Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What needs to be broken (Score 1) 745

I agree completely that the competition among the US cell phone carriers is too weak. Here in Denmark(Europe) GSM has been the only technology in use for quite a while. There are no exclusivity deals, you can usually buy a phone with or without a plan, and plans are only allowed to last for six months. This have driven down the cost of using a cell phone and spread the usage at an astounding rate. The addition of network less cell phone carriers have accelerated the drop in price beyond what many thought was possible. The state mandates that carriers must carry network less carriers at a cost that is "reasonable". What is a reasonable price can of course be debated. The carriers don't like it, but there is no reason that they should be making huge profits, as a consequence of their natural monopolies, when they could easily survive on medium profits. The network less carriers don't earn money on the networks so they have to be very efficient in order to make a profit on the margin. Their pricing structures are much simpler than the typical carriers, in that they don't have strange artificial limits, where you get hit by a hefty price hike after reaching a certain limit. They instead use fixed flat low rates. This means that you don't get any surprises, as the price goes up linearly with your usage. Another good thing about these new network less carriers, which is not intuitive, is that they often provide a better customer service experience than the old carriers. Maybe this is because they're often small and very efficient?

I my opinion the following has to happen for the US cell phone carrier market to become competitive:
1. GSM only: Competition will increase when consumers can move freely between the carriers without any technical barriers. It will cost the carriers a lot of money to replace equipment, so they should have a long warning time and receive some form of compensation.
2. Shorten the contracts: If customers are bound by shorter contracts, then they can move faster to another carrier if they don't like the one they have. This will again increase competition as customers don't have to put up with a poor and expensive service.
3. No exclusivity deals: This will make customers choose the carrier on its merits, and not by which phone they like. This will avoid situations where people a forced to use a specific carrier, that they don't like, because they really like the cell phone they're offering(the Apple iPhone is a good example of this).
4. Simpler plans: There way plans can be structured has to be regulated. This seems very invasive, but it's at this point not possible for customers to compare two offers from two competing carriers and conclude which one is the cheaper. Simpler plans with flat pricing models will allow the customers to easily choose the cheapest carrier.
5. Network less carriers: This is in my opinion the most controversial suggestions of them all. The specification of a reasonable price for carrying other companies traffic will be very hard, and it will probably be seen by many as a too invasive form of regulation from the federal government.

I think that competition between the cell phone carriers will flourish in the US if points one through four is enacted. Enactment of the last point would be the cherry on the top, but I don't think it's very realistic to suggest regulation of prices in the US without a big uproar from the carriers. I really hope that things will change, as I'm soon moving to the US and will have to suffer with the poor competition.

Michael Mc Donnell

Space

Hubble Repair Mission At Risk 224

MollyB writes "According to Wired, the recent collision of satellites may put the Atlantis shuttle mission to repair Hubble in the 'unacceptable risk' status: 'The spectacular collision between two satellites on Feb. 10 could make the shuttle mission to fix the Hubble Space Telescope too risky to attempt. Before the collision, space junk problems had already upped the Hubble mission's risk of a "catastrophic impact" beyond NASA's usual limits, Nature's Geoff Brumfiel reported today, and now the problem will be worse. Mark Matney, an orbital debris specialist at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas told the publication that even before the collision, the risk of an impact was 1 in 185, which was "uncomfortably close to unacceptable levels" and the satellite collision "is only going to add on to that."'"
Sci-Fi

Paul Krugman Awarded Nobel Prize For Economics 425

zogger writes in his journal, "The guy who put together the concept of geographical location combined with cheap transportation leading to 'like trades with like' and the rise of superindustrial trading blocs has won the Nobel economics science prize. He's a bigtime critic of a lot of this administration's policies, and is unabashedly an FDR-economy styled fella. Here is his blog at the NYTimes." Reader yoyoq adds that Krugman's career choice was inspired by reading Asimov's Foundation series at a young age.
Government

Can Static Electricity Generate Votes? 377

artgeeq writes "A recent local election in Washington, DC resulted in 1500 extra votes for a candidate. The board of elections is now claiming that static electricity caused the malfunction. Is this even remotely possible? If so, couldn't an election be invalidated pretty easily?"

A Closed Off System? 177

AnarkiNet wonders: "In an age of malware which installs itself via browsers, rootkits installing themselves from audio cds, and loads of other shady things happening on your computer, would a 'Closed OS' be successful? The idea is an operating system (open or closed source), which allows no third party software to be installed, ever. Yes, not even your own coded programs would run unless they existed in the OS-maker-managed database of programs that could be installed. Some people might be aghast at this idea but I feel that it could be highly useful for example in the corporate setting where there would be no need for a secretary to have anything on his/her computer other than the programs available from the OS-maker. For now, let's not worry if people can 'get around' the system. If each program that made up the collection of allowed programs was 'up to scratch' and had 'everything you need', would you really have an issue with being unable to install a different program that did the same thing?"

Slashdot Top Deals

/usr/news/gotcha

Working...