> - Samsung has their own basebands but only uses them on their premium phones Uh? There are Samsung Exynos devices not using a Samsung baseband? (Exynos spans

> - Samsung has their own basebands but only uses them on their premium phones Uh? There are Samsung Exynos devices not using a Samsung baseband? (Exynos spans a large size of the range, just not the sub-100$) > Utterly unbelievable that no Western government has tackled that situation. The market for basebands is completely and utterly rotten: There is a global problem that in a lot of areas there is a monopoly lock-in via standards. Those companies are growing their strategies to control the way standards are written, to make it more complicated and costly for 3rd parties to implement. One example of making standards more complicated which adds more patents is DVB-T2 [1]. 95% of the usage of DVB-T2 compared to DVB-T1 is increasing modulation rate and improving FEC, but it also adds PLP (which I've seen maybe three demos of), which is covered by several patents, largely increasing complexity and patent cost. FWIW, I love standards and I agree that the industry should largely participate in making standards. I agree that standards needs to have "SHALL", you can't make everything optional to allow for lower costs. And I won't pretend there is an easy solution to those problems. Sadly, the only way I can see to improve this situation, is to increase government's public funding into standardization. [1] FWIW, I know nothing of how DVB-T2 has been written and who did it, so it's just an example of complicated requirements increasing the number of patents and thus cost of implementation. It's possible that those requirements have been added in good faith.