I'm not nervous. 🙄

In fact, I was disappointed to notice there was no author or Sponsor from Congress nor was the "Bill" verifiable by an HR number. When I see an HR number and can look up the bill and it's sponsors I will believe its more then a lone website consumer group effort.

I would love to see those changes made.

Phonebabe69 said:
I'm not nervous. 🙄

In fact, I was disappointed to notice there was no author or Sponsor from Congress nor was the "Bill" verifiable by an HR number. When I see an HR number and can look up the bill and it's sponsors I will believe its more then a lone website consumer group effort.

I would love to see those changes made.

Do you people not realize what this bill will actually do? IT WILL BE THE END OF SUBSIDIZED PHONES!!!!

Granted, I hate the fact that carriers can "lock" phones to their networks, but c'mon. Wake up and smell the roses. This is the SAME thing that happened to AT&T a while back. AT&T branded Land Line phones were cheap as long as you signed a contract wi...
(continues)

You are kidding right? Land line phone prices went way way down as a result of the FCC mandate in the long run.

Face it. Subsidized phones are the lifeblood of capturing contracted customers.
Without "free" phones what would be the incentive to sign a long term contract? The Carriers would have to give something away. "Free" phones seem to be the most economical alternative. Considering the lessons of ATT. I remember they gave me minutes to renew.

The marketplace would ultimately decide the cost of the phones. Anyone who does not want to obligate themselves has to pay retail now. that would not be the case if there were no subsidies. Wal Mart would be heavily discounting. Costco would take faulty or otherwise phones back after thre...
(continues)

Phonebabe69 said:
You are kidding right? Land line phone prices went way way down as a result of the FCC mandate in the long run.

Face it. Subsidized phones are the lifeblood of capturing contracted customers.
Without "free" phones what would be the incentive to sign a long term contract? The Carriers would have to give something away. "Free" phones seem to be the most economical alternative. Considering the lessons of ATT. I remember they gave me minutes to renew.

The marketplace would ultimately decide the cost of the phones. Anyone who does not want to obligate themselves has to pay retail now. that would not be the case if there were no subsidies. Wal Mart would be heavily discounting. Costco would take faul

...
(continues)

Phonebabe69 said:
The marketplace would ultimately decide the cost of the phones. Anyone who does not want to obligate themselves has to pay retail now. that would not be the case if there were no subsidies. Wal Mart would be heavily discounting. Costco would take faulty or otherwise phones back after three years or more like they do now on anything they sell but computers.

Sorry to say but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the current pricing structure. Phones are available at or slightly above cost w/o signing a contract. The profit margins on handsets are already at or near 5% w/o signing a contract. Only stores like Best Buy, Circuit City and (gasp) Wal-Mart currently sell phones w/o con...
(continues)

There aren't enough CDMA choices to warrant unlocking them 🤣 And GSM phones can all be bought unlocked or later already.

Seems you beef id with Verizon's business practices which at this point are very legal if not exactly fair. But their customer base is more then evidence you ideas are not a universal issue.

Phonebabe69 said:
There aren't enough CDMA choices to warrant unlocking them 🤣 And GSM phones can all be bought unlocked or later already.

You're kidding, right?

In any case, I guess we're lucky that there's nothing in the act against excessive amounts of dropped calls... otherwise a lot of GSM carriers would be in trouble with their 'hard hand-offs' and lesser tolerance for weak signals. 😉

BetterThanJake said:

Phonebabe69 said:
There aren't enough CDMA choices to warrant unlocking them 🤣 And GSM phones can all be bought unlocked or later already.

You're kidding, right?

In any case, I guess we're lucky that there's nothing in the act against excessive amounts of dropped calls... otherwise a lot of GSM carriers would be in trouble with their 'hard hand-offs' and lesser tolerance for weak signals. 😉

No I'm not. Verizon has no phone like my unlocked MPX220. GSM has many more phone choices. Lets get a little real here. Verizon is just getting the Razor which is old news on the GSM side. I carry both services. I know the n most the davantages and di...
(continues)

Phonebabe69 said:
No I'm not. Verizon has no phone like my unlocked MPX220.

You mean the one that's getting an avg user review of 3.2 (outta 5)? I never hear its name come up in convos about 'killer phones', so I guess I don't really miss it.

GSM has many more phone choices. Lets get a little real here. Verizon is just getting the Razor which is old news on the GSM side. I carry both services. I know the n most the davantages and disadvantages of each.

Yah, but its not just the phone, PhoneB, its also the network. Verizon's is more reliable, and has 3G deployed to half the country already. GSM (in the US) is less reliable, and has 3G in only six cities, last I checked. So a GS...
(continues)

Well you can protect and defend Verizon all you need. If they were indeed the end all. I would not need both Cingular and Verizon phones and service. I travel for a living and I can tell you without a doubt if I need 24x7 reliable coverage everywhere, I need both carriers.

I get maybe a dropped call for approx every three hours of phone time on my Cingular half. Not many at all. But more then Verizon. Its a non issue for me personally.

Yes the MPX is uniformly trashed but has a Windows operating system so it will do as Windows does and lock up now and then. Again not an issue. I think many would not have the patience for the phone. Many buy phones for the wow factor like jewelery. The MPX is a very technical phone that has a lot of f...
(continues)

No need to get defensive, Phone B... the MPX is not that well-liked, as you say, but if it works for you personally, then stick with it.

And a lot of ppl are more bothered by dropped calls than you and do prefer high-speed data (in fact, my younger brother is going to be switching from Cingular to Verizon for the EVDO soon), but hey, go with what works for you. That's the great thing about the marketplace... every one can address their own individual needs and preferences. 😉

BetterThanJake said:
No need to get defensive, Phone B... the MPX is not that well-liked, as you say, but if it works for you personally, then stick with it.

And a lot of ppl are more bothered by dropped calls than you and do prefer high-speed data (in fact, my younger brother is going to be switching from Cingular to Verizon for the EVDO soon), but hey, go with what works for you. That's the great thing about the marketplace... every one can address their own individual needs and preferences. 😉

But a lot of people have unrealistic expectations of wireless service. They want free phones before their contracts are up. They want to make a call from Mt Everest. They want a Swiss Army knife for a phone ...
(continues)

I have a friend who drives truck and he carries Nextel for the cheap unlimited plan and VZW to use where there isn't coverage with Nextel. He still is quick to point out to the nay sayers that he used to pay about 350 bucks a month for ONE phone and couldn't use it most places he can use BOTH now. And his unlimited Nextel plan is 129.99 a month coupled with a 59.99 family share VZW plan...the money he saves can offset the extra he pays in fuel nowadays!

But high expectations are part of what drives industries forward, PhoneB. Because companies that can even partially meet them reap the rewards in the marketplace.

For example, I totally disagree with the Verizon exec who stated that customers should not expect to get service inside their homes or in buildings. That's foolish, as customers will always expect that no matter what anyone says. And a big part of the reason why I'm so happy with Verizon is that I get service in my house and in buildings with nary a problem.

Your two carrier solution is a nice one, but as we've stated before, only for the $100+/a month crowd. The majority is left out. I'd prefer a solution that lifts all boats, as it were and I think its coming, as the carrie...
(continues)

Good job to you for hijacking a thread and completely changing the topic.

Did I? I'll admit that me and PhoneB went off on a bit of a tangent, but the discussion of the main topic still continues. 🙂

BetterThanJake said:
Did I? I'll admit that me and PhoneB went off on a bit of a tangent, but the discussion of the main topic still continues. 🙂

Yes, the topic continues.

Nobody has posted a logical reason why this won't work:

"A wireless carrier shall IN NO WAY restrict or impede use of third party handset devices from use with their wireless network so long as said handset device is manufactured to interoperate with one or more of the standards used by the wireless carrier."

wnrussell said:

BetterThanJake said:
Did I? I'll admit that me and PhoneB went off on a bit of a tangent, but the discussion of the main topic still continues. 🙂

Yes, the topic continues.

Nobody has posted a logical reason why this won't work:

"A wireless carrier shall IN NO WAY restrict or impede use of third party handset devices from use with their wireless network so long as said handset device is manufactured to interoperate with one or more of the standards used by the wireless carrier."

Cingular and T mobile already allow thrid party phones to be uses . Just pop in your SIM and make calls!

Phonebabe69 said:
Seems you beef is with Verizon's business practices which at this point are very legal if not exactly fair. But their customer base is more then evidence you ideas are not a universal issue.

That's the problem. They are very legal and not exactly fair.

There are people who actually do need Verizon, file transfer, Bluetooth, etc., and can't get it. So they want to change the law.

A bill like this will never pass. It would force carriers to sell phones for there actual value as oppposed to the much reduced subsdized cost. It would almost totally stop technolocal developements in the industry because very few people would be willing to pay the $300-400 that high end phones would cost. It would virtually put a halt to parents getting phones for there 10-16 year old children. It would also stop any and all lower income people from getting. And with the recent push that many state and local governments are making to get broand band internet access available to low income families via city wide wifi, I do not think many would be in support of taking affordable technology away from these groups. It sounds good in theo...
(continues)

I disagree whole heartedly. Thats what ATT said about people buying land line phones in the retail stores. Lots of low income people can buy land line phones now.

The "subsidies" are really not all that. You can buy a phone for a little more on Ebay and if you are willing to wait a lot less. Retailers like Wal Mart and Best Buy would discount the phones. It is a good thing. Of course the carriers would lose their contract carrot and thats the real reason they will not let go of the subsidized phones.

The low income liberal babble is noble. But isn't it Verizon who is lobbying AGAINST FREE wireless in cities? People will and should find a way to buy what they really want and need.

Phonebabe69 said:
Of course the carriers would lose their contract carrot and thats the real reason they will not let go of the subsidized phones.

How does the proposal affect subsidized phones? Consumers would be able to either purchase the phone from the carrier or from a third party.

"Loyal" congressman? To whom is he loyal?

If his assistant is talking to you about maybe putting this together than you still have nothing. "Is being" sponsored means nothing.