Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.

View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 
1599 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 594013 12-Mar-2012 11:40 Send private message

To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/ 

5267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 782


  Reply # 594054 12-Mar-2012 12:26 Send private message

codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/ 


He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts.  Nothing to do with sim-locking.


119 posts

Master Geek


  Reply # 594114 12-Mar-2012 13:17 Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/ 


He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts.  Nothing to do with sim-locking.



In some markets (usually depending on handset manufacturer and carrier combination) the term subsidy is a network/SIM locked phone. 
IE: you need to pay the subsidy before the phone will allow usage on another network (set in firmware - just like sim-locking AFAIK)

5267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 782


  Reply # 594124 12-Mar-2012 13:36 Send private message

Toiletduck:
NonprayingMantis:
codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/ 


He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts.  Nothing to do with sim-locking.



In some markets (usually depending on handset manufacturer and carrier combination) the term subsidy is a network/SIM locked phone. 
IE: you need to pay the subsidy before the phone will allow usage on another network (set in firmware - just like sim-locking AFAIK)


really. never heard that before. 
Regardless, it certainly isn't the case in the US which that article is referring to.

BDFL
49896 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4615

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Subscriber

  Reply # 594127 12-Mar-2012 13:41 Send private message

This is a "subsidy" in the US. You get cheaper phones - sometimes free, in exchange sign a term contract. Exactly like New Zealand, except there they SIM lock the handsets to make sure you will honour your side of the deal.





1369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 274


  Reply # 594365 12-Mar-2012 22:11 Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/ 


He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts.  Nothing to do with sim-locking.



No, it's directly comparable, just less formally legalistic. In practice they lock you into using them using a mechanism (ie via a sim lock rather than an explicit contract) that you have a financial penalty if you exit, in return for subsidies hardware. Let me repeat that - network lock in in return for a handset subsidy - which is exactly what the T-Mobile guy is talking about.

2620 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 57

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 594377 12-Mar-2012 22:33 Send private message

JimmyH: It's anti-competitive, pure and simple, and the Commerce Commission should nuke them.


I think we have to get used this government being pro-corporate and anti-consumer / peasant. Every other policy is lined up that way....why should this one be any different. 
 
Jimmy H: It also means that you can't dodge gouging roaming fees as easily by, for instance, dropping an aussie pre-pay SIM in your phone to pay local rates while on holiday. 


This is probably the worst aspect of it. My uncle visited from Canada with his locked iPhone and it was essentially a brick until he went home, due to the high roaming charges. . He had to buy a phone here and SIM here and another SIM in Australia.....and he left his iPhone in his suitcase, untouched unless there was wifi about...and then he used it like an iPod.

<rare caps outburst> NEVER BUY A LOCKED PHONE.</rare caps outburst>  




____________________________________________________
If you're not curious, your brain is already dying...if not dead.



5267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 782


  Reply # 594387 12-Mar-2012 22:45 Send private message

JimmyH:
NonprayingMantis:
codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/ 


He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts.  Nothing to do with sim-locking.



No, it's directly comparable, just less formally legalistic. In practice they lock you into using them using a mechanism (ie via a sim lock rather than an explicit contract) that you have a financial penalty if you exit, in return for subsidies hardware. Let me repeat that - network lock in in return for a handset subsidy - which is exactly what the T-Mobile guy is talking about.


well we have had that for years in the NZ market - contract in exchange for handset subsidy. Vodafone, Telecom and 2Degrees do it.
People (customers) seem to like it as witnessed by the vast vast amount of iphones (and other phones) sold over the years via this mechanism when they could just as easily have purchased outright and had no contract.

Is it anti-competitive to give customers something they want?

1599 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 594395 12-Mar-2012 22:55 Send private message

Linuxluver:
JimmyH: It's anti-competitive, pure and simple, and the Commerce Commission should nuke them.


I think we have to get used this government being pro-corporate and anti-consumer / peasant. Every other policy is lined up that way....why should this one be any different. 
 
Jimmy H: It also means that you can't dodge gouging roaming fees as easily by, for instance, dropping an aussie pre-pay SIM in your phone to pay local rates while on holiday. 


This is probably the worst aspect of it. My uncle visited from Canada with his locked iPhone and it was essentially a brick until he went home, due to the high roaming charges. . He had to buy a phone here and SIM here and another SIM in Australia.....and he left his iPhone in his suitcase, untouched unless there was wifi about...and then he used it like an iPod.

NEVER BUY A LOCKED PHONE.  

Good luck in 5 years when all phones are locked. /sarcasm 

119 posts

Master Geek


  Reply # 594405 12-Mar-2012 23:46 Send private message

 
well we have had that for years in the NZ market - contract in exchange for handset subsidy. Vodafone, Telecom and 2Degrees do it. 
People (customers) seem to like it as witnessed by the vast vast amount of iphones (and other phones) sold over the years via this mechanism when they could just as easily have purchased outright and had no contract. 

Is it anti-competitive to give customers something they want?


(remembering that there are 2 distinct meanings of the word subsidy)
However when you sign up to a contract and you get a "subsidised handset" you are then free to do what you want with the handset - give it to your grandmother (and then she can use it with another provider). You are still bound by the contract and the commitment and in signing a contract you really should have your eyes wide open.

In the other case you are receiving a slightly cheaper handset that cant be used elsewhere for a set period of time(e.g with a "foreign" SIM roaming or a local SIM domestically).
It isnt anticompetitive to give customers something they want - people need to understand exactly what they are signing up for in the case of a SIM-locked phone - it is a "contract" with a handset with some strings attached.

5267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 782


  Reply # 594421 13-Mar-2012 00:55 Send private message

Toiletduck:
 
well we have had that for years in the NZ market - contract in exchange for handset subsidy. Vodafone, Telecom and 2Degrees do it. 
People (customers) seem to like it as witnessed by the vast vast amount of iphones (and other phones) sold over the years via this mechanism when they could just as easily have purchased outright and had no contract. 

Is it anti-competitive to give customers something they want?


(remembering that there are 2 distinct meanings of the word subsidy)
However when you sign up to a contract and you get a "subsidised handset" you are then free to do what you want with the handset - give it to your grandmother (and then she can use it with another provider). You are still bound by the contract and the commitment and in signing a contract you really should have your eyes wide open.

In the other case you are receiving a slightly cheaper handset that cant be used elsewhere for a set period of time(e.g with a "foreign" SIM roaming or a local SIM domestically).
It isnt anticompetitive to give customers something they want - people need to understand exactly what they are signing up for in the case of a SIM-locked phone - it is a "contract" with a handset with some strings attached.


my post is clearly referring to the contract/subsidy model.

1 | 2 | 3 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic




Twitter »
Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





Trending now »

Hot discussions in our forums right now:

American legal jurisdiction in New Zealand
Created by ajobbins, last reply by ajobbins on 20-Oct-2014 22:53 (22 replies)
Pages... 2


Another Trade Me competitor: SellShed
Created by freitasm, last reply by mattwnz on 20-Oct-2014 15:16 (22 replies)
Pages... 2


Why would Suresignal calls be worse quality than non-Suresignal calls from the same location?
Created by Geektastic, last reply by gzt on 20-Oct-2014 23:43 (39 replies)
Pages... 2 3


Picture resizing on the forum
Created by Jase2985, last reply by freitasm on 18-Oct-2014 13:32 (13 replies)

Internet question...
Created by Geektastic, last reply by Geektastic on 17-Oct-2014 22:59 (40 replies)
Pages... 2 3


Why do people keep thinking National are doing a great job?
Created by sxz, last reply by Geektastic on 20-Oct-2014 23:05 (156 replies)
Pages... 9 10 11


Just bought a TiVo online. No wireless adaptor. Will a standard one work? Or do I need the TiVo one ?
Created by Limerick, last reply by graemeh on 20-Oct-2014 16:03 (11 replies)

iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 3. Gonna get one?
Created by Dingbatt, last reply by alexx on 20-Oct-2014 13:34 (45 replies)
Pages... 2 3



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.