Comments on: Unlock the cell phone? It's a high-stakes debate
Allowing consumers to mix and match wireless gadgets and service providers could spark innovation--and compromise security.
Allowing consumers to mix and match wireless gadgets and service providers could spark innovation--and compromise security.
December 28, 2009 6:10 PM PST
December 28, 2009 6:00 PM PST
December 28, 2009 2:39 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
The only hope here is that Google steps up and commits their deep pockets to guarantee that a partner of theirs gets a Nationwide slice of the Upper Bands. They need this in order to finalize their plans for access to and control of the Last Mile, only piece they are missing today.
The Lower Band Martin is freeing up to "Open Access" is very congested and there are serious concerns that it will not be conducive to 2 Way Communications.
Would like to hear from a Radio Vendor on the capability for 2 way Comm. in these bands.
Also, where does the Public Safety piece come out of, the Upper or Lower Band space??
Jacomo
ATT and Verizon are coming up with noble and scary sounding excuses to get "another hamburger" without other dogs competing. If they succeed, we'll be in their so called walled garden for another generation or two, where the rest of the world gains a much bigger lead. The government should seriously consider providing open access (whether Google or others ask for it is not the issue, what is good for the public and the country over the long term IS) before selling off the "public parks" to private interests in perpetuity.
does anone have ti?
ron peterson
of course, that would lessen the carriers ability to lock you in and gouge you.
I don't see any practical reason not to do this- but then, when you make a system better, you work somebody out of a job. For instance, if Microsoft and Adobe both filed chapter 11 tomorrow, I wouldn't care (beyond the risk of economic collapse of course), because basically all my stuff is OSS.
What I'm wanting here is for network providers to be nothing more than wireless ISP's.
that's why.
Disallowing locked phones would force cellphone companies to compete with private phone dealers who would provide the newest, coolest phones to consumers.
It would also allow consumers use cheaper alternatives for making calls such as VoIP and internet over wireless networks.
Of course, a couple of months later I found the lost one.
Come to think of it, Cricket does that already in the US. In Europe, it's a common and standard option.
Sure, there's subsidized phones, but that's because of the contract, and carriers know full well that you'll be paying them back for the subsidy cost at least 2-3x over during your enforced contract.
/P
T-Mobile and AT&T uses WCDMA and GSM for their networks while Sprint-Nextel and Verizon use EVDO for theirs. To put quite simply, a Verizon phone will not work on AT&T's network, period. And the carriers are not going to spend big money to change the technology they use either. This is the primary issue with the cellphone ban that was put in place by the USITC on June 7 because Qualcomm infringed on Broadcomm's patents.
In Europe, don't all carriers use GSM?
You're right that there are 3 network standards in the US---CDMA, GSM and (I think) PCS. Verizon Wireless and Sprint use CDMA, while AT&T/Congular and T-Mobile use GSM, while Nextel uses PCS.
So, no, we wouldn't get the wide variety of phones they use in Europe.
The biggest advantage would be the ability to buy phones at retail (using the appropriate network type) and use them, instead of only using the ones the carriers choose to provide.
I don't know how many people in the US would spend the extra cash to purchase unlocked phones though---a high-end phone can easily cost $800 or more.
may be all these questions and answers do apply to mobile domain as well. If hybrid (802.11+gsm/cdma) become cheap and pervasive then question will not remain that big, but only CDMA/GSM it needs to open up for internet access to start with. (which to some extend, Cingular is doing it by allowing and branding other applications.)
Similar in broder perspective shall apply to CDMA/GSM device not blocking or work for one carrier itself (like most of nations other than USA.)
It's your money, that you pay for device and service, so why get blocked with provider/carrier for locked devices, restricted application entries?
- Just boycott Verizon!
- by Tsee-1968031069905097881578618 September 16, 2007 12:43 PM PDT
- If people stop succumbing to Verizon's hype (they have the most formidable advertising campaigns, I'll grant you), and vote with their feet, they'll find that it's a wonderful world not having your phone's capabilities neutered.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Some of us just want a phone that is a phone
- by gsekse November 9, 2007 11:32 AM PST
- For those of us that just want cell that does JUST THAT, could care less about what features it can or can't have. I for one just would like to turn off the camera function on my phone since I never use it. Verizon is the best carrier in my area based on connections and availability. True though, buy the product that you want, don't legislate it.
- Like this
-
(29 Comments)