The article is written from an American (USA) point of view.
Quote:
Why do Americans pay five times more for cell phone service than the Dutch?
|
Netherlands is a small country which has a good network infrastructure, much like Japan's metropolises. During the boom of cellphones (without 3G) there was a
lot of competition in the Netherlands. In Japan the same, and still, because Japanese love gadgets.
I think the issue lies also in some kind of lack of competing on the network owners (mobile telcos) while maximizing profit for shareholders.
However as long as people sign on for bad 2 year contracts in a saturated market no wonder they aren't trying to compete with each other. You only need to hook the fish every 2 years, and everyone is hooked already. Deja vu elections.
Quote:
If cell phones weren't subsidized, then we'd know how much we're paying for the phone and how much we're paying for wireless services. With the subsidy, we have no idea.
|
Real Issue: Lack of applying simple mathematics, aka 'mass stupidity'. It is pretty simple to calculate how much you pay for something.
Quote:
Carriers and handset makers create these fake limitations for precisely the same reason movie theaters don't let you bring in your own food -- because it creates mini-monopolies that enable gouging on prices. Why do you think 10 cents worth of popcorn costs $4.50 at the megaplex?
|
The limitations are started because governemnt sells frequencies. The limitations are therefore political based on technical limits. That is why there is not enough competition. The governemnt, via FCC et al, must force limits on those it granted a monopoly position; the network owners.
Quote:
In some European countries, this practice is considered anticompetitive and is against the law.
|
True, but not many.
Quote:
I don't know if it was AT&T, Apple or both that decided that the Google Voice app should be banned from the iTunes store, but locking out services that threaten total control is standard operating procedure in the U.S.. wireless carrier industry. Competition and innovation is the last thing carriers want. So they use their ownership of the wireless pipes to block the applications and services that would need to move through those pipes.
|
The reason of stated example is still investigated, by the FCC. There are many problems and sides of this debate and specific example but in the end its similar to the ethical question of are you allowed to do with your hardware what you want if what you do is within the boundaries of law? Ofcourse, maybe you signed some stupid contract with that 2 year deal...
Quote:
Your solution to public opposition is more lobbying
|
So we must lobby back. Tobaco industries did this too, and slowly but surely they lost. Which is the goal of lobbying even if you
are wrong.
Quote:
With nearly every netbook, smartbook, eBook reader, GPS device, digital camera and wristwatch poised to potentially support mobile broadband wireless connectivity, the carriers are positioning themselves to seize control of the consumer electronics industry.
|
They get more control indeed, and are used for always-on products. This is a tool to give certain corporations, including device manufacturers such as Amazon and Apple, more control, while giving citizens less privacy to telcos and government. However because people do not care about this yet we will first collectively experience the downsides of this after which we will learn.
Quote:
But all that equipment is useless without access to the airwaves, which are by law owned by the people. And that's what makes the wireless carriers business different from other industries. Companies that are granted licenses to use the publicly owned airwaves should be required by our government to meet certain standards of fairness, equal access and competitiveness. That's not happening right now. It's time to let your state and national politicians know that you want this industry reined in.
|
Nice post etc but most people don't (want to) understand all this, and this will not change quickly.
