By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other sprint users (PM), download custom made ring tones, use our custom uploader (FOCUS), see LESS forum advertisements, upload photos in your own photo album and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
But, while the landlines really don't care what type of home phone you have (and in your scenario, neither would the wireless companies as long as it was network compatible) they do care very much about what type of cable box or modem you are using for other applications....right? Verizon and Comcast have presribed models of modem for their service. Why? Because they are approved and can be serviced by them.
If a customer had strictly a voice handset which was compatible, we activated it, we then informed them that the manufacturer was responsible for all equipemnt issues......wonderful.
But, what about those customers who desire something other than pure voice? Can the handset be loaded with the proper sw to run our applications? Can you imagine the absolute run-around that would ensue as customers try to use provider services on their various handsets....have difficulties...come to the provider for answers...the provider can't answer as it's not an approved handset for our service....the customer is then redirected to the OEM for a solution....the OEM claims no knowledge or responsibility for the provider's services....and on, and on, and on.
While the idea is good, it's simply not feasible in today's market. Like I said above....the OEMs would all have to set up retail service operations for equipment issues.....the entire industry would have to standardize all services and applications...and the customer's service experince would be split between service provider and manufacturer at every step. This in essence only complicates the customer's experience and reduces their choices within the market in terms of non-voice applications.
Do you get what I'm saying? For pure voice, it would probably work. But as data grows there is no way to reconcile everyone into one general group so that all service providers and all OEMs are operating on the same page. It kills ingenuity and the market. I.E., one company develops a lightning fast super-duper web browser that quintuples the speed of wireless browsing. What now? This company can not market this product as it sees to the highest bidder....no. It has to give it to all at the mandated price........otherwise it's worthless as no provider can support it.
dan, in essence you are supporting a heavily regulated, price controlled market so that peopel can move about it freely. Okay. If you want to sacrifice technology for convenience, then by all means. But, if you are looking for the best product at the best price.....your idea is dead.
Dan
09-27-2005, 01:23 AM
dan, in essence you are supporting a heavily regulated, price controlled market so that peopel can move about it freely. Okay. If you want to sacrifice technology for convenience, then by all means. But, if you are looking for the best product at the best price.....your idea is dead.
Data applications could easily be based on a few software codes. An industry standard for CDMA would have to include standard data type plans, etc. It is very feasible, its just that each company wants to make sure that their equipment is used ONLY on their network that they choose to change the software.
Lets be honest, sprint would far rather "supplement" the sale of handsets than have a customer who can call up Verizon or Alltel tomorrow if they get upset with sprint's service so this wont happen without action from congress and the FCC.
JNA
09-27-2005, 01:33 AM
Fine, if you can get Blazer and Palm and Microsoft and Mac and to standardize their OS's and applications on some standard. But, how are you going to do that? Government intervention forcing them to do so, right?
Dude, each provider chooses the equipment and service that best fits their customer and their network. You could not have asked pre-merger Nextel to adopt the data services of Sprint or Verizon because their network can not handle the load. What then?
Without standardizing on one (or two) networks and strictly regulating the companies involved.....this ain't happening. If you want to adopt the European GSM model and standardize all service, pricing, and new products all across the board.....your idea isn't going to work.
It's utopian and ideal, but it's also a drag on inovation and competition...
Pete1122
09-27-2005, 08:51 AM
Wow....it's almost like complaining that your gas guzzling SUV dosent run on water and your pissed about it.
MsRandall
09-27-2005, 09:24 AM
This thread has gotten way off topic.... :Popcorn2:
lgmayka
09-27-2005, 09:26 AM
Just exactly how is this a by-product of short-sightedness on Sprint's part?
...
All of the providers have very similar pricing structures, so it's obvious that all are at best breaking even on handset costs.
We already discussed this in another thread:
The providers do not have similar pricing structures! Verizon can afford to give out free EVDO/multimedia/Bluetooth phones every 2 years, T-Mobile can afford to give out free phones every year, etc. GSM phones are typically easily unlockable and then usable on any GSM carrier. CDMA carriers, too, will often activate other-branded phones, sometimes by re-flashing if necessary.
The problem child here is Sprint. Sprint imposes onerous unique burdens on both manufacturers and customers, ensuring that Sprint handsets will always be expensive and out of date compared to the competition.
lgmayka
09-27-2005, 09:32 AM
There's only one problem.....service for the customer. How would any provider be able to provide competent equipment service and repair for a customer base that is ever changing and equipped with hundreds of various model of handset or data device? We could not efficiently address every issue much less replace equipment that is coming from dozens of OEMs without having a genreal idea of what to train for and expect.
In short, while the idea is nice, you as the consumer would be forced to rely strictly on the manufacturer for all issues as the providers simply could not. The OEMs are not set up for this type of consumer interaction however.
The above comment is quite hilarious, because it precisely describes Sprint's new policy! Sprint's new policy--which, by the way, is contrary to existing warranty statements and therefore violates the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act--is precisely to throw all warranty repair back on manufacturers.
lgmayka
09-27-2005, 09:43 AM
But as data grows there is no way to reconcile everyone into one general group so that all service providers and all OEMs are operating on the same page. It kills ingenuity and the market.
...
dan, in essence you are supporting a heavily regulated, price controlled market so that peopel can move about it freely. Okay. If you want to sacrifice technology for convenience, then by all means. But, if you are looking for the best product at the best price.....your idea is dead.
Everyone needs to understand that GSM already does this, very successfully, by the definition of open interface standards. The CDMA carriers are simply too arrogant and stubborn to do the same.
GSM has certainly not killed ingenuity, much less the market. On the contrary, the GSM handset market has a lot more life than CDMA's. And it is not GSM handsets that are price-controlled, but rather Sprint's. Sprint tightly controls handset prices through its arcane system of discounts, rebates, and kickbacks, and even more so through its policies of ESN restriction and uncomputable permanent MSLs.
In short, GSM's open standards have resulted in the best handset technology, price, and convenience.
lgmayka
09-27-2005, 09:52 AM
You could not have asked pre-merger Nextel to adopt the data services of Sprint or Verizon because their network can not handle the load. What then?
Without standardizing on one (or two) networks and strictly regulating the companies involved.....this ain't happening. If you want to adopt the European GSM model and standardize all service, pricing, and new products all across the board.....your idea isn't going to work.
Nextel is out of the equation because its network uses an entirely different air interface (iDEN). The proposal is for the standardization of handsets across CDMA networks.
The GSM handset market depends merely on the standardization of interfaces, not the regulation of entire companies nor the standardization of pricing or applications.
Moogle
09-27-2005, 11:43 AM
You make some very good points lgmayka....
One of the reasons (at least in my opinion) that GSM has done so well, is because GSM is just a standard... Its not patented by any one company... Lots of different companies make GSM chipsets, driving cost down.
As I recall, Qualcomm is the only manufacturer of CDMA chipsets (for use with CDMA2000 networks, a Qualcomm product.)...
While I thoroughly believe CDMA is a better product overall (except in a few areas, namely incoming call signaling) - I don't think its good to have one manufacturer making everything...
Competition is good: it drives prices down as companies search for the best and cheapest method to manufacture something... I think that R-UIM cards would be good for the CDMA world - it would allow interoperability and would drive handset prices down...
That's just it: the reason they don't want to use R-UIM cards (namely, Sprint, Verizon and Alltel - the three major CDMA carriers) is because it will remove their strangle hold on the handsets.... SEBU (I believe that is the: Sprint Equipment Business Unit?) loves to jack up the prices... And make a bundle on the phones...
The providers do not have similar pricing structures! Verizon can afford to give out free EVDO/multimedia/Bluetooth phones every 2 years, T-Mobile can afford to give out free phones every year, etc. GSM phones are typically easily unlockable and then usable on any GSM carrier. CDMA carriers, too, will often activate other-branded phones, sometimes by re-flashing if necessary.
The problem child here is Sprint. Sprint imposes onerous unique burdens on both manufacturers and customers, ensuring that Sprint handsets will always be expensive and out of date compared to the competition.
There is a reason Sprint charges certain prices for devices, there is a formula in place.
TMobile has to do something to distinguish itself in the market place, coverage wise they are crappy. So, they offer deep discounted handsets to entice customers to switch.
Its all about choice...Do not like a carriers policy? Cancel, move on.
JNA
09-28-2005, 12:59 AM
Oh...my, my, my......where to begin....?
"The providers do not have similar pricing structures! Verizon can afford to give out free EVDO/multimedia/Bluetooth phones every 2 years, T-Mobile can afford to give out free phones every year, etc. GSM phones are typically easily unlockable and then usable on any GSM carrier. CDMA carriers, too, will often activate other-branded phones, sometimes by re-flashing if necessary......"
Oh, but they do. The problem is that you don't see it in the pricing. Sprint has historically priced handsets higher and rate plans lower as a way of absorbing costs. Conversely, most other carriers reduce handset costs by charging more for the rate plans to offset the loss. It's all in where you put the charges. Second, I've now been with Sprint for over 5 years. Never, ever, in any way whatsoever have we been able to activate a non-Sprint handset in that time by any means.......much less reflashing software (that is a joke, right?). I don't know what "carriers" you're referring to or within what time frame, but it hasn't been recent or anywhere near common in half a decade.
Then, there's this:
"The problem child here is Sprint. Sprint imposes onerous unique burdens on both manufacturers and customers, ensuring that Sprint handsets will always be expensive and out of date compared to the competition....."
What unique burdens exactly are you referring to? I'd love to know.....please tell. Your assertion here flies in the face of basic, sound business practices. Why would any company deliberately handicap itself int his way? Why make your product more expensive and more out of date on purpose in the face of such competition which will pluck your customer base. The statement makes NO SENSE and is NOT FACTUALLY SOUND.
If you can, not likely, please provide some modicum of evidence.....okay?
Oh, and this:
"Originally Posted by JNA
There's only one problem.....service for the customer. How would any provider be able to provide competent equipment service and repair for a customer base that is ever changing and equipped with hundreds of various model of handset or data device? We could not efficiently address every issue much less replace equipment that is coming from dozens of OEMs without having a genreal idea of what to train for and expect.
In short, while the idea is nice, you as the consumer would be forced to rely strictly on the manufacturer for all issues as the providers simply could not. The OEMs are not set up for this type of consumer interaction however.
The above comment is quite hilarious, because it precisely describes Sprint's new policy! Sprint's new policy--which, by the way, is contrary to existing warranty statements and therefore violates the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act--is precisely to throw all warranty repair back on manufacturers...."
The above does not in anyway known to thinking man seem out of sorts. First, Sprint's new policy DOES NOT contradict manufacturer warranty policy. The warranty is with the OEM....period. Sprint has observed this warranty as the basis for it's service....it no longer does. The manufacturer warranty is still there.....no one has taken it away. Sprint has simply instituted its own policy which goes far and above the OEM in every respect....if you choose to decline you still have the warranty of the maker to rely upon. NO legalistic anti-consumer violations here.
And then:
"Nextel is out of the equation because its network uses an entirely different air interface (iDEN). The proposal is for the standardization of handsets across CDMA networks.
The GSM handset market depends merely on the standardization of interfaces, not the regulation of entire companies nor the standardization of pricing or applications. ..."
Fine, try regulating interfaces. We are speaking of two entirely different economic and political systems here. The EU years ago decided to mandate a GSM standard upon the people. Once established, the manufacturers knew the boundaries available and reaching a continent wide standard was easy as no competing standard could interfere. You are essentially advocating a government mandated regulation of the industry in order to force companies and providers into greater standardization. Okay, but just admit it. Neither of these are going to do this in our freeer market while they can still establish themselves based upon specific offerings tailored for the customer.
@Moogle:
As I recall, Qualcomm is the only manufacturer of CDMA chipsets (for use with CDMA2000 networks, a Qualcomm product.)... "
No, Motorola does produce it's own CDMA system but its generally considred inferior to the Qualcom product. Thus, the Sprint/Motorola rift of 4-5 years ago which slowly pushed Moto out of the Sprint and Verizon sphere....
Dan
09-28-2005, 02:14 AM
Look, this is no different than IMB making a "PC" and Apple making a "mac." Each one has a hard drive, just like a phone has so much "flashable" memory which software for whatever purpose can be placed onto. Obviously the software can be removed by mistake, people do it all the time with bitpim and a data cable. Therefore it is software and memory, not hard coded in a chip.
Verizon can activate a "sprint" phone on its CDMA network, but you lose data because sprint uses its data delivery and formatting system which is different than the one sprint uses. The most important parts on a phone can be standardized just like the parts of a "pc compatable" have been generally standardized.
Lets realize something: The reason why each carrier adopts different technology is to keep you from leaving with the phone you spent $300 on because it's not going to work the same on the new carrier and you will have to buy a new $300 phone.
Standardized phones that have memory capable of running standard phone software that is placed on by sprint, verizon, whoever. It can work, just no one is forcing the issue............. yet. Standardizing the handsets will allow manufacturers to choose what to offer in the line of features such as bluetooth, camera, etc and take those decisions from the service providers.
Wait 10 years and see it made into law as opposed to being a dream.
JNA
09-29-2005, 12:43 AM
And, dand, it may well be turned into law. If it becomes a big enough issue to the consumer and if the market is willing to accept this artificial limit on them...all-righty then.
The rest of your analogy is what I spoke of above.
You are able to purchase any handset of make, network capability, features, size, form, etc., that you like from whatever source you like....okay.
You are able to activate this handset with any provider you like providing the handset is compatible.....okay.
What happens when something goes haywire with the service or the handset? No provider is going to have the equipment or knowledge base to handle any problem with every conceivable model of handset on the market that is compatible with their service. Right now, Sprint employees need to have some working knowledge of around 100 different model of handset which we have offered over the lest several years. There are months of testing and training performed on each handset we offer to insure proper functionality with our services and serviceability in the field. Yet, even with this, we are constantly harangued about our lack of knowledge on our own products and inability to service the products we (or have) carried.
Now, when you consider this and the problems that supporting only the products we thoroughly test and then offer can pose, can you imagine the total anarchy that would exist if we (or any other provider) were to suddenly be forced to somehow work with any handset model, regardless of where it came from, that is supposed to be compatible with our service..???? :indiff: And, if you are one who thinks that the level of product knowledge is bad now (for any provider).....just wait until you quadruple the number of handset combinations possible while not being able to increase the quality of the training for employees. Eeeeeesh.. :rolleyes:
Also in this scenario, you are missing the fact that once the market were to opened up like this, that the service providers could no longer guarantee service or replacement for your handset. The responsibility for this would now fall squarely back upon the OEM to honor their own warranties. If any of you dislike the current provider/OEM set-up regarding warranty and equipment issues....well hold on to your backsides for this one.
Nightmare scenario:
Mr. Joe Customer walks in with a SamStarRola Super 1000 he bought from Discount Electronics and wants us to activate it. Well, before that, we have to flash the handset with some specific SW applications and the appropriate roaming list for our network. Great. But, for some reason while doing this, the handset is "fried" in the process of uploading the OEM approved package for our service. What then? It was the approved load that had worked for hundreds of other handsets just like his, so we know it wasn't anything in the software itself.....so we have to assume something is wrong with the handset. We can't warranty or be expected to replace every handset in the market, so we direct him back to the seller for redress. Upon doing so, the seller tells Joe that the manufacturer is responsible for the handset, not him, and he must take up the issue with SamStarRola. Joe calls SamStarRola, relays the epsiode in detail....and they tell him that failures are actually very low for his model and that his problem is very likely rlated to something done to it in the Sprint store. they refer him back to us, etc.......and around, and around, and around we go.
So, while the idea of a totally limitless wireless playgorund is intriguing, there are some very basic and important issues which would make it difficult to pull-off. I understand your computer analogy. But, would you like me to real off my tales of woe regarding issues between my DSL provider and the computer maker when my internet service has problems? No, probably not becuase I'm sure you've had similar and can relate. Are you ready for that exact situation with regards to your wireless handset???
SprintUsers.com was created in January 2002 as a resource for users of Sprint PCS products and services to learn about and share information. We have cll phone reviews, Cellular Accessories, Downloads, PDA reviews, Ringtones, all of the latest Sprint PCS news and information, an area where you can find help in creating a ring tone or custom image for you phone, and so much more. The most popular section is the message board where visitors can read and write messages, ask questions, and get advice about their cellular phone from other users.