Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
Kevin Dean wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> tariffs" ("shop for plans"?) link and was unable to complete the
>> checkout process without selecting a handset.
>
> I'm surprised that AT&T doesn't list that on their site.
They want to force you to walk into their store where you see all of the
phones on display and try to sell you accessories, etc.
Just take the Freerunner into the store with you and say "Hey, have an
unlocked GSM phone here already, just need a SIM..."
> I went to T-Mobile this weekend to purchase a SIM
> card for my Freerunner and the only question asked was "Is it
> unlocked" (ensuring it's "compatible"). There was a SNAFU there
> because this was a newly opened store who didn't have the activation
> kits, but it was a service they clearly offered and even have
> pamphlets in their holders.
Kevin, make sure you activate your minutes -- the TMobile store I went
to said they would activate my minutes and it took me and Michael Shiloh
scratching our collective heads at SCALE 6x to determine that my TMobile
SIM wasn't working because it was never activated by the store...
-id
>
>>> You're not arguing you shouldn't have to pay for a phone, you're
>>> arguing that you should be allowed to dictate the level of profit
>>> someone else's company is able to make on transactions.
>> Hmmmn... IMO you're taking Mr Pfeiffer's "should" a bit literally here.
>>
>> Certainly from my point of view, I am astounded at the opportunity
>> the US carriers appear to be missing out on. They could easily
>> advertise "got a handset from your old contract? Save 25% on you
>> monthly bills - try our new SIM-only tariffs!" Think of how the
>> customers would come flocking to them.
>
> There are other logistical issues to that, and while it's slowly
> changing, it's not possible to ignore them. In most of Europe, GSM is
> "standard". In the US, two of the four largest cellular providers use
> CDMA so for most people making that claim would come with so many
> caveats that it would be hard to handle even in the best case. In
> Verizon's case, for instance, they will be transitioning to GSM from
> CDMA "soon". It would be a bit counter productive for them to
> encourage people to bring their existing phones over to a network when
> they're phasing down that very technology.
>
>
> There's also the fact that most people are in a contract. There would
> have to be SIGNIFIGANT savings to justify most of that for customers.
> Typical early termination fees are between $150 and $300 per handset.
> A 25% monthly savings on my plan would save me very little money in
> the long run ($150 cancellation fee per handset and my plan is a
> family plan where my wife and I share minutes. To cancel that service,
> I'd need to terminate 2 phones, costing me $300 for a two year savings
> of $360).
>
> There's also the consumerist mentality here. I'm not sure if it exists
> in the UK, or if so, how strongly, but it is common (especially among
> the younger demographic) to change phones frequently to have "the
> latest and greatest". It's the same reason the iPhone 2 is going to
> sell despite the fact that the iPhone is still "functional" and even
> still leading the pack in terms of appeal.
>
>> The scenario you describe means that whenever one finishes one's
>> contract the old mobile phone is garbage. It's chucked away and
>> becomes landfill. I can't see how this benefits anyone except the
>> foreign manufacturers of phones. The carriers have to stock,
>> inventory & finance handset stock, and the consumer ends up paying
>> more. It just seems insane to me, and that's what surprised me.
>
> As I said above, in many many many cases it is the phone, NOT the
> cellular service, that gets people interested in service. AT&T wasn't
> particularly appealing but the iPhone WAS. There are some pragmatic
> people who buy a phone and use it until it dies. A large chunk upgrade
> their phones before their contracts expire for some new or improved
> feature, or because it comes in a new color. Even when two carriers
> have the same phone models, there are often "exclusives" - Verizon had
> a pink RAZR for a year before anyone else did for instance.
>
>> (OTOH: I now understand that the iPhone truly does only cost $199, if
>> one prefers monthly billing to PAYG SIM cards).
>
> Perhaps that's another difference that matters. Trying to buy my SIM
> this past weekend, even though they sold them, there was some
> confusion - they're sold so infrequently here that it was a noteworthy
> event. Having to not manage minutes is a very convenient thing for me
> and if not for wanting to test the Freerunner and the 1973 at the same
> time, I'd have zero real incentive to go prepaid. That sentiment is
> most common here, though there are good reasons to do an "as you go"
> plan.
>
>> Stroller.
>>
>> ___
>> Openmoko community mailing list
>> communi
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12 Jun 2008, at 03:19, Kevin Dean wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Joe Pfeiffer
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If I don't get a phone, I shouldn't have to pay for one.
>>
>> Walk into T-Mobile or AT&T and buy a phone and sign up for a
>> contract. Write down how much you pay. Walk out, put that phone in
>> your car and walk back into the store and sign up for the same
>> contract without a phone. Write THAT price down. Compare and you'll
>> see they're the same.
>
> I think your replies to this thread started when I said "OMG!
> WTF!?!?!?" in reply to a statement like that.
>
> Here in the UK the prices would certainly NOT be the same.
>
> Checking AT&T's website it does indeed seem the situation is
> different in the US. I went to the website, clicked the "shop for
> tariffs" ("shop for plans"?) link and was unable to complete the
> checkout process without selecting a handset. To a European, this
> seems about as antiquated as being required to rent your landline
> handset from the phone company (which indeed was the case when I was
> a child, 25 years ago).
I'm surprised that AT&T doesn't list that on their site. I honestly
haven't checked their (or T-Mobile, my provider of choice) website for
being able to do that. The thing is, people frequently go "Cell
carriers are doing this abusive thing!" and that gets me a bit
annoyed. It is more common to buy the phone/service bundle, but it's
not the ONLY way to. I went to T-Mobile this weekend to purchase a SIM
card for my Freerunner and the only question asked was "Is it
unlocked" (ensuring it's "compatible"). There was a SNAFU there
because this was a newly opened store who didn't have the activation
kits, but it was a service they clearly offered and even have
pamphlets in their holders.
>
>> You're not arguing you shouldn't have to pay for a phone, you're
>> arguing that you should be allowed to dictate the level of profit
>> someone else's company is able to make on transactions.
>
> Hmmmn... IMO you're taking Mr Pfeiffer's "should" a bit literally here.
>
> Certainly from my point of view, I am astounded at the opportunity
> the US carriers appear to be missing out on. They could easily
> advertise "got a handset from your old contract? Save 25% on you
> monthly bills - try our new SIM-only tariffs!" Think of how the
> customers would come flocking to them.
There are other logistical issues to that, and while it's slowly
changing, it's not possible to ignore them. In most of Europe, GSM is
"standard". In the US, two of the four largest cellular providers use
CDMA so for most people making that claim would come with so many
caveats that it would be hard to handle even in the best case. In
Verizon's case, for instance, they will be transitioning to GSM from
CDMA "soon". It would be a bit counter productive for them to
encourage people to bring their existing phones over to a network when
they're phasing down that very technology.
There's also the fact that most people are in a contract. There would
have to be SIGNIFIGANT savings to justify most of that for customers.
Typical early termination fees are between $150 and $300 per handset.
A 25% monthly savings on my plan would save me very little money in
the long run ($150 cancellation fee per handset and my plan is a
family plan where my wife and I share minutes. To cancel that service,
I'd need to terminate 2 phones, costing me $300 for a two year savings
of $360).
There's also the consumerist mentality here. I'm not sure if it exists
in the UK, or if so, how strongly, but it is common (especially among
the younger demographic) to change phones frequently to have "the
latest and greatest". It's the same reason the iPhone 2 is going to
sell despite the fact that the iPhone is still "functional" and even
still leading the pack in terms of appeal.
>
> The scenario you describe means that whenever one finishes one's
> contract the old mobile phone is garbage. It's chucked away and
> becomes landfill. I can't see how this benefits anyone except the
> foreign manufacturers of phones. The carriers have to stock,
> inventory & finance handset stock, and the consumer ends up paying
> more. It just seems insane to me, and that's what surprised me.
As I said above, in many many many cases it is the phone, NOT the
cellular service, that gets people interested in service. AT&T wasn't
particularly appealing but the iPhone WAS. There are some pragmatic
people who buy a phone and use it until it dies. A large chunk upgrade
their phones before their contracts expire for some new or improved
feature, or because it comes in a new color. Even when two carriers
have the same phone models, there are often "exclusives" - Verizon had
a pink RAZR for a year before anyone else did for instance.
>
> (OTOH: I now understand that the iPhone truly does only cost $199, if
> one prefers monthly billing to PAYG SIM cards).
Perhaps that's
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
On 12 Jun 2008, at 03:19, Kevin Dean wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Joe Pfeiffer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If I don't get a phone, I shouldn't have to pay for one.
>
> Walk into T-Mobile or AT&T and buy a phone and sign up for a
> contract. Write down how much you pay. Walk out, put that phone in
> your car and walk back into the store and sign up for the same
> contract without a phone. Write THAT price down. Compare and you'll
> see they're the same.
I think your replies to this thread started when I said "OMG!
WTF!?!?!?" in reply to a statement like that.
Here in the UK the prices would certainly NOT be the same.
Checking AT&T's website it does indeed seem the situation is
different in the US. I went to the website, clicked the "shop for
tariffs" ("shop for plans"?) link and was unable to complete the
checkout process without selecting a handset. To a European, this
seems about as antiquated as being required to rent your landline
handset from the phone company (which indeed was the case when I was
a child, 25 years ago).
> You're not arguing you shouldn't have to pay for a phone, you're
> arguing that you should be allowed to dictate the level of profit
> someone else's company is able to make on transactions.
Hmmmn... IMO you're taking Mr Pfeiffer's "should" a bit literally here.
Certainly from my point of view, I am astounded at the opportunity
the US carriers appear to be missing out on. They could easily
advertise "got a handset from your old contract? Save 25% on you
monthly bills - try our new SIM-only tariffs!" Think of how the
customers would come flocking to them.
The scenario you describe means that whenever one finishes one's
contract the old mobile phone is garbage. It's chucked away and
becomes landfill. I can't see how this benefits anyone except the
foreign manufacturers of phones. The carriers have to stock,
inventory & finance handset stock, and the consumer ends up paying
more. It just seems insane to me, and that's what surprised me.
(OTOH: I now understand that the iPhone truly does only cost $199, if
one prefers monthly billing to PAYG SIM cards).
Stroller.
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Kevin Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please note this is an OFF LIST reply, since it is off topic for > Openmoko mailing lists. Huh? I agree, this is off topic but your reply did go out to the entire list. > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Lowell Higley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If I make an observation.. I am an American by birth but have lived all > over > > the world.. In the middle of the Pacific, Korea, and now Europe (again). > > One of the things I have noticed is that the laws in Europe tend to > protect > > the consumer whereas the laws in the US tend to protect big business. > > Why do you instantly assume there two sides are opposed to each other? > Now, let me say I agree that corporations (definition: a legal entity > recognized by the government for the purpose of shielding the > individual for personal responsibillity for their actions) are in > general a bad thing since it means if a person does something "bad" > while conducting business they don't suffer penalties. If, however, a > person running an honest business manages to be "big", I see nothing > wrong at ALL with them. > Businesses (big AND small) provide services and products to people. > They don't use violence to get what they want (even Microsoft doesn't > send the police or military to your house for refusing to buy their > licenses). If people said "I don't like how you conduct business and I > refuse to give you my money!" those businesses (large and small) would > stop doing that thing because they want to stay in business! > First, the observation was a generalization.. notice the word "tend". No "assumptions" were made. No one said the two sides were opposed. If that is something you drew from the observation then I think that is something you added...not me. Again, notice the words "tend to". Nothing is absolute nor did I infer it was. Perhaps I should have used the verbage "laws tend to favor" and not "protect"? Would that make a difference? > > > I could give many examples but I think this whole "contact vs. no > contract" > > discussion is a perfect example. imho. > > I was raised as a liberal Democrat. That said, I can sit back and > (with the best of them) argue the liberal perspective about how "big > business takes advantage" of the "little guy/working class". > > I was also raised to believe that I should question everything and not > accept what other people tell me without some proof. In EVERY > arguement against "big business" there is one key factor - the > government. How "big" might Microsoft be if the government (which > funds every government school and university in just about every > nation of the world) didn't pick teachers who demanded their > assignments be submitted in .doc format? How many business might exist > worldwide if the government didn't mandate licenses and zoning and all > kinds of other things that prevent people (who create wealth by simply > existing!) who have very little money from starting honest businesses > and earning money by providing services and goods to people? How many > deaths might be avoided if the government let people and their doctors > determine if a medication was "safe enough" for their specific > situation? > No one has asked you to accept anything. It was merely a "personal observation." It was not some sort of law or edict I came down from the hills with to force on anyone. If you want evidence of why I believe my observation is correct, I'd be happy to share them with you. However, I don't think this is the time or place for it. > > > > > Just a personal observation... shoot me down if you like. > > I don't mean to shoot you down. I just find it disconcerning how many > people "attack" business owners, demand regulation which forces up > prices and reduces control and than blame businesses for increased > prices and decreased control. Hopefully some people will critically > evaluate things... > No one "attacked" business owners. I merely pointed out a difference *I* believe exists in the laws between the US and Europe. Not once did I ever say business(es), big or small, was doing anything wrong in either the US or Europe. Again, if you would like I will share with you why I believe my observation is true... I could also point out why I think both systems is good for consumers and business alike (they would obviously be different lists). However, I don't think it is appropriate to post to the list because it is wildly off topic, as you previously highlighted. Sometimes I think messages on this list get blown way out of proportion. Right now, I believe that is the case with this entire thread. If I offended anyone with my observation, I apologize, that was not my intent. > > > > > > > ___ > > Openmoko community mailing list > > community@lists.openmoko.org > > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > > > > > _
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
Kevin Dean writes: >On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Because the price of the "free" phone is bundled into the price of the >> contract. > >I don't think so. The only thing that changes in the deal is the >profit margin of the company. The costs of the mobile carrier also >indirectly include the costs of electricity but if I said "I'm not >buying electricity from you so I shouldn't pay the mark up from >electricity" I would just sound really really stupid. I'm well aware >that the mobile providers pays for the phone and as a cost of doing >business, charges more for their products. Well, yes, you would -- they can't offer their service if they don't buy electricity. The can offer their service without buying the phone they "give" me. >> If I don't get a phone, I shouldn't have to pay for one. > >Walk into T-Mobile or AT&T and buy a phone and sign up for a >contract. Write down how much you pay. Walk out, put that phone in >your car and walk back into the store and sign up for the same >contract without a phone. Write THAT price down. Compare and you'll >see they're the same. That's my objection. >You're not arguing you shouldn't have to pay for a phone, you're >arguing that you should be allowed to dictate the level of profit >someone else's company is able to make on transactions. Very close, but not exactly (I mentioned hair-splitting in my last message). They, of course, have the right to adopt any pricing strategy they want, and they've done so. I, of course, have the right to argue that their strategy is not to the interest of this particular consumer, on the grounds that they are bundling goods and services together that I feel should be separate. And I'm doing exactly that. I feel like I'm back on my high school debating team. >> Not quite -- you're also committed to pay the inflated price long >> enough to pay for the phone, > >And as long as that company pays taxes. And as long as that company >advertises. And as long as that company complies with minimum wage >laws. Well, no. Whether they comply with the law (including taxes etc) has nothing whatever to do with how long I pay my contract. One hopes that their pricing structure enables them to do that, but it doesn't appear anywhere on my bill. >I am aware that when a company spends money, in order to be profitable >they will reclaim those costs they will increase the price of their >products. I have no problem with a company making profit. In fact, I >would strongly PERFER it because companies that provide me services >tend to vanish when they don't make money. Oh, yes, I want them to make money for exactly the reasons you state. I don't want to pay for more of their profits than somebody who wants a subsidized phone, however. >> or pay for the phone under the guise of >> an "early termination" fee. > >You entered into the contract of your own free will. Entering into >that contract is merely claiming that your word has value. Why do you >complain about agreeing to something and then being held to that >agreement? The terms are stated up front, if you find them >disagreeable negotiate the terms. If you can't, don't enter into the >agreement. There's a couple of issues being entangled here. I don't object to anything you state in your paragraph above. I do object to the lack of the option I prefer. >The termination fee covers the loss to the company's profit margin >when you fail to complete your payment agreement. They do this so that >it's easier for customers to get cellular service. The cost of putting >up towers, hiring support staff, providing them with bathrooms, >purchasing computers, hiring programmers and engineers and all of that >is not small. To recoup that cost, they need to make a certain amount >of money. Putting a phone in the hands of people who don't have phones >ALSO costs money, and they need to ensure that if that customer fails >to generate profit for them, they will not face a loss from doing >business with that customer. Yes, yes, yes. I really do understand all that. It has nothing whatever to do with whether a customer really ought to be able to pay less to get a SIM card with no phone than a SIM card with phone. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
This is splitting hairs at a level the attorneys I know would be embarrassed to be a part of. Kevin Dean writes: >On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Robert Taylor ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Kevin Dean wrote: >>> I'm an American and your statement confuses me. Why is it "obvious" >>> that a contract without a phone should be cheaper? The service >>> (cellular connectivity for voice and/or data) is the same service no >>> matter what phone you have. >>> >>> In the US, the price of service contracts doesn't change. The price of >>> PHONES does when you agree to commit to a service contract but the >>> service contract doesn't. >>> >>> >> Which part of "a portion of the contract pays for you phone ... phone >> ISN'T FREE, YOU ARE FINANCING THE PURCHASE OF THE PHONE VIA THE >> CONTRACT" is hard to understand? > >I understand that statement ENTIRELY. Now that we're done beating down >straw men, where have I ONCE mentioned anything about a "free phone" >(with the exception of the use of quoting a previous poster, in >responce to his use of the term) ? > >I have not. > >The average person walks into a cellular retailer, purchases a phone >(A phone that is clearly marked as costing, say $199) signs up for the >two year contract and recieves a discount on the phone and begins a >service subscription. So far, so good. >To say that he's getting a free phone is stupid - he got a $199 phone When I signed up with T-Mobile, the market value of the phone they "gave" me wasn't displayed anywhere. It was described as a *free* phone. I did read the contract; if it said it anywhere, it was written in 1/2 point type around the margin like the "Santa clause". >as a bonus for signing up for a contractual service (a voluntary >service, by the way!). Did he pay for the phone? No. What he did was >reduce the phone company's profit margin by making them expend more >money in order to gain him as a customer of the recurring subscription >for vioce/data services. "Making"? I don't think so. I would have been happier if they'd reduced their profit margin the same amount by letting me walk out of the store with a naked SIM card and a lower monthly bill. Not allowing me that choice was entirely their decision. >If I walk into a retail outlet for my mobile service provider, I can >pay for a phone WITHOUT service - I get no credits or refunds from the >cellular provider. I pay for the phone. Haven't tried it. The local stores sure don't advertise that option, and it doesn't really address whether I can buy a plan without a phone (and not pay for the phone). >I can also have my OWN phone and walk into a cellular service provider >and sign up for a contract of video/data service. The price I pay for >that service is the same as the price paid by the person who took the >discount on the phone. I am simply creating a higher profit revenue >for that company in the process. And you see this as something other than being forced* to pay for the subsidized phone, without getting the phone? Your logic escapes me. *Using the term loosely. I realize nobody is forcing me to have the contract at all -- but given that I want the contract, paying the phone subsidy isn't optional. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
Please note this is an OFF LIST reply, since it is off topic for Openmoko mailing lists. On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Lowell Higley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I make an observation.. I am an American by birth but have lived all over > the world.. In the middle of the Pacific, Korea, and now Europe (again). > One of the things I have noticed is that the laws in Europe tend to protect > the consumer whereas the laws in the US tend to protect big business. Why do you instantly assume there two sides are opposed to each other? Now, let me say I agree that corporations (definition: a legal entity recognized by the government for the purpose of shielding the individual for personal responsibillity for their actions) are in general a bad thing since it means if a person does something "bad" while conducting business they don't suffer penalties. If, however, a person running an honest business manages to be "big", I see nothing wrong at ALL with them. Businesses (big AND small) provide services and products to people. They don't use violence to get what they want (even Microsoft doesn't send the police or military to your house for refusing to buy their licenses). If people said "I don't like how you conduct business and I refuse to give you my money!" those businesses (large and small) would stop doing that thing because they want to stay in business! > I could give many examples but I think this whole "contact vs. no contract" > discussion is a perfect example. imho. I was raised as a liberal Democrat. That said, I can sit back and (with the best of them) argue the liberal perspective about how "big business takes advantage" of the "little guy/working class". I was also raised to believe that I should question everything and not accept what other people tell me without some proof. In EVERY arguement against "big business" there is one key factor - the government. How "big" might Microsoft be if the government (which funds every government school and university in just about every nation of the world) didn't pick teachers who demanded their assignments be submitted in .doc format? How many business might exist worldwide if the government didn't mandate licenses and zoning and all kinds of other things that prevent people (who create wealth by simply existing!) who have very little money from starting honest businesses and earning money by providing services and goods to people? How many deaths might be avoided if the government let people and their doctors determine if a medication was "safe enough" for their specific situation? > > Just a personal observation... shoot me down if you like. I don't mean to shoot you down. I just find it disconcerning how many people "attack" business owners, demand regulation which forces up prices and reduces control and than blame businesses for increased prices and decreased control. Hopefully some people will critically evaluate things... > > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner
2008/6/12 ian douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > They're not about to give us a 10% or 20% break on our monthly bill, or > whatever percentage pays for the subsidy of a locked phone (like the > iPhone), otherwise the 'subsidy' no longer appears as a subsidy to the > end user who *does* buy a locked phone, the user sees it exactly as you > stated it -- they're financing their phone. And AT&T is going to want > that to appear as 'transparent' as possible to the consumer. a partial way round this situation: 1 take out a contract 2 get a free phone 3 get it unlocked 4 sell it on fleabay as nearly new you won't get the same back as the phone is 'worth', but it can still be used to somewhat offest the cost of buying a freerunner i've never tried this, i have no idea how much unlocked phones go for. it may or may not be worth the effort to you ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh okay so its semantics then. In the USA, the "contract" is for the service ONLY. That's why I asked in the beginning if we had a different definition of what it meant to contract. It's a lot like a grocery store that offers "buy one get one free" kind of sales, they create incentive to purchase by providing another product. The price of the service (video/voice) doesn't change depending on those incentives. You can still buy ONE product (in some areas... he he. Most people comply with laws and different areas interpret "buy one get one free" differently) at the same price even though by taking them up on the offer you gain more in the end if you do. It's a semantic issue perhaps. English has no word for "Umami", the kind of taste sensation you feel when biting into a piece of cheddar cheese. Prior to the assymilation of the term "deja vu" from French, there was no term for "the sensation of having done the same thing before". Mere words goes a LONG way towards understanding; sometimes nuances matter. > > *NOD* > > :) > > Rob > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because the price of the "free" phone is bundled into the price of the > contract. I don't think so. The only thing that changes in the deal is the profit margin of the company. The costs of the mobile carrier also indirectly include the costs of electricity but if I said "I'm not buying electricity from you so I shouldn't pay the mark up from electricity" I would just sound really really stupid. I'm well aware that the mobile providers pays for the phone and as a cost of doing business, charges more for their products. > If I don't get a phone, I shouldn't have to pay for one. Walk into T-Mobile or AT&T and buy a phone and sign up for a contract. Write down how much you pay. Walk out, put that phone in your car and walk back into the store and sign up for the same contract without a phone. Write THAT price down. Compare and you'll see they're the same. You're not arguing you shouldn't have to pay for a phone, you're arguing that you should be allowed to dictate the level of profit someone else's company is able to make on transactions. > Not quite -- you're also committed to pay the inflated price long > enough to pay for the phone, And as long as that company pays taxes. And as long as that company advertises. And as long as that company complies with minimum wage laws. I am aware that when a company spends money, in order to be profitable they will reclaim those costs they will increase the price of their products. I have no problem with a company making profit. In fact, I would strongly PERFER it because companies that provide me services tend to vanish when they don't make money. > or pay for the phone under the guise of > an "early termination" fee. You entered into the contract of your own free will. Entering into that contract is merely claiming that your word has value. Why do you complain about agreeing to something and then being held to that agreement? The terms are stated up front, if you find them disagreeable negotiate the terms. If you can't, don't enter into the agreement. The termination fee covers the loss to the company's profit margin when you fail to complete your payment agreement. They do this so that it's easier for customers to get cellular service. The cost of putting up towers, hiring support staff, providing them with bathrooms, purchasing computers, hiring programmers and engineers and all of that is not small. To recoup that cost, they need to make a certain amount of money. Putting a phone in the hands of people who don't have phones ALSO costs money, and they need to ensure that if that customer fails to generate profit for them, they will not face a loss from doing business with that customer. > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin Dean wrote: >> I'm an American and your statement confuses me. Why is it "obvious" >> that a contract without a phone should be cheaper? The service >> (cellular connectivity for voice and/or data) is the same service no >> matter what phone you have. >> >> In the US, the price of service contracts doesn't change. The price of >> PHONES does when you agree to commit to a service contract but the >> service contract doesn't. >> >> > Which part of "a portion of the contract pays for you phone ... phone > ISN'T FREE, YOU ARE FINANCING THE PURCHASE OF THE PHONE VIA THE > CONTRACT" is hard to understand? I understand that statement ENTIRELY. Now that we're done beating down straw men, where have I ONCE mentioned anything about a "free phone" (with the exception of the use of quoting a previous poster, in responce to his use of the term) ? I have not. The average person walks into a cellular retailer, purchases a phone (A phone that is clearly marked as costing, say $199) signs up for the two year contract and recieves a discount on the phone and begins a service subscription. To say that he's getting a free phone is stupid - he got a $199 phone as a bonus for signing up for a contractual service (a voluntary service, by the way!). Did he pay for the phone? No. What he did was reduce the phone company's profit margin by making them expend more money in order to gain him as a customer of the recurring subscription for vioce/data services. If I walk into a retail outlet for my mobile service provider, I can pay for a phone WITHOUT service - I get no credits or refunds from the cellular provider. I pay for the phone. I can also have my OWN phone and walk into a cellular service provider and sign up for a contract of video/data service. The price I pay for that service is the same as the price paid by the person who took the discount on the phone. I am simply creating a higher profit revenue for that company in the process. -Kevin > > Why do americans have such a hard time grasping this? > > Rob > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
> Why do americans have such a hard time grasping this? > > Rob > That's what I call starting a flame (from a flame) Kosa - Un mundo mejor es posible - ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin Dean writes: > >On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >> US. To me, it's quite obvious that a contract without a phone > >> *should* be cheaper, but that's a long way from "is" (it actually > >> worked out for the best, since I've had a working phne all these > >> months as a result). > > > >I'm an American and your statement confuses me. Why is it "obvious" > >that a contract without a phone should be cheaper? The service > >(cellular connectivity for voice and/or data) is the same service no > >matter what phone you have. > > Because the price of the "free" phone is bundled into the price of the > contract. If I don't get a phone, I shouldn't have to pay for one. > > >In the US, the price of service contracts doesn't change. The price of > >PHONES does when you agree to commit to a service contract but the > >service contract doesn't. > > > > > >> > >>>The most obvious example of this is that one can choose how much to > >>>pay up front - on can choose the phone "for free" with one set of > >>>tariffs, or pay £75 on purchase and get the same number of minutes > >>>for £10 a month less (on an 18-month contract, for example). One can > >>>also get much cheaper contracts when no phone purchase is involved. > >> > > > >Not sure if you're confusing cause and effect here or if Brits just > >look at "cellular service" differently than Americans. You are > >implying that "the contract" is "the monthly service of voice/data > >connectivity and a handset". In the US, ONLY the monthly service of > >voice/data connectivity is contracted. It seems to me that what you're > >ACTUALLY doing when you make your purchase is purchasing a phone at > >some price, agreeing to a service level (monthly voice/data) and then > >financing the cost of that device through your monthly bill. By paying > >the £75 up front you're simply paying for the phone and NOT paying the > >cost of it in installments monthly. > > > >But from how I see it the service that is purchased (voice/data > >connectivity) remains the same price. > > Not quite -- you're also committed to pay the inflated price long > enough to pay for the phone, or pay for the phone under the guise of > an "early termination" fee. > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > If I make an observation.. I am an American by birth but have lived all over the world.. In the middle of the Pacific, Korea, and now Europe (again). One of the things I have noticed is that the laws in Europe tend to protect the consumer whereas the laws in the US tend to protect big business. I could give many examples but I think this whole "contact vs. no contract" discussion is a perfect example. imho. Just a personal observation... shoot me down if you like. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner
ian douglas wrote: > But the carriers in America, in my experience (and I currently use a > phone on each of Verizon, AT&T and TMobile), simply don't discount their > monthly plan rates for using an unlocked phone on their network. > Whatever portion of your monthly plan isn't otherwise going towards a > subsidy is pure profit for them. > > They're not about to give us a 10% or 20% break on our monthly bill, or > whatever percentage pays for the subsidy of a locked phone (like the > iPhone), otherwise the 'subsidy' no longer appears as a subsidy to the > end user who *does* buy a locked phone, the user sees it exactly as you > stated it -- they're financing their phone. And AT&T is going to want > that to appear as 'transparent' as possible to the consumer. > > That's my thought on it, anyway. > > -id > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > Oh okay so its semantics then. *NOD* :) Rob ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
Kevin Dean writes: >On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> US. To me, it's quite obvious that a contract without a phone >> *should* be cheaper, but that's a long way from "is" (it actually >> worked out for the best, since I've had a working phne all these >> months as a result). > >I'm an American and your statement confuses me. Why is it "obvious" >that a contract without a phone should be cheaper? The service >(cellular connectivity for voice and/or data) is the same service no >matter what phone you have. Because the price of the "free" phone is bundled into the price of the contract. If I don't get a phone, I shouldn't have to pay for one. >In the US, the price of service contracts doesn't change. The price of >PHONES does when you agree to commit to a service contract but the >service contract doesn't. > > >> >>>The most obvious example of this is that one can choose how much to >>>pay up front - on can choose the phone "for free" with one set of >>>tariffs, or pay £75 on purchase and get the same number of minutes >>>for £10 a month less (on an 18-month contract, for example). One can >>>also get much cheaper contracts when no phone purchase is involved. >> > >Not sure if you're confusing cause and effect here or if Brits just >look at "cellular service" differently than Americans. You are >implying that "the contract" is "the monthly service of voice/data >connectivity and a handset". In the US, ONLY the monthly service of >voice/data connectivity is contracted. It seems to me that what you're >ACTUALLY doing when you make your purchase is purchasing a phone at >some price, agreeing to a service level (monthly voice/data) and then >financing the cost of that device through your monthly bill. By paying >the £75 up front you're simply paying for the phone and NOT paying the >cost of it in installments monthly. > >But from how I see it the service that is purchased (voice/data >connectivity) remains the same price. Not quite -- you're also committed to pay the inflated price long enough to pay for the phone, or pay for the phone under the guise of an "early termination" fee. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner
Robert Taylor wrote: > Which part of "a portion of the contract pays for you phone ... phone > ISN'T FREE, YOU ARE FINANCING THE PURCHASE OF THE PHONE VIA THE > CONTRACT" is hard to understand? > > Why do americans have such a hard time grasping this? Your statement makes perfect sense, Robert. But the carriers in America, in my experience (and I currently use a phone on each of Verizon, AT&T and TMobile), simply don't discount their monthly plan rates for using an unlocked phone on their network. Whatever portion of your monthly plan isn't otherwise going towards a subsidy is pure profit for them. They're not about to give us a 10% or 20% break on our monthly bill, or whatever percentage pays for the subsidy of a locked phone (like the iPhone), otherwise the 'subsidy' no longer appears as a subsidy to the end user who *does* buy a locked phone, the user sees it exactly as you stated it -- they're financing their phone. And AT&T is going to want that to appear as 'transparent' as possible to the consumer. That's my thought on it, anyway. -id ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
Kevin Dean wrote: > I'm an American and your statement confuses me. Why is it "obvious" > that a contract without a phone should be cheaper? The service > (cellular connectivity for voice and/or data) is the same service no > matter what phone you have. > > In the US, the price of service contracts doesn't change. The price of > PHONES does when you agree to commit to a service contract but the > service contract doesn't. > > Which part of "a portion of the contract pays for you phone ... phone ISN'T FREE, YOU ARE FINANCING THE PURCHASE OF THE PHONE VIA THE CONTRACT" is hard to understand? Why do americans have such a hard time grasping this? Rob ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
News Flash! The US doesn't always make sense. I'm a United Statesian. I've lived around and worked with Europeans for years and I'm always agreeing that what we have doesn't seem sensible or doesn't appear thought out. It's very screwy. It just is. :-) On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stroller writes: > > > >On 11 Jun 2008, at 15:44, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >> > >> Did you get a lower price on your contract than you would have with a > >> phone? Yes, they would have let me pay for a subsidized phone without > >> giving me the phone... > > > >Where the heck are you? > > > >To the British it is quite *obvious* that a contract without a phone > >is cheaper. > > US. To me, it's quite obvious that a contract without a phone > *should* be cheaper, but that's a long way from "is" (it actually > worked out for the best, since I've had a working phne all these > months as a result). > > >The most obvious example of this is that one can choose how much to > >pay up front - on can choose the phone "for free" with one set of > >tariffs, or pay £75 on purchase and get the same number of minutes > >for £10 a month less (on an 18-month contract, for example). One can > >also get much cheaper contracts when no phone purchase is involved. > > I haven't seen anything like that here. The plan costs what it costs; > you can pay varying amounts up front for different phones. > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stroller writes: >> >>On 11 Jun 2008, at 15:44, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >>> >>> Did you get a lower price on your contract than you would have with a >>> phone? Yes, they would have let me pay for a subsidized phone without >>> giving me the phone... >> >>Where the heck are you? >> >>To the British it is quite *obvious* that a contract without a phone >>is cheaper. > > US. To me, it's quite obvious that a contract without a phone > *should* be cheaper, but that's a long way from "is" (it actually > worked out for the best, since I've had a working phne all these > months as a result). I'm an American and your statement confuses me. Why is it "obvious" that a contract without a phone should be cheaper? The service (cellular connectivity for voice and/or data) is the same service no matter what phone you have. In the US, the price of service contracts doesn't change. The price of PHONES does when you agree to commit to a service contract but the service contract doesn't. > >>The most obvious example of this is that one can choose how much to >>pay up front - on can choose the phone "for free" with one set of >>tariffs, or pay £75 on purchase and get the same number of minutes >>for £10 a month less (on an 18-month contract, for example). One can >>also get much cheaper contracts when no phone purchase is involved. > Not sure if you're confusing cause and effect here or if Brits just look at "cellular service" differently than Americans. You are implying that "the contract" is "the monthly service of voice/data connectivity and a handset". In the US, ONLY the monthly service of voice/data connectivity is contracted. It seems to me that what you're ACTUALLY doing when you make your purchase is purchasing a phone at some price, agreeing to a service level (monthly voice/data) and then financing the cost of that device through your monthly bill. By paying the £75 up front you're simply paying for the phone and NOT paying the cost of it in installments monthly. But from how I see it the service that is purchased (voice/data connectivity) remains the same price. > I haven't seen anything like that here. The plan costs what it costs; > you can pay varying amounts up front for different phones. > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
Stroller writes: > >On 11 Jun 2008, at 15:44, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> Did you get a lower price on your contract than you would have with a >> phone? Yes, they would have let me pay for a subsidized phone without >> giving me the phone... > >Where the heck are you? > >To the British it is quite *obvious* that a contract without a phone >is cheaper. US. To me, it's quite obvious that a contract without a phone *should* be cheaper, but that's a long way from "is" (it actually worked out for the best, since I've had a working phne all these months as a result). >The most obvious example of this is that one can choose how much to >pay up front - on can choose the phone "for free" with one set of >tariffs, or pay £75 on purchase and get the same number of minutes >for £10 a month less (on an 18-month contract, for example). One can >also get much cheaper contracts when no phone purchase is involved. I haven't seen anything like that here. The plan costs what it costs; you can pay varying amounts up front for different phones. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > ian douglas writes: >> TMobile did this for me in about 15 minutes at one of their stores, and >> I didn't even have my Neo with me at the time. I simply told them I had >> an unlocked international GSM-capable phone and I just needed a SIM card >> for it. > > Did you get a lower price on your contract than you would have with a > phone? Yes, they would have let me pay for a subsidized phone without > giving me the phone... It was a pay-as-you-go SIM card, no contract required. Minutes are good for a year 9though I used up almost the entire block of 1,000 minutes doing "talk time tests" last month on the Freerunner. -id ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
On 11 Jun 2008, at 15:44, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > ian douglas writes: >> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >>> when I went to get a sim card to use in my moko, I was >>> unable to find one without getting a subsidized phone to go with it. >> >> TMobile did this for me in about 15 minutes at one of their >> stores, and >> I didn't even have my Neo with me at the time. I simply told them >> I had >> an unlocked international GSM-capable phone and I just needed a >> SIM card >> for it. > > Did you get a lower price on your contract than you would have with a > phone? Yes, they would have let me pay for a subsidized phone without > giving me the phone... Where the heck are you? To the British it is quite *obvious* that a contract without a phone is cheaper. The most obvious example of this is that one can choose how much to pay up front - on can choose the phone "for free" with one set of tariffs, or pay £75 on purchase and get the same number of minutes for £10 a month less (on an 18-month contract, for example). One can also get much cheaper contracts when no phone purchase is involved. Stroller. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
AT&T in the US does offer SIMs without a phone. However, you have to go into a Corporate store. The resellers generally won't or can't do this. I do not know, however, if they offer SIMs with contracts. To my knowledge, they only do this with "pay as you go" SIMs. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:41 PM, ian douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > when I went to get a sim card to use in my moko, I was > > unable to find one without getting a subsidized phone to go with it. > > TMobile did this for me in about 15 minutes at one of their stores, and > I didn't even have my Neo with me at the time. I simply told them I had > an unlocked international GSM-capable phone and I just needed a SIM card > for it. > > I'm sure AT&T would do the same if you simply walk into the store and > tell them you want to purchase a SIM card for an unlocked phone you > already own, and that you just want the SIM card. > > -id > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
The local t-mobile store occasionally has a no extra charge (free I suppose) quad band world phone from Motorola. I was thinking of getting that as a spare. On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ian douglas writes: > >Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >> when I went to get a sim card to use in my moko, I was > >> unable to find one without getting a subsidized phone to go with it. > > > >TMobile did this for me in about 15 minutes at one of their stores, and > >I didn't even have my Neo with me at the time. I simply told them I had > >an unlocked international GSM-capable phone and I just needed a SIM card > >for it. > > Did you get a lower price on your contract than you would have with a > phone? Yes, they would have let me pay for a subsidized phone without > giving me the phone... > > ___ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
SIM cards for Freerunner (was Free Runner price vs iphone 3G price)
Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > when I went to get a sim card to use in my moko, I was > unable to find one without getting a subsidized phone to go with it. TMobile did this for me in about 15 minutes at one of their stores, and I didn't even have my Neo with me at the time. I simply told them I had an unlocked international GSM-capable phone and I just needed a SIM card for it. I'm sure AT&T would do the same if you simply walk into the store and tell them you want to purchase a SIM card for an unlocked phone you already own, and that you just want the SIM card. -id ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
