stories filed under: "subsidies"
Forget Just Locking Your Laptop's Wireless Modem, Now Operators Can Lock The Whole Machine
from the more-bars,-but-not-the-good-kind dept
Mobile operators are increasingly looking to sell non-phone devices like laptops and netbooks with embedded or add-on wireless modems as a way to boost their subscriber figures and generate extra income. Typically, consumers buy the device at a discounted upfront cost, then get tied in to a long-term contract for monthly data service (2 years at $60 per month seems to be the norm in the US). If users quit paying their bills, in theory, they've gotten a laptop on the cheap, though of course they're still subject to the terms of the contract, and damage to their credit, and so on. But Ericsson, which makes a lot of the embedded modems, has announced some new technology it's calling a "kill pill" that allows mobile operators to remotely lock a laptop by sending a signal to it over their network. The company says it's ideal if a data user quits paying their bills, but it's not hard to imagine mobile operators coming up with more nefarious uses for the device -- like shutting a machine down if a user closes their account, even if they've fulfilled their contract.Filed Under: laptops, locks, subsidies, wireless
Companies: ericsson
Verizon, Too, Turns To Subsidized Netbooks
from the lock-em-in dept
We've wondered before why mobile operators say they hate the subsidies they pay to discount handset prices, but then expand their use of them to include laptops and netbooks. The trend looks like it's here to stay, as Verizon Wireless has now confirmed it will start selling 3G-equipped netbooks by the end of June, so now, in addition to tying yourself into a 2-year contract where you're paying back the cost of your cell phone, you'll soon be able to tie yourself into a long-term data-service contract to pay back the price of a laptop, too. Of course, once that contract's up, the device will still be locked to the operator from which you bought it, making it difficult (or impossible) to take your business elsewhere. Meanwhile, business is flowing the other direction, too: Dell is reportedly looking to set up a virtual operator in Japan, selling its customers network access on another operator's mobile network to use with their mobile-equipped laptops. It's an interesting contrast in models, because it's unlikely Dell will subsidize the hardware like the operators. Part of the issue with handset subsidies is that consumers are used to paying the lower subsidized prices, and so any change that raises prices will be met with disdain. But people aren't used to the benefit of subsidies for their PCs, so may be more open to paying a higher upfront cost for the hardware if it means they don't have to sign a long-term contract with a high monthly service charge.Groups Again Take Aim At Cellphone Subsidies
from the teeter-totter dept
There's been a constant clamor over the past few years from some consumer groups that want to see mobile operators forced to stop locking handsets they sell, so that phones will be able to work with any compatible operator. The argument is that locking handsets to operators diminishes the competition among the operators, particularly when operators compete by getting exclusive deals on particular devices (such as the iPhone, which is locked to AT&T). But it's always seemed that the groups are looking to have their cake and eat it too: the locked devices and contracts operators use allow them to recover the subsidies they spend to drop the upfront costs of handsets. So if the groups want to do away with locks and other techniques that support the subsidies, that's fine, as long as they're also willing to accept higher device costs. But somehow, that part always gets left out, just as it has in stories covering the latest push by the groups (via MocoNews) and some smaller operators to get the government to outlaw handset exclusives. If these groups want to eliminate cheap handsets for consumers, they need to explain that -- or explain exactly how these regulations they want won't serve to lower service prices, but offset that with much higher device prices.Filed Under: exclusivity, mobile phones, subsidies
Subsidized Laptops With Locked In Wireless Broadband Contracts
from the good-or-bad? dept
A few years back, after noting the trend of laptop companies to start building in cellular data modems into their laptops, we wondered when it would reach the stage where mobile operators would subsidize the cost of a laptop, just as they subsidize the cost of mobile phones in many cases. In early 2006, we started to see such subsidized laptops go on sale in Europe, with the mobile operators selling the laptops directly for well below list price, as long as you bought into a long term data plan. The whole idea seemed a bit strange, as mobile operators have long ranted long and hard about how much they hate, hate, hate subsidies, and how they wish they could do away with them. So, why add them to laptops?However, the idea has now traveled over to the US as well, in a deal between Acer, Radio Shack and AT&T allowing people to buy an Acer netbook for just $100, so long as they agree to a 2 year $60/month contract for an AT&T mobile data plan. It's still a little confusing as to why the mobile operators are agreeing to this, following so many vehement arguments against mobile phone subsidies, but perhaps they're finally realizing that those subsidies aren't such a bad thing when they get people using their services. Still, how long will it be until buyers start complaining about early termination fees for laptops like they do for mobile phones?
Filed Under: contracts, netbooks, subsidies, wireless broadband
Companies: acer, at&t, radio shack
Telcos: The Internet Will Collapse If The Gov't Doesn't Gives Us Lots Of Money
from the proof,-please? dept
For a while now, we've been noting that whenever you hear people warning about the impending broadband crunch, it's politicians, consultants or lobbyists. When you actually talk to technologists, they point out that there's no problem and that normal upgrades will keep everything just fine -- even without having to do any kind of traffic shaping or violation of net neutrality.Yet, that won't stop the lobbyists, consultants and top marketing execs from claiming otherwise. A trade group heavily funded by AT&T is out yet again, warning that the internet will collapse by 2012 if "something" isn't done -- with that "something" being basically big government subsidies to the telcos. Consider it the telco bailout plan of 2009. Hell, if we're already bailing out Wall St. and Detroit, why not telcos as well?
Filed Under: bandwidth crunch, broadband crunch, exaflood, net neutrality, subsidies, telcos
Court Makes Sprint Pay $73 Million Early Termination Fee
from the see-how-that-feels? dept
You know that awful feeling you get when your mobile operator tells you there's a huge "early termination fee" for canceling your contract early? Yeah, that's probably about how Sprint executives feel now that Sprint may need to pay $73 million for its ETFs. A closer look at the details shows that it really would just be refunding $18.25 million and then reversing charges on another $54.75 million in ETFs that hadn't been paid. People absolutely hate ETFs, and even Sprint acknowledged this last year when it noted that its eventual WiMAX network won't have ETFs.However, there is a reason why such ETFs exist: it's basically to recoup the subsidy that mobile operators pay to give you your super cheap mobile phones. And, those ETFs were in the contracts offered to customers, so it's difficult to see why such things are really a problem. The actual ruling sheds some light on this, as it notes that in 80% of the ETFs, it was actually Sprint terminating the contract and then still charging the ETF -- which, as the ruling points out, is basically Sprint trying to get "liquidated damages." Then, the problem is that it does so in violation of a specific California law that requires a more accurate calculation of liquidated damages, beyond "the ETF is $200 no matter what." So, this isn't the end of ETFs by any means, but might mean that they need to be a bit more fair going forward.
Filed Under: california, early termination fee, etf, liquidated damages, subsidies
Companies: sprint
The Real Price Of The iPhone: $599
from the hey,-that-sounds-familiar dept
As was widely expected, it turns out that all the hype and fuss about the iPhone costing $199 was really hiding the key facts: it's only that price if you're buying it in the US, along with a long term contract with high service fees. At first it actually appeared as though the only possible way you could buy the phone was with one of those contracts. However, AT&T has now admitted that it will indeed sell the phone without a contract, but the price will be $599. While some unlockers may find that worthwhile, it's probably a bit much for most. Still, this once again highlights how Apple's predictions that it was going to change the economics of the mobile phone industry haven't actually been true. There are plenty of mobile phones out there that you can buy subsidized under a contract, which cost 3x as much without a contract. So, rather than changing the economics of mobile phones, Apple has now completely bought into them. Update: Of course, as some are realizing it's actually cheaper to buy the subsidized version and break the contract. The early termination fee is less than the difference here, so you end up doing better that way.Filed Under: iphone, pricing, subsidies, unlocking
Companies: apple, at&t
iPhone Pricing Details: Getting iPhones To Unlock Just Got A Whole Lot Trickier
from the can't-play-that-game-any-more dept
When we wrote about the iPhone pricing immediately after the Steve Jobs keynote, it wasn't entirely clear what the details were, and if AT&T/Apple had shifted to a typical carrier-subsidized model. However, the details quickly became clear. Indeed, Apple and AT&T ditched the deal they had last year, whereby Apple actually received a cut of AT&T's service fees. Instead, AT&T is buying the devices directly from Apple and then selling them (at a loss) to customers who will need to sign up for a more expensive service and a two-year contract (rather than the old one-year contract). Basically, this is back to the traditional model of mobile phone sales -- which Apple had suggested was a thing of a past just a year ago.Either way, though, the deal works out fine for Apple. It still gets the full price it needs to get on the iPhones and doesn't have to worry about recouping service fees from folks who unlock iPhones. AT&T, on the other hand, now becomes a lot more reliant on service fees, first to make up for the loss on the device sale, and then to show growth in its 3G network usage. To that end, it appears that AT&T has totally ditched the old model where you could buy an iPhone and "activate" it on your own. No more. Now you have to both buy and activate the phone in stores. You can't order the phones online and have them delivered to be self-activated. In Engadget's post, the writer seems confused by this, and quotes AT&T's bogus claim that it did away with self-activation because the company "found that many others wanted to complete purchase and activation in one step so they could walk out of the AT&T store with their iPhone up and running." If that were the case, they could have just added in-store activation, without removing the option for self-activation.
The real reason seems pretty obvious: if you have to both buy and activate the phones at the same time and they require a two year contract, it's a lot trickier to get your hands on an iPhone for unlocking purposes. Since the full process is supposed to happen at once, it seems unlikely that stores will be letting people walk out the door with an iPhone that doesn't also have a contract. Those hundreds of thousands of unactivated iPhones that disappeared into China? Not so easy this time around (of course, you'll also note that the new iPhone will be available in 70 countries, so they're trying to stamp out the issue from the supply side too). Yes, there will still be 3G iPhones out there that can be unlocked, but that market is going to dry up significantly and cost a lot more.
Filed Under: iphone, pricing, subsidies, unlocking
Companies: apple, at&t
Newspaper Guy Worried That Fewer Voices Are Heard Today; Apparently He's Never Been Online
from the what-world-is-he-living-in? dept
Last year we were stunned after reading about a proposal from an old school journalist that newspapers should get government subsidies. The idea was so preposterous, we had figured it wouldn't get very far, but apparently others in the industry are still thinking the same way. Frank Blethen, president of The Seattle Times Company, is now suggesting that newspapers run by companies are not a good idea and the government should offer tax credits to newspapers. On top of that he states (with a straight face, we believe): "The question should really be not what is happening to the poor companies, it should be what public policy do we need - including subsidies - to ensure we have a variety of voices or a variety of models."What's amazing is how that single sentence shows not just what he's asking for, but why he thinks he needs government support: because he's completely blind to what's happening in the real media world around him. When you can't see what's happening in your very own market, perhaps it's no surprise that you'd ask the government to bail you out. However, his statements are wrong in so many ways. First, there's no shortage of "voices" out there today. In fact, there are more voices than at any time in history -- and it's in spite of the newspapers, not because of them. Newspapers are still focused on believing they're the voice, rather than enabling that "variety of voices." The very reason newspapers are in trouble these days is because others were able to enable the voices, while newspapers held steadfastly to a model that just doesn't work.
And, no, government support won't help. Putting people in charge who recognize how people consume news these days is all that's needed. All Blethen has done with his statement is shown that he doesn't understand his own market, is unwilling to change and wants to blame everyone else for his own failings -- and, because of that, wants taxpayers to bail him out for his own mistakes. No wonder newspapers like his are having trouble. Meanwhile, plenty of news venues are thriving. But to do so, you have to stop thinking of yourself as a newspaper of ten, or even five, years ago. Unfortunately for the Seattle Times, it doesn't appear its leadership is able to do that.
Filed Under: government support, newspapers, subsidies, voices
Companies: seattle times
