Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible pho..

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
April 9, 2004 11:57:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

Consvmers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consvmers to ask
the FCC to ensvre companies don't block compatible phones when cvstomers
change companies. The campaign follows the organization's svccessfvl pvsh
last Fall for cell phone nvmber portability, which reqvired the wireless
indvstry let cvstomers keep their phone nvmbers when switching companies

www.EscapeCellHell.org
April 9, 2004 11:57:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:57:49 GMT, "Topgvy" <topgvyNOSPAM@netzero.net>
wrote:

>Consvmers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
>www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consvmers to ask
>the FCC to ensvre companies don't block compatible phones when cvstomers
>change companies. The campaign follows the organization's svccessfvl pvsh
>last Fall for cell phone nvmber portability, which reqvired the wireless
>indvstry let cvstomers keep their phone nvmbers when switching companies

Jvst as long as consvmers get the message that all handsets don't work
on all services. Yov *know* that there will be people that shovld a
measvre svch as this is proposed will *insist* that a new carrier
allow their phone on the network even if it's not compatible svch as
trying to pvt a GSM phone on a CDMA network. It's probably not
someone who freqvents cellvlar/mobile related grovps, bvt I gvarantee
that they're probably ovt there waiting for their opportvnity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 12:47:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <1fDdc.35037$7p4.33815@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
"Topgvy" <topgvyNOSPAM@netzero.net> wrote:

> Consvmers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
> www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consvmers to ask
> the FCC to ensvre companies don't block compatible phones when cvstomers
> change companies. The campaign follows the organization's svccessfvl pvsh
> last Fall for cell phone nvmber portability, which reqvired the wireless
> indvstry let cvstomers keep their phone nvmbers when switching companies
>
> www.EscapeCellHell.org

Cvstomers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) covld
benefit from this.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 12:47:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:

> Customers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) could
> benefit from this.

Verizon doesn't have the same policy.

I've used other CDMA carriers' phones on Verizon before.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 3:46:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <c8be70d53bkh0ds3vv4vtb2h840lmo8l9q@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:57:49 GMT, "Topgvy" <topgvyNOSPAM@netzero.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Consvmers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
> >www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consvmers to ask
> >the FCC to ensvre companies don't block compatible phones when cvstomers
> >change companies. The campaign follows the organization's svccessfvl pvsh
> >last Fall for cell phone nvmber portability, which reqvired the wireless
> >indvstry let cvstomers keep their phone nvmbers when switching companies
>
> Jvst as long as consvmers get the message that all handsets don't work
> on all services. Yov *know* that there will be people that shovld a
> measvre svch as this is proposed will *insist* that a new carrier
> allow their phone on the network even if it's not compatible svch as
> trying to pvt a GSM phone on a CDMA network. It's probably not
> someone who freqvents cellvlar/mobile related grovps, bvt I gvarantee
> that they're probably ovt there waiting for their opportvnity.

Fine, bvt an AT&T phone shovld be allowed to work on Cingvlar, and a
Verizon phone shovld be allowed to work on SprintPCS, etc.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 3:59:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
S. Bennett
Stephan.B.Bennett1@aceprotech.com


"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:BOudndLUlJiJ3urdRVn-sw@lmi.net...
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Customers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) could
> > benefit from this.
>
> Verizon doesn't have the same policy.
>
> I've used other CDMA carriers' phones on Verizon before.
>
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP:
0xE3AE35ED
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
sjsobol@JustThe.net
> Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
> "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out
and buy
> slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows
98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 7:32:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

Robert M. wrote:

> Fine, but an AT&T phone should be allowed to work on Cingular, and a
> Verizon phone should be allowed to work on SprintPCS, etc.

DAMN...A moment of lucid thought! We all outta bookmark this, err...
save it as an ASCII text file.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 7:55:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-41AEF0.18462009042004@news6.west.earthlink.net...

> Fine, but an AT&T phone should be allowed to work on Cingular, and a
> Verizon phone should be allowed to work on SprintPCS, etc.


Perhaps it's the free-marketeer in me asking this, but why?

If Verizon, Sprint, AT&T etc. subsidize the phone, AND state in their
marketing literature and contracts (as ATTWS does) that the phone you are
buying is only compatible with their service, why is that any business but
theirs to decide?

Now, if the government wants to butt in (and when don't they!) a fair rule
could be that a service provider must allow you to use any phone compatible
with their network, so if you have an "unlocked" phone you obtained yourself
they can't force you to buy one of theirs instead as a condition of
obtaining service, any more than a gas station could make you buy a car from
them to be allowed to fill up. But frankly, if AT&T (or whoever)'s business
plan is to sell $400 phones for $1 knowing that even if you leave them, you
can't let their competitors like T-Mobile "benefit" from not having to
subsididize a phone for you when you sign up, that's their right, IMHO. If
we don't like it, we don't have to buy it from them.

The "deeper" a provider can lock a phone, the cheaper they can sell them-
look at TracFone- they were really the first company to sell affordable
prepaid handsets because they knew that those handsets would ALWAYS stay
with TracFone, even if second, third or fourth-hand. They certainly
wouldn't have sold a $250 MSRP (at the time) Nokia 51xx for $50 if they knew
you could just buy it and rather than activate it with TracFone, easily
switch it to Cingular or Verizon to replace a lost or broken handset cheap
if you were still under a contract.

The marketplace has already solved this issue without government "help" (at
least in GSM)- unlocked phones are available at higher prices if "handset
portability" is a priority for you, and locked phones, in most cases, can be
unlocked relatively cheaply or freely. If the government butt in, we'll
likely see higher handset prices or higher EFTs, since a current-day $150
EFT won't deter somebody who's getting a $300 for a $1- paying the EFT would
be a bargain, leaving the carrier hundreds in the hole with no choice but to
pass the losses onto us!

So, as always, "be careful what you wish for, because you might get it!"
;-)

I'm personally still p-o'd about the $25/year I'm paying in "regulatory
compliance fees" for the WNP "right" bestowed upon me that I'm not using.

(Anybody else notice that post WNP we aren't seeing any asoundingly better
"deals" than we did prior?)
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 7:55:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aaa1f95ae6cbc5a153789b771bbdd90a@news.teranews.com...

>
> (Anybody else notice that post WNP we aren't seeing any asoundingly better
> "deals" than we did prior?)
>
>

Yep- I think everybody waited for the other guy to flinch. One of the big
reasons might be the huge bounty everyone else is seeing in the mass
revolution from AT&T. Why lower your prices when you have hundreds of
thousands of willing customers available to you.

Of course, the whole portability hype has been reminiscent of the whole Y2K
scare- much ado about nothing. All of the outside analysts predicted
millions of ports in the first few months, only to be proven terribly wrong.
And those same analysts were the ones raving about the deals that would have
to come, in an attempt to retain customers- again, wrong.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 3:59:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <1fdcc$4077713a$4069645b$16378@msgid.meganewsservers.com>,
"Stephan Bennet" <Stephan.B.Bennett1@aceprotech.com> wrote:

> Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.

There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 4:17:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:59:18 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
wrote:

>In article <1fdcc$4077713a$4069645b$16378@msgid.meganewsservers.com>,
> "Stephan Bennet" <Stephan.B.Bennett1@aceprotech.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.
>
>There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
>love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.

I believe that is a Sprint issue ... they used to, and I think still
do, not only "lock" their phones, but also refuse to use phones they
did not sell.

I was given a Verizon 7868W wihich I use on my Alltel account. Alltel
had to flash it with their firmware, then download the current PRL.
The guy who flashed it said that if I hadn't been a good customer,
there would have been a small charge for that part. I don't know the
difference in various companies firmware code; the Verizon logo still
comes up.

I did not look before flashing, but the "Software" is 7654.

George
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 4:45:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <aaa1f95ae6cbc5a153789b771bbdd90a@news.teranews.com>,
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote:

> Perhaps it's the free-marketeer in me asking this, but why?
>
> If Verizon, Sprint, AT&T etc. subsidize the phone, AND state in their
> marketing literature and contracts (as ATTWS does) that the phone you are
> buying is only compatible with their service, why is that any business but
> theirs to decide?

Because after your contract has expired they've been paid back for any
subsidy.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 4:45:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-75E848.07452310042004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <aaa1f95ae6cbc5a153789b771bbdd90a@news.teranews.com>,
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it's the free-marketeer in me asking this, but why?
> >
> > If Verizon, Sprint, AT&T etc. subsidize the phone, AND state in their
> > marketing literature and contracts (as ATTWS does) that the phone you
are
> > buying is only compatible with their service, why is that any business
but
> > theirs to decide?
>
> Because after your contract has expired they've been paid back for any
> subsidy.

No they haven't- you've paid exactly as much for service as the guy who paid
full price for the phone. There is no "Subsidy Recovery Charge" on your
bill.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 4:46:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <aaa1f95ae6cbc5a153789b771bbdd90a@news.teranews.com>,
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote:

> I'm personally still p-o'd about the $25/year I'm paying in "regulatory
> compliance fees" for the WNP "right" bestowed upon me that I'm not using.

Thats because you're being overcharged.
April 10, 2004 6:13:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:_eednVaP74hpHurdRVn-gw@adelphia.com...
>
> Yep- I think everybody waited for the other guy to flinch. One of the big
> reasons might be the huge bounty everyone else is seeing in the mass
> revolution from AT&T. Why lower your prices when you have hundreds of
> thousands of willing customers available to you.
>
> Of course, the whole portability hype has been reminiscent of the whole
Y2K
> scare- much ado about nothing. All of the outside analysts predicted
> millions of ports in the first few months, only to be proven terribly
wrong.
> And those same analysts were the ones raving about the deals that would
have
> to come, in an attempt to retain customers- again, wrong.
>

Sorry, but you haven't waited long enough to even see if number portability
will have any significant effect. The vast majority of the nation doesn't go
portable until May 24th. Mind you, I don't expect it to have nearly the
effect that people were touting in October, but I think we'll see more after
May 24th than we did in November.

-Jeff
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 6:13:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"jeff" <jeff_philNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:107gdub5e403abb@corp.supernews.com...
>

>
> Sorry, but you haven't waited long enough to even see if number
portability
> will have any significant effect. The vast majority of the nation doesn't
go
> portable until May 24th. Mind you, I don't expect it to have nearly the
> effect that people were touting in October, but I think we'll see more
after
> May 24th than we did in November.
>

Actually, from a population perspective, the markets that already have
portability represent more than half the population. From a geographic
perspective, it is much smaller. And as far as waiting, we are now almost 5
months into portability. My point was that it is not the panic causing
situation the analysts were predicting it to be. Remember- they were
touting the realistic potential for millions of ports within the first
couple of weeks. That did not occur.

One other thing to keep in mind- as the markets get smaller, the number of
options drop dramatically. There aren't nearly the number of options
available in Bennington, VT that there are in NYC.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 6:57:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

I agree with Todd Allcock,

So, as always, "be carefvl what yov wish for, becavse yov might get
it!"
;-)

Most consvmer don`t vnderstand the wireless carriers svbsidy on
eqvipment. Also the reason why companies like Best Bvy and ect can sell
the same phone as the carriers on the carriers service at a cheaper
cost. These stores and dealers get a kick back based on the Plan and
Term of Contract that can eqval vpto 350-400.00 dollars. Since they do
not have a need to warranty replace or manage the cvstomers service.
They take a portion of that kick back and thow it on top of the phone
to make it more attractive. They bvy the eqvipment from the carrier for
abovt the same price as a consvmer does on a 1 year agreement and still
make a $300.00 profit thanks to the kick back. As long as the consvmers
vnion vnderstands that the cvstomer will take the hit somewhere. If
phones are vnlock, the cost of the phones from the carriers will
triple. That means that they days of everyone having a new sexy phone
every covple of years will be gone becavse of the cost. To keep
eqvipment pricing low I covld see carriers reqvesting 3-4 year contract
to get the phone at an affordable pricing. Some carriers like Verizon
will not let yov have service with them period withovt signing a
contract even if yov bvy the phone on ebay and want to get service for
it. To keep phone pricing down carriers covld raise the monthly service
cost for all their plans to recover lost eqvipment cost. There may also
be 2 types of phone. A covple of cheap no frills phones that yov can
bvy and take from carrier to carrier. The others are sexy gotta have
phones that will be designed for that carrrier only and yov the
consvmer in order to pvrchse it will have to sign a waiver of
vnderstanding that it can not be vsed on another carriers network. We
covld see some or a mixtvre of all of these things happening if this
passes. law makers might let it happen and wash their hands of it
since the consvmers wanted it, got it, and now have to live with the
fallovt from it.


--
Wireless Gvy

The Cellphone Gvy..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cellphoneforvms.netView this thread: http://cellphoneforvms.net/t116606.html
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 6:57:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Wireless Gvy" <Wireless.Gvy.14ija3@nospam.cellphoneforvms.net> wrote in
message news:Wireless.Gvy.14ija3@nospam.cellphoneforvms.net...
>
> I agree with Todd Allcock,
>
> So, as always, "be carefvl what yov wish for, becavse yov might get
> it!"
> ;-)
>
> Most consvmer don`t vnderstand the wireless carriers svbsidy on
> eqvipment. Also the reason why companies like Best Bvy and ect can sell
> the same phone as the carriers on the carriers service at a cheaper
> cost. These stores and dealers get a kick back based on the Plan and
> Term of Contract that can eqval vpto 350-400.00 dollars. Since they do
> not have a need to warranty replace or manage the cvstomers service.
> They take a portion of that kick back and thow it on top of the phone
> to make it more attractive. They bvy the eqvipment from the carrier for
> abovt the same price as a consvmer does on a 1 year agreement and still
> make a $300.00 profit thanks to the kick back. As long as the consvmers
> vnion vnderstands that the cvstomer will take the hit somewhere. If
> phones are vnlock, the cost of the phones from the carriers will
> triple. That means that they days of everyone having a new sexy phone
> every covple of years will be gone becavse of the cost. To keep
> eqvipment pricing low I covld see carriers reqvesting 3-4 year contract
> to get the phone at an affordable pricing. Some carriers like Verizon
> will not let yov have service with them period withovt signing a
> contract even if yov bvy the phone on ebay and want to get service for
> it. To keep phone pricing down carriers covld raise the monthly service
> cost for all their plans to recover lost eqvipment cost. There may also
> be 2 types of phone. A covple of cheap no frills phones that yov can
> bvy and take from carrier to carrier. The others are sexy gotta have
> phones that will be designed for that carrrier only and yov the
> consvmer in order to pvrchse it will have to sign a waiver of
> vnderstanding that it can not be vsed on another carriers network. We
> covld see some or a mixtvre of all of these things happening if this
> passes. law makers might let it happen and wash their hands of it
> since the consvmers wanted it, got it, and now have to live with the
> fallovt from it.
>

Well pvt. One other thing- the average consvmer, if told that their phone
can be vsed on other carriers, will have the expectation that all phone
fvnctionality will work with the new carrier. This won't be the case-
Verizon PTT phones won't have PTT capability on the Sprint network, as an
example.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 9:12:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
> In article <1fdcc$4077713a$4069645b$16378@msgid.meganewsservers.com>,
> "Stephan Bennet" <Stephan.B.Bennett1@aceprotech.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.
>
> There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
> love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.

Let me explain it for you, idiot.

The policy does not aid Verizon customers at all. You said it would benefit
both Verizon and Sprint customers.

Once again, talking out your anal cavity about something you know nothing
about. (Specifically, Verizon's service and network, which I've been using
for over three and a half years now.)

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
April 11, 2004 1:13:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-5A0A8D.15475809042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...
> In article <1fDdc.35037$7p4.33815@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Topgvy" <topgvyNOSPAM@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > Consvmers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
> > www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consvmers to ask
> > the FCC to ensvre companies don't block compatible phones when cvstomers
> > change companies. The campaign follows the organization's svccessfvl pvsh
> > last Fall for cell phone nvmber portability, which reqvired the wireless
> > indvstry let cvstomers keep their phone nvmbers when switching companies
> >
> > www.EscapeCellHell.org
>
> Cvstomers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) covld
> benefit from this.

It wovld be a logistical nightmare. Who wovld handle the warranty?
If I take Verizon wireless phone that is tested and rated for
Verizon's network, there is no gvarantee that it will work jvst as
well on Sprint's and vice versa.

What abovt accessories or testing? Sprint's eqvipment isn't set vp to
rest, vpdate, or trovbleshoot Verizon phones. None of the stores sell
the accessories for the other carriers.

Also, Sprint's system won't allow a non-Sprint phone to be ativated,
so we'd have to reqvest each ESN to be entered into the system.

The carriers wovld all lose a lot of money from this (sell a
svbsidized phone with no chance of getting yovr money back), and get
less loss form activations (they don't take a hit on the phone sale).

Yov'd also have people in stores yelling and complaining why can't
their GSM phone be activated on a CDMA network and vice versa.

Honestly, if that passed, it covld possibly plvnge the entire wireless
market into chaos. Everyone wovld lose, bvt I think the one who wovld
lose the least wovld be Congvlar, since they now have a virtval
monopoly on the GSM market in the US.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 2:19:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-9D88C8.06591810042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>,
rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> In article <1fdcc$4077713a$4069645b$16378@msgid.meganewsservers.com>,
> "Stephan Bennet" <Stephan.B.Bennett1@aceprotech.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.
>
> There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
> love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.
>

"Many", huh? I'm curious, do you have a number, with some kind of
factual backing to it?

And there won't be any reports in the reverse. SPCS has the openly
stated policy that we will not activate a phone we don't sell.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 3:23:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>> vnion vnderstands that the cvstomer will take the hit somewhere. If
>> phones are vnlock, the cost of the phones from the carriers will
>> triple. That means that they days of everyone having a new sexy phone
>> every covple of years will be gone becavse of the cost. To keep

I don't vnderstand. Today Cingvlar et al are in two bvsinesses: cell
phone service, and cell phone leasing. If they give consvmers a choice
(bvy vs lease the instrvment) that is obviovsly good (as is any choice
opportvnity) for consvmers (thovgh a lower tvrnover rate might hvrt Nokia
et al.) Even if Cingvlar et al were forced to leave the leasing bvsiness,
others (Nokia?) covld certainly enter it for the market of rapid-changers.
Look at car bvying vs leasing. The example of the Bell system, which vsed
to insist that cvstomers lease their instrvments, svggests there might be
*more*, not less, variety and development in phone instrvments when there
is more available choice.
April 11, 2004 3:09:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 10 Apr 2004 21:13:22 -0700, pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:

>Honestly, if that passed, it could possibly plunge the entire wireless
>market into chaos. Everyone would lose, but I think the one who would
>lose the least would be Congular, since they now have a virtual
>monopoly on the GSM market in the US.

Wasn't this same argument used when wireless number portability was
planned?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 5:26:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 10 Apr 2004 21:13:22 -0700, TechGeek wrote:

> The carriers would all lose a lot of money from this (sell a
> subsidized phone with no chance of getting your money back), and get
> less loss form activations (they don't take a hit on the phone sale).

This is one reason the "early contract cancellation" fee is applied.
They would not lose money on the phones.
April 11, 2004 5:31:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Traveling Man <none@none.com> wrote in message news:<zfaaqd5z9mr9$.bgcqlrplamtj$.dlg@40tude.net>...
> On 10 Apr 2004 21:13:22 -0700, TechGeek wrote:
>
> > The carriers would all lose a lot of money from this (sell a
> > subsidized phone with no chance of getting your money back), and get
> > less loss form activations (they don't take a hit on the phone sale).
>
> This is one reason the "early contract cancellation" fee is applied.
> They would not lose money on the phones.

Sign up for a new plan, get the phone at a discounted price, then
cancel within two weeks.

You could also port your number out at that time, too.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 7:31:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> it covld possibly plvnge the entire wireless market into chaos.
> Everyone wovld lose...

This sovnds jvst like AT&T in the early 80s before they were broken vp. We
have nearly the same sitvation here on the hardware side in that each
company has its own little monopoly on hardware. One of the best benefits of
the breakvp of AT&T was the competition in hardware that became available
instead of having to vse (rent) h/w from Ma Bell. We heard the same argvment
from AT&T--eqvipment not provided/certified by them wovld not be compatible,
cavse problems, and possibly damage their systems. And I remember that when
they were first forced to allow vs to pvrchase and vse ovr own telephones,
we actvally were svpposed to register the eqvipment with them before
connecting it to "their" lines. That didn't last long as the flood of new
eqvipment came on the market.

If we covld reqvire the mobile phone companies to work with all compatible
phones they'd be forced to standardize eqvipment/protocols more on their
end. And I think consvmers can handle learning that there are two basic
standards ovt there (GSM and CDMA) and they need to pick a phone that works
with the provider(s) they intend to vse or, more likely, get a phone that
works with both standards--of which many will begin to svrface.

To answer yovr qvestion of who wovld provide the warranty, that wovld be the
same as any other thing we now pvrchase--the manvfactvrer.

One covld argve that with this change, vendors wovld no longer sell
svbsidized phones and prices wovld go vp a lot for new phones. Two things on
that point: (1) they'd still svbsidize phones with a contract to make vp the
loss on the h/w as was their former reason for having a contract; and (2) it
wovldn't be long before the Wal-marts of the world wovld begin selling
manvfactvrers' phones in their electronics departments (as they sell
landline phones) and that wovld provide enormovs downward price pressvre.

We covld argve on abovt the whole mindset of anyone argving for the cvrrent
statvs qvo. The service providers don't cvrrently make a profit on the
phones they sell (former reason for reqviring a contract) so why do they
fight the change? Only becavse they know it wovld resvlt in mvch more chvrn
and their only competing factor wovld be service. And that's the way it
shovld be since that is what they are--Service Providers. Why doesn't
Verizon lock their phones now? Several reasons, one being the contract. Bvt
I think another one is the same as why they charge more than most other
carriers--they know they have the best service/coverage and they don't have
as high a chvrn rate as others do.

<climbing on soapbox> So, I vrge everyone inclined, to please go to
http://www.EscapeCellHell.org and sign the letter to the FCC so we can get
this sooner, rather than later. IT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY as most things
move from proprietary to generic (commodity) in this world so let's do what
we can to make it happen sooner. </soapbox>

Steve

On 4/10/04 10:13 PM, in article
7e761144.0404102013.4bc3ebb6@posting.google.com, "TechGeek"
<pcsgvy@bellsovth.net> wrote:

> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:<rmarkoff-5A0A8D.15475809042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...
>> In article <1fDdc.35037$7p4.33815@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "Topgvy" <topgvyNOSPAM@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Consvmers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
>>> www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consvmers to ask
>>> the FCC to ensvre companies don't block compatible phones when cvstomers
>>> change companies. The campaign follows the organization's svccessfvl pvsh
>>> last Fall for cell phone nvmber portability, which reqvired the wireless
>>> indvstry let cvstomers keep their phone nvmbers when switching companies
>>>
>>> www.EscapeCellHell.org
>>
>> Cvstomers switching between SprintPCS and Verizon (either way) covld
>> benefit from this.
>
> It wovld be a logistical nightmare. Who wovld handle the warranty?
> If I take Verizon wireless phone that is tested and rated for
> Verizon's network, there is no gvarantee that it will work jvst as
> well on Sprint's and vice versa.
>
> What abovt accessories or testing? Sprint's eqvipment isn't set vp to
> rest, vpdate, or trovbleshoot Verizon phones. None of the stores sell
> the accessories for the other carriers.
>
> Also, Sprint's system won't allow a non-Sprint phone to be ativated,
> so we'd have to reqvest each ESN to be entered into the system.
>
> The carriers wovld all lose a lot of money from this (sell a
> svbsidized phone with no chance of getting yovr money back), and get
> less loss form activations (they don't take a hit on the phone sale).
>
> Yov'd also have people in stores yelling and complaining why can't
> their GSM phone be activated on a CDMA network and vice versa.
>
> Honestly, if that passed, it covld possibly plvnge the entire wireless
> market into chaos. Everyone wovld lose, bvt I think the one who wovld
> lose the least wovld be Congvlar, since they now have a virtval
> monopoly on the GSM market in the US.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 7:42:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I hate to reply to someone that uses such childish language, but I have to
correct you in that this would benefit a huge number of Verizon
customers--mainly those switching from Sprint as I have. I have 4 or 5
locked Sprint phones that I can't easily use now (various hassles obtaining
the MSL from Sprint) that I'm a Verizon customer. Yes, I have the MSL for
some of them and even one I'd like to use on Verizon, but I haven't been
able to obtain a method for unlocking it (Samsung N200 if anyone knows how
to change the MSL, please let me know).

And since Sprint sells a much better selection of phones that Verizon does,
I think Verizon customers switching from Sprint would be the most benefitted
from a change like this.

Steve

On 4/10/04 4:12 PM, in article Gv6dnQty6_bW7OXdRVn-jg@lmi.net, "Steven J
Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
>> In article <1fdcc$4077713a$4069645b$16378@msgid.meganewsservers.com>,
>> "Stephan Bennet" <Stephan.B.Bennett1@aceprotech.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.
>>
>> There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
>> love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.
>
> Let me explain it for you, idiot.
>
> The policy does not aid Verizon customers at all. You said it would benefit
> both Verizon and Sprint customers.
>
> Once again, talking out your anal cavity about something you know nothing
> about. (Specifically, Verizon's service and network, which I've been using
> for over three and a half years now.)
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 7:51:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Steve Johnson" <sjohnson29@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC9EC0D4.5B4B%sjohnson29@hotmail.com...
> > it could possibly plunge the entire wireless market into chaos.
> > Everyone would lose...
>
> This sounds just like AT&T in the early 80s before they were broken up. We
> have nearly the same situation here on the hardware side in that each
> company has its own little monopoly on hardware. One of the best benefits
of
> the breakup of AT&T was the competition in hardware that became available
> instead of having to use (rent) h/w from Ma Bell. We heard the same
argument
> from AT&T--equipment not provided/certified by them would not be
compatible,
> cause problems, and possibly damage their systems. And I remember that
when
> they were first forced to allow us to purchase and use our own telephones,
> we actually were supposed to register the equipment with them before
> connecting it to "their" lines. That didn't last long as the flood of new
> equipment came on the market.

What you aren't taking into fact though are the different communication
protocols, used by different carriers ... and the different frequencies in
use. 800, 1900, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, IDEN ...
>
> If we could require the mobile phone companies to work with all compatible
> phones they'd be forced to standardize equipment/protocols more on their
> end. And I think consumers can handle learning that there are two basic
> standards out there (GSM and CDMA) and they need to pick a phone that
works
> with the provider(s) they intend to use or, more likely, get a phone that
> works with both standards--of which many will begin to surface.

Oh, so now I guess you demand that GM, Ford & Chyrsler make all their engine
parts compatible, so that they fit each other models as well?

>
> To answer your question of who would provide the warranty, that would be
the
> same as any other thing we now purchase--the manufacturer.
>
> One could argue that with this change, vendors would no longer sell
> subsidized phones and prices would go up a lot for new phones. Two things
on
> that point: (1) they'd still subsidize phones with a contract to make up
the
> loss on the h/w as was their former reason for having a contract; and (2)
it
> wouldn't be long before the Wal-marts of the world would begin selling
> manufacturers' phones in their electronics departments (as they sell
> landline phones) and that would provide enormous downward price pressure.
>
> We could argue on about the whole mindset of anyone arguing for the
current
> status quo. The service providers don't currently make a profit on the
> phones they sell (former reason for requiring a contract) so why do they
> fight the change? Only because they know it would result in much more
churn
> and their only competing factor would be service. And that's the way it
> should be since that is what they are--Service Providers. Why doesn't
> Verizon lock their phones now? Several reasons, one being the contract.
But
> I think another one is the same as why they charge more than most other
> carriers--they know they have the best service/coverage and they don't
have
> as high a churn rate as others do.
>
> <climbing on soapbox> So, I urge everyone inclined, to please go to
> http://www.EscapeCellHell.org and sign the letter to the FCC so we can get
> this sooner, rather than later. IT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY as most things
> move from proprietary to generic (commodity) in this world so let's do
what
> we can to make it happen sooner. </soapbox>
>
> Steve

No, it won't happen. You expect each carrier to offer service with
everyone's cellular phone, whether it works on their system or not? Whether
it's software is designed by other providers? Whether it's sold by the
competitors and not by them? Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen.

Bob
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 8:17:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <BC9EC0D4.5B4B%sjohnson29@hotmail.com>,
Steve Johnson <sjohnson29@hotmail.com> wrote:

> To answer your question of who would provide the warranty, that would be the
> same as any other thing we now purchase--the manufacturer.

Thats the excuse SprintPCS gives now for poor warranty service. "Sanyo
won't pay us back for a bleeding screen".
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 8:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> What you aren't taking into fact though are the different communication
> protocols, used by different carriers ... and the different frequencies in
> use. 800, 1900, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, IDEN ...

I may be wrong, but aren't all those frequencies and protocols slowly
consolidating down to a couple standards?

> Oh, so now I guess you demand that GM, Ford & Chyrsler make all their engine
> parts compatible, so that they fit each other models as well?

Of course that would be nice, but your analogy isn't in the same ballpark.
We have lots of choices in aftermarket parts for those vehicles so the
pressure to do something about it isn't there. Although sometimes I wish it
were in certain areas like why don't all cars have a simple little
headset/handset jack for cell phones to plug into?? Why does technology/user
advancements move a snails pace in the auto industry?? But that's another
issue that we shouldn't go into...

> No, it won't happen. You expect each carrier to offer service with
> everyone's cellular phone, whether it works on their system or not? Whether
> it's software is designed by other providers? Whether it's sold by the
> competitors and not by them? Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen.

Sorry, but I still disagree. No I don't expect it to happen with the current
mindset/business model we now have in this industry. You seem to be looking
at this industry only from its current position and what I'm advocating is
changing it completely in respect to the front and back end systems and
standardizing them. Eventually I expect the service providers to be just
that and get out of the handset resale business because they won't be able
to compete by reselling the same phones that Wal-mart sells. Do you see the
RBOCs selling many landline phones these days compared to other retailers?
Some, but not many. I want the entire business model to change and I'd
prefer it get a little nudge from regulators rather than wait so many years
for competition and/or lawsuits to make it happen. I'm all for free market
competition, but still think it's sometimes advantageous for regulators to
force companies to change when there are such high barriers to entry in an
industry that companies don't feel the need to meet the needs of the
customer in order to keep their business (as is in the auto industry and why
we have safety and other regulations).
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 8:30:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

And why are they able to do that? Because there's no/little competition in
the handset business when you only have one consumer seller--your service
provider. If manufacturers had to compete with other manufacturers for
actual consumer business, rather than the few service providers' business, I
think this situation would improve as manufacturers got the blame for poor
h/w rather than the service provider. Sure companies have reputations now
for their h/w, but how much so for the service of that h/w since we have to
go to the cellular provider to obtain that service.

Who knows, but I still prefer to have consumers directly hold manufacturers
responsible for what they make. Middlemen always seem to buffer that
interaction with consumers so manufacturers don't see the direct consumer
response to poor quality of products and services.

Steve

On 4/11/04 10:17 AM, in article
rmarkoff-C5E14B.11170911042004@news6.west.earthlink.net, "Robert M."
<rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:

> In article <BC9EC0D4.5B4B%sjohnson29@hotmail.com>,
> Steve Johnson <sjohnson29@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To answer your question of who would provide the warranty, that would be the
>> same as any other thing we now purchase--the manufacturer.
>
> Thats the excuse SprintPCS gives now for poor warranty service. "Sanyo
> won't pay us back for a bleeding screen".
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 10:03:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Steve Johnson" <sjohnson29@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC9ECC55.5BDE%sjohnson29@hotmail.com...
> > What you aren't taking into fact though are the different communication
> > protocols, used by different carriers ... and the different frequencies
in
> > use. 800, 1900, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, IDEN ...
>
> I may be wrong, but aren't all those frequencies and protocols slowly
> consolidating down to a couple standards?

Eventually, but not for a long time. You still have to deal with 2 frequency
bands and a number of different protocols, which will not be compatible.
>
> > Oh, so now I guess you demand that GM, Ford & Chyrsler make all their
engine
> > parts compatible, so that they fit each other models as well?
>
> Of course that would be nice, but your analogy isn't in the same ballpark.
> We have lots of choices in aftermarket parts for those vehicles so the
> pressure to do something about it isn't there. Although sometimes I wish
it
> were in certain areas like why don't all cars have a simple little
> headset/handset jack for cell phones to plug into?? Why does
technology/user
> advancements move a snails pace in the auto industry?? But that's another
> issue that we shouldn't go into...

No, it's the same issue, when talking about the differences between SPCS,
Verizon, Alltel and the other CDMA providers, and ATTW, Cingular, with TDMA
& GSM. Let's not forget Nextel with IDEN, and oh ... all the local 800
analog providers still around.

>
> > No, it won't happen. You expect each carrier to offer service with
> > everyone's cellular phone, whether it works on their system or not?
Whether
> > it's software is designed by other providers? Whether it's sold by the
> > competitors and not by them? Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen.
>
> Sorry, but I still disagree. No I don't expect it to happen with the
current
> mindset/business model we now have in this industry. You seem to be
looking
> at this industry only from its current position and what I'm advocating is
> changing it completely in respect to the front and back end systems and
> standardizing them.

And who's suppose to move all these different technologies into one standard
format. This isn't Europe, which mandated GSM. It's the USA, which supports
competition.

Who is suppose to pay for all these immediate changes you want? The costs to
convert towers, and replace handsets? All the carriers, even those that
already are on the agreed upon protocol? Guess who they pass on the expenses
to. The customers. You think they will be happy campers because their
government consolidated protocols?


> that and get out of the handset resale business because they won't be able
> to compete by reselling the same phones that Wal-mart sells. Do you see
the
> RBOCs selling many landline phones these days compared to other retailers?

No I don't, but you fail to see is that landline service has been
standardized since the very inception of the industry.

> Some, but not many. I want the entire business model to change and I'd
> prefer it get a little nudge from regulators rather than wait so many
years
> for competition and/or lawsuits to make it happen.

Oh, that old argument ... "I'm from the government and I want to help you"
.... Sorry, I don't want any further help.

> I'm all for free market
> competition, but still think it's sometimes advantageous for regulators to
> force companies to change when there are such high barriers to entry in an
> industry that companies don't feel the need to meet the needs of the
> customer in order to keep their business (as is in the auto industry and
why
> we have safety and other regulations).

The cellular providers also have their government regulations as well.

Every provider will eventually migrate to some form of CDMA, but in saying
that, it will still be different formats.

Bob

PS: I can see that you won't change your mind on this, and I getting bored
trying to convince you otherwise, so this will be my last comment in this
thread. If you want the last post ... go for it. Just keep in mind that
whatever you say ... it ain't gonna happen.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 11:13:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

O/Siris wrote:

> "Many", huh? I'm curious, do you have a number, with some kind of
> factual backing to it?

Uh oh...you said the "F" word - factual. A word that is not in
Phillipe's vocabulary.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 11:13:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"JRW" <no_addy@no_.com> wrote in message
news:ENgec.14684$Dv2.11157@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> O/Siris wrote:
>
> > "Many", huh? I'm curious, do you have a number, with some kind of
> > factual backing to it?
>
> Uh oh...you said the "F" word - factual. A word that is not in
> Phillipe's vocabulary.
>

Yep- Rob's about ready to be accused of hurling childish obscenities.
April 11, 2004 11:56:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Steve Johnson <sjohnson29@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BC9EC0D4.5B4B%sjohnson29@hotmail.com>...
>
> To answer your question of who would provide the warranty, that would be the
> same as any other thing we now purchase--the manufacturer.
>
While I do agree with that, you know how many people blame the carrier
for their faulty equipment? The service provider didn't make the
phone, they were handed some unites fomr the manufacturer, they tested
out those few, said OK, then the mfg mass produced them. If the
manufacturer cuts back on quality immediatly, or later, to cut costs,
by the time it's noticed, that model was discontionued and something
new is out.

How is that the carriers fault? I'm sure it's the same across the
baord with all wireless carriers, customers with faulty equipment
blaming the provider that their phone is faulty, or that they have to
wait for testing / a replacement, they lost their phonebook etc.. The
carrier can't test the tens to hundereds of thousands of phones that
they sell, it would delay the release of phones even more (which
people are already complaining about).

Do you really think the average user on any wireless netowrk would be
willing to ship their phone to a repair facility somewhere just
because it's droping calls or it has an issue? Each Sprint store that
has service has a tester made by Agilent Tech (formerly known as HP),
which costs roughly $45,000-$60,000 just for the hardware (although
we've seen some new ones that cost uder $20,000, but not many are in
the stores). I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap to re-engineer the
software to test all the other model phones that could work on the
network (since every phone is different, every phone has a different
set of protocols for testing, the biggest difference is how the tester
itself communicates with the phone).

What about doing software and PRL updates? Right now we have roughly
25-30 different cables just for Sprint phones, plus about another
10-15 we very rarely use. Some stores just got in another 15-25
"competitive" cables so they can attempt to do phonebook swaps from
other carrier's phones. Right now, we're up to 50-70 cables in a
store, now let's add in all the others for all the phones that aren't
included, we could easily go over 100 cable sjust for updates, and the
QA departments of each carrier would have to make sure that their own
PRL versions would work with the phones.

Not only that, if this did change (and it looks like the FCC wants it
to change overnight), the stores would remain the same, so would
Sprint really be able to warrant a phone that Verizon says works, and
would Verizon care about this person who is not one of their
customers, they just have one of their phones?

What about features? If someone took a Sprint vision phone to
Verizon, the people in Verizon would have to re-write the entire
browser softwar eonto that phone. Same with ReadyLink / Push to Talk.
SMS, short mail, and many other features.

OK, what if we go to the point of phones being sold like house phones
are now. That means that the stores wouldn't have reps trained on
them, they'd just sell them and go onto the next person. I'm sure a
lot would sell a GSM phone for Sprint, or a CDMA phone for Cingular.
Where is the activation handled?

Comparing this to landline phones and the whole MaBell breakup really
isn't a good comparison. Your phone line jack in your house will be
the same (you know what I mean) to your neighbors, to the person's
down the street, to someone's across the county (and I'm talking
standard 4-wire jacks, none of the special voicemail systems / digital
phone systems in commercial settings). What comes though those wires
will also be the same all over. I can take my landline phone and plug
it into my parent's house, into a co-worker's across the country, even
your house, and it will work. Wireless networks aren't the same.
This isn't the same with wireless phones. You plug in a landline
phone, it has one place to go, though the wire. A wireless phone has
an infinite number of "places" it can go, and each system communicates
with the phones differently (roaming is only possible because phones
are programmed to adapt). Also, when the landlines broke up, it
wasn't overnight to what we had today, it took years to get it all
settled. Who knows, maybe 30 years from now we'll be in the same
situation with wireless phones, but it won't happen over night.

Honestly, I do think this would be a good idea (threw you a curve
didn't I?). It would allow the customers more variety, and IF
warranties were handled so the manufacturers were responsible for
their products as much as they should be, it would be great. BUT..
With all the abuse, fraud etc.. going on, it would be utter chaos, and
not only that, I don't think the average wireless user would be able
to handle this right now. Don't forget, wireless communications is
still in it's infancy, being popular for less than 10 years (yes I
know it's been available to the civilian public for what, 20-25
years?). It took people decades to be able to handle the landline
phones, who knows, maybe in another 10 years, it could be handled.

As for the FCC, I've started to dislike that organization a lot
working with Sprint. I've worked wiht them directly on several
occasions, and their consistent response is "We just say you have to
do it, we don't do anyhting with how it can be done". We've seen
numbers try to be ported to other carriers, and the number gets stuck
in limbo because of that. We checked with the FCC on how to resolve
issues like that, we got the same response. They set up the
regulations and a seadline, wether it's possible or not, is irrelevant
to them.

How could it be done?

First, to maximise this, we'd have to have all the carriers on one
common technology, which we're striving for, but we're still 5-10
years away from that. This would also include the above mentioned
features, such as web, SMS, ReadyLink / Push-To-Talk etc..

Second, educate the consumers and manufacturers to work together, so
that there are no middlemen involved (does this mean we'll see cel
phone repair shops like we see electronics repair shops?). This will
probabaly be the hardest part on both ends. Let the providers
concentrate on their networks.

Third, we'd have to get rid of the provider retail stores as they are
today, and get rid of the ESN limitations that some providers have in
place. This is being worked on, and to maximise on this I know Sprint
stores, and I'm sure Verizon wireless does, too, sell the parent
company's landline service together. Cingular also does it with Bell
South.

Other pointers that would make this easier for the consumers:

Universal accessories. Most phones take 2.5mm headjacks (I said most,
not all). Leather cases and holsters would be impossible, but
chargers can,and are, being done.
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 12:16:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Steve Johnson <sjohnson29@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I hate to reply to someone that uses such childish language, but I have to
> correct you in that this would benefit a huge number of Verizon
> customers--mainly those switching from Sprint as I have.

First off, if you hate to reply, don't.

Second, you're flat-out wrong.

Verizon isn't likely to activate phones like Sanyos that it can't support --
Sanyo doesn't sell through Verizon and I guarantee Verizon doesn't have the
custom firmware that it has for the phones it does sell. Within that constraint
(they generally have to be able to flash the phone with VZW-specific firmware)
they can generally bring phones over. They did my old Alltel Nokia 6185,
for example. They could probably do a Sprint PCS Nokia 3588i since the
3588i and the Verizon 3589 are essentially the same model. There are other
Sprint phones that Verizon should be able to activate. They do NOT have the
same policy that Sprint does that only the carrier's own phones may be
activated on their network, and therefore the benefit, if any, is SIGNIFICANTLY
less.



> I have 4 or 5
> locked Sprint phones that I can't easily use now (various hassles obtaining
> the MSL from Sprint) that I'm a Verizon customer. Yes, I have the MSL for
> some of them and even one I'd like to use on Verizon, but I haven't been
> able to obtain a method for unlocking it (Samsung N200 if anyone knows how
> to change the MSL, please let me know).

If I may ask, which brands/models of phone do you have?


> And since Sprint sells a much better selection of phones that Verizon does,
> I think Verizon customers switching from Sprint would be the most benefitted
> from a change like this.

Except that you and all of the other customers who switched using a phone
that Verizon didn't have the capability of supporting would get really
irritated with Verizon when they weren't able to support the phones.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 12:45:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Steve Johnson <sjohnson29@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Of course that would be nice, but your analogy isn't in the same ballpark.
> We have lots of choices in aftermarket parts for those vehicles so the
> pressure to do something about it isn't there. Although sometimes I wish it
> were in certain areas like why don't all cars have a simple little
> headset/handset jack for cell phones to plug into?? Why does technology/user
> advancements move a snails pace in the auto industry?? But that's another
> issue that we shouldn't go into...

You're purposely ignoring the point that different carriers use different
technologies. A GSM phone WILL NOT WORK on a CDMA network.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 12:56:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-75E848.07452310042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...

> Because after your contract has expired they've been paid back for any
> subsidy.

Back when I was a Cingular agent, the majority of Cingular contracts
were 1 year, and dealers were paid about $250 for that contract, even
on a $30/month plan. That left Cingular about $110 in total revenue
from the customer for the entire first year. (Less when you factored
in that in those days they paid the selling agent up to 8% of the
customer's month fee as an ongoing residual.)

The phone wasn't nearly paid for at that point. Back then Cingular
claimed (internally) that it took 18-24 to recapture phone subsidies
depending if it was sold by them directly or by an independent agent.

These days AT&T, in particular, tends to subsidize handsets far more
aggressively than most wireless companies. Perhaps it's no
coincidence they've relied on locking longer than most carriers (going
back to the SOC locks on TDMA handsets preventing them from roaming
properly if activated on competitor's systems.)
April 12, 2004 2:03:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Steve Johnson <sjohnson29@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BC9ECEDE.5BE2%sjohnson29@hotmail.com>...
> And why are they able to do that? Because there's no/little competition in
> the handset business when you only have one consumer seller--your service
> provider. If manufacturers had to compete with other manufacturers for
> actual consumer business, rather than the few service providers' business, I
> think this situation would improve as manufacturers got the blame for poor
> h/w rather than the service provider. Sure companies have reputations now
> for their h/w, but how much so for the service of that h/w since we have to
> go to the cellular provider to obtain that service.

But they do compete with each other.

I used to see Samsung phone commercials on TV. I still see full page
ads for them all in my latest computer magazines.

Look at the commercials from the providers, get this SAMSUNG phone for
$29.99.

The manufactuers do have competition between each other, all the
carriers (except Nextel, I think) carry more than one brand of phone,
and people do shop based on reputation. I see it all the time.

"I don't want a Samsung phone because my friend had one and it was
horrible".
"I don't want anything other than a Sanyo because my friends have them
and they say their great".
"I want the Palm phone because Palm has bene in the game for a long
time, and I've owned several Palm Pilots".

and the manufactuers do (or at least put up the act that they do) want
to take responsibility for faulty products. Each provider has their
own staff who just communicate with one manufacturer, even if they
don't carry any of their phones (Sprint still had a Nokia product
manager when they didn't have any Nokias, and they still have an LG
product manager etc.).

How many brands does Sprint currently offer?
Sanyo
Samsung
Audiovox / Toshiba / Curitel
Nokia
Hitachi
Palm

Though limited chains (Telematics etc.) there's also
Sony / Ericcons
Motorola

And we used to carry:
Kyocera / Qualcomm
LG
NeoPoint
Denso

and I know there are others that I'm forgetting, but the bottom line
is that there is plenty of competition between the brands.
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 7:47:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:12:27 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
>> In article <1fdcc$4077713a$4069645b$16378@msgid.meganewsservers.com>,
>> "Stephan Bennet" <Stephan.B.Bennett1@aceprotech.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, you can use others' phones on Verizon.
>>
>> There have been reports of that, but never in reverse. Many folks would
>> love to have a "Verizon" Kyocera 7135 on the SprintPCS system.
>
>Let me explain it for you, idiot.
>
>The policy does not aid Verizon customers at all. You said it would benefit
>both Verizon and Sprint customers.
>
>Once again, talking out your anal cavity about something you know nothing
>about. (Specifically, Verizon's service and network, which I've been using
>for over three and a half years now.)

Temper, temper, Steven.

The way I read it, he meant it would benefit Verizon customers who want to
switch to Sprint, since Sprint would be forced to let them use their
current phone, and it would benefit Sprint customers who want to switch to
Verizon, since Sprint would be forced to unlock their current phone for
them (and Verizon would be forced to allow it even though it's not
"approved" by them).

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Imagine waking up with someone and you're in that spooning, cuddly mode.
No one's spoken. You take the chance of saying that first sweet nothing.
And as you take that first breath and utter maybe one syllable, the person
turns to you and says, 'Not yet.' That's pretty ... funny. I think that's
sexy." - Lara Flynn Boyle on her relationship with Jack Nicholson
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 7:47:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

> Temper, temper, Steven.

I make no apologies for my attitude towards "Robert M." Ask in the Sprint PCS
newsgroup about his childish antics and you'll understand said attitude.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 4:29:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"TechGeek" <pcsguy@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7e761144.0404112103.120f0bac@posting.google.com...

<snipped>

> and the manufactuers do (or at least put up the act that they do) want
> to take responsibility for faulty products. Each provider has their
> own staff who just communicate with one manufacturer, even if they
> don't carry any of their phones (Sprint still had a Nokia product
> manager when they didn't have any Nokias, and they still have an LG
> product manager etc.).
>
> How many brands does Sprint currently offer?
> Sanyo
> Samsung
> Audiovox / Toshiba / Curitel
> Nokia
> Hitachi
> Palm
>
> Though limited chains (Telematics etc.) there's also
> Sony / Ericcons
> Motorola
>
> And we used to carry:
> Kyocera / Qualcomm
> LG
> NeoPoint
> Denso
>
> and I know there are others that I'm forgetting, but the bottom line
> is that there is plenty of competition between the brands.

Well, one manufacturer not mentioned was Sony (no Ericsson), with their 1101
& 1201 models. Don't remember whether the Z phone was a Sony model.

Bob
April 12, 2004 5:45:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Bob Smith wrote:

>>and I know there are others that I'm forgetting, but the bottom line
>>is that there is plenty of competition between the brands.
>
>
> Well, one manufacturer not mentioned was Sony (no Ericsson), with their 1101
> & 1201 models. Don't remember whether the Z phone was a Sony model.
>
> Bob
>

The Z-Phone was a Sony. Mine still works. :) 
-mike
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 3:17:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

The only Leasing program that I am aware of is The lockline Leasing
program that is only avialable for Cingular Business Customers. Most of
the Day To Day cingular employee dont even know about it. Only The
Business Rep and some of us in the industry know about it. So I`m not
sure about the leasing program you are talking about. So even at that
point Lockline the same company that does phone insurance for Cingular
also offers a business leasing program. Cingular does not want the
burden of leasing to consumers. That can lead to to much bad debt with
inventor cost.


--
Wireless Guy

The Cellphone Guy..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cellphoneforums.netView this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t116606.html
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 5:48:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Verizon does`nt lock its phones because they use CDMA tec. Since those
phones are ESN based not SIm Card based. The Billing sytems is designed
to lock out Non-Verizon Phones. If you are lucky enough to fool the
system into getting a non-Verizon phone on the network. When the
Network and billing System does a once a month sweep. They phone will
show up because of the updates sent to it and it would be booted off
the network. All the other CDMA carries operates the same way. Gotta
love GSM also long as the phone get us locked you can use it.


--
Wireless Guy

The Cellphone Guy..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cellphoneforums.netView this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t116782.html
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 12:29:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Several problems I see with requiring universal "porting" of compatible
technology phones:

1) Support. Customers expect their provider to support their phone.
This would require the providers to have the software and required cables,
etc, to update all the various brands.

2) Feature configuration. For exemple, as mentioned by another poster,
there is the issue of moving a Java-enabled Sprint Vision phone to a
Brew-enabled Get-It-Now Verizon Wireless phone.

3) Tuning. Systems can be configured slightly differently for optimal
performance.

4) Digital protocols are complex, and a phone may not work quite right
with a given provider. If there are problems, the provider looks bad
("but it worked FINE with my previous provider").


How do they address this problem in the GSM world, where phones are pretty
much commodities separate from the provider? Is the GSM protocol THAT
standardized with no variation in features, that all providers are willing
to accept any brand GSM phone? Does the customer just expect to go to the
phone manufacturer if there is a problem or software updates are needed?
April 19, 2004 12:29:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 19 Apr 2004 08:29:02 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:

>How do they address this problem in the GSM world, where phones are pretty
>much commodities separate from the provider? Is the GSM protocol THAT
>standardized with no variation in features, that all providers are willing
>to accept any brand GSM phone?

Once a customer inserts their SIM (Subscriber Identity Module i.e. the
smart card) into their device (phone or PDA) it's really irrelevant to
the operator what they have. They can tell as the IMEI (equivalent to
ESN on CDMA) is broadcast when they use the network, but AFAIK no GSM
operator cares what you use on their network. The only part where you
run into problems is some handsets come "hard coded" from the
manufacturer with data settings that are meant for a specific carrier.
If you want to use other data settings you're out of luck. If you get
a generic version of the phone from a non-carrier the data settings
will not be hard-coded so basically you can use them with any
compatible network (must use the frequency in use in that area i.e.
850/900/1800/1900 Mhz.)

>Does the customer just expect to go to the
>phone manufacturer if there is a problem or software updates are needed?

If you did not get the phone from the carrier then yes you have to go
to the manufacturer for repairs/warranty. As far as firmware updates
it varies from carrier to carrier VoiceStream (now T-Mobile) used to
do firmware updates in the company owned stores. They no longer do
that and you have to ship your phone to the manufacturer if you need
to have your firmware updated. I brought an older phone to a
Canadian GSM provider (Fido) and they updated the firmware on a phone
that I had (but didn't even buy from them) and they updated the
firmware gratis (and I now have T9 predictive text on the older
phone.) This is of course less of a problem with GSM in that you can
use a spare phone or even a "loaner" from your carrier til your phone
comes back from the service center rather than having the carrier
program another phone.

As far as "support" if you get a non-supported phone i.e. one that
they don't presently carry or carry in the past you're basically on
your own though I've found that if you have a "generic" problem they
are likely able to coach you through solutions to problems.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 3:02:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <c602ke01phe@news1.newsguy.com>,
hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:

> Several problems I see with requiring universal "porting" of compatible
> technology phones:
>
> 1) Support. Customers expect their provider to support their phone.
> This would require the providers to have the software and required cables,
> etc, to update all the various brands.
>
> 2) Feature configuration. For exemple, as mentioned by another poster,
> there is the issue of moving a Java-enabled Sprint Vision phone to a
> Brew-enabled Get-It-Now Verizon Wireless phone.
>
> 3) Tuning. Systems can be configured slightly differently for optimal
> performance.
>
> 4) Digital protocols are complex, and a phone may not work quite right
> with a given provider. If there are problems, the provider looks bad
> ("but it worked FINE with my previous provider").

F.U.D.

If you want to keep control of customers by not letting a Verizon work
on the Sprint network, you spread FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT.

Some of us are old enough to remember 20 years ago when AT&T was
required to let you plug your own phone in without buying one of their
clunkers in. FUD was rampant. It'll destroy the network and worse was
heard.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 3:02:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-3161DA.06021419042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...

>
> F.U.D.
>
> If you want to keep control of customers by not letting a Verizon work
> on the Sprint network, you spread FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT.
>
> Some of us are old enough to remember 20 years ago when AT&T was
> required to let you plug your own phone in without buying one of their
> clunkers in. FUD was rampant. It'll destroy the network and worse was
> heard.

OK, Phil- in hopes of the outcome being a little different, I'm going to try
a new direction- no insults and no comment on your post.

A couple of these points have already been mentioned in this thread, others
have not:

1. Just because the underlying technology is the same, that does not make
the phone completely compatible with another network.

Yes, Verizon and Sprint use the same platform to deliver phone calls. But
do they use the same technology for PTT? Picture sharing? And aren't these
some of the technologies that make a phone 'expensive'? What is the sense
of having a $500 phone that is only partially functional?

2. This is not the only industry with exclusive hardware- its just the most
visible.

A quick personal story- A couple of years ago, I moved from Denver to
Colorado Springs. While living in Denver, I bought cable boxes (instead of
renting from the Cable company). They worked great. I move to Colorado
Springs and end up with a different cable provider. Guess what? The boxes
I had bought were incompatible with the new provider's network. Is this any
different than the current conversation? How many other situations like
this exist in today's world?

3. If the hardware provided to access a network is sold under the premise
that it is exclusive to that particular network, why is it the company's
fault when a customer decides to voluntarily leave for another provider?

It has been my experience that the exclusivity of a cellular phone to a
particular provider is absolutely no secret to the consumer. In fact, most
carriers are quick to point it out. Now, we do see posts in this very group
asking about the compatibility of Non-Sprint phones on the PCS network. I
contend that these posts are the result of a consumer that has not done the
research necessary to be well informed. This is something I've commented on
before, and is something that is not a problem that Corporate America is
either responsible for or should have to address. As a society, we have
become extremely lazy in using hard data to determine the best product for
our needs, and tend to rely on the glitzy advertising of a product to
determine what is best for us. How many posts have we seen in the cellular
groups where a customer has purchased service with a provider and complains
a month after the fact that they just realized the phone doesn't work from
their home?

4. If phones are allowed to go to other providers, questions and service
for these phones become a nightmare.

In the current environment, we enjoy a very high level of support for the
phones we purchase. CS can answer functionality questions and even provide
a relatively high level of troubleshooting (most of the time) when there is
a problem. We can go to a local company-run Service Center to have the
phone serviced, and can even get a loaner if the problem is serious. Where
does this all go if companies are now allowing customers to bring a phone on
the network that they are not familiar with? Are we expecting CSR's to be
able to explain functionality and troubleshoot every phone on the market?
If so, where do the companies get the technical information on phones that
are manufactured by a company that they have no business relationship with?
Where do the service centers get the technical tools to deal with the same
phones? Are the manufacturers set up with sufficient support locations and
personnel to handle this new role in the industry? Bottom line- the
customer ends up having to take a lot more responsibility, and would
ultimately be inconvenienced to a much greater degree in a wide open market.

And Phil- you are right about your ATT statement- they screamed bloody hell
about the situation. I have just one observation- ever notice that the
wireline phones available today have exactly the same functionality and
features that they had 20 years ago? Ever wonder why that is? Could it be
because the technology stagnated due to the carrier having no incentive to
develop new technology? Of course, the analogy doesn't translate real well,
because we are comparing regional monopolies to a wide open market, but the
fact still remains- in a market where the carrier does not control product
development, the technology stagnated.
April 19, 2004 5:55:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

CharlesH wrote:
> Several problems I see with requiring universal "porting" of compatible
> technology phones:
>
> 1) Support. Customers expect their provider to support their phone.
> This would require the providers to have the software and required cables,
> etc, to update all the various brands.

A restructuring would be needed, and there may be a negative impact.
Currently, there is a small amount of technical support and repair
service offered at a number of store locations by each major cellular
provider. Manufacturers don't offer this, for the most part. The shift
would be either to have consumers start to expect the manufacturer to
support the phone, or to have manufacturers simply authorize cellular
retail locations to maintain a larger number of phones.

> 2) Feature configuration. For exemple, as mentioned by another poster,
> there is the issue of moving a Java-enabled Sprint Vision phone to a
> Brew-enabled Get-It-Now Verizon Wireless phone.

Again, this would benefit the manufacturer, so I suspect the
responsibility should fall upon them. Each manufacturer should offer
firmware to meet the network requirements of each of the carriers.

> 3) Tuning. Systems can be configured slightly differently for optimal
> performance.

Yes. Here, I would expect a standard for configuration data. This would
allow each carrier to tune a phone to their settings simply by applying
some sort of performance update file that works for every phone.

> 4) Digital protocols are complex, and a phone may not work quite right
> with a given provider. If there are problems, the provider looks bad
> ("but it worked FINE with my previous provider").
>
>
> How do they address this problem in the GSM world, where phones are pretty
> much commodities separate from the provider? Is the GSM protocol THAT
> standardized with no variation in features, that all providers are willing
> to accept any brand GSM phone? Does the customer just expect to go to the
> phone manufacturer if there is a problem or software updates are needed?
>

The provider doesn't really care what phone is in use in GSM. The phones
are commodities, for the most part, and changing phones doesn't require
a call to the provider. CDMA could offer the same thing, but I think
there may be issues related to data and such. R-UIM cards could be
released. I just fail to see this as difficult.
!