Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
It's funny.  Laugh. Businesses Communications The Almighty Buck

Why Everyone Should Hate Cellphone Carriers 329

The Byelorrusian Spamtrap writes "Wired Magazine's made its position clear on the state of play in America's cellular industry, delivering a long, satisfying screed on why all of us should stop complaining and do something about it. 'They own politicians - Sure, it's just phones. In a world where worse things happen all the time amid the muck and despair of human existence, having to pay for premium text is hardly worth worrying about, is it? You can (and should) opt out, and not sign on the dotted line to begin with. But today's cell towers might be tomorrow's Pony Express: they're TV stations, internet access, emergency 911 and news networks all rolled into one. WWAN could well end up supplanting copper sooner than anyone expects: do you want these companies in charge of it?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Everyone Should Hate Cellphone Carriers

Comments Filter:
  • by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:39PM (#21189905) Homepage
    In a world where worse things happen all the time amid the muck and despair of human existence, having to pay for premium text is hardly worth worrying about, is it?

    That depends. Are you paris hilton? If yes, then yes.
    • Well of course (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well of course the telcos are buying people out. That's entirely why they torpedoed municiple wifi: they are more and more being forced into the role of "dumb pipes", which as everyone knows is really hard to loot money from. They need these other businesses in order to obfuscate what it is they really do.

      If municiple wifi becomes a reality, so does their chance to make insane and obscene profit. Sure, it sucks for "we the people", but conservatives don't care, they are too busy spewing their anti-Americ
      • Re:Well of course (Score:5, Interesting)

        by DaedalusHKX ( 660194 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @07:14PM (#21190855) Journal
        Bah, I've been an advocate of "sharing the love" for a long time.

        Buy a Broadband connection, then put a WIFI router on your main router's DMZ and let the folks know that service might be intermittent, but they can hit that router for (or negotiate a group rate with friends and neighbors, you maintain the power bill and the hardware and keep the big public WIFI router on a DMZ, etc.)

        If every neighbor in the area with broadband provides a WIFI network (I even put up a SQUID cache server in the old days) you can actually provide "municipal" wifi without needing the government to get involved.

        If you get to KNOW your neighbors before letting them have the WIFI WPA access key, then you can truly "secure" your network by knowing, A, who's logged in, and B, whom it is that you're sharing your data with.

        And technically, you can do whatever you damn please with the connection, especially if you run a cache server to keep things clear. Discussing other features (such as data retention policy or lack thereof, etc, will help keep things honest...) I have known of NO endeavors ever done by big corporations (child of government) or the government itself that has EVER been honest, whether here in North America, or anywhere else.

        To believe that gov'co ever does ANYTHING without having ulterior motives, is to be starkly and childishly naive.
        • Re:Well of course (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) * on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:54PM (#21192125) Homepage Journal
          That's a great idea until an FBI agent is standing on your neck when they track down illegal activity to your connection. I'm not trying to be cynical because I really do think your idea is great. However, I have a hard time believing the government will buy (or even understand) all the precautions you are taking when they find out someone is snarfing kiddie porn through your wireless.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by nospam007 ( 722110 )
        Well of course the telcos are buying people out. That's entirely why they torpedoed municiple wifi: they are more and more being forced into the role of "dumb pipes"...

        Actually it's 'tubes'.
  • Yes! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:39PM (#21189907)
    [This comment paid for by the American Association of Mobile Telephone Operators]
  • by saleenS281 ( 859657 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:45PM (#21189961) Homepage
    Let me get this straight... polticians are corrupt, so we shouldn't buy cellphones? Am I reading that correctly? Politicians are corrupt... so in response... we punish ourselves by not using a very convenient technology. Are we really that apathetic? Is that what this country has come to?

    HOW ABOUT PUNISH THE POLITCIANS!? I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt. Vote for an independent, hell, write in yourself, but don't whine that you'd just be *wasting a vote*, and continue to support people who are not serving you! Then tell people they should live the life of a hermit to *stick it to the man*. It is NOT the corporations fault that they attempt to maximize profits. That is the job of a public company. Our government allowing them to do so through shady practices is a problem with the GOVERNMENT!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      That's just one of their reasons, and you know what? You're both right. The political system is fucked up beyond all reason. But when it comes down to it, the absolute worst companies I've ever had to deal with were cellphone companies. If you like a cellphone company, it's because you've never had to deal with their customer service, and I believe that to be true in 99% of the cases.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      False dichotomy.

      In fact, I would argue that by knowingly supporting a company involved in corruption while chastising others for not punishing corruption in government would make someone a hypocrite.
      • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:19PM (#21190307)
        In fact, I would argue that by knowingly supporting a company involved in corruption while chastising others for not punishing corruption in government would make someone a hypocrite.

        There's no false dichotomy there, at least not in the real world. Many people who choose to live in society, and have a job, may require wireless telephone service. This means they'll have to support a company involved in corruption, because there's no other choice (all the companies in this cartel are corrupt, after all). The only organization that can do anything about it is the government, which is also corrupt, but is under control (theoretically) of the voters, if they would bother to vote intelligently. The only alternative is to simply not use cellular service, which may cause much worse problems socially for any individual who tries this approach.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by sleigher ( 961421 )
          You guys are nuts. You're actually asking Americans to stop and think about what they are doing BEFORE they do it. Well, let me know how that works out for you...... Sorry if I sound like it is an absolute lost cause.....

          What's sad is that there are a lot of smart people in America who are either blinded by religion and this code of morals/ethics attached to it, or they too have lost hope and couldn't be bothered to vote. And thus I give to you.... America!

          I vote. And I vote my conscience after lear
          • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:57PM (#21190683)
            I vote. And I vote my conscience after learning about candidates/issues.

            I do too, at least I do my best in doing so. However, it doesn't help much voting for Candidate B when everyone else is voting for Candidate A. (It's even worse if you vote for Candidate C.) You can't control everyone else when we all have equal votes. You can try to make noise about it, raise awareness, etc., but in the end, if everyone else makes the wrong choice, you're stuck with it.

            A lot of Slashdotters really don't seem to understand this concept, judging by the responses to my post here.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Dun Malg ( 230075 )

              You can't control everyone else when we all have equal votes. You can try to make noise about it, raise awareness, etc., but in the end, if everyone else makes the wrong choice, you're stuck with it.

              A lot of Slashdotters really don't seem to understand this concept, judging by the responses to my post here.

              Idealists. They can be exasperating. For the most part, their notions of the ideal world we should be working towards are prefaced with "If only everyone would...". Well, the problem with idealists is that they don;t realize that everyone NEVER will.

      • by Original Replica ( 908688 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:28PM (#21190387) Journal
        knowingly supporting a company involved in corruption

        You say that as if there is any other kind of corporation. Seriously, if you were to opt out of the services of every corporation that has politicians in it's pocket you would be so alienated from society as to be unable to affect any change with-in society. To put it in concrete terms, how are you going to have a house without a bank account? How are you going to have a job without any telephone number? How are you going to vote when you are an unemployed homeless person?

        Corruption is one of the prices we pay for having such a large society. Even if all corporations and government entities had wonderful transparency there would be an unfeasible amount of oversight needed to prevent corruption. Here is an excerpt from an article that explains "Why big things fail":

        there are upper limits to the size of animals on earth, and it's hard not to notice that the very biggest animals--mammoths, elephants whales, rhinoceri--are extinct or likely endangered. And obviously, very large organisms are at all times vastly more rare than very small ones. A 2000 academic paper from a Swiss zoologist summarizes the reasons that this should be so: with increasing size come "viability costs...due to predation, parasitism, or starvation because of reduced agility, increased detectability, higher energy requirements, heat stress, and/or intrinsic costs of reproduction." For precisely these reasons, a state with trillion-dollar budgets and massive military might is in a precarious condition, and a good candidate for extinction. http://reason.com/news/show/121237.html [reason.com]

        So preventing corruption in our international mega-corps and our global military and our world police government is about as likely as finding a Humpback Whale with no barnacles. It's never going to happen because we are too big to find and reach all of the parasites.

        Our best chance at lowering corruption and improving the average citizen's voice in government would be to break up our behemoth government by transferring most of the budget and power to the individual States. But with that transition we would be sacrificing our superpower status and the Federal level players wil never willingly let that happen.
        • by nido ( 102070 ) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <65odin>> on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @07:46PM (#21191125) Homepage

          But with that transition we would be sacrificing our superpower status and the Federal level players will never willingly let that happen.
          America has already given up its status as a superpower. The war in Iraq has drained America dry - most just haven't really realized it yet.

          The main problem is that empires are backed by industrial power. Waging war requires a lot of goods. While the United States economy still produces a lot of military equipment (bullets & bombs, cruise missiles, airplanes & helicopters, etc), production of other goods required to support the economy has shifted over the past 30+ years to other countries: Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, China, etc. The trade deficit has risen concurrently with the shift to offshore production. Trade is fine, as long as it's a two-way street. As it is, the U.S. has been freeloading for a generation, and the piper always gets his due.

          This was fine as long as Japan/et al could use their surplus dollars to buy Crude Oil. But now more and more oil-producing countries are accepting (and preferring) Euros/Yen/etc for their product, and are divesting themselves of their dollar holdings. See Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman [economichitman.com] on how the Feral Government enlisted the Saudi royal family's help in establishing the Petro-Dollar, to help finance their push for Empire. (Saudis bought U.S. Treasuries with all the excess dollars they had).

          There was a recession from March-November of 2001. It was caused by Bill Clinton's dismantling of the economy via NAFTA, and the dot-com bubble. Instead of having an orderly restructuring of the economy, GWB, Alan Greenspan and the U.S. Congress worked together to blow an even bigger bubble in the nation's housing markets.

          Anyways, the housing market has now 'popped', and it's all downhill for the Empire from here on out. This is a good thing, as the Feral Government's Perpetual War sucks money from the middle class and redistributes it to Wall Street and the Military-Industrial Complex.

          Not to imply that the Neoconvicts aren't still a loose cannon. I guess Darth Cheney is gaga over nuking Iran - see Esquire's recent piece, The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know [esquire.com]. If Cheney/et al are successful in turning their 'wet dream' into reality, it'll just be that much more Karma that We The People will have to meet, and the depression will be that much worse ('cause China/Russia are fully capable of bitchslapping our now-hollow economy).

          Save America: Help Ron Paul [ronpaul2008.com], he's our only hope. As the economy tanks over the course of the coming year, Ron Paul's support will continue to grow, while the rest of the Republicrat candidates will have to buy their support one vote at a time.
    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:12PM (#21190245)

      HOW ABOUT PUNISH THE POLITCIANS!? I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt.


            Looks like somebody just made it onto the terrorist watch list...
    • by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:13PM (#21190259)
      "I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt."

      Incumbents don't lose [slashdot.org]. 93% of House elections (and something like 96% of state legislative elections) were decided shortly after the 2000 census. Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers).

      "Vote for an independent,"

      Also doesn't work. [wikipedia.org]

      "write in yourself,"

      Even if you did live in a state that allowed write-in candidates and you filed the necessary paperwork (and paid the necessary fees) to be counted as a write-in candidate, we still have a plurality voting system. If every person who normally didn't vote went in next year to vote for themselves, the results would not be different.

      "but don't whine that you'd just be *wasting a vote*"

      "Whine?" It's essentially a mathetmatical certainty. Rhetoric doesn't trump political science demonstrated by centuries of practical examples.

      "Our government allowing them to do so through shady practices is a problem with the GOVERNMENT!"

      Yeah, OK, go start the revolution, then. We'll be right behind you.
      • by vimh42 ( 981236 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:46PM (#21190583)
        The problem with realists is they admit the democracy is dead in America. The problem with idealists is they believe the system works. The problem with America is that...never mind, my TV show is on.
        • by xstonedogx ( 814876 ) <xstonedogx@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:55PM (#21190673)
          The problem with people is that they never ask themselves, "What the fuck is my problem?"
        • The problem with realists is they admit the democracy is dead in America.

          That's not a problem. That's the first step to any hope of accomplishing anything useful politically in the USA.

        • by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
          The only solution is election reform, and that requires momentum. The 30% of the people that can be bothered to vote feel the system works just fine for them (and they're right) and will resist changing it. The other 70% have decades of experience on the futility of trying to participate in the system (and they're right) and will resist bothering to go to the polls. Any initiative to get the disaffected majority to participate in pushing election reform will have to get through all the chaff created by a
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        You're going to hate me when I say this.

        I've voted in elections where only 25% of registered voters showed up. That means my vote was worth 4 votes. Assuming you're registered, my voice had 4 times the clout because people like you didn't bother voting. But that's only counting registered, not *eligible* voters who never bothered to even register! In that case, my vote was worth much more than 4.

        When you don't vote, my voice gets heard even more, and I'm more likely to get what I want. You may agree with my
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
          "That means my vote was worth 4 votes."

          No, it doesn't. The winner is chosen by who has a plurality of the ballots cast. The only way your vote would be "worth 4 votes" is if the election turn-out dropped 75%

          "Assuming you're registered, my voice had 4 times the clout because people like you didn't bother voting."

          And your voice will be a part of the (average) 40% of voters who didn't vote for the local incumbent/local majority party/whatever. Who you vote for doesn't mater when the party faithful have been
          • Okay. Then don't vote. When politicians scan the voting rolls of the last few elections, they'll see my name and won't see yours. And don't register. When the politicians scan the registry, they'll see my name and not yours. Who will be taken more seriously by the elected when it comes to having viewpoints considered? It won't be you.

            Perhaps sitting silently with no representation is the form of democracy that you prefer. I prefer to participate.
      • by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @07:13PM (#21190839)

        "I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt."

        Incumbents don't lose [slashdot.org]. 93% of House elections (and something like 96% of state legislative elections) were decided shortly after the 2000 census. Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers).
        The problem is that too many people vote for the familiar when they don't know anything about either candidate. If people would follow a simple rule, "Vote the ins, out," it would change things immensely. If you don't have an overwhelmingly compelling reason to vote for the incumbent, you should vote against him/her, even if you think the other guy is a bad choice. You can always vote him out next election. He won't have the chance to do much harm in one term. The longer a person is in the legislature the more harm he/she can do.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ak3ldama ( 554026 )

          If you don't have an overwhelmingly compelling reason to vote for the incumbent, you should vote against him/her, even if you think the other guy is a bad choice. You can always vote him out next election. He won't have the chance to do much harm in one term. The longer a person is in the legislature the more harm he/she can do.

          I wish i had a mod point for you. I have this view as well, I wish we limited terms as well but that'd be a much more active stance on the issue. This may not work anyways if the party leadership was too powerful - or should I have said "since the party leadership is too powerful."

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
          "If people would follow a simple rule, "Vote the ins, out," it would change things immensely."

          The vast majority of elections in this country consist of two candidates. After that come the ones with only one candidate. The number of elections where third parties have the ability to get their candidates on the ballot is smaller even than that. The result of your philosophy is to replace the Replublocrat with a Demican.

          Even if there are more than two candidates on the ballot, if the "vote the bastard out" p
      • It is a problem with the government, but it shouldn't take a revolution to fix.

        If the way we count votes is broken, we can change it from plurality voting to something that actually would work [condorcet.org]

        • by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
          "It is a problem with the government, but it shouldn't take a revolution to fix.
          If the way we count votes is broken, we can change it from plurality voting to something that actually would work"


          Collect a few thousand signatures to get a constitutional amendment proposition in your state's next election. Then find a way to convince several million eligible voters who tend not to vote to vote in favor of your proposition, because the people who do already vote will be against it (as they have a vested intere
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by E++99 ( 880734 )

        Incumbents don't lose. 93% of House elections (and something like 96% of state legislative elections) were decided shortly after the 2000 census. Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers).

        Voting doesn't matter? Because people vote in a way that you don't like? I don't think that one necessarily follows from the other. It shouldn't be surprising that most the time people will vote for the same person in election N that they voted f

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by demachina ( 71715 )
        "Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers)."

        The simple solution to this, though hard to achieve, is independents in each state need to unite and compel their states to allow independents to have their own primary. Basically any independent or third party should be able to get on the independent primary ballot. You would want a low but achievable bar, some thousands of dollars or thousands of petition signatures, to get on the ballot
    • Let me get this straight... polticians are corrupt, so we shouldn't buy cellphones? Am I reading that correctly? Politicians are corrupt... so in response... we punish ourselves by not using a very convenient technology. Are we really that apathetic? Is that what this country has come to?

      Cell phones are not essential to your existence, They are nice to have but life doesn't stop without them. To continue to support a company that engages in overtly illegal practices is not productive. Companies that do

  • by Anarchitektur ( 1089141 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:48PM (#21189995)
    Since a lot of those same reasons can apply to ISPs and other companies in general, I propose we just hate all corporations whose profit margins are above 1 million annually. If we can assume that money corrupts, I think it's fair to say that any company in excess of $1,000,000.00 has doing something wrong to somebody on their way to that point. This blanket hatred will make it easier for me to keep track of what companies I do and don't like.
  • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:49PM (#21190023)
    today's cell towers might be tomorrow's Pony Express
     
    Probably not. While an exciting and deadly ride for its employees, the Pony Express was an abysmal failure as a business. It went bankrupt in just a matter of months as I recall. I see the cell phone companies neither providing exciting, deadly rides nor going out of business in a hurry.
    • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:56PM (#21190089)
      To answer myself: according to the Wikipedia entry "The Pony Express had grossed $90,000 and lost $200,000" and they lasted a year and a few months. And the owners were able to sell the assets to Wells Fargo mainly on the name recognition, so it wasn't a complete bust.
    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:10PM (#21190221)
      It went bankrupt in just a matter of months as I recall.

            Damn, exactly how old ARE you? :)
    • I think Pony Express' main problem was that it was killed by technology. Their claim to fame was speed of getting a message there, but telegraph basically ended that one.
    • by monopole ( 44023 )
      I see the cell phone companies neither providing exciting, deadly rides...

      You haven't been the rider when the driver is on a cell phone have you?
    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      ...I see the cell phone companies neither providing exciting, deadly rides....

      you've never watched and idiot talking on his cellphone drive right through and arrow board in a construction zone and kill 4 construction workers then. I did not see it, I saw the aftermath as I drove by at 2 miles per hour.

      Cellphones + low IQ idiots Traveling at high rates of speed = Exciting deadly rides.
    • by grumling ( 94709 )
      It went bankrupt in just a matter of months as I recall.

      Yep. It was introduced 6 months before the transcontinental telegraph line was completed. Turns out the horses couldn't keep up...
  • A Scary Monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lmnfrs ( 829146 ) <lmnfrs@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:49PM (#21190025) Journal

    I doubt carriers could suddenly gain control over all of these things, but it is something that needs to be avoided, however it may happen. The real reasons that would be a problem lie in their customer relations practices.
    A billing error that can't be fixed at local stores, and the subscriber is forced to lead resolution of the issue while waiting on hold for 10 minutes every time an attempt is made, then arguing with customer "service" to convince them a problem exists. (AT&T)
    Quality of tech support is laughable - I was told by a tech supervisor that data transfer on my phone was very expensive because the screen was large. Not just physically, but it had a high resolution too. (Cingular)
    Salespeople lying directly to customers about plan availability when a similar plan with higher commission is available. (T-Mobile)

    • by Khuffie ( 818093 )
      What's worse is there 'extra' fees to gouge customers. Recently, I wanted to switch from a monthly package to pay-as-you-go. My plan was $30 a month. System access fee was $7. 911 fee: 50 cents. None of the extra fees are advertised. Caller ID and voice mail: $6. With taxes, I was paying $50, for a plan I was barely using. I call and ask to switch to there pay-as-you-go service, where I was expecting to spend $20 a month on top-ups, and they offer me a $15 a month plan, no extra fees, and I get 50 minutes a
  • FTA...

    AT&T would very much like to censor criticism of it
    I see that Wired is now about to be impossible to access from an AT&T phone...
  • by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:51PM (#21190037)
    Seriously... how can you have a segment on "They have annoying commercials", and not even mention ATT/Cingular's "idk my bff [name]" commercials? They have the dubious honor of being some of the only commercials (Axe being the other one, for the curious) to make me feel like my iq was lowered just by watching it.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:53PM (#21190055)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:40PM (#21190519) Homepage Journal
      No shit. The author seems totally disconnected from simple logic. On the one hand he's all bent out of shape because of the monopolistic abuses of the cell phone companies. On the other hand, he claims that we can do without their services. Hello? If people don't really need their services, how did they become monopolies?

      The submitter refers to the story as a "long satisfying screed". In other words, it feels good to read it and yell "right on! you go!" That's the problem with current political discourse: it's designed to make you feel good, not to actually accomplish anything.
      • If people don't really need their services, how did they become monopolies?

        In addition to being logically disconnected, this statement also shows your ignorance.

        Start here [wikipedia.org]. It leaves out sprint's share of the oligopoly; for that try looking here [wikipedia.org].

      • If the author is so into *not* buying services/products from unscrupulous/corrupt companies, how exactly did he get online to post said article? Big ISP's in most cases aren't much better than telcos.
    • So I have a Virgin Mobile phone. As it turns out, I got to deal with their customer service today. I lost my cell phone while on a business trip to San Diego Monday night. It was lost either on a charter bus, at the home of a well-to-do CEO, or at my rather expensive hotel. (I should have drank less; my fault.) I expected it to be found and returned by the cleaning crew at one of those places. Today my wife started getting obscene text messages, so I guess I trusted them too much. I called to cancel
      1. No more contracts. I only pay for month to month service even if it is more expensive (though right now I am actually paying less than some of my friends who are on contracts).
      2. No more locked phones. I will pay for an unlocked from the manufacturer even if the cost is higher than a contract + discounted "locked" phone.

      By maintaining these two policies, I limit the control the provider has over my phone and I limit the control the provider has over their cash flow. At any month I can terminate my servic

  • It doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rastoboy29 ( 807168 ) * on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:54PM (#21190073) Homepage
    While the general public is apathetic/oblivious of these issues, nothing will happen.

    It seems to take about ten years for the general public to really get their heads around technical issues.
  • out-innovated? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyNymWasTaken ( 879908 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:56PM (#21190093)
    The first reason out of the given 10/15/whatever... was amusingly self-defeating.

    To witness Sprint's $5bn investment in WiMax is to witness a future planned so far in advance no-one should be comfortable with it.

    Such futures can't be relied upon if innovation is permitted
    So, no company should invest heavily in innovation because that stifles progress. Check.

    The remaining [author couldn't be bothered to count] reasons are similarly kvetching and dripping with angst.
  • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @05:58PM (#21190115)
    Yeah, the cellular providers all totally suck ass, I must agree. However, what can we possibly do about it? Nothing, because the alternatives are worse than putting up with it.

    Many/most of us require telephone communication. I for one can't simply go without telephone service, if I want to have a decent relationship with my wife and relatives, and if I want to be able to function in society and business and my job. When I finally ditched the landline back around 2002, I was paying about as much for a crappy landline from Qwest with no features as I did for a cellphone. Somehow I doubt this has changed much. I might be able to save a little money by getting a landline from Cox cable (since I already have internet service from them, after all), but then I'd miss out on the versatility that I and so many others have grown accustommed to with cellphones; it'd be a real pain to be out of contact while driving or shopping, in the lab where I work, etc. The few extra dollars per month for cell service is worth it to me.

    Am I jealous that people in other countries get far better and freer cellular service than me, for much less money? Sure! But there just aren't any alternatives here.

    Until something else comes along that offers a real alternative, I don't see the point in saying "we should do something about it", because we can't. Cellular service isn't like writing open-source software: it requires not just phones, but a network consisting of central offices, antenna towers, fiber-optic lines, and billions of dollars worth of equipment and infrastructure. The cellular providers are just following the Golden Rule: "he who has the gold makes the rules", and our stupid government isn't bothering to regulate them to prevent them from acting so poorly.

    Maybe eventually some brilliant quantum physicist will come up with a way for us to all communicate using "subspace" or whatever, so with the proper equipment we can just establish point-to-point communications with whomever we please, with no need for any infrastructure or middle-man like these cellular providers, and no worries about having to share limited spectrum. But until then, or until some other alternative is found, or until our government steps in and regulates them (yeah right), we're stuck.

    • it requires not just phones, but a network consisting of central offices, antenna towers, fiber-optic lines, and billions of dollars worth of equipment and infrastructure...

      ...and government backing. Which we CAN change and is the point the author eventually gets to if you read T-Whole-FA.

  • by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:07PM (#21190193)

    "WWAN could well end up supplanting copper sooner than anyone expects: do you want these companies in charge of it?"

    I fully expect that these companies will wind up "in charge" of it by fiat if nothing else. It's only a matter of time. Like the article said, these companies own Congress. Well, Congress makes laws that govern "interstate commerce" (which the courts have interpreted as shorthand for, basically, any damned thing they please), so Congress can, and will, do the equivalent of declaring them as being the sole carriers for this stuff if the competition keeps them from taking that role otherwise.

    Didn't you get the memo about what fascism is really all about?

  • by wintermute42 ( 710554 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:08PM (#21190199) Homepage

    Some of the reasons that people hate cell phone companies have to do with the abusive service contracts which are difficult or impossible to get out of. One way to avoid this is to buy a GSM cell phone with a US SIM chip. This has a side advantage that you can easily use the phone overseas by buying a SIM chip for the country you're visiting. You buy prepaid cards for these phones. Calling is a little more expensive, but you don't have a contract to deal with. There is also much less information about you as a cell phone user, since the only way to track you back to your phone is through the company you bought it from.

    In theory if more people used GSM phones and phone cards, there would be more competition since the cell providers can't lock you in to a contract. This is, by the way, the situation in Europe where GSM is the standard.

    • This is wrong on so many levels I have smoke coming out of my ears: Like having dealt with Verizon DSL Tech Support.

      1) GSM Phones work on two major networks in the US
      Crapular
      T-Shitty - both of these networks are less than... adiquate

      2) The GSM system in the US uses two different carrier bands than GSM systems in the rest of the world. If you want a quad band phone, you pay significantly more.

      3) If you want the ability to use another c
      • by wintermute42 ( 710554 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @07:51PM (#21191171) Homepage

        The GSM networks are indeed more limited (T-Mobil and Cingular are the ones I've accessed) and the reception is not as good perhaps. However, you can buy very reasonably priced unlocked phones. I bought an unlocked from from Telestial in San Diego three years ago. I think that it cost around $100 US. I've used it in Spain, and twice in Italy. I now have a US SIM chip for it. I feed it T-Mobil cards every once in a while.

        I hope you're able to take care of that smoke coming out of the ears problem. It sounds painful.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by kozmonaut ( 577220 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:09PM (#21190209)
    Has anyone considered that the excessively long voicemail introductions used by almost every cell carrier amount to conspired gouging? We pay airtime when we are leaving a voicemail, right? When you get voicemail on my cell you get my brief away message, followed by the phone company's useless 20-second blather. For example:

    ring... ring... ring... (me):"Hello, I'm not here right now, please leave a message" (sprint): "To leave a voice message press 1, or just wait for the tone. To send a numeric page press 2 now. At the tone please leave a voice message. When you are finished recording, you may hang up, or press pound for more options"

    Several gripes here.
    1) 20 seconds of instructions doesn't sound like that much on its own. But if that pushes your phone call to roll one minute longer it's a minute of possible airtime charge the phone company gets. You start paying the minute the call is answered, even leaving voicemail.

    2) A typical voicemail message is probably 2 minutes or less. The phone company's instructional message here is taking up a significant portion of that airtime.

    3) These instructions are ridiculous and seem to be there only to draw out the duration of the call. They couldn't be phrased more verbosely. Oh, I can hang up when the message is done? I didn't know that. I can press pound for more options? How about you tell me about those AFTER I've left a message.

    4) The features are really ridiculous, too, and I suspect some 1% even use them. Send a numeric page? Why the hell should I do that? Cellphones have caller ID already. Send a FAX?? Please Slashdotters tell me who has sent a FAX over a cellphone. Do you have to make the modem sounds with your voice? If anyone DOES use these features they probably don't need the help message to remember what button to press to initiate their cellphone fax.

    5) There is no option to turn these messages off. They probably also require you to add your own greeting. Resulting in a totally redundant 30-second prelude to leaving any voicemail.

    6) Every mobile company I know of has these messages, some worse than others. Is this an unspoken or conspired arrangement between the mobile carriers? Sprint doesn't necessarily make money when someone has to listen to their God-awful pre-message, but they might. They certainly will make money when my Sprint phone is waiting on Verizon's equally obnoxious introduction, or T-mobile's, etc...

    7) The worst part of this, in my perspective, isn't that I might pay, if I totally screw up, 50c or 5 bucks some month because a few extra minutes were incurred waiting to leave my friends voicemail - or dropping coffee on the bus trying to press 1 to bypass the spiel. The worst part is I leave a moderate amount of voicemail messages, and this amounts to Minutes, Hours, or God knows, even Days of my life eventually wasted listening to a robot tell me how to leave a voicemail and that it's ok to hang up. It's robbery, I tell you!

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by fbartho ( 840012 )
      Most phones I call nowadays have very short lead-ins. Usually they now play the callee's message, and then after tell you about the beep, and from the first second of the call, I can press "1" to get directly to the beep. The one remaining notable exception to this is Nextel which for some reason always sends me on a trip of listening as they search for their subscriber, and finally connect me to their voicemail, however, according to the call log, the minutes elapsed don't start ticking until the call is a
    • Try hitting '0'.
    • by phorm ( 591458 )
      I usually use text-messages instead of voicemail. Generally that's 10c (well, if I go over what's already in my plan) vs using up minutes at a greater cost
  • 2 Answers (Score:5, Informative)

    by bmajik ( 96670 ) <matt@mattevans.org> on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:11PM (#21190239) Homepage Journal
    Today: Anonymous prepaid

    - buy a pre-activated T-mobile 2 Go SIM off of ebay
    - buy an unlocked GSM phone off ebay

    No contracts, no fees, no lame choice of stupid phones, nobody knows who you are or how to hassle you. You put minutes on the SIM card and that's that.

    This is the "plan" my wife and I have been on since May. Works nicely. Some friends just asked me to set them up with the same deal, since they were sick of paying $90/mo for a set of phones they barely used.

    Tomorrow:

    Replace handset you bought in "step A" wth an openMoko device. My next handset will hopefully be 100% open-source. I can get partway there with the P2k tools and what not for Motorola, but a truly open device just makes it all that much easier.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:13PM (#21190249)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:28PM (#21190385)

      The reason is cell phone companies are spending billions to upgrade their equipment. Those billions have to come from somewhere. We went from analog to digital 1x to data over 1x to 2G to 3G. Even after 3G was introduced we had data rates increase in leaps and bounds.

      Customers demand performance and features. While mobile companies could probably provide you with voice-only service pretty cheaply, they'd lose customers to other companies that provided a fancier service.

      I work in the business, and I have no idea why people want to watch videos on those teeny tiny screens. But they do, and the networks have to be modified as a result.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by funaho ( 42567 )
        I work in the business, and I have no idea why people want to watch videos on those teeny tiny screens. But they do, and the networks have to be modified as a result.

        Out of genuine curiosity is it REALLY what people wanted or just some new idea from marketing that they're now telling us is what we want? I've asked friends and family (many of whom are non-technical types so it's not just the geek demographic talking here) and everyone thinks it's silly. It seems like instead of winning customers with better
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DrCode ( 95839 )
      There are a couple possibilities:

      Go with a prepaid plan like Virgin Mobile. I pay $5/month for about 25 minutes, and 5 cents/text. Plus, the money in my account just accumulates when I don't use it all. Of course, this is only a good deal if you don't chat a lot on your phone.

      Or, in smaller cities, there's Cricket Wireless, which gives you unlimited voice and text for $45/month. This works great for my daughter, who's going to school in a town that has their coverage. But it wouldn't be good for someon
  • by unassimilatible ( 225662 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:20PM (#21190313) Journal
    Seems to me if you have Verizon stock you should love the company. I just don't understand the Slashdot mentality. Nobody is forcing you to buy a cell phone (you can always go month-to-month with a non-subsidized phone or a pay-as-you-go) or Windows (build your own PC) or anything else. I lived most most my life happily without a cell, but now cellphones are something everyone deserves to own, and own cheaply, on their own terms? You know, it costs millions and millions of dollars to build a modern cell network. Go down to South America and see what communication would be like without cell carriers investing millions. Do they not deserve a return?

    If you don't like the product, don't buy it as the article submitter says. Don't buy the contract, accept the contract, then bitch about it later.

  • by zymano ( 581466 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:24PM (#21190351)
    They belong to us! Do not sell them to rich corporates that then monopolize,horde and charge ridiculous fees. As long as you people sit on your hands and don't organize then the dream will never happen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum [wikipedia.org]
  • by twasserman ( 878174 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:27PM (#21190375)
    Let's all agree that the US is part of the Third World when it comes to mobile phone service (and broadband, too). Anyone who has spent time in Scandinavia, Korea, Japan, or other advanced countries knows that we usually pay more and get less for our money. The carriers have no real incentive to improve service.

    So the issue is how to get out of the current muddle and to cut ties with these carriers. Of course, we can use Skype or various IM and video conferencing tools to talk to people without making a traditional landline or mobile call. The coming deployment of WiMAX networks will increase our ability to use IP-based devices for calling.

    The forthcoming FCC auction of the 700MHz spectrum, now scheduled for January, will introduce more openness into the bidding process, and should enable a company such as Google to develop a competing service. Assuming that happens, there will be an alternative our dependence on the incumbent carriers, which will have its ups (price, flexibility) and possible downs (advertising, privacy concerns).

    There are also numerous efforts underway to create devices based on open source software. The Nokia N800/N810 http://www.nseries.com/ [nseries.com] is a Linux-based device with a useful developer site http://www.maemo.org/ [maemo.org]. The OpenMoko project http://www.openmoko.org/ [openmoko.org] is aimed at developing an open source phone. These devices are, of course, unlocked. When OpenMoko has advanced a little further, you should be able to take anyone's SIM chip, put it in your OpenMoko phone, and make a call. For now, though, the best you can do is to have an unlocked phone. (I have about 8 SIM chips from different countries, and switch them when I travel, thereby avoiding the extortionate international roaming charges of the mobile carriers. You can easily buy "pay-as-you-go" service almost everywhere, including in the US.)

    So we can already take various steps to loosen our ties to the cellphone carriers. With some luck, many of us will be able to extricate ourselves completely. It's only then that the cellphone carriers will feel the need to improve their products and services to attract and retain customers.

  • Shouldn't this (wireless, internet, comms, all of it) be treated like a utility rather than a commodity?

    Is it really efficient to have, say, 20 companies all sticking up cell masts and laying fibre?

    Wouldn't one network with sufficient capacity be more cost efficient?

    If you do have only one network, who gets to build it, and what stops them from abusing it monopolywise?

    Free market. Sometimes it's not always the answer.

    • by grumling ( 94709 )
      You mean like this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System#History [wikipedia.org]

      We tried that for about 100 years. Yes, it worked just fine. It efficiently pissed off just about everyone in the United States. It efficiently managed to keep innovation out of the hands of the customer, dictated who could install what on their network (such as a 9600baud modem that was the size of modern mini tower PC), and vacuumed billions of dollars from the US treasury.

      What we need is a customer who is knowledgeable enough to pick the
  • Is this article and invite for everyone to say why they hate their cell phone company?

    I have many reasons, but I'll throw out the most current situation. I'm a customer of the old AT&T. My contract expired but I have an old TDMA phone and they are shutting down the network. Fine, technological progress, I support that part. But, do they have to send me a text message at least once every day to tell me this? I was given an AT&T GSM phone from a friend, but they won't let me use it unless I si
    • by grumling ( 94709 )
      I told him that if they allowed me to get the $60 iphone plan for a different phone, I would consider it. He said that the iphone is apple's deal.

      No, he's wrong. While shopping for an carrier for a Nokia N95, I specifically asked if I could get the same deal as the iPhone and was told by two reps in two different stores that I could. Of course, I still had to sign on for a 2 yr deal, and AT&T would be getting a better deal from me since they didn't have to share that revenue with AAPL or subsidize my ph
    • Ha, I was a customer care rep for AT&T back around 2002-2003, when they were slowly switching from TDMA to GSM.

      Fine, great, GSM's superior in almost every way.

      We had an internal website where you could check for known service outages in the event that a customer calls and reports no service or other technical problems.

      I can't remember where it was, but mostly in southern california, they had one 'known outage' listed. It explained that the transmit power on cell towers in a given area for TDMA customers
  • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @06:34PM (#21190457) Journal
    One clear evidence of how badly the "market" for cellphone service is performing is the lack of any "bring your own phone" plans. With T-Mobile and most other carriers, it is simply impossible to sign up for a monthly contract that does not have a minimum term. I would like to buy my phone on eBay and sign up for monthly service, but without the 1 or 2 year commitment. I am prepared to pay a reasonable "connection fee". However, most carriers simply don't offer this, except in the form of the more expensive (per minute) pre-paid phones. Why can't I do this?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      just get a prepaid phone from t-mobile - pretty cheap, and no contracts. Is 10c/minute that expensive? I use 300 min/month, and that would be about $30.
  • by briancnorton ( 586947 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @07:11PM (#21190825) Homepage
    The problem with statements like "Don't let big [evil] corporations run anything" is that there isn't really an alternative. Who do you propose runs the telecom grid? Ma Bell so we can get another hundred years of rotary phones? The government that pays $20,000 for a hammer and holds fake press conferences? The sad fact is that there aren't any alternatives to letting a corporate entity run things. Not only that, but the gouging that has transpired over the last 20 years has financed the R&D that allows stuff like wireless internet.

    While I sit here and defend the obvious, I do not own a cell phone, and probably never will again. I realized that I REALLY don't need one. If you sit down and think about it, 90% of you probably don't either.

  • by DingerX ( 847589 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @07:20PM (#21190903) Journal
    I've never owned a cell in the US. Yes, I've spent most of my life there, and in the past decade, I've bounced between Europe and the US, yet spending most of my time stateside. Funny thing, though: while in Europe, cellular communications have gotten easier, to the point where I've now had three separate cell phones, and five separate phone numbers in four countries (including Switzerland, which is right up there with the US in terms of pharmaceutical and cell phone costs), in the US, I have never seen the point in having a cell phone. It just isn't worth it. Phone calls cost. Text messages cost. To get access, you effectively need a paid subscription. Then you need to use their hardware on the network, from which they have removed the balls. Yeah, I know, there are ways around many obstacles, but I'd have to be motivated and seriously mobile to care. I'm not.

    It just comes to this: when our country, which should be representing us, sells our resources to private corporations, it has an obligation to ensure that it represents our interests in doing so.

    I don't consider it in the public interest when all we get from such a transaction is a couple billion bucks the oligopoly will have a hard time recovering and a parking lot hand job for select bureaucrats. Oh boy. We can finally afford to pay the cell phone companies for that no-warrant surveillance system we always wanted. woop de doo.
  • WWAN could well end up supplanting copper sooner than anyone expects: do you want these companies in charge of it?

    Well, it is their property. Should we expropriate the assets of the capitalist class in the name of the the glorious People's Revolution, for the dictatorship of the proletariat?

    Or if that's not your thing, we could pull a Putin, and seize the property of the telecommunications industry for reasons of "State security."

    Conclusion: You don't like something that exists, make something else,

  • 'They own politicians - Sure, it's just phones. In a world where worse things happen all the time amid the muck and despair of human existence, having to pay for premium text is hardly worth worrying about, is it? You can (and should) opt out, and not sign on the dotted line to begin with.

    There's no reason to forgo cell phones entirely to make a statement about how they run their business, all you really have to do is be a smarter (and more moderate) consumer.

    First thing to do is rid yourself of the keeping

  • Broader reforms (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Thursday November 01, 2007 @08:31AM (#21195555) Homepage Journal

    The problem is much larger that just the cell providers. They're probably the worst of the bunch, but they're hardly the only industry with abusive contracts and pervasive fraudulant practices.

    The most obvious is the concpt of contracts where one paarty may chang the terms at will and the other is simply stuck with them. I simply cannot imagine a sufficient contortion of reasoning that could make that seem conscionable or that could make any legal system that supports it seem just. For that matter, in a truly just world, the inclusion of such terms should be sufficient to void any contract. After all, nobody who would put such a thing in a contract and then stuff it down someone's throat could possibly be contracting in good faith. Before someone makes the inevitable "you aren't forced blah blah", yes, when most or all providers of a particular service do that, they ARE stuffing it down someone's throat. Becoming a hermit in a log cabin with candles for lighting is not a realistic alternative to electricity and phone service!

    Billing errors in general are an issue, plenty of companies seem to routinely make "errors" in their favor (never in the customer's favor) In the case of many cell providers most of the bills they send out are that way month after month and we're supposed to believe it's NOT fraud? They deserve no mercy here. If they billed a million customers fraudulantly, charge them with one million counts of criminal fraud. Only large corporations can seem to get a bulk discount on felonies. If the evidence there isn't airtight, charge them with a million counts of negligence. Surely that has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt over the years. I have deealt with many companies large and small over the years. Only telecomms providers (not just cell BTW) ROUTINELY make billing errors.

    Here's a simple one that IS specific to cell phones. They should not be allowed to charge for dropped calls. At the very least, they should be forced to refund any connection charges (since the need to connect again is clearly due to their screwed up network).

    Truth in advertising! Is there anyone at the FTC who even knows we have truth in advertising laws? The public SHOULD be able to presume that advertisments are at least basically truthful. Unlimited means without limit. Making promises in bold and retracting them in fine print is a fundamental dishonesty. Fine print on television that is not clearly and easily readable even with 20/20 vision should not be lgally considered to have been displayd at all. Occasionally, out of curiosity, I freeze frame a commercial disclaimer (perfect digital reception) and frequently find that it is greeked, unreadable at any distance from 10 feet away to nose pressed against the screen. How can that possably be considered an act of communication?

    Finally, the fines themselves. If they are not at LEAST as large as the ill gotten profit that caused them, they will be (and are) treated as a tax rather than a penelty.

The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.

Working...