Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

One of the reasons the US telcoms rape and pillage its customers is because the customers do not question the policies and ask for more.

I have never heard any customer bringing their old phone and DEMANDING that he /she gets a rebate on the service. When I asked a AT&T manager as to why if I get a subsidized phone I get $X / month but if I get my old phone I cant get any lesser price - and he didn't even understand the math of it. He acted incredulous that I even was asking for such a lesser price.

This is the big issue. Unless customers stand demanding a service, these companies will not even consider it. We have to force them to open up.

Of course this will not stop me from asking for a better price on service only deal than the phone+service deal when I get bring my own unlocked N900 to them again. I know what I will get for an answer - but at least the manager will be a little less incredulous on hearing about it again.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

The only problem, nilchak, is that change of that magnitude requires CLASS action. The telcos are counting on us acting as individuals and they can counter us easily that way. Of course there are many variables such as customer attitude, representative attitude, weather of the day, whose sports team won or lost...

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

God I'm happy I live in Sweden after reading this thread. :D

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

and thats why i really really hate how thinking these days is all about right wing individualism, and how the individual is then suddenly more enpowered and free...

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

hell, consider this, while motorola and at&t bickered over who had the right to build a cell phone network (after motorola came up with the concept, but at&t wanted to build it as "the" US phone company), the nordic nations took the concept and deployed NMT ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Mobile_Telephone

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Thats very true - a CLASS action suite is the only thing which will make them wake up. Or else the FCC should take a stance on such issues. But we all know what the FCC is really capable of.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Good discussion, now back to my original question :P

How does this community commnuicate the value of the open nature of Maemo to carriers and groups that have all of this POTS/legacy infrastructure?

If you cannot tell them why what you do is valuable, why then should they support your type of business model/usage?

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

The last time I renewed my Vodafone UK contract I was negotiating for the best deal (already had a decent enough phone, only needed a couple of hundred minutes of cross-network minutes & SMSes). I got down to 14ukp per month with a new phone (SE W890i - nice non-smart phone).

If I'd kept my existing phone, it'd've dropped to 12ukp per month. However, over the lifetime of an 18 month contract, I took the new phone (and sold my old one on eBay for fifty quid)

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

I presume you're asking about the US only, because in the UK it's normal to get a better rate if you're not getting a bundled phone.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

I was referring to the US.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

class action? on what grounds...
Outright theft?

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Collusion, violation of trade laws, etc. There have in fact already been successful class actions against the carriers here in the US.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Signing up for a 2 year contract without testing transfer rates first seems a bit silly :)

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Are you serious ? Here in the US you are sold a "Unlimited" plans with caps on bandwith uploads and downloads as a standard practice. And you will be fined based on the finest fine-print.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

No I'm not kidding. You can usually arrange a 2 week trial if you go to a physical store, to test the transfer rates at the places you're going to use it at.

The coverage maps only tell you what signal strength to expect, and aren't that accurate or up to date (when the operators build 1000 new transmitters per year and update map twice a year, it's always out of date). Besides, signal strength doesn't translate into transfer speed. The speed will depend on how many users in a cell, how heavy they use the service, the amount of channels allocated to that cell, and the size of that cell's uplink. The operators consider that information, as well as the actual location of their base stations, proprietary information and wont tell you. The only way is to test.

There are no transfer limits or extra charges. Some operators explicitly forbid p2p traffic, and all of them prioritize voice over data.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Nah, the operator I'm switching to definitely has far better network than my old one, and probably less overloaded one than the one claiming to have the best, so I expect it to be at least decent. Besides, I'm pretty sure I'll be able squirm out of the hook if they won't be able to deliver the promised speed :)

Also, there shouldn't be any caps, limits or traffic shaping. I hope.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Uhmmm, so I'm assuming (only because of the responses here), that carriers don't have to be convinced that they should support Maemo/FOSS users of this type because our business is better for them than the rest of the business cases out there - most of which they are already employing?

So essentially, on some basis of "we just know better" they should support Mameo devices and/or different types of purchasing models, no matter if its easily supported or profitable (to them or us or both) at all?

Eh... and here I was hoping to find some business savvy/sense amongst the reams of conversation here. Guess its more or less like they know best, we know best, and our best is better than theirs - though theirs built and owns the networks we'd be using best.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be an apologist for carriers nor their schemes; I'd like to know the other side of the discussion. Because for all the eyes that Maemo is getting now, if this community cannot speak towards that (whether we believe there's a benefit to carriers or not), then why should any of our opinions about how they use networks have substance?

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

I hate all this talk of using force to change the way the wireless companies work.

Change them with the use of your dollars. This is not a worthy cause for force.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Your unlikely to get a better rate. Maybe from TMobile, but most companies don't give discounted rates unless you ask them for it (for example, negotiate with them after your 2yr contract is up. they'll usually throw something in for free or give u a slightly better rate) Maybe a difference in lockin though. e.g. instead of yearly contracts you can get them monthly.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Well. I would very much like like to see Apple brought down by the bureaucrats (yet again one model example why: http://discussions.apple.com/thread....art=0&tstart=0)
However, as there IS viable competition, I choose to vote with my euros and buy Nokia. Simple. But how do I vote with money when there is only one provider offering what I need?
Telecommunications is becoming more and more a necessity. The same way water, heating an electricity have been for a while now. You can't just go and start up your own small, local telco, either... Investments needed for infrastructure are just too huge.

You can call me a commie and crucify me on the wall for it, but imho the business needs to be carefully controlled to ensure customers have their choice of services. To make sure people CAN vote with their money.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

In essentially locked markets like the US, that is so far into impractical as to be impossible.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. The cynical assessments of the US market are accurate. Granted, complaining is nothing more than venting due the improbability of change by individuals, but what do you expect of people frustrated by a situation they feel powerless to change?

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

I would never call you a commie, unless you were one, in the vein of Stalin, Mao, etc. :)

Yes it may take much capital to start a telcom business that does not mean one cannot be started.
An d TexRat you do have choices, and you do have different companies doing different things. You may have to make compromises and may not get exactly what you want, but that is life. I am not satisfied with the current wireless companies either, but I choose the one I like the best, which offers what I want and I use it. I dont think that force or violence is justified in these cases.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Force.. or violence? Where is that coming from?

I don't think you're making a very convincing argument. On the one hand you admit that 'it may take much capital to start a telcom business', which seems to affirm the idea that it may be difficult to impossible to do so. Then, in the same breath you state, 'that does not mean one cannot be started', in this context, contradicts the whole spirit of the argument being made which is that that the industry marches together to make sure it is difficult to impossible to have viable competition to give consumers what they actually are willing to pay for. History has shown, without any doubt, that there are times when regulation and laws must step in to keep such businesses honest and to promote small businesses to compete with larger ones, defend consumers and provide an actual free market not just the appearance of a free market.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Would you think of me different if I expected some vein of persons in this highly intelligent and ingenious community to propose or speak towards how they are implementing a solution that would assist in alleviating all the frustrations?

Maybe that person is just me...

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

They are not full choices, as would exist in a true free (and fair) market.

The point is the companies are not different enough, because they are protected by virtual-monopolistic FCC and FTC policies that would be illegal for any other industry.

I recommend reading up on the subject rather than dispensing ill-informed comments.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Many have spoken so, many times. Again, though, solutions are easy to envision but near impossible for individuals to implement. This is ostensibly why we have consumer-facing government agencies... who unfortunately have turned their backs upon us.

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

A telco corporation licenses a limited number of frequencies as defined by the government. These licenses grant a temporary monopoly to the telco corporation to operate on that frequency.

Same as it was with FM. But while we now have tons of ways to express a diverse amount of information (compared to 30 years ago where magazines, FM, TV were owned by a Happy Few), the problem now lies in receiving it.

That, und, ehh... redistributing it.. hihi.

The temporary monopoly we see back in another aspect of our so called free market: copyright, patent system, martial law, ...

Re: Maemo, What's the Carrier's Argument?
 

Having worked in the industry, I understand all that, thanks though.

I'm referring more to the restricting service plans and similar evils. ;)