SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A complaint by Apple has reportedly led to an investigation of two mobile carriers and the GSMA. AT&T and Verizon want to prevent users from using eSIM to easily switch carriers without replacing a SIM card:
The Justice Department has opened an antitrust investigation into potential coordination by AT&T, Verizon and a telecommunications standards organization to hinder consumers from easily switching wireless carriers, according to six people with knowledge of the inquiry.
In February, the Justice Department issued demands to AT&T, Verizon and the G.S.M.A., a mobile industry standards-setting group, for information on potential collusion to thwart a technology known as eSIM, said two of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details are confidential.
The technology lets people remotely switch wireless providers without having to insert a new SIM card into a device. AT&T and Verizon face accusations that they colluded with the G.S.M.A. to try to establish standards that would allow them to lock a device to their network even if it had eSIM technology.
The investigation was opened about five months ago after at least one device maker and one wireless carrier filed formal complaints with the Justice Department, two of the people said. The device maker was Apple, one of them said. Representatives for the Justice Department, the G.S.M.A. and Apple declined to comment.
Also at The Verge, WSJ, 9to5Mac, and AppleInsider.
Related: Infineon Demos a 1.65 mm^2 eSIM Chip
ARM Introduces "iSIM", Integrated Directly Onto Chips
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:59AM (12 children)
A good standard emerges because it is mutually profitable.
In a free society, collusion is acceptable.
Consumers may collude to boycott a reprehensible producer.
Laborers may collude to collectively bargain against employers.
etc.
By the way, this website does not render well at all on an Android phone. It's almost unable.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday April 22 2018, @04:24AM
Offtopic but I have no problem on the BlackBerry Priv. Maybe its not the website but instead your android. The biggest concern that I have Is that if I click from one text window to another it fully zooms me out.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @04:32AM (2 children)
Doesn't seem to render well on any phone I've had. My Android tablet rendered it ok, but I tossed that for a Raspberry Pi.
This point needs debate, but elsewhere. Bring it up again when it's more on-topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @04:45AM (1 child)
Yeah bro. I'm fuckin woke and shit cuz I ditched Chrome for Chromium. Dude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @04:58PM
Projecting much?
Also, you imply that it wasn't much of a switch. Well, as someone who has spent time deep in Android, I can tell you that AINL: Android Is Not Linux.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:07AM
Why was this person modded offtopic?
I do not agree with their communist anti-free-market nonsense but some folks here really need to lighten the fuck up. The diversity of ideas is what makes this place great, the original spirit of what made Slashdot great is the acceptance of diverse ideas in discussions, and the dickheads are the pedantic freaks trying to shoot down any independent thought.
Whomever modded that guy down, fuck you, you pedantic nigger.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:35AM (2 children)
I'll argue with that.
First, no one born in the USA can possibly understand what a "free society" really is. Or a "free market" either, for that matter. We don't enjoy either. Gubbermint mandated a lot of shit long ago, that I disagree with, so I'm not really "free". More, corporations have been mandating silly shit all of my life, so I'm not really "free".
Some of you will object to that paragraph. Seat belt laws? You're not free to not wear your seat belt when traveling on public roads. That was a CORPORATE MANDATE, pushed down your parents' throats, by the INSURANCE COMPANIES. For profit. At the point of a gun. THAT IS YOUR DAMNED FREE SOCIETY IN AMERICA. https://fee.org/articles/the-fraud-of-seat-belt-laws/ [fee.org] You see, I remember a "free" or at least a "freer" society than we have today. Five to seven people could crowd into the cab of a pickup, and fifteen more could sit/stand/sit in other people's laps to go down to the custard stand, and park right beside the village constable while they piled out to place their orders. You younger, brainwashed people can't remember any such a thing. You only know that if you exercise free will with regard to seat belts, a cop will ticket your ass as soon as he sees you. You've been brainwashed.
You ask, "What's the point of all of that?"
The point is, you can't know what your imagined "free society" would really be like.
Here, in the US of A, you already know that a lot of businesses are routinely awarded monopolies by the government. Your electric company. Your telephone company(s). Your local surveillance company(s). The entertainment companies. You can't compete against any of them, because the bar for entry into the field is so high that you can't possibly get into the field. (Oh-kay, slowly, we're seeing independents get into entertainment, but they still aren't "competition".)
As for corporate collusion - there is a large body of laws preventing that. Some of those laws are quite old, while others are newer. It was recognized long, long ago that corporations have an unfair advantage over individual consumers. That is precisely the reason we have consumer advocate groups. Corporations abused their power over consumers, and had to be brought into check. Usury was one of the first - no one is permitted to loan you fifty bucks for a hundred bucks on payday - that is "usury". Annual percentage rates have a maximum of about 21%. Those laws were written for valid reasons. Corporations were found to be colluding to get around laws, so more laws were written which made collusion illegal.
For each and every law that regulates corporations, we can dig into history and find multiple horror stories which will justify those laws. Have you ever read 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair? Did you think that was just fiction?
Your "good standards"? Utter bullshit. Profit doesn't make a "good standard". Those standards should satisfy some need. More specifically, standards should be written to satisfy some need of the end user, the consumer, the person who ultimately pays for the product. Anything else is an abuse of power.
Get off the lawn, youngster. Take some time to study your subject before running off at the mouth. Corporations are supposed to be controlled by the will of the people, not the other way around. Do your homework.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday April 22 2018, @02:56PM (1 child)
...
Yea...I remember it too, but that doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous and stupid. Your argument reminds be of all the uber-libertarian arguments against motorcycle helmet laws. I'll argue with that argument. If I'm in an accident and someone who wasn't wearing a seat belt, or a motorcycle rider without a helmet, ends up as a bloody pile on the hood of my car, their "right" to roll the dice becomes my problem in a big hurry. Fuck that. Yes, I'm sure it's helped the insurance industry, and they deserve to be regulated into fucking oblivion frankly...that's a whole other topic...but yea, lets all fly through windshields to get screw them right? I can't believe this got modded up +5.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:43PM
Your own argument seems to be that "It should be against the law to be stupid!" And, it is questionable what is so stupid. Seat belts have killed people. Motorcycle helmets actually prevent deaths, but cause paralyzing neck injuries.
Bottom line here, is, you believe that anyone whose judgement and/or values are different from your own need to be coerced into agreeing with you.
I agree with the underlying tenets of libertarianism. A person should be able to any damned thing he wants to do, so long as he doesn't infringe on another person's rights while doing so.
If my actions result in my grusome death, so be it. If, by chance, you happen to witness my gruesome death - oh well. You could have closed your eyes. If I happen to end my life on the hood of your car, then it's a question of liability. Did you run a red light? Then you have infringed upon my rights. Did I run a red light? OK, then I'm liable for infringing upon your rights. Sue me, or sue my insurance company.
With or without the myriad of laws, accidents are going to happen. That's what insurance is for, after all. And, courts. I have no sympathy for your position.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @04:30PM (1 child)
Companies can collude to create a monopoly and extort $100 for each item of food they sell... Yeah, that's not going to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:01PM
Government guns can collude to create a monopoly that forces people to pay for bombings on the other side of the planet, or for throwing people into cages for smoking a certain plant... Yeah, that's not going to work.
Get your priorities straight, man.
(Score: 2) by EETech1 on Sunday April 22 2018, @07:49PM
Use Opera.
It's Chinese!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 23 2018, @02:02PM
Collusion by corporations against individuals: BAD.
Collusion by individuals against corporations: GOOD.
Oh, wait. Corporations are special snowflakes too! This will hurt their poor widdle feewings.
Still, I can think of nothing good that comes from corporations colluding against the population, to benefit the few insiders in the corporation at the huge detriment of everyone else.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.