Democrats criticize AT&T's exclusive iPhone deal

[dswoodley]

They have nothing better to weigh-in on??? Time to call the anti-trust lawyers. Not much to see here really, but I thought it was interesting.

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9742441-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

[zimv20]

Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, the top Republican on the subcommittee, said of the iPhone: "Its early success is an indication that the wireless market is in fact working. That iPhone is the newest mousetrap and now other carriers will be working to top it."
this man is a horse's ass, and until the dems took over, he was in charge of that subcommitee. for those who believe in net neutrality, he's public enemy #1 in the house. as is ted stevens in the senate.

[IJ Reilly]

The real issue here is the fate of the analog TV frequencies, which are to be auctioned off soon. A battle royal is developing between the service providers and the internet titans over whether this spectrum will be utilized for more proprietary or new, open networks. I don't see where Apple even has a dog in this hunt.

[Desertrat]

From the article:

""The problem with the iPhone is that the iPhone with AT&T is kind of like Hotel California service," Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey said during a hearing. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.""

El Rushbo said that he was sending a check for $1,500 to each winner of his iPhones, to cover the two-year mandatory subscription. Mandatory two-year cotnract? $60 a month for this thing? And for those who decide to bail out, there's a $175 fee, per the article. Duh? Seems to me the soldered-in battery deal is dumb enough...

"Even though the hearing before the House of Representatives subcommittee on the Internet was supposed to be about "wireless innovation and consumer protection," the iPhone popped up among Democrats as a subject of criticism--and, among Republicans, as an example of the free market and consumer choice in action."

The criticism is because of the exclusivity with AT&T., if I understand the article correctly. What's that got to do with net neutrality?

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

The criticism is because of the exclusivity with AT&T., if I understand the article correctly. What's that got to do with net neutrality?

Like a lot of things in D.C., this debate is a token for a larger issue. Nobody there really cares about Apple requiring two-year contracts with AT&T -- every provider does that. The real debate:

FCC wants open access to spectrum

It proposes that any wireless device should be able to hook up to auctioned airwaves.

WASHINGTON — Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin is readying proposed guidelines for the upcoming auction of prime public airwaves that would require that the winning companies let consumers hook up any wireless device to the network.

The guidelines, which must be approved by the FCC in the coming weeks, are the subject of fierce lobbying in Washington because they could help determine the fate of a multibillion-dollar chunk of spectrum being abandoned by TV stations in their conversion to digital signals. Federal officials hope the airwaves will carry another nationwide high-speed Internet service to compete with those offered by phone and cable companies.

"I think it's important that consumers be able to gain access to all the innovation that's occurring," Martin said in an interview Tuesday.

Europe and Asia, for example, have been quick to introduce phones that surf the Internet with WiFi, but in the U.S. wireless companies lock their devices into their own networks.

...

Wireless phone companies, such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Wireless, adamantly oppose any open-access requirements on the new spectrum, which they hope to add to their networks. Public interest groups and technology companies such as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. have been demanding broad open access that also would force wireless companies to lease the new airwaves at wholesale rates to third parties.

...

But wireless providers strongly criticized the plan as "Silicon Valley welfare" for wealthy companies such as Google. They argue that these companies could bid for the spectrum themselves if they wanted access for their customers.

...

Google and other technology companies, including Yahoo, Intel Corp., DirecTV Group Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corp., believe that proprietary networks are thwarting competition and formed a coalition to push for access to the new wireless airwaves.

Google has considered bidding, but the major wireless companies have an advantage because they need the spectrum more and don't have to build a network from scratch, Richard Whitt, Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, wrote on the company's blog Tuesday. Martin's proposal appeared to "represent a step forward for new, innovative entrants to the broadband market," he said.

...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc11jul11,1,6530500.story

[nbs2]

Color me confused:

1) If you network is being used, doesn't that increase traffic and thus increase congestion? So shouldn't the carrier require permission to your their network?

2) How is the wireless industry a capitalism success story? It's almost impossible to enter the market unless you have an obscene amount of capital or you work with an established network.

3) Of course the carrier shouldn't be able to tell you what you can do with your phone, just what you can do with their network. On the flip side, the phone maker should be able to tell you what supported functions you are allowed to engage in. Anything else you want to do should be yours to decide. I suppose you should follow FCC regs though.

4) Why is this even being discussed? What's wrong with ATT having a 5 year deal with Apple? How much did ATT spend to adjust their network for Apple? How much risk did they take? What concessions did they make? What was their opportunity cost? If they were willing to go through whatever Apple wanted, in exchange for the 5 year exclusive and Apple was willing to offer that exclusive in exchange for getting what they wanted, why is that anybody's business? It's not like they collaborated to damage consumers or prevent anybody else from entering the wireless market or from developing a similar device...


Regarding the LA Times story. I do believe that the carriers need to be checked in their control of WiFi usage. Also, it does seem that Google is trying to get something in its interest for nothing (but the wirelesses seem to want that too). I don't understand how the sandbox would work as well as others and would like to knwo where I can learn more. Also, what is the feds policy on resale? If VZW and ATT need the spectrum so bad, why can't/shouldn't the Goohoo group buy the spectrum and then offer to sell it to the wirelesses, demanding the concessions they seek. I expect that the Goohoo has enough expendable cash to pull it off...

[MacNut]

Just for clarification but what good are analog TV signals to Digital cell phones? I thought the analog spectrum was going to be used for government agencies.

[IJ Reilly]

Just for clarification but what good are analog TV signals to Digital cell phones? I thought the analog spectrum was going to be used for government agencies.

Not that I've heard. I always understood the plan to be that the TV bands would be auctioned off by the government for new uses. In fact I seem to recall that the resale value of the analog spectrum was one of the driving forces behind the conversion to digital TV.

[nbs2]

Did I just notice (maybe I'm a bit slow today) that a story that started in the PRSI ended up on the front page? That's creepy. So, even though this thread has been more or less abandoned, any guesses on how long before the front page thread gets moved back here (a la Greenpeace)?

[Sun Baked]

Oh my God, I have to use the iPhone with AT&T during the exclusivity period. Time for the Senators and the Congressmen to get involved.

Shucks, they complain about this when Nextel wants to keep the name AT&T out as a Nascar sponsor. Citing they have the exclusivity in that venue for major phone carriers, how dare they pay money for these advertising rights. Call your political party today to fix this.

Heck, it is almost as bad as being forced to buy new Fords from a Ford dealership in order to get the special deals/rebates and exclusive Ford financing deals.

[Desertrat]

Apologies for a bit of drift: nbs2, as far as needing a lot of money to get into the business, think of cell phones: Cost of towers, for one aspect. How many thousands of those are there? Commonly landowners' rents can be as much as $1,000 a month, depending on location.

'Rat