Decoding Mobile Carriers' Latest Push For Profits 64
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the there's-a-trap-for-that dept.
from the there's-a-trap-for-that dept.
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Galen Gruman sifts through the 'doubleplus ungood' of this year's CTIA and Mobile World Congress to spell out 'Big Brother' mobile carriers' true designs for IT and smartphone users. From fake 4G salespitches, to mobile payment systems that hide text-messaging payment confirmation fees, to the inevitability of tier pricing for mobile data usage, no facet of smartphone use is beyond providers' latest profit-engineering push. Even IT's concerns over the invasion of mobile devices at their companies has become 'a great excuse to sell warmed-over management tools to fearful IT and security execs.' And make no mistake, mea culpas, like AT&T admitting to falling short on relieving 3G congestion, will result in additional opportunities to pad providers' bottom lines by, say, buying a $150 femtocell from AT&T to help AT&T 'solve' its problem. 'Of course, in typical Big Brother fashion, [AT&T] told the US government to stay out of wireless — meaning don't regulate prices or impose Net neutrality — while also asking the government for more spectrum. You know the contradiction: The government is good when it gives you free or cheap services but bad when it tries to impose regulation to prevent abusive behavior: doublethink ungood.'"
Big companies not so different than people (Score:4, Insightful)
"You know the contradiction: The government is good when it gives you free or cheap services but bad when it tries to impose regulation to prevent abusive behavior: doublethink ungood.'"
Sounds like corporations really are just like individual [meat] persons.
T-Mobile (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite as fast as AT&T, but it's worth it not to deal with all the BS from the larger carriers.
Doubleplus ungood indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
This has to be the most biased write-up I've seen in a while... sure, most carriers are probably Lawful Evil, but this makes me want to avoid the whole article like the plague....
Big Brother (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not think this [phrase] means what you think it means.
Absurd (Score:1, Insightful)
Both the summary and the article are absurd.
Prophets (Score:5, Insightful)
A corporation wants to make profits? *gasp* I've never heard of such a thing!
BTW, if you check out the submitter, snydeq [slashdot.org], you can easily see that he is a mouthpiece for Infoworld [infoworld.com], the corporation that is publishing the article in question. What sinister plans does Infoworld have for its latest push for profits?
Let's not over-characterize a company trying different ways to make profits as being "Big Brother". That term has a specific meaning related to the government, go read some George Orwell if you've forgotten exactly what it means. Yes, some companies may use slight-of-hand and other tricks to get more money out of you but it's far from being "Big Brother".
This is especially true when you spread your article out a few paragraphs at a time across 4 different pages. We know that trick, it's called padding your ad revenue with additional page views. Oooooh, who's the Big Brother corporation now Infoworld?
Re:Who owns the spectrum? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pure speculation, and not the case anywhere in the world, certainly not when radio was first starting. The FCC was created as a standards body so broadcasters wouldn't accidentally step on each other's toes so to speak, there was never any problem with private property rights in broadcasting. If frequencies can (or could, rather) be bought and sold just like any other product (land), there is absolutely no reason why a few companies would own the spectrum. There might be a few that own a particular frequency across the country, or a large range of bandwidth somewhere, but to expect the entire spectrum to be exclusive to a variety of broadcasters is like saying Wal-Mart will eventually own all the land in the world, it's ignorant, not to mention impossible.
Re:Big companies not so different than people (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations are amoral (immoral ?) actors. They do what is best for their organization/corporation and everyone else be damned.
Ironically, this seems to mean that Corporations, were they real persons, would be voting Democrat, not Republican.
"easy " way to fix this (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress needs to "Man Up" and write a bill giving the Communications companies a dead line of say 6 years to have
This List of things done. During the the wait time tax Corporate Bonuses an extra 15% and of course forbid any increases in salary above the inflation rate for this time. Of course if a company does in fact certify the list as being done (and have IRS types sign off) then they can stop paying the extra tax.
If the list is not done for any reason the extra tax jumps to 40% when the dead line hits.
the biggest problem is way to much money is being used to pad corporate profits and CXO bonuses and not enough is being used to oh PROVIDE SERVICES.
Re:Doubleplus ungood indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
This has to be the most biased write-up I've seen in a while
I was wondering about that when I read it. Kinda sounds like they're pulling facts up out of the sand too...
Throw in multiple bandwidths for the CDMA 2G/3G technology used by Sprint and Verizon Wireless, and you quickly get so many technology and frequency variations that the phones can't easily be designed to support them all. Adding the circuitry and multiple radio tuners to support every possibility quickly causes space, power usage, and heat issues -- and higher costs.
Oh really? Adding additional radio tuners (of which only one is going to be turned on at a given time) causes heat and power issues? Makes me wonder whose laws of physics HE obeys...
A Corporation is a Group of People (Score:1, Insightful)
A corporation is a group of people. They get together, they bring their capital, and then they set out to accomplish something. In the process, those people empoy other people. If the task that those people attempt to accomplish is productive then the corporation will turn a profit. There is nothing wrong with this.
The behavior that we always need to be wary of from these incorporated people is that the engaging in rent seeking and monopolistic favors from government. The summary sort of says this, but it's buried under a layer corporation-bashing rhetoric.
Regards,
Jason
Re:Who owns the spectrum? (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be theft, it's no different than knocking over your neighbor's house with a bulldozer, you just can't do that. That's what the FCC was created for, not for regulating content, not for auctioning off entire blocks of spectrum like they are now, and not "licensing" wavelengths with annual licenses and terms on their use.
Re:Who owns the spectrum? (Score:3, Insightful)
Property protection doesn't involve regulation, certainly not regulating content which is most of their job now. Protection is enforced by the courts, perhaps prosecuted with the help of a specialized beau, like how different divisions of the FBI specialize in different crimes, the FCC would investigate those "jammers" that would violate a broadcaster's right to their frequency.