Carterfone took several years before it had any major impact on the way people consumed their landline telephone service. I suspect that the changes that the mobile network operators are going through now will probably take about the same amount of time to trickle down to Joe Public.

I might argue that these legal tactics that are being employed in Arizona are “self-defense.” Try getting around without a mobile phone these days. If you don’t like one mobile carrier, where are you going to go? They all implement the same, basic, consumer-unfriendly policies.

If people want to enter into a two-year contract willingly, it’s their choice. I guess what frustrates me is that people either don’t know, or are unwillingly to believe there is a better way to do mobile phone service. Because of the stranglehold the mobile network operators have over the device manufacturers and the channel, the barriers to changing this paradigm are high.

I will agree with you on the tolerance thing. The lack of tolerance is the cause of so many problems worldwide.

And why should a company advertise to your subjective ideals?

The government’s job is not to stand as leverage to sate what a Joe Smchoe wants from a company; it is to protect that Smchoe’s right to freedom and liberty from coercion and fraud. Both force and fraud I’d agree with you on; but when you sign a contract you have the obligation to honor it if it is legally signed.

It just amazes me today how intolerant people are. And before you recoil out of confusion let me explain. Anytime you use force on another (besides self-defense) you are being intolerant. Tolerance is not this ideal that you respect or even understand another. It is allowing it to continue peacefully without intrusion.

If the mobile network operators and resellers want to change the way they operate without legislation, I’m all for it. While they are making some changes–AT&T seems to be doing the best job at this–it’s not happening quickly enough. Legislation is the only tool the average joe has against these large companies.

@spg I wish they offered that kind of deal here, or at least the per-minute plans they offer businesses.

while i would prefer not to have subsidized phones and two year contracts i would leave that more to consumers to demand. through out Europe years ago it was consumers(not operators) who came up with the idea of walking into there local cell phone shop, asking to speak to the owner/manager and ask them what kind of cash kickback that could get in place of the free telephone. it was these sort of grey market back room deals that went on for years in nearly every cell phone shop in places like germany, france, and all over europe that eventually led to the current practice of offer highly discounted price plans for those who are not interested in a subsidized phone.

Case in point: For a while we had to have a landline for DSL service. That phoneline sat there rarely used most of that year. For the cost of the most basic line, no features, not even CID or any service that cost even $.01 more. That $15 basic never line that gives you a mere 25 calls a month. Granted those calls were unlimited local calls that in the end cost $30 with all the fees and taxes. For $30 a month a much higher wireless plan be added or select more services, such as data or messaging via includes all extras that were a la cart with landline provides or bundled at ridiculously high rates. That same $30 can buy unlimited messaging for the family and still save $10 is some cases or add a few hundred minutes. Nearly all the carriers have increased their prices in some regard of their own accord long before this kind of regulation came into play. Take the cable industry since deregulation consumer prices continue to rise year after year despite the promise of lower rates after deregulation. Nulling their main arguement about price increases. I typically frown upon more govermental involvement since most of it rarely helps the people its mean to serve, this case in an exception to the usual.