"Those that don't like the terms don't have to get cell phones" -- Well, cellphones operate in public space. There is limited amount of spectrum available, and the companies that decide to use it, must obey to certain rules. If these companies don't like the terms, they don't have to use the spectrum.
I'd like the goverment to get involved more into allowing fair access to devices, and allowing third party aplications to be installed in devices, without the need of the "blessing" of the carriers.
Imagine, if every piece of software you installed in your computer, have to be "aproved" by your ISP.
Well, that's how it is the current state in the mobile world, and that's why there is a lack of real inovation there.
There is no limit to the amount of greed. In this case, there is clear tacit collusion between carriers, as all of them seem to have early termination fees.
When you have few players in a market (restricted by the limited amount of spectrum), there is a great chance that free market rules wont apply anymore, and just saying the goverment should not get involved, is a way to say let the companies rape the customer as much as possible.
ETF do actually hamper inovation on the device space. All cellphones have to be bought and aproved by the carrier (who resell them at discounted rates), while hampering the adoption of inovative devices. Everytime you pick a verizon phone, and look at the ugly UI the carrier forced the device makers to use, you know the market is not working right.
THe problem, is that the customer is still getting raped. You end up paying higher monthly fees for voice/data/sms messaging, to make up for that device subsidy, yet the customer has less choices on the devices they use.
Look at Europe. They have much more rules in the wireless space to protect the customer, yet usage and the industry is booming there. A lot of inovation going on there (even the SMS was invented in Europe, not here).
If you really want more competition in the telecommunications industry, you'll find the FCC standing in the way. They don't serve any technical purpose anymore (except to keep technology down and to allow old radios to work), but they sure as hell get in the way of new companies that might compete with existing ones.
Keep in mind that without companies to build the radios and service the networks and so on that make the spectrum valuable, who would be able to use it, other than a few thousand engineers? What good would all the oil in Saudi Arabia do you if someone didn't know how to get it out of the ground, how to refine it, and how to build cars to use it? Remember that when you declare something like spectrum public, you inherently lose the ability to maintain everyone's rights.
"There is no limit to the amount of greed."
Not true - at and above a certain price for any good or service, customers won't buy. This is econ 101 stuff.
"limited spectrum" - you would do well to take a signals processing class. Spectrum is only limited in the physical sense (the electromagnetic spectrum is what it is), but beyond that, there are many ways to transfer more information across the same spectrum through additional processing. Surely you know about things like DSL and 802.11, neither of which were possible before cheap processors became commonplace.
I'd like the goverment to get involved more into allowing fair access to devices, and allowing third party aplications to be installed in devices, without the need of the "blessing" of the carriers.
Imagine, if every piece of software you installed in your computer, have to be "aproved" by your ISP. Well, that's how it is the current state in the mobile world, and that's why there is a lack of real inovation there.
There is no limit to the amount of greed. In this case, there is clear tacit collusion between carriers, as all of them seem to have early termination fees.
When you have few players in a market (restricted by the limited amount of spectrum), there is a great chance that free market rules wont apply anymore, and just saying the goverment should not get involved, is a way to say let the companies rape the customer as much as possible.
ETF do actually hamper inovation on the device space. All cellphones have to be bought and aproved by the carrier (who resell them at discounted rates), while hampering the adoption of inovative devices. Everytime you pick a verizon phone, and look at the ugly UI the carrier forced the device makers to use, you know the market is not working right.
THe problem, is that the customer is still getting raped. You end up paying higher monthly fees for voice/data/sms messaging, to make up for that device subsidy, yet the customer has less choices on the devices they use.
Look at Europe. They have much more rules in the wireless space to protect the customer, yet usage and the industry is booming there. A lot of inovation going on there (even the SMS was invented in Europe, not here).