At the end he admits that the tech is ready but not the carrier deals necessary. This is FAR more complicated than Fi, and odds of it actually being implemented, in any manner that is a win for most consumers= as close to zero as Verizon going back to $30/mo unlimited data. At least in the near term. If we revisit this thread years and years from now, obviously that could be different.
ATTN: American Cellphone Users
- Thread starter Murph5150
- Start date
Kevin OQuinn
AC Team Emeritus
- May 17, 2010
- 9,267
- 496
- 0
I'm just posting to get my $50.
I'm sure it's not a hoax (the tech is there), but implying that this is anywhere near close to implementation in the US is far from accurate.
I'm sure it's not a hoax (the tech is there), but implying that this is anywhere near close to implementation in the US is far from accurate.
I want in on that actionI just don't see this happening. Unless you are changing the way big business in America is done. That would be lovely.
Again, this is not on-the-fly network switching to the point that Fi does it where one service agreement can get you on towers from multiple different carriers. This is signing up with a different carrier, agreeing to pay somebody different for your service, and not changing the SIM card to activate your phone on the new network. We're kind of going back to the old CDMA days where Verizon had to punch your ESN into your account then dial a code on the phone to activate it. All you do is give the carrier your eSIM number and they sign you up. No waiting for a SIM card, no cutting SIM cards, no going to a store to get a SIM card. However, it does complicate switching phones as you'll need to get a different eSIM put on your account.
This isn't a hoax, it's a REAL THING, it's called eSIM. It's not out there in use yet because the carriers need to get on board. People that switch phones often won't be happy about the inability to just pop a SIM out and drop it in a different device. I guess all the complaining for Verizon to get on the SIM card train was for nothing.
I think you're making our point. The technology being possible - or even already created or even already in use in other markets - has no bearing at all on whether or not the carriers will want to get on board with this. They have every reason not to and there's no incentive to them over the current technology. And since the FCC will do exactly what the carriers want, it will be a long time before we see anything that is advantageous to us that resembles *** switching carriers as easily as switching WiFi networks for cheaper rates than current pricing plans ***.
Let's not forget that in order for this hypothesis to be true:
1. The change has to be imminent, presumably in the very next generation of phones, which would be in about 10 months
2. The change would have to be spearheaded by Samsung
3. The carriers would have to support it
4. Changing carriers will have to be as simple as changing WiFi networks, from a similar menu with no extra things to fill out
5. The average consumer will save money immediately
6. This will drive carrier rates down significantly
So if any 1 of those 6 falsifiable claims is falsified, the hypothesis is incorrect.
In this case the null hypothesis is that the status quo will continue for the near term foreseeable future and so all six sub claims will be false.
I'm willing to bet heavily that the null will be supported because there is not sufficient data available to support any of the subclaims, let alone all six at once.
1. The change has to be imminent, presumably in the very next generation of phones, which would be in about 10 months
2. The change would have to be spearheaded by Samsung
3. The carriers would have to support it
4. Changing carriers will have to be as simple as changing WiFi networks, from a similar menu with no extra things to fill out
5. The average consumer will save money immediately
6. This will drive carrier rates down significantly
So if any 1 of those 6 falsifiable claims is falsified, the hypothesis is incorrect.
In this case the null hypothesis is that the status quo will continue for the near term foreseeable future and so all six sub claims will be false.
I'm willing to bet heavily that the null will be supported because there is not sufficient data available to support any of the subclaims, let alone all six at once.
mmidgley
Well-known member
- Nov 20, 2011
- 45
- 2
- 8
it's definitely true that it doesn't matter if the tech exists if regulatory body, carriers, and phone manuf. have not publicly announced it. with the limited info available, are we able to determine if it's an eSIM thing or a Fi like thing? a Fi like service involving all carriers would mean they might as well kill all competition. it'd make sense for emergency responders though. the eSIM thing is purely customer convenience; but is possible (like phone number porting).
i think I've earned my $50 as well.
i think I've earned my $50 as well.
- Apr 17, 2012
- 32,273
- 23
- 38
That is the point though -- This whole time I have never once said this technology wasn't possible. It is 110% possible with the technology they have (eSIM) .. My point was the carrier is not going to allow you to just swap freely as you want. IF they were to adopt this you would have to get your phone "eSIM unlocked" versus "SIM unlocked". The OP was saying this will come out and we can just freely switch as we please -- it won't happen that way. The carrier has no reason to finance a phone for someone but allow them to easily swap to another local carrier for cheaper data. It doesn't make sense.
So again .. Technology wise eSIM is possible .. Will the carriers just allow you to do this as you please? No. They don't let you now even with actual SIM cards due to SIM locks. Once you meet those requirements and get it unlocked then yes it would work.
And even then, we're probably talking years away, a process that is MUCH more complicated than switching wifi network (because you'll have to sign up for service with the new carrier, etc, etc) and something that the carriers have no incentive to do, so they'll fight it kicking and screaming and make it very difficult for a normal person to accomplish. Thus, literally all six of the claims made about the nearness, functionality and ease of this service are almost certainly false. At least for now.
- Oct 11, 2009
- 5,577
- 2,816
- 113
This is how I see something like this. Of course, I'm not in charge of anything more important than making sure oil gets changed or grass gets cut.
Samsung can make such a phone. The technology side is easy, and already figured out. There would be lapses of service when switching from one carrier signal to the other, and your battery would die very fast looking for signal across 14 different LTE bands on 14 different frequencies, but it can be done using existing tech. New tech possibly alleviates some of the issue.
The FCC can't refuse to approve a device that follows regulations and can safely connect to existing radio transmission signals. Staying under the SAR rating may be difficult, but that can be mitigated. Again, new tech can help here.
Carriers can stop a device like this from connecting, but they won't. As long as it meets any approval they have garnered through the FCC, it would be difficult to justify. But they don't have to sell or finance anything they don't want to sell or finance. They also don't have to offer any special services outside of the minimum required from any agreements they made to use/lease spectrum. No HD voice. No VVM. No location services from Verizon (other than raw GPS). None of the new "free" data for streaming. No Verizon or AT&T messaging. No access to dedicated MMS gateways. No tethering through carrier gateways using carrier DNS. You would get a basic LTE signal to use for voice or data. Again — these issues can all be sorted out using existing software on existing hardware, and new tech can make it work easier/better.
And you'll be charged out the rectum from all 76 local and nationwide carriers through some sort of aggregated service agreement from a company that represents them all. Existing roaming agreements that fall outside of any FCC mandated spectrum regulations would not apply to something like this. Pine Belt Wireless and Mid River Communications are companies that you may have never heard of, but they exist, they own their own infrastructure and you can bet your booty they aren't about to let you roam on it the same way they let AT&T customers roam when in areas where they have "exclusive" coverage agreements. They gots to get paid, too. Only paying customers get to use their network. I live in such a place. Verizon offers no service to my zip code, because US Cellular "owns" that wireless spectrum here. But if you come visit — call ahead, I'll roast a pig — you get some of the best Verizon service you'll ever find because they pay USCC for "free" customer roaming, and all brand new equipment plus very few users makes for some really great connectivity. Because I live here, I can't (legally) do the same and have to go to the fancy new US Cellular office in town and sign up. If I use a Verizon phone too often here, Verizon shuts off the service because it violates their terms and my sister gets pretty pissed because she has a huge termination fee to pay. Sprint Pre users who used the roaming trick to get Verizon service at home know what I'm talking about. Also why I no longer have a Sprint account, but that's another story for another time
That's the one thing they can and will do — make you pay dearly for this type of access. Nobody can invent new technology that changes this. New laws could change it, but when the people making all the money have all the influence they can afford to pay for (hello AT&T and Verizon, never mind Comcast and GE and Boeing and everyone else with enough money to buy politicians hiding in the back wringing their hands in anticipation) it won't.
That doesn't mean it cant or wont happen. There are plenty of people — both private and corporate — that would find this sort of system worth the $1,000 per month (speculative) fee. But I doubt there are enough to convince any company to make the first step.
Samsung can make such a phone. The technology side is easy, and already figured out. There would be lapses of service when switching from one carrier signal to the other, and your battery would die very fast looking for signal across 14 different LTE bands on 14 different frequencies, but it can be done using existing tech. New tech possibly alleviates some of the issue.
The FCC can't refuse to approve a device that follows regulations and can safely connect to existing radio transmission signals. Staying under the SAR rating may be difficult, but that can be mitigated. Again, new tech can help here.
Carriers can stop a device like this from connecting, but they won't. As long as it meets any approval they have garnered through the FCC, it would be difficult to justify. But they don't have to sell or finance anything they don't want to sell or finance. They also don't have to offer any special services outside of the minimum required from any agreements they made to use/lease spectrum. No HD voice. No VVM. No location services from Verizon (other than raw GPS). None of the new "free" data for streaming. No Verizon or AT&T messaging. No access to dedicated MMS gateways. No tethering through carrier gateways using carrier DNS. You would get a basic LTE signal to use for voice or data. Again — these issues can all be sorted out using existing software on existing hardware, and new tech can make it work easier/better.
And you'll be charged out the rectum from all 76 local and nationwide carriers through some sort of aggregated service agreement from a company that represents them all. Existing roaming agreements that fall outside of any FCC mandated spectrum regulations would not apply to something like this. Pine Belt Wireless and Mid River Communications are companies that you may have never heard of, but they exist, they own their own infrastructure and you can bet your booty they aren't about to let you roam on it the same way they let AT&T customers roam when in areas where they have "exclusive" coverage agreements. They gots to get paid, too. Only paying customers get to use their network. I live in such a place. Verizon offers no service to my zip code, because US Cellular "owns" that wireless spectrum here. But if you come visit — call ahead, I'll roast a pig — you get some of the best Verizon service you'll ever find because they pay USCC for "free" customer roaming, and all brand new equipment plus very few users makes for some really great connectivity. Because I live here, I can't (legally) do the same and have to go to the fancy new US Cellular office in town and sign up. If I use a Verizon phone too often here, Verizon shuts off the service because it violates their terms and my sister gets pretty pissed because she has a huge termination fee to pay. Sprint Pre users who used the roaming trick to get Verizon service at home know what I'm talking about. Also why I no longer have a Sprint account, but that's another story for another time
That's the one thing they can and will do — make you pay dearly for this type of access. Nobody can invent new technology that changes this. New laws could change it, but when the people making all the money have all the influence they can afford to pay for (hello AT&T and Verizon, never mind Comcast and GE and Boeing and everyone else with enough money to buy politicians hiding in the back wringing their hands in anticipation) it won't.
That doesn't mean it cant or wont happen. There are plenty of people — both private and corporate — that would find this sort of system worth the $1,000 per month (speculative) fee. But I doubt there are enough to convince any company to make the first step.
ChillFactorz
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2010
- 108
- 4
- 0
My take:
We already see dual-sim phones in other markets outside of the U.S., so this idea of multiple sims per device is not out of the realm of possibilities. Is this Samsung trying to freeing up hardware space, a unibody design with no slots, a better water resistant phone, create a smaller device, room for more battery space?
I don't see anywhere that this will be an "e-sim" only device, even if it were a "e-sim" only device, sold by a carrier, it could still be sim locked and under contract.
To start I would think that Samsung would still add the physical sim slot, the "e-sim" would just be an option (like how Samsung Pay works), Settings>Mobile Networks>APN>Add e-SIM. You would still have to set up an "e-sim" with a carrier in advance, and they would have to provision your phone. Not many carriers woud opti in to it, any time soon. To me the only real advantages of this tech would be hot swapping of SIMs or every phone would become dual sim.
Samsung might sell this device Factory Unlocked, bypass the carriers. Maybe start out in China with a low end device, this would allow a new feature and an opportunity to work out any bugs or security issues.
THis would be ideal for the person who travels outside of the country often. One could research and buy an "e-SIM" from home before traveling, I would like to have my phone ready to go as soon as I step off the plan. I believe Android Central had an article on traveling and buying local SIMs. I can't remember how the article went.
Jerry with as much traveling as you do, how many sims do you own? Do you buy a SIM at the airport,or wait to go to a local vendor?
We already see dual-sim phones in other markets outside of the U.S., so this idea of multiple sims per device is not out of the realm of possibilities. Is this Samsung trying to freeing up hardware space, a unibody design with no slots, a better water resistant phone, create a smaller device, room for more battery space?
I don't see anywhere that this will be an "e-sim" only device, even if it were a "e-sim" only device, sold by a carrier, it could still be sim locked and under contract.
To start I would think that Samsung would still add the physical sim slot, the "e-sim" would just be an option (like how Samsung Pay works), Settings>Mobile Networks>APN>Add e-SIM. You would still have to set up an "e-sim" with a carrier in advance, and they would have to provision your phone. Not many carriers woud opti in to it, any time soon. To me the only real advantages of this tech would be hot swapping of SIMs or every phone would become dual sim.
Samsung might sell this device Factory Unlocked, bypass the carriers. Maybe start out in China with a low end device, this would allow a new feature and an opportunity to work out any bugs or security issues.
THis would be ideal for the person who travels outside of the country often. One could research and buy an "e-SIM" from home before traveling, I would like to have my phone ready to go as soon as I step off the plan. I believe Android Central had an article on traveling and buying local SIMs. I can't remember how the article went.
Jerry with as much traveling as you do, how many sims do you own? Do you buy a SIM at the airport,or wait to go to a local vendor?
Last edited:
- Oct 11, 2009
- 5,577
- 2,816
- 113
I don't leave the US very often now. When i did, I always emailed ahead and got a SIM with 30 days service mailed to me before I left if I could. If not, I got one before I left the airport — especially if I didn't speak the local language. Getting lost with no phone and no way to communicate in some place like Chile isn't fun, even though the people there were really friendly and helpful.
Sergiusz Jasper
Well-known member
- May 18, 2014
- 373
- 0
- 16
It's called roaming, in Canada the majority of providers don't charge anymore so I always have awesome signal on Fido, just shows as Fido-Ext.
ChillFactorz
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2010
- 108
- 4
- 0
You're right it's Phil, who does the traveling, that is who I was trying to ask the question to.
I traveled to Mexico and was afraid to turn on my phone and incur AT&T's international data roaming charges. At least until I popped in a local SIM card (TelCel). We had the Family so it wasn't the priority, it took a few days. We booked all our hotels, with free wifi, that and Hangouts got us most of our communication back to the States.
I traveled to Mexico and was afraid to turn on my phone and incur AT&T's international data roaming charges. At least until I popped in a local SIM card (TelCel). We had the Family so it wasn't the priority, it took a few days. We booked all our hotels, with free wifi, that and Hangouts got us most of our communication back to the States.
As an example on why, if this does in fact exist, will never make it past the carriers. The Galaxy S6 phones have a built-in FM radio. The carriers forced Samsung to disable the FM radio so that you're forced to stream music over their data plans (when you're not on wifi) in order to drive up data usage, and there by also driving up profits.
OK, there are two different things being discussed here - programmable eSIMs and the ability to jump between carriers on the fly.
eSIMs exist already - Apple used them in some iPads I believe..... and most US carriers either refused to recognize them or locked the SIM to their service upon activation.
Jumping carrier to carrier is indeed completely possible, but you'd need to have an account with each carrier and be provisioned correctly to use their service (APN). Not insurmountable, as Fi shows, but how many Americans are going to pay for 2 or 3 service plans every month just for this service?
eSIMs exist already - Apple used them in some iPads I believe..... and most US carriers either refused to recognize them or locked the SIM to their service upon activation.
Jumping carrier to carrier is indeed completely possible, but you'd need to have an account with each carrier and be provisioned correctly to use their service (APN). Not insurmountable, as Fi shows, but how many Americans are going to pay for 2 or 3 service plans every month just for this service?
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
-
Question Amazon Renewed Phone from China Thought Lost in Shipment arrived 4 months later
- Started by Taslim Dude 786
- Replies: 5
-
-
Post your case choices here.- Started by Chex313
- Replies: 80
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram