Rsday Highlights

Rrrrr.

  1. Possibly my wife’s future runabout, you know for us non-anthro global warming activists.
  2. Pretty as a picture, come to think of it … it is actually a picture.
  3. Siris, err Brandon, talks guns.
  4. Interesting new product for ya.
  5. Why is the US 2nd world regarding phone tech? Oh, wait … dy’a think it might be regulatory strangulation? Gosh.
  6. Conservative views on racism.
  7. I wonder (historically speaking) what “court” meant. Court as a thing to me doesn’t sound like great fun.
  8. Never give up hope.
  9. An economist talks about Obamacare.
  10. Privacy and file deletion.
  11. Budget cuts and numbers noted.
  12. Mr Biden’s ill considered advice.
  13. Those large ammo purchases by the government … just graft … never mind. See, always the Chicago way.
  14. Is this about the relationship to the left with the arts?
  15. Somebody needs to remind this author that the great majority of scouts are 11-14  … and kids that age are not exactly “already are” anything in particular regarding sex.

38 Responses to Rsday Highlights

  1. #15 All the more reason why they should drop their ban.

    Those large ammo purchases by the government … just graft … never mind. See, always the Chicago way.

    Heh, fool me twice….I refuse to debunk this for a 3rd time plus.

    Why is the US 2nd world regarding phone tech? Oh, wait … dy’a think it might be regulatory strangulation? Gosh.

    When I first read this I thought it would link to something about our telecomm infrastructure. No, it’s a press release about some Chinese company releasing a ‘quad core processor’ smart phone sometime next year. OK yea I’m sure there’s lots of regulations going from a 3 core processor to a 4 core processor on smartphones.

    Besides, back in December there were already 5 quad core smart phones for sale in the American market.

    http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-57558350-85/quad-core-smartphone-shootout/

    The Chinese company seems to be tardy for the party.

  2. Boonton,

    When I first read this I thought it would link to something about our telecomm infrastructure. No, it’s a press release about some Chinese company releasing a ‘quad core processor’ smart phone sometime next year

    Sorry. You got that completely wrong. This is a new chip. No other phone has a Tegra 4 chip (the NVidia based phone you cited was Tegra 3). The Tegra 4 chip is just out. The first phone it will be in is the phone cited, which will not be next year but in the first half of this year. So. New chip, higher performance. First phone … Chinese. The five phones you cite in your counterexample? Hmm. Three companies, LG, HTC and Samsung .. (hint: LG and Samsung are Korean and HTC is Taiwan) none of these are US manufacturers. Tell me where these phones got their first exposure and use? How long to get to the US after that? 6-9 months? More? Hmmm? Did they get to Europe before the US or after?

    Not tardy. Rorry.

    Heh, fool me twice….I refuse to debunk this for a 3rd time plus.

    Sorry. You’re going to have to redebunk. I think your claim this was a chain email with no basis needs work. Too many links to .gov cites in that article to be debunked by prior claim to chain email.

  3. Chain emails are true if they contain lots of .gov links?

  4. This is a new chip. No other phone has a Tegra 4 chip (the NVidia based phone you cited was Tegra 3). The Tegra 4 chip is just out.

    Ohhh well the Tegra chip. OK and what does the Tegra chip do for me?

    And the regulation prohibiting making Tegra chips on US soil? I think you’re conflating a geographic network effect (industry clusters) with an unfocused complaint/theory that regulation is the source of everything.

  5. Boonton,

    Ohhh well the Tegra chip. OK and what does the Tegra chip do for me?

    There’s a Moore’s law phone cpu war going on at the high end. Right now, top dog is the Quallcomm Snapdragon. The Tegra 4 will probably be fastest until the next comes out. The point is the fastest processor in cell phones is coming out first in China. Not the US. We will probably never ever see that phone.

    I’m not seeing your argument that the US is not 2nd rate regarding cellular and smartphones. Heck Cebu in the Philippines had a more modern cell system than the US and a more open market for using them when I was there. I don’t think much has changed since then. Asus makes a phone that docks in a tablet, can you use it in the US? No. They’re just about to release a second generation of that. Not here.

    Nvidia, btw, is a US based global company. Samsung, Nvidia, and ARM.

    As far as regulation I’m talking about cell phone industry regulatory capture and innovation in the US. We aren’t poor. Why are we so far behind cellular-wise if not regulation?

    That stuff is developed and built overseas is one thing. Explaining why countries which are both poorer than us and not developing this stuff get to buy and use tech long before we do (if we do) is my question … if not regulation, then why?

  6. Boonton,
    This was a blog post. The data on which it was based was using documentation from US records. This for example … is that from a chain email? Doesn’t look like it to me. Why do you think it is?

  7. Yes like the previous claims that came to naught there’s always a seed of truth. A contractor got a $5M contract. While you think that’s a smoking gun, it’s really nothing. What exactly are we supposed to make from it? From the authoritative sources you posted nothing. From the less authoritative ones just a bunch of wild goose chases and made up theories.

  8. As far as regulation I’m talking about cell phone industry regulatory capture and innovation in the US. We aren’t poor. Why are we so far behind cellular-wise if not regulation?

    And China is less regulated? I think the key here is cluster effect, very cheap labor, plus the fact that it’s pretty common to roll out a product in a small market or in your local market before sending to the big one.

  9. As far as regulation I’m talking about cell phone industry regulatory capture and innovation in the US.

    Yea I notice you have a habit of arguing like this:

    If Y, then X

    Y

    Therefore X.

    I point out that Y may not imply X and even so it’s not clear that Y is true therefore your argument is crap.

    You reply with “well show me why X isn’t true” or some variation of that. Bad form, you are obligated to demonstrate your arguments, if you fail to do that your argument fails. I’m not obligated to prove the reverse of your argument.

    But while we’re on the subject the problem here might be lack of regulation. specifically I believe Europe forbids cell phone companies from insisting on ‘locked’ phones. So you buy a phone with a sim card that works on your contract. If you want to try another phone just put the card in it. Feel free to buy a phone from some hot new company, borrow a friends or whatnot.

    But in the US companies are allowed to lock your phone so you’re not buying your own phone unless you do it from your carrier and then you either pay an outrageous price for it or have to pay for it by reupping your contract for more years. What suffers is real cell phone competition since its so hard to swap phones around looking for better tech and better design.

  10. Boonton
    No it was (X and Y) -> Z … you said X may not imply X (and maybe not X even in the face of prior examples of X) … but be that as it may … Bad form you are obliged to pay attention to my argument before you cite me for logical failure. I said regulations and regulatory capture.

    And then … to top it all off … you cite different regulations in the US as compared to elsewhere and say blandly “so real cell phone competition suffers” (because of regulations mind you) but no … the reason we are not 2nd tier nation regarding cell service still in your mind is not regulations. Question what note did the ringing of the beat frequency of the cognitive dissonance in your head make a tone? What note? What octave?

  11. I didn’t cite ‘different regulations’ in the US. I cited a lack of a regulation. Because carriers are allowed to make locked phones a condition of their contract, they can inhibit competition in the market of actual cell phones. How do you spin that as ‘regulation’ unless by regulation you mean not only actual gov’t rules but private sector contracts.

    But while I think that is an idea worth considering, I don’t think it has much to do with cell phones themselves. Carriers like AT&T and Verizon don’t make phones, they buy them and there’s nothing stopping an American company from creating a phone and offering it to carriers to sell in their stores. In fact, one company did that called Apple making the entire Smart Phone market itself a US innovation.

  12. Conservative views on racism.

    This is pretty stupid. Orwell’s idea about being ‘objectively pro-fascist’ depended upon a rather unusual situation, an either or outcome where there were only two possibilities. Either the UK had to fight and defeat fascism or fascism would win. At that point other plausible options had been exhausted. Hence he concluded at that point pacifists were ‘objectively pro-fascist’. But this reasoning is only applicable in ‘special circumstances’. He wasn’t and couldn’t conclude that pacifists were always ‘pro-fascist’ in all places, times, circumstances etc.

    So now let’s look at this example of ‘objectively racist’ environmentalism. Genetically modified rice might be able to be grown in the Philippines with extra vitamin A in it. 8M children died worldwide from vitamin A deficiency. Hence environmentalists who oppose GM rice are ‘objectively racist’.

    Sorry this only flies if you have an environmentalist who says he opposes GM because he wants 8M children a year to die from vit A need because of their race. Otherwise you can only make this argument if you can show that GM rice is the only way to save 8M children from vit. A deficiency and GM rice has aboslutely no other effects that might end up worse than the status quo (such as causing massive extinction of some other necessary crop resulting in millions of more deaths).

    Do you have such a case? Probably not. Vit. A is pretty easy to mass produce and hardly expensive. 8M children a year are not dying because it’s hard for us to make vit. A. It’s also not very convincing to assume that just because the Philippines starts growing lots of Vit. A rice, it will get distributed to those 8M children who need it. More likely it will end up on supermarket shelves for shoppers who have no problems at all getting vit. A. In other words it would be quite easy to oppose GM rice while leaving a host of options on the table still to save 8M kids a year.

  13. Boonton,
    Uhm, not so stupid. You pretend that production, dissemination, and long term distribution of vitamin supplements is “easy” in the third world. Far harder than moving to different seed stock over time. People who are subsistence farming eat their own rice. This gives them a way to grow rice which provides vit-A. Seems like a win-win, except in the magical mystical world in which poor rural farmers shop at supermarkets or get vitamin supplements shipped in from overseas.

    On the other hand, it makes sense from a liberal make-them-dependent-on-us solution which you all so favor.

    It’s unclear that if you start people growing this rice, why they won’t eat it, and why you think supermarkets are were people in the Philippine countryside by anything.

  14. And I’m not a proponent of “no” regulations, just that I am against those which slow development and for those which foster it.

    Carriers like AT&T and Verizon don’t make phones, they buy them and there’s nothing stopping an American company from creating a phone and offering it to carriers to sell in their stores

    Barriers to entry, remember. Remember what it would take for you to produce you own phone. You can’t, even if you technically would. The regulatory capture by the big carriers means they’ve put up regulatory barriers which make competition from upstarts harder. Apparently, oddly enough, you think this is a good thing.

    Apple, btw, is not a “small” upstart. Just google “Tegra 4 benchmark” btw, lots of news today. Remember you won’t see phones with it here until 6 months or a year after the rest of the world does and on just a small fraction of the phones which are available globally. Makes ya feel proud eh?

  15. Boonton,

    In other words it would be quite easy to oppose GM rice while leaving a host of options on the table still to save 8M kids a year.

    Options which, if I read the piece right, were not done. Oops. So, recap, blocked GM, alt. options not taken, blame alas hard to avoid.

  16. On GM rice

    Irrelevant. You’re saying that growing GM rice is a better solution than distributing vit. A pills. Maybe but that doesn’t mean to argue against GM rice is ‘objectively pro-child death’. It’s simply to argue against one possible solution. The “objectively pro-bad thing” argument can only work if there’s no other possible way to achieve the same end.

    Options which, if I read the piece right, were not done. Oops. So, recap, blocked GM, alt. options not taken, blame alas hard to avoid

    A lot of malnutrition and child death in the 3rd world is not caused by a shortage of food but by food distribution. Corrupt, inefficient gov’ts, civil wars etc. prevent farmers from growing fields or getting crops to local markets. Therefore a solution is to establish a standing UN army with a mandate to intervene in any area where child death exceeds a certain level.

    This is certainly a proposed solution, but a lot of people will not be comfortable with it and will find reasons to be critical of it without really being able to solve these problems with alternative solutions.

    One is free to oppose a bad idea without being forced to solve the underlying problem. Granted it would be nice if one at least tossed out a few alternatives but it isn’t absolutely necessary. Nor does a bad idea gain merit simply because the preson who sees the flaws in it is unable to find an alternative.

    Barriers to entry, remember. Remember what it would take for you to produce you own phone. You can’t, even if you technically would. The regulatory capture by the big carriers means they’ve put up regulatory barriers which make competition from upstarts harder

    What regulatory barriers to entry are you talking about? I previously noted that in the US cell phone companies like to ‘lock’ their phones but this isn’t regulation from the gov’t, this is the cell phone contract.

  17. Boonton,

    You’re saying that growing GM rice is a better solution than distributing vit. A pills. Maybe but that doesn’t mean to argue against GM rice is ‘objectively pro-child death’. It’s simply to argue against one possible solution.

    Not what I’m arguing. Here’s your choice. Choice A “Grow and distribute GM rice”. Choice B “Block GM and do distribute Vitamin A pills freely”. Choice C “Block GM and do not distribute pills.” You think the choice is between A & B … and that A is better. I agree A is better and if you went with B that wouldn’t be “objectively bad”. C on the other hand was what was done and that is objectively bad.

    What regulatory barriers to entry are you talking about?

    And I previously noted how hard it was to get a new phone to market in the US.

  18. Very well, if you find someone who argued for C….not doing GM rice and not doing anything else that might address vit. A you may use the criticism against him or her. Problem solved.

  19. Boonton,
    “Argued for?” That would have been good. But they did block the GM and did not distribute vitamins. They did better than argue for it. The ‘complished it.

  20. How do you know? You know that everyone who opposed GM rice opposed distributing vitamins? None of them volunteered or donated to a charity that did something like that? None of them encouraged others to do the same?

    To do the ‘objectively’ argument it’s not required that those opposing one idea implement another, you have to show they opposed all possible workable ideas.

  21. And I previously noted how hard it was to get a new phone to market in the US.

    You mean you claimed but you haven’t really showed nor have you given us a reason to believe this is so or if it is it is due to overregulation.

    You assert the market is dominated by big carriers like AT&T and Verizon because of ‘regulatory capture’. But it’s not unusual for large markets to end up dominated by a few firms. Look at Standard Oil, coka Cola, or the railroads under Vanderbelt. It’s also not clear why this is a barrier to phone makers. Big carriers like having lots of phone options to choose from. It’s providing consumers with a ‘free phone’ that is their ‘hook’ to get them locked in with 2 year contracts. That plus the fact that there is a healthy market in the us for ‘unlocked’ phones and prepaid phones means you’re not locked out if you want to bring a new type of phone to market.

    Remember you won’t see phones with it here until 6 months or a year after the rest of the world does and on just a small fraction of the phones which are available globally

    Lots of movies premier in NY or Los Angeles before they do in the rest of the country. Are there horrible regulations of movie screens in the midwest? No it’s common to roll out a product in a small market before rolling it out in the larger one.

    You carped about regulation but you haven’t made a good case. I cited an example where increasing regulation might improve the market (follow Europe’s lead in banning carriers from requiring customers use only ‘locked’ phones). YOu cited a non-regulation (carriers requring locked phones) as regulation. I then provided a non-regulatory possible explanation for the delay in new phones coming to the larger American market.

  22. Boonton,
    In most of the world you take a SIM card (your contract with a carrier) and put it into any damn phone you want. Your contract moves with your phone. 90% of the new phones never come here at all. And yes, rural part of the country don’t see many of the movies distributed. They are, rightly, regarded from an entertainment/movie perspective as being limited and backwoods. This is correct. Your noting that the NY/LA get move movies and choices than Spiffle Texas means Spiffle is a backwater is fine demonstration of my point that the US is a 2nd rate country when it comes to cellular and phone tech (and yes, Spiffle residents see the big blockbusters on their 2 screens … just like we have choices of 12 phones out of hundreds from our carriers … but we get a fraction of the phones and 6 months to a year late … just like Spiffle and film).

  23. Boonton,
    I should add that remember, I’m not an default advocate of “no” regulation or market anarchy, just that our regulations need to encourage not discourage innovation. In many industries (nuclear for example) it is clear that over regulation is rampant and holding back innovation. But that is not always the case, e.g., your “locked” vs unlocked case.

  24. 1. I’m still trying to understand why you don’t understand that the world regulation means ‘government rules’. You seem to think it just means ‘rules’ in general. Hence you confuse restrictive private sector mobile contracts with regulation.

    2. Spiffle Texas may be a backwater but the set of theaters not inside of NYC or Los Angeles is no backwater, that’s probably 99% of the entire US movie market. In theory Spiffle Texas may be selected to test release a movie too. That wouldn’t make it less of a backwater. The purpose of a release in a smaller market is to test the product before going to the big market. For all I know Spiffle Texas may be enjoying some new McDonalds or Wendy’s concoction. That hardly makes Spiffle ‘cutting edge’ in the eating industry.

  25. Boonton,
    When an entire industry with small and large companies all just out of the blue decide to use the same restrictive practices …. the reasonable reason is that regulations or tax/fine structures make this the de facto best reason to go. So when there are restrictive private sector contracts which are nation wide, you might suspect that the reason these are not opened up is structural not just predatory.

    And remember, I’m not advocating against all government rules just because they are government rules. Regulatory and tax structures should prefer those which encourage innovation.

    So on the Spiffle case, you admit the US is a cell phone backwater (and say … an gas sipping car backwater) … but hey … we’ve cornered the market on … well. What? Paint? Textiles? What?

  26. When an entire industry with small and large companies all just out of the blue decide to use the same restrictive practices …. the reasonable reason is that regulations or tax/fine structures make this the de facto best reason to go

    This is just an assertion without support. Locking cell phones has an obvious market based explanation, by locking a phone the company gets customers to constantly re-up their contracts for another 2 years.

    So on the Spiffle case, you admit the US is a cell phone backwater

    Actually you’re reading it backward. The ‘backwater’ is the market where you roll out a new model before giving it to the larger market.

  27. Boonton,

    This is just an assertion without support. Locking cell phones has an obvious market based explanation, by locking a phone the company gets customers to constantly re-up their contracts for another 2 years.

    Except it also makes it far easier to poach customers services on whichever phone they one. Why then does not one company do that? Hmmm?

    The ‘backwater’ is the market where you roll out a new model before giving it to the larger market.

    But if Spiffle consistently got products in many markets that were newer better more plentiful in variety that the big markets never saw, you wouldn’t be able to describe it as a backwater.

  28. Except it also makes it far easier to poach customers services on whichever phone they one. Why then does not one company do that?

    1. Unlike, say, cars, phones don’t have a long lifetime.

    2. The ‘locking’ system is sold by allowing customers to buy phones at deeply discounted prices. So at the moment it seems like a great deal, get a $500 phones for $99 or even for free! To the mobile company locking the person in to 24 months more of payments is much more valuable than chiping in for his phone.

    But if Spiffle consistently got products in many markets that were newer better more plentiful in variety that the big markets never saw, you wouldn’t be able to describe it as a backwater.

    You’ve made an assertion but haven’t been able to back it up other than by an assertion of faith, whenever you see something that doesn’t make sense to you in a market, you assert it must be due to gov’t regulation or taxes. Really for a Christian blog you’re going to start giving faith a bad name if you keep this up.

  29. So to sum up, you haven’t made a case for over-regulation here. You seem to be mixing up two very different things: Mobile Phone Carriers and Mobile Phones.

    The first is an industry dominated by a few big companies in the US where the norm is contracts (although month to month and prepaid service is getting more common). You allege that they have achieved this position by ‘capturing’ regulators but haven’t really demonstrated it. I do find it possible that the big carriers have pushed for friendly regulation, but we know from history even unreglated markets do tend to veer towards domination by a large number of players ‘naturally’.

    The second are the people who actually make phones. Here you have an international market where people have leaped in and out of the business (for example, Apple didn’t have anything to do with phones before they dominated the field….other companies that once seemed to be huge players have fallen down dramatically….i.e. Palm and Blackberry).

    Here you haven’t really presented any evidence to tell us why ‘regulation’ is at fault. You’ve implied the domination by a few large carriers is to blame but there seems no obvious reason why this would be so (since contract type plans subsidize new phone purchases, if anything it would seem to encourage new phone makers since the big carriers can do their retail marketing and distribution for them in their numerous small outlet stores!)

  30. Boonton,
    OK. Let’s entertain your hypothesis. Why is the US a 2nd tier nation when it comes to cellular costs, service, and technology? You think it isn’t regulatory capture, regulations, or other barriers which big companies put up to keep upstarts from upsetting the applecart.

    Here you haven’t really presented any evidence to tell us why ‘regulation’ is at fault.

    Your right. I don’t have hard evidence. I just have this notion that we shouldn’t be 2nd tier but are and the reasons are probably structural, i.e., the business/regulatory environment. After all, it’s not like people don’t use phones. Eh?

    if anything it would seem to encourage new phone makers since …

    And yet it hasn’t.

    Apple didn’t have anything to do with phones before they dominated the field

    Android is 70% of the market and growing … and the GS III outsells the iPhone. Domination? Not exactly.

  31. Boonton,

    Unlike, say, cars, phones don’t have a long lifetime.

    Which points to more thing, like the regulatory problems with cars. Remember our discussions how much money it takes to bring a new car to market … woops. Guess that was a bad example.

    You’ve made an assertion but haven’t been able to back it up other than by an assertion of faith, whenever you see something that doesn’t make sense to you in a market, you assert it must be due to gov’t regulation or taxes.

    Oh. I’m open to an alternative explanation. You just haven’t offered one.

  32. Boonton,

    So at the moment it seems like a great deal, get a $500 phones for $99 or even for free!

    You do realize that’s just amortizing the cost of the phone over the life of the contract. Typical phones get about a $400 discount for a 24 month contract … which means another company could undercut the contract per month by 16-20 bucks and for the same costs offer you cheaper monthly rates and no discount on the phone.

    And most people keep cars for 4-5 years (unlike the two of us) and phones typically last about that long. They may be obsoleted for the people who want to stay cutting edge but that would be true of cars too if they were less regulated.

  33. Boonton,
    I didn’t finish that paragraph. Sorry.

    OK. Let’s entertain your hypothesis. Why is the US a 2nd tier nation when it comes to cellular costs, service, and technology? You think it isn’t regulatory capture, regulations, or other barriers which big companies put up to keep upstarts from upsetting the applecart. So. Tell me why you think we are lagging behind. Why is US cellular service worse than in the Philippines?

  34. Your right. I don’t have hard evidence. I just have this notion that we shouldn’t be 2nd tier but are and the reasons are probably structural, i.e., the business/regulatory environment. After all, it’s not like people don’t use phones. Eh?

    Ok but I gave you an example where we *don’t* regulate. We *don’t* ban ‘locked phones’ so carriers can make it tough for customers to just buy any phone they want.

    So imagine a US with an unlocked phone regulation. Since you could buy any phone you want and plug in your sim-card, a new phone start up wouldn’t have to pitch to your carrier but only to you. They could give phones away for free even to generate buzz. Now if you can’t win shelf space on the floors of Verizon, AT&T, etc. your nifty new phone is going to have a hard time…

    Remember our discussions how much money it takes to bring a new car to market … woops. Guess that was a bad example.

    Distracting the issue here. Cars are a different product from phones, even in an environment of perfect regulation they are going to be more expensive to bring to market.

    Oh. I’m open to an alternative explanation. You just haven’t offered one

    See above, failure to regulate on behalf of consumers.

    You do realize that’s just amortizing the cost of the phone over the life of the contract. Typical phones get about a $400 discount for a 24 month contract … which means another company could undercut the contract per month by 16-20 bucks and for the same costs offer you cheaper monthly rates and no discount on the phone.

    This is only applicable to the ideal customer who either has no contract or has one that’s just about to expire. I think the more typical source of revenue is taking someone with an existing contract with, say, a year to go, who has just lost his phone and offering him a choice of either spending $200 to ‘terminate’ his contract, $500 to buy a phone from the ‘free market’ or $50 to use his ‘upgrade’ to walk out of the store with the best new phone possible today…maybe even get that $50 refunded to him by mail-in rebate in a 75 days. Or offer the responsible customer an option to add his kids for trivial amounts. All this means it’s not so easy for the other carrier to steal away the customer by simply offering a contract for $20 less per month.

    And most people keep cars for 4-5 years (unlike the two of us) and phones typically last about that long.

    http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/229090-For-how-long-do-people-keep-their-cell-phones-(in-the-US)

    Not quite, more like 20 months. But that figure has been rising recently which hints that people do not value the latest phone as much. That may mean while you appreciate the Tegra 4 chip based phone for its technical aspects, from a retail perspective it’s not much of an innovation. That could be a problem for the big carriers because if people start keeping their phones for more than 2 years you will get a population of people whose contracts are expiring AND who have phones they may want to use at some other carrier. The innovation might be a carrier who will offer lower cost service to people who already have phones from other carriers!

  35. Boonton,

    Cars are a different product from phones, even in an environment of perfect regulation they are going to be more expensive to bring to market

    If I make a new cell phone … I can’t sell it. If you make a new car, you can’t sell it. If you make a new computer you can sell it. If you wanna drive people to their destinations for money, in most cities you can’t do it.

    See above, failure to regulate on behalf of consumers.

    I see. You think that in the Philippines they have regulated their cell phone industry “on behalf of the customers” in ways you haven’t explained where we haven’t.

    In Asia (and likely Europe and for that matter Africa), if you have a cell phone … and your buddy does to. You can trade. You just take your SIM cards out and swap phones. Carrier doesn’t care. You have crappy cell phones and new ones all using the same networks. Look the carrier is like the gas station and/or the tollway. Why do they give a crap where you bought your car? Oh, wait. It’s because they’ve made it illegal (supported by US regulatory laws) to drive on their roads without using their cars. And you think this has no effect on innovation?

    I’m still not seeing an explanation for why we’re 2nd/3rd class nation in this respect.

    Ok but I gave you an example where we *don’t* regulate. We *don’t* ban ‘locked phones’ so carriers can make it tough for customers to just buy any phone they want.

    That’s just semantics. I’ll be the Philippines don’t ban locked phones either. Why would you use one?

  36. If I make a new cell phone … I can’t sell it

    Really? Why? Show me the law or regulation.

    In Asia (and likely Europe and for that matter Africa), if you have a cell phone … and your buddy does to. You can trade. You just take your SIM cards out and swap phones…Oh, wait. It’s because they’ve made it illegal

    Ever hear of ATT? We swap their sim cards all the time. No problem. There’s no law requiring anyone to lock phones, it’s what some carriers like to do.

    I’m still not seeing an explanation for why we’re 2nd/3rd class nation in this respect.

    I’m not really seeing your metric of measure here.

    That’s just semantics. I’ll be the Philippines don’t ban locked phones either.

    I haven’t the slightest idea, do you? But you’re the one here whose telling us regulation is keeping us from being #1 in cell phones. Kinda of sad you don’t even know which regulations are the problem.

  37. Boonton,

    Really? Why? Show me the law or regulation.

    Singular? Really? Let’s see. You have a new device. You have to register and get it approved by the FCC. Think that’s free? Oh, wait, now it’s turned on. Verizon locks out NFC/google wallet. You wanna see what they do when you put a Verizon SIM card in your new device that 2k people just bought? Wanna time how long it will take before lawyers shut you down?

    Ever hear of ATT? We swap their sim cards all the time. No problem.

    I have a Verizon phone. You wanna try your SIM card in my phone? Think it will work?

    I’m not really seeing your metric of measure here.

    Count new products, cost of service, quality of service, easy of entry? What metric do you want. Pick one.

    But you’re the one here whose telling us regulation is keeping us from being #1 in cell phones. Kinda of sad you don’t even know which regulations are the problem.

    I’ve proposed that poorly structured and/or too much regulation are the problem. You’ve not suggested an alternative.

  38. I have a Verizon phone. You wanna try your SIM card in my phone? Think it will work?

    You mean to say you have Verizon as your carrier and Verizon won’t carry any phone you didn’t buy in their store.

    I’ve swapped AT&T sim cards around all the time. My nephews-in-laws often take out their sim cards and swap with each other and friends. When their smartphones broke we ordered a cheap prepaid AT&T phone from Walmart.com, did site-to-store and replaced their phones totally outside of AT&T’s stores and without having to reset the clock on the contract.

    I haven’t looked into it but I believe you can buy in the US market prepaid, disposable simcards so you can buy any phone you want and use it as you please. But that’s good if you’re really into phone tech but most people aren’t. They just want a decent phone and from their POV ‘selling their freedom’ to the carrier is a good deal since they offer good phones at deep discounts.

    That isn’t a problem with the FCC preventing Verizon from making cool phones. It’s a problem for you since you want Verizon’s service but don’t want to play by their rules. I suppose you might have the same problem if you really liked B&N’s Nook but wanted to buy a book only available on Amazon.com. Amazon could, if the market permits, sell books only readable on their readers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>