The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Lost Verizon

8.12.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 7)

What would be the impacts if consumers paid the full boat cost of a phone? Two, one immediate, one longer term. The rate cost structure of the carriers would drop to a great degree. Possibly by half of the current rate. In the near term, yes, some cell phones would rise in price with longer holds by customers and less churn. But over the long term the price would fall to unheard of price levels as true competitive forces are brought to ground.

There is a corollary to this -- portable phones. Those portable landline wireless phones attached to the PSTN network. Ten-fifteen years ago these phones for a single unit were in the $300 per range. I recently purchased a three-phone set (master+base, two slave units) for less than $65 in less worthwhile U.S. dollars. The level of engineering complexity of these devices is on par with a cell phone's sans the camera. The same would be expected for cell devices in an open competitive market.

I close by pointing out that at least one carrier has smelled the coffee on ETF's. T-Mobile will begin offering a month-to-month service with no ETF's. T-Mobile hopes to capitalize on the California decision to the determinant of its competitors. If it catches on the other carriers will follow. Which tends to beg the question -- are ETF's a capitalization reserve effort or a marketing ploy to bolster retention levels? The answer is clear.
-- John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

Mr. Ryan Young's piece mourning the loss of innovation because of the Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw is on the mark. However, he hit the monster's tail, not its heart. The judge's ruling strikes at the heart of individual parties' right to make contracts, which are then supposed to be ENFORCED by our court system. When contracts fail to be enforced and to be enforceable, the strong will contract relying on the use of force or power to enforce their contracts to their advantage. The rest of us, will take what we are given, at their price, like it, and not say a word. This is not what our
forefathers, our fathers, or even, we had in mind. Good going, Judge Bonnie.
-- Dan Hirsch
Paris, Wisconsin

I'm still on the same plan, and the same cell phone, I started with. Maybe there are better deals and better phones, but I've never seen the need for anything more. Inertia conquers, I guess...
-- Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida

ENQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW
Re: John Tabin's Meet John Edwards:

We won't need a paternity test to find out whether this child is his. As soon as it reaches for a mirror, comb, and brush we'll know.

So much for Mr. 99% honest. Isn't it amazing how much crap and lies Edwards can stuff into that missing 1%?
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey

Kudos to you Mr. Tabin for writing a superb article of this fiasco. Everyone knows John Edwards is lying. Issuing his "confession" at 4:30 P.M. on a Friday afternoon before the Olympics, he thought his story would die on the vine, but the National Enquirer and the rest of the media will not let it go simply because there are too many holes in his story.

At first I felt badly for Elizabeth Edwards, but she lies too. I guess it takes one lawyer to know another lawyer.

My hope is that the media will not let this go away, and knowing the pit-bull mentality that The National Enquirer has, I'm sure, as you are, that they have more information on this scandal and will issue it in drips and drabs. No, Mr. Tabin, this is not going away.

Again, thank you for so aptly enumerating and clarifying all his lies.
-- Anita Isaia
Murphy, North Carolina

It's a rather sad day when one owes a debt of gratitude to the National Enquirer, of all publications, for its dogged journalism on the Edwards affair. But we all owe the Enquirer a resounding "thank you" for exposing Edwards as a charlatan, adulterer and a liar to boot and for -- especially -- disqualifying him from further office. As for "mainstream" media outlets burying the story, who reads, watches, or cares about them anymore, anyway?
-- Peter R. McGrath

We need a replacement for the old existential question of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" We should now ask, "How many times was the year '2006' mentioned in Elizabeth Edward's statement concerning her husband's affair?"

It was close to being over the top, and it is so painfully obvious that Elizabeth is playing along with this pathetic charade. No, I do not believe the affair ended in 2006. Stop insulting my intelligence.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Trade, Vladimir Putin, Television, Business, Sports, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, United Nations, NATO, Africa, Oil