Re: [Fed-Talk] Re: iPhone DVT Team Jailbreaks iPhone 3G
Re: [Fed-Talk] Re: iPhone DVT Team Jailbreaks iPhone 3G
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Re: iPhone DVT Team Jailbreaks iPhone 3G
- From: Boyd Fletcher <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:24:09 -0400
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] Re: iPhone DVT Team Jailbreaks iPhone 3G
right now vendors like Apple frequently cut details with mobile phone
providers that lock a phone to only that vendor. though this sounds nice to
consumer because the the cost of the phone is subsidized its really not very
good:
1) the customer still ends up paying the cost of the phone because the per
month costs are higher and the contract is long term (2+ years). note that
with iPhone 3G AT&T dropped the phone price but up the per monthly cost is
higher.
2) with CDMA this is not as important but with GSM phones, locked phones are
a big deal since the GSM phones can be used worldwide. It is far far cheaper
if traveling aboard to use a local mobile provider by buying a new local SIM
card. with a locked phone you can do that. This was a big and public problem
in the early days of the iphone last year when several people ended up with
$3,000-5,000 cell bills because of data service usage while traveling
abroad.
So if Congress creates a new law mandating that mobile providers provide a
option for an unlocked phone then the consumer can choose either a
subsidized plan or not. Several European countries have done this
successfully.
boyd
On 7/17/08 3:20 PM, "carlos" <email@hidden> wrote:
> Now you lost me. How can legislation to limit what a person that pays for a
> phone can do with it increases consumer choice? You mean it encourages OEM
> to provide more higher priced choices since the consumer has no other choice
> right? Subsidized prizes normally include a contract an legislation is not
> needed to have that choice. Did I miss something?
>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:46:21 -0400
>> From: "Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935"
>> <email@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone DVT Team Jailbreaks iPhone 3G
>> To: "Dave Schroeder" <email@hidden>
>> Cc: email@hidden, "Andy Kim, U.S. Senate"
>> <email@hidden>
>> Message-ID: <C4A50BBE.8EBE%email@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> your email and some others gave the impression that unlocking was just to
>> screw apple/at&t and I disagreed with that.
>>
>> I know unlocking is legal, however Congress should make the it illegal to
>> provide phones that can not be unlocked. in a ideal situation the vendor
>> could sell a locked phone at a subsidized price and an unlocked phone at a
>> different price. Currently with the iphone you have no choice in the US.
>> However you will in some parts of Europe so I suspect the market for
>> officially unlocked w/o contract phones from europe is going to be
>> significant which is probably good news for eBay.
>>
>> The current approach of selling iphones is draconian and is not in the best
>> interest of consumers. Consumers should have a choice.
>>
>> boyd
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/17/08 12:21 PM, "Dave Schroeder" <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> You disagree with what? The fact that I said the iPhone 3G can and
>>> will be unlocked, and people can knock themselves out?
>>>
>>> What I had a problem with was people buying the previous iPhones under
>>> a pricing and sales structure that assumed they would be activated
>>> with an AT&T contract, when AT&T estimates that at the end, nearly
>>> half (!) of US iPhones sold were never activated on AT&T. We can argue
>>> rights and legalese all day, but the previous phone also "required" an
>>> AT&T contract.
>>>
>>> The practice of selling phones tied to a carrier for support of
>>> specific features and functionality, and using a contract subsidy to
>>> offset the costs of the hardware, is a very common one. In
>>> jurisdictions that currently require the phone to be sold without a
>>> contract and/or unlocked, the hardware is selling for nearly US$1000.
>>> (Then we can argue how much a company should be allowed to profit all
>>> day long...)
>>>
>>> Apple's desire to ensure that iPhone sales, features, and
>>> functionality provide a good user experience (initial launch issues
>>> notwithstanding) may outweigh individual concerns to have unlocked
>>> phones and use local SIMs internationally. Until then, it is not
>>> illegal to unlock handsets; nor is any vendor obligated to provide the
>>> capability.
>>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I disagree. The ability to unlock the phone will be very useful for
>>>>> people
>>>>> who travel worldwide. AT&T costs outside the US are extremely high -
>>>>> several
>>>>> dollars per min in many locations. If you can unlock the phone, then
>>>>> you can
>>>>> use a different SIM (like prepaid SIMs) in those countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always thought that was a primary benefit of being able to
>>>>> unlock the
>>>>> phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lack of a formal ability to unlock the iPhone is the primary
>>>>> reason I
>>>>> will never buy one. Hopefully, Congress will outlaw the practice of
>>>>> binding
>>>>> a phone to a cell phone vendor. Many countries in Europe already
>>>>> have laws
>>>>> in place that require phones to be sold unlocked (though the phone
>>>>> cost
>>>>> maybe higher if you want this capability).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> boyd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/17/08 10:05 AM, "Dave Schroeder" <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 2008, at 8:46 AM, Timothy J Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Dave Schroeder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This DOES NOT mean that the phone is unlocked. This is hardware
>>>>>>>>>>> related, and, frankly, the 3G hardware probably will be unlocked as
>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect tense:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5876
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, a *software* SIM unlock--that's still days away. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlocks that require hardware don't really count for most. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But yes: the iPhone 3G, like every other GSM handset, will be
>>>>>>> unlocked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, now it matters much less since every iPhone 3G leaving a
>>>>>>> store will either have:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. A full contract, or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. An unsubsidized price (which, yes, is more than even the old
>>>>>>> iPhone
>>>>>>> pricing).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means that both Apple and the carrier don't get screwed, so
>>>>>>> people who still think they're somehow "pulling one over" on Apple by
>>>>>>> unlocking the iPhone 3G can knock themselves out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Dave
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>>>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
> l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fed-talk mailing list
>> email@hidden
>> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/fed-talk
>>
>> End of Fed-talk Digest, Vol 5, Issue 214
>> ****************************************
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden