In article
, Todd Allcock
AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> That'll work in one direction- using the iPad SIM in a phone, which AT&T
> likely won't allow anyway. I think Dennis' point was the difficulty of
> placing the "unlocked" iPad on a non-"partner" carrier. T-Mobile, for
> example, right here in the USA doesn't use these SIMs, and likely won't be
> anytime soon, so there will be no way to use this "unlocked" device on
> another carrier in the USA.
what makes you think they won't be using them any time soon? here is a
device that *can* work on t-mobile without any hacks. why would they
ignore that?
> The "partner" carriers who also sell the iPad will, of course, but like here
> in the US, that effectively disallows one from competitively pitting
> carriers against each other. If I were, say, the English "partner" carrier,
> I could sell US roamers a uSIM and service at an inflated price (as long as
> it's cheaper than AT&T roaming rates)- far above what I sell "full size"
> SIMs and service for.
they can't compete against one another?
> Originally, SIM cards were smartcards the size of credit cards. The current
> thumbnail-sized SIMs we use today were to facilitate the manufacture of
> smaller phones- not larger ones!
when phones transitioned from credit card sized sims to the current
small ones, did people bitch? did people accuse whichever company was
first of making a phone that required only manufacturer approved
carriers?
> Again, that's a pat answer for parter carriers who have to support the
> iPhone in their infrastructure. The flaw is that the iPhone essentially has
> to "ask" a carrier for a download of settings to enable tethering, which no
> other phone does.
all phones need appropriate apn settings for the respective carrier.
> Carriers who don't sell iPhones have no reason to set
> their system up to push settings to phones they don't sell or support, any
> more than AT&T would set their network up to push settings to a T-Mobile G1
> Google phone.
t-mobile is only too happy to support the iphone.
> It doesn't seem paranoid to me- it makes perfect sense. If nothing else, it
> gives AT&T and other partner carriers a de facto exclusive on the iPad for
> awhile, until other carriers eventually transition to the new SIMs, without
> having to subsidize the device at all.
which means it's *not* exclusive. all they need to do is distribute the
new sims and they have three months in which to do that.
at&t has had 8 months and can't figure out how to offer tethering.
t-mobile should be able to get a bunch of sims in that time to their
stores. instant new revenue.
> "Locking" an unlocked device to a particular service by non-traditional
> means is nothing new. I sent my mother a T-Mobile Cameo last summer- the
> Cameo is a digital picture frame that can receive digital pictures by MMS
> over T-Mobile's network. (This allows me to easily send her pictures of her
> grandkids, since she doesn't use a computer.) For $2/month, the Cameo can
> receive unlimited MMS messages- essentially the Cameo's a phone with an
> unlimited messaging plan for $24/year. T-Mobile places a standard SIM in
> every Cameo, but glues it in place so people can't move this $2 unlimited
> service to any other phone or device.
and at&t now sim-locks pay as you go phones. the sim can be removed,
but it won't work in any other phone, at least for 6 months or whatever
the time period is.
