

No-contract $30 / $45 Straight Talk wireless plans storm Walmart - NonEUCitizen
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/10/14/no-contract-30-straight-talk-wireless-plans-storm-walmart/

======
tshtf
Here's a much more mature analysis of what's going on.

<http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091014-711422.html>

Posted article is fairly shallow, and this deserves some better analysis.

~~~
tshtf
Apologies for the link - requires a subscription if you don't hit it from a
Google search for "Wal-Mart Expands Cheap No-Contract Wireless Plan". Thanks
Rupert.

~~~
peoplerock
You mean: "thanks", Rupert.

But a _sincere thanks_ to you for explaining to get there via a google search.

Which raises questions (besides the 'why am i out of loop'?):

• How did you know about the "via google" phenomenon for this article?

• Is that true for all/many wsj articles?

• Why does Rupert love Google referrals?

~~~
wmf
"Cloaking" is a naughty SEO tactic of showing one thing (like an article) to
search engines and a different thing (like a login screen) to humans. Google
bans cloaking; their punishment is de-indexing. But there is a loophole:
showing the same thing to Googlebot and regular browsers with a Google referer
isn't considered cloaking. The NY Times also uses this technique.

I can't tell you why you're out of the loop, though.

------
pmjordan
Living in Europe, I'm amazed that $30/$45 for non-handset tariffs are
considered "ultra cheap", especially as landline services have historically
been far more expensive in Europe than the other side of the Atlantic. What
exactly is stopping carriers in the US from providing cheaper services? I
gather network coverage/signal quality isn't even that great in populated
areas, so is the lesser population density really that much of a burden? Or
should I be thinking 'nefarious anti-competitive behaviour'?

~~~
tumult
There's a history in the US of the government giving large corporations money
to do something, but then not attaching any requirements to it. So the
corporations, obviously, act in their own best interest. Communication
networks that otherwise wouldn't have existed are built on taxpayer money, and
the company that controls it is now in a hugely advantageous position, having
been "bootstrapped" on someone else's dollar.

~~~
pasbesoin
s/attaching/enforcing/ at least in some instances, e.g. with SBC now renamed
AT&T (ignore the purchased name; the culture is SBC). They, along with, I
believe, the other "baby Bells" and perhaps some other entrenched interests,
received hundreds of millions of dollars in concessions, in return for pledges
of network build-out and competitors' access to their physical networks.

They then progressively reneged on those pledges, and hired lobbyists to push
legislative changes to eliminate their obligations.

It's another aspect of what is in the U.S. commonly termed "corporate
welfare". Or corruption. Choose your moniker.

------
pasbesoin
Anyone know whether re you stuck with Verizon's lousy phone OS (or a
rebranding of same)?

