I have to go back and look.

[every1nosme]

The FCC certainly could do this. They can and should put limits on the spectrum they LEASE to these companies. It is not owned by any of them, they get to rent it. The government can compel them to do certain things when they use this spectrum since they OWN it, NOT VZW or ATT or whomever. It's just like a lease when you rent a place to live. The landlord can mostly certainly not allow you to have a pet or no waterbed or any other such limitations they put.

There is another topic somewhere that is dealing with the topic of forced data plans based on device right now. Not really sure how I'd like to see it managed cuz I'm generally not for govt regulation and all that but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if the fcc or whoever began treating the wireless carriers like a utility and used the precedent they set with ma bell back in the day when they required that you only used equipment sold by them to tuen the carriers into dumb pipes so to speak. I know the carriers would fight this because they wouldn't be able to place their own apps on your device and generate extra revenue from selling content and services like vznav and all that. I think this would probably change how they deal with subsidies too but also possibly drive down the price of unbranded devices since manufacturers would be able to potentially sell directly to more buyers. Why by a vzw branded droid x when you can buy the same model without the apps you don't need straight from moto? On the other hand, the carriers may decide to lessen the subsidies at that point? Maybe that's what the fcc had in mind with the open network restrictions on the 700mhz spectrum? Maybe a test for later use on all spectrum?

Sent from my DROID3 using HowardForums

[Sam73065]

Ok, let me see if I can remember all the posts to respond to, since I don't know how to multiple-quote.

First and most importantly, johnhere, what do you do about the black and green stuff? Mine is more yellow, like an old waterlogged book.

Sam, a couple of questions for you. You will have to spoon feed this moron so you'd better be good at it. And moderator, I am not insulted but will be if I'm not spoon fed. Verizon and ANY other business, including yourself (isn't that amazing?) can operate itself ANYWAY as it sees fit; as long as it follows a FEW basics. Obvious stuff such as illegalities; inequities are a little more subtle. In general, inequity is illegal (perhaps not by statute but by case law). So state how their practice is inequitable. Are you financially harmed? Verizon is free to abuse their customers with insufferable terms and run their business into the ground. If everytime you walk into a store, you are greeted with "**** off", can you ask for redress or government intervention? Can everyone leave? I know I can. I don't like the present market because it is opaque. If I'm the buyer and Samsung is the manufacturer then I should buy from Samsung or Verizon should be a dealer like any other dealer. And an open market would be better. But there are plenty of dealers; GSM as you said, Apple, Google, ebay, Amazon, Walmart, etc. I nearly bought some E815's from phonestore.com a few years ago. Wish I had. If CDMA practices were perceptibly harmful to their business, they would drop them. Else someone would have to show that a COMPELLING PUBLIC interest required change.


I would like confirmation of your statement that any iphone 4s is capable of running on any network.

South Korea's practices may be unique to them or they may migrate. I don't know of them.

To the poster who said the government owns the airwaves, we have a problem. We have a democratic republic, not a kingdom, not a dictatorship of the proletariat, not whatever Ghaddafi called his schtick or Saddam or Syria. No green book or red book. Our government owns nothing in its own right but is invested in managing property which belongs to the public (you and me). This is not the papacy.

To the poster who spoke of a Prius, how are they?

All I can remember, now I have to go back and look.

I'll start with the iPhone first and all I can point to is that everything I've read says the iPhone 4S is identical for every carrier, with the only difference being it is locked to the carrier you purchase it for. If you can find a reputable source that says otherwise, I'd appreciate a link to that source. Otherwise I'll stick with my opinion that the only difference between the phones is whatever software lock Apple has built into the iPhone 4S as I suspect the carriers demand.

I've never made a claim whether or not the practice is legal or not. But it's pretty obvious that the carriers, esp cdma carriers, are operating that way. But I do not like the current system for many reasons. I do feel that customers are harmed by the current system in that carriers set the prices of the phones by locking and subsidizing the phones. Sure I can go to multiple sources to buy my phone, either on or off contract, but the price appears to be pretty well set by the deals that the carrier has in place with the manufacturers. I also find that how the carriers cram their phones full of software which I am not allowed to remove does cause harm, although I don't know how to quantify a dollar amount. If I own the phone, why should I be forced to have any of the crapware on my phone which I cannot remove, such as: google play books, cityid, all sorts of verizon crap, tunewiki, blockbuster, even crapware from the manufacturer? All of those apps take up room on my phone, they infringe upon my ability to install apps I want, not to mention the unknown security risks that are posed by the software. Or more simply put, it's my phone and they're forcing me to keep crapware on it, that I don't want. If we had a more open market for cell phones, it's possible we'd actually be able to purchase phones configured the way we want, not the way the carrier has decided to shove it down your throat. I mean, it's obvious that cityid must pay Verizon to put their crap app on my phone with probably some sort of commission if I decide to subscribe to their "service." All in all, I just want to see a more open market, where I can buy a phone and use it on the carrier of my choice, assuming network compatibility and not be locked out of removing crapware from my phone. The South Korean decision seems to move their market place in that direction and maybe that's a direction we need to move in here.

[Sam73065]

http://www.bgr.com/2012/05/08/wirele...one-subsidies/

Wireless carriers have traditionally made money off lengthy two-year service agreements, rather than physical device sales. In the age of smartphones, however, carriers are footing the bill for expensive handsets that result in smaller margins, while phone makers such as Apple reap the benefits. To combat traditional phone subsidies, carriers in the U.S. have continued to raise monthly rates and employ new and higher fees. In Europe, service providers are taking more aggressive measures, with some carriers refusing to subsidize devices for new customers. The carriers’ latest cries of resistance are drawing applause from investors and analysts alike, who say carriers could benefit more from the smartphone boom if they raise contract prices and slow the rate at which customers buy new phones.

“Optimism has increased that we are witnessing the leading edge of a more disciplined, and more profitable, future,” Craig Moffett, a telecom analyst at Bernstein Research, wrote in a research note obtained by The Wall Street Journal. The analyst went on to question the difficulty carriers face when increasing prices due to “increased discipline and pricing power.”

Spain’s two largest wireless service providers, Telefonica and Vodaphone, no longer offer phone subsidies to new customers. The carriers are eventually hoping to retain customers, however, and then continue to offer phone discounts to existing subscribers who are looking upgraded their devices. Telefonica allows users to either pay nearly $800 for new smartphone, or sign up for an installment plan that adds 18 monthly payments of about $45 to their bills. The change in policy has resulted in 25% reduced spending on device subsidies.

Verizon Wireless chief executive officer Lowell McAdam previously mentioned Telefonica’s installment-plan and said the nation’s largest carrier may follow. “We’ll probably offer some things like that, and then we’ll see what the adoption is like,” the executive said. “You can’t push this on customers before customers are ready for it”

Wall Street has taken notice of the carrier’s concerns, and shares of Apple recently plummeted on concerns that carriers may soon squeeze iPhone subsidies. During the company’s earnings call, Apple CEO Tim Cook downplayed carrier subsidy concerns and told analysts that carriers will continue supporting the iPhone because carriers “want to provide what their customers want to buy.”

This is just one more reason that carriers need to be divorced from selling cell phones or at least from subsidizing them. Here we go again with investors and analysts wanting to up plan rates and force even longer contracts on the customer. The purchase of cell phones needs to be opened up to true competition. It might also stop as###s like CEO Stephonson of ATTM from lying about whose fault it is that android phones are not upgraded as newer version become available.