FCC - It's about time!

[eezing]

Check this out. (http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55I3YP20090619)

This is great news and all, but I have one question. Why does it take the President to light a fire under your a** to get something done? This issue should have been addressed years ago. Nice to see the FCC working for the consumer for a change.

[TapOut]

this is ******** .. government is already controlling everything else.. why have them but their nose into somewhere it doesnt belong.. if apple wants to stay with ATT and offer them Exclusivity its up to APPLE not YOU or the Government

also ATT has paid a crapload of money to subsidize our iphones .. its only fair

[geoffreak]

Government 101:
Republicans = business focused
Democrats = consumer focused
We had a majority republican controlled government until this year. now that changed.

[JGruber]

I think if they are going this route, they need to force all US carriers to use the same standard, GSM.

[eezing]

this is ******** .. government is already controlling everything else.. why have them but their nose into somewhere it doesnt belong.. if apple wants to stay with ATT and offer them Exclusivity its up to APPLE not YOU or the Government

also ATT has paid a crapload of money to subsidize our iphones .. its only fair

Are you saying At&t is loosing money because of iPhone exclusivity?

[D3lta]

I personally don't care if any other carriers get the iPhone, just as long as AT&T still has it.

[Maclver]

Are you saying At&t is loosing money because of iPhone exclusivity?

this has actually already been posted here!

[eezing]

Government 101:
Republicans = business focused
Democrats = consumer focused
We had a majority republican controlled government until this year. now that changed.

I wish everyone understood this simple concept.

[eezing]

this has actually already been posted here!

ok, and......

[TuffLuffJimmy]

This is stupid. All this will do is drive down competition, soon we'll just have one wireless company and no choice in service (based on where you live.)

[Eso]

Already been posted. Title needs work - don't you think something like "FCC investigates carrier exclusivity" would have been a bit more meaningful?

[ok3wire]

Government 201: Businesses are owned by consumers.

I wish everyone understood this concept.

[eezing]

This is stupid. All this will do is drive down competition, soon we'll just have one wireless company and no choice in service (based on where you live.)

Uh oh, we have our first socialism angle comment. I was waiting for that, thank you.

[eezing]

Government 201: Businesses are owned by consumers.

I wish everyone understood this concept.

Everyone who own's a business, say "I".

Side note: I think he was referring to "Big Business". So, Everyone who is a majority stock holder of a publicly traded company, say "I".

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Uh oh, we have our first socialism angle comment. I was waiting for that, thank you.

No. I fear monopolies, I welcome socialism. A monopoly is a tyranny, socialism is run by the people.

[kwyn]

Not a republican or democrat, but I sure think this will make ATT look how they rape iPhone users for the same services that other phone users are getting for less $$.

Probably light a fire under their butts too. Ex. If Verizon had the iPhone with MMS and ATT didn't....

In the long run I think this benefits us iphone users...ATT being the only iPhone service in the US can drag their feet getting out MMS, tethering, charging us extra and getting away with it because we love our Iphones.

:)

[eezing]

No. I fear monopolies, I welcome socialism. A monopoly is a tyranny, socialism is run by the people.

OK, understood. But, I'm confused as to how non-exclusivity kills competition. Can you explain?:)

[Maclver]

ok, and......

Ok and.... there is no reason to post this again just so you can complain

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=722131&highlight=FCC

SEARCH is your friend....

And if you don't like the way a company is ran.. then don't buy their products or services. that simple!

[NT1440]

Not a republican or democrat, but I sure think this will make ATT look how they rape iPhone users for the same services that other phone users are getting for less $$.


Can anyone straighten this out once and for all? I keep hearing how AT&T is screwing customers with their plans, but from what I've seen its just a normal smartphone plan. Is it people coming from a "dumbphone" to a smartphone and not realizing the difference or is AT&T actually charging more for iphone plans that other smartphones?

[kwyn]

Ok and.... there is no reason to post this again just so you can complain

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=722131&highlight=FCC

SEARCH is your friend....

And if you don't like the way a company is ran.. then don't buy their products or services. that simple!

Yeah, either that, or encourage more competition and have your choice amongst multiple companies making better products... Hmmm.

[Maclver]

Yeah, either that, or encourage more competition and have your choice amongst multiple companies making better products... Hmmm.

Better Products? Lets say we leave things the way they are now? we have the iPhone, BB Bold, Palm Pre, T-Mobile G1, BB Storm, and pretty much any other phone out there. I think that is a great line of products.... Better than what we had 3 years ago!

[Zengrok]

Can anyone straighten this out once and for all? I keep hearing how AT&T is screwing customers with their plans, but from what I've seen its just a normal smartphone plan. Is it people coming from a "dumbphone" to a smartphone and not realizing the difference or is AT&T actually charging more for iphone plans that other smartphones?
I believe the iphone is $10 more (30 compared to 20) than other smartphones. Still, not enough to complain about, considering how much easier it is to use data on the iphone.

[kwyn]

Better Products? Lets say we leave things the way they are now? we have the iPhone, BB Bold, Palm Pre, T-Mobile G1, BB Storm, and pretty much any other phone out there. I think that is a great line of products.... Better than what we had 3 years ago!

Sure. Great idea. Why should we want something better? This is as good as it should get. Why the heck do consumers want something better?

Silly me!

[magpie maniac]

The Nanny State strikes again.

[NT1440]

I believe the iphone is $10 more (30 compared to 20) than other smartphones. Still, not enough to complain about, considering how much easier it is to use data on the iphone.

See I was under the impression that all smartphones (using 3G) were on $30 plans.

[MikePA]

Republicans = business focused
Democrats = consumer focused
We had a majority republican controlled government until this year. now that changed.

How's the Kool Aid you're drinking? Democrats are focused on whatever grows the power and reach of the government.

[uberamd]

Not a republican or democrat, but I sure think this will make ATT look how they rape iPhone users for the same services that other phone users are getting for less $$.


You are uneducated. Sorry, but you are. An unlimited data plan with any smartphone is ~$10 difference in price in comparison to the iPhone. Some phones like the MotoQ with data cost the EXACT SAME every month. Try finding some damn facts before you post your BS ok?

[Maclver]

Sure. Great idea. Why should we want something better? This is as good as it should get. Why the heck do consumers want something better?

Silly me!

No need to be a smart ass. im just saying that what we have now is Great not worth complaining about... and im sorry competition or lack of competition between carriers does not affect what quality of product is produced!

[eezing]

Better Products? Lets say we leave things the way they are now? we have the iPhone, BB Bold, Palm Pre, T-Mobile G1, BB Storm, and pretty much any other phone out there. I think that is a great line of products.... Better than what we had 3 years ago!

Let's change prospective here:

At&t is a service, the iPhone is a piece of hardware. Just as cable TV is a service and an LCD TV is a piece of hardware. You wouldn't want your choices limited when shopping for TV's because of what cable TV service you have, right?

I have 3 friends that want the iPhone, but not At&t.

[ok3wire]

...socialism is run by the people.

Yea right, everywhere except in reality. :D.

Small business owners, large business owners, minority stake shareholders and majority stake shareholders are all consumers.

But I'll at least give you credit for not trying to hide who you are. :)

[Maclver]

Let's change prospective here:

At&t is a service, the iPhone is a piece of hardware. Just as cable TV is a service and an LCD TV is a piece of hardware. You wouldn't want your choices limited when shopping for TV's because of what cable TV service you have, right?

I have 3 friends that want the iPhone, but not At&t.

then all well no iphones for them get over it move on!

[MikePA]

...socialism is run by the people.

This is hilarious, sad and total fiction. Socialism is run by and for the government.

See this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=726151) and this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=726074) for what Socialism means. It's never worked and will never work.

[eezing]

How's the Kool Aid you're drinking? Democrats are focused on whatever grows the power and reach of the government.

Yea, FOX news would have you believe that. Please guy, don't regurgitate what some republican spokesperson said; remember, they have incentives beyond political views to say things such as that.

[eezing]

This is hilarious, sad and total fiction. Socialism is run by and for the government.

See this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=726151) and this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=726074) for what Socialism means. It's never worked and will never work.

Although I do somewhat agree with your statement, your signature explains a lot.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

This is hilarious, sad and total fiction. Socialism is run by and for the government.

See this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=726151) and this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=726074) for what Socialism means. It's never worked and will never work.

I didn't say it would work... I just said I welcome it. If some day people are able to get it working I'd love that, I welcome socialism, not half baked tyranny. (note that half baked tyranny is the closest people have come to socialism)

[MacHipster]

See this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=726151) and this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=726074) for what Socialism means. It's never worked and will never work.

It means that States can choose their own tax structure? Oh, the horror!

[mscriv]

Looks like some senator who's not with At&t wants an iPhone.

Options:
#1 - switch to At&t
#2 - don't get an iPhone

Oh wait, I'm a SENATOR, I choose option:

#3 rewrite the laws to suit my personal and selfish desires.



this has actually already been posted here!

ok, and......

Ok and.... there is no reason to post this again just so you can complain

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=722131&highlight=FCC

SEARCH is your friend....

What's so funny about this is that most users duplicate a thread/topic because they don't know that one already exists. Not trying to pick on you two, but both of you posted in the other thread on this topic three days ago. "Can't we all just get along?" :)

[eezing]

Looks like some senator who's not with At&t wants an iPhone.

Options:
#1 - switch to At&t
#2 - don't get an iPhone

Oh wait, I'm a SENATOR, I choose option:

#3 rewrite the laws to suit my personal and selfish desires.









What's so funny about this is that most users duplicate a thread/topic because they don't know that one already exists. Not trying to pick on you two, but both of you posted in the other thread on this topic three days ago. "Can't we all just get along?" :)

Haha, I had no idea I posted in a thread with the same topic. I apologize if my actions have offended you in any way.

[yg17]

See I was under the impression that all smartphones (using 3G) were on $30 plans.

No, you're correct. All smartphones have a $30 data plan.

Sounds like all this would do is punish Apple and AT&T because no other company can create something to compete with the iPhone, that's not their fault. It would be one thing if the iPhone was the only phone out there and AT&T was the only carrier out there, but why should Apple's innovation be limited because no other company wants to put resources into making something that can compete with the iPhone?

Also, it sounds like AT&T was the only carrier willing to play ball with Apple in terms of things like revenue sharing, subsidizing, carrier support for visual voicemail, beefed up network, iTunes activation, POS support for opening AT&T accounts in Apple Stores, etc. Supposedly Verizon was Apple's first choice but they didn't want to play along, again, that's not Apple or AT&T's problem. Verizon had their chance and passed it up.

[mscriv]

Haha, I had no idea I posted in a thread with the same topic. I apologize if my actions have offended you in any way.

You didn't offend me at all my friend. In fact I usually get annoyed at the people who go into threads just to reprimand people for not searching. I just thought it was funny that both of you had participated in the other thread. :D

[leekohler]

Doing away with exclusive contracts will only help competition, not limit it. This is a good thing. I don't see how anyone could be against this, especially Republicans.

[mscriv]

Doing away with exclusive contracts will only help competition, not limit it. This is a good thing. I don't see how anyone could be against this, especially Republicans.

Hey Lee. Hope your doing well.

For me, it's not necessarily about improving competition. As a Sprint customer I would love the chance to get an iPhone. What bothers me is the thought that the government can step in when they choose and tell a company how to do business with their own product. This kind of exclusivity happens all the time with consumer products. Certain shoes are only sold at certain retailers, and certain food products are only available through specific food stores. I guess I don't see how not being able to get an iPhone without At&t damages the consumer. I can get any smartphone I want at any number of carriers with similar if not almost identical features. I'm not personally discriminated against or prevented from being able to purchase a phone because of carrier exclusivity.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

For me, it's not necessarily about improving competition. As a Sprint customer I would love the chance to get an iPhone. What bothers me is the thought that the government can step in when they choose and tell a company how to do business with their own product. This kind of exclusivity happens all the time with consumer products. Certain shoes are only sold at certain retailers, and certain food products are only available through specific food stores. I guess I don't see how not being able to get an iPhone without At&t damages the consumer. I can get any smartphone I want at any number of carriers with similar if not almost identical features. I'm not personally discriminated against or prevented from being able to purchase a phone because of carrier exclusivity.

Exactly. Unless companies are doing something particularly anticompetitive then I'm very against the government stepping in whenever consumers don't like something.

[zap2]

This is stupid. All this will do is drive down competition, soon we'll just have one wireless company and no choice in service (based on where you live.)

Wow, slow down there boss!

Look at other nations that do this(and by this, I mean make exclusive deals not happen, but force companies to unlock their devices)......oh wait, they function just fine!

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Wow, slow down there boss!

Look at other nations that do this(and by this, I mean make exclusive deals not happen, but force companies to unlock their devices)......oh wait, they function just fine!

Right. And this is great for the consumer, but it does limit our companies (even when limiting is not necessary). The government shouldn't get involved unless it's needed.

[zap2]

Right. And this is great for the consumer, but it does limit our companies (even when limiting is not necessary). The government shouldn't get involved unless it's needed.


Well I'm glad you admitted it good for the consumer....and thats basically the reason I support it.

How does it limit AT&T or Appl?(other then AT&T not being able to keep a death hold on the iPhone)...its not like AT&T is giving us a cheaper rate on plans because they have a special agreement with Apple. I can see no reason why I should have to use my phone at AT&T network once I've paid for it infull(either from the start or finish my contract or buy it out)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I can see no reason why I should have to use my phone at AT&T network once I've paid for it infull(either from the start or finish my contract or buy it out)

I agree with this too. I can't believe that early adopters had to pay the full unsubsidized price AND get locked into a two year contract.

[leekohler]

Hey Lee. Hope your doing well.

For me, it's not necessarily about improving competition. As a Sprint customer I would love the chance to get an iPhone. What bothers me is the thought that the government can step in when they choose and tell a company how to do business with their own product. This kind of exclusivity happens all the time with consumer products. Certain shoes are only sold at certain retailers, and certain food products are only available through specific food stores. I guess I don't see how not being able to get an iPhone without At&t damages the consumer. I can get any smartphone I want at any number of carriers with similar if not almost identical features. I'm not personally discriminated against or prevented from being able to purchase a phone because of carrier exclusivity.

First of all, the government regulates business all the time. Secondly, No determination has even been made at this point either. The government is looking into these matters to determine if these types of arrangements are anti-competitive. And I do see problems for the consumer here. Why should any company be able to limit which wireless carrier you can use? Does that not give that carrier the ability to set prices without regards to competition for the same product?

[LethalWolfe]

First of all, the government regulates business all the time. Secondly, No determination has even been made at this point either. The government is looking into these matters to determine if these types of arrangements are anti-competitive. And I do see problems for the consumer here. Why should any company be able to limit which wireless carrier you can use? Does that not give that carrier the ability to set prices without regards to competition for the same product?
But there are other carries and other phones. This isn't like when MS dictated terms to PC manufacturers in order to gain a competitive advantage over the competition. Would I prefer phones not be locked to carriers? Yeah. I'd also prefer that Mario Kart be available on my Xbox 360. I don't necessarily think the Feds should make it happen though.


Lethal

[zap2]

Would I prefer phones not be locked to carriers? Yeah. I'd also prefer that Mario Kart be available on my Xbox 360.

Lethal


I see your point, and I'd agree if the Feds were force a company to develop a new product(Mario ported to X360, iPhone for CDMA) but having Apple unlock the device so you can use it on T Mobile(in the US) or other GSM service is actually quite easy(Apple does it elsewhere)

[LethalWolfe]

I see your point, and I'd agree if the Feds were force a company to develop a new product(Mario ported to X360, iPhone for CDMA) but having Apple unlock the device so you can use it on T Mobile(in the US) or other GSM service is actually quite easy(Apple does it elsewhere)
The question isn't how easy is it for Apple to unlock the iPhone from AT&T. The question is should the federal government pass a law forcing Apple to unlock the iPhone from AT&T. I just don't see anti-competitive and/or illegal monopoly antics going on here. Simple product exclusivity can be inconvenient to some users but I don't think it should be illegal.


Lethal

[leekohler]

The question isn't how easy is it for Apple to unlock the iPhone from AT&T. The question is should the federal government pass a law forcing Apple to unlock the iPhone from AT&T.


Lethal

And that question has yet to be answered.

[LethalWolfe]

And that question has yet to be answered.
So what makes Apple and AT&T different from all of the other companies that have product exclusivity?


Lethal

[leekohler]

So what makes Apple and AT&T different from all of the other companies that have product exclusivity?


Lethal

I don't see anything in the article to suggest that this is only about Apple and AT&T.

[zap2]

The question isn't how easy is it for Apple to unlock the iPhone from AT&T.


I think that need to be kept in mind, if the government steps in and tell Apple you need to make a CMDA device, I'll take issue with that. Its way too far reach into Apple business(same would apply to for HTC and the G1, etc)

The question is should the federal government pass a law forcing Apple to unlock the iPhone from AT&T.

Well it isn't just these two company, but I agree with the over all point


I just don't see anti-competitive and/or illegal monopoly antics going on here.

You don't see anything anti-competitive? AT&T locks you into their service if you happen to like the device they have paid to work only on their network. Imagine if Verizon and Comcast did this with house phones!


Simple product exclusivity can be inconvenient to some users but I don't think it should be illegal.


While you might think that, I'm going to have to disagree. AT&T is forcing you into using their service(if you want the iPhone), when though you own the device(this is assume once your out of contract). I have no issue with Apple offering the iPhone through AT&T for 99/199/299 only...but to not let us unlock/buy unlocked, I take issue there.

[eezing]

Let me ask this question:

Who benefits from exclusivity?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Let me ask this question:

Who benefits from exclusivity?

The cell phone carriers. Who benefits from gas prices? Gas companies? Who benefits from car sales?

You guys act like if something isn't exactly how you want it then it must be anticompetetive.

[LethalWolfe]

I don't see anything in the article to suggest that this is only about Apple and AT&T.
Yer right. It's not only about Apple and AT&T but they to seem to be the catalysts (whether officially or just symbolically) because they are the ones getting mentioned in the news stories and phones have been locked to carriers in the US for years so why now?


While you might think that, I'm going to have to disagree. AT&T is forcing you into using their service(if you want the iPhone), when though you own the device(this is assume once your out of contract). I have no issue with Apple offering the iPhone through AT&T for 99/199/299 only...but to not let us unlock/buy unlocked, I take issue there.
If I want to play Metal Gear Solid 4 I have to buy a PS3. If I want to watch Monday Night Football I have to pay for ESPN (and if I want to watch Thursday night games I must pay for DirecTV). If I want On-Star I have to buy GM. If I want FCP I have to buy a Mac.

Where is the line in the sand?


Lethal

[eezing]

Yer right. It's not only about Apple and AT&T but they to seem to be the catalysts (whether officially or just symbolically) because they are the ones getting mentioned in the news stories and phones have been locked to carriers in the US for years so why now?


If I want to play Metal Gear Solid 4 I have to buy a PS3. If I want to watch Monday Night Football I have to pay for ESPN (and if I want to watch Thursday night games I must pay for DirecTV). If I want On-Star I have to buy GM. If I want FCP I have to buy a Mac.

Where is the line in the sand?


Lethal

What do you say to the person who doesn't have At&t service at their home?

Please don't say "don't get an iPhone".

[leekohler]

Yer right. It's not only about Apple and AT&T but they to seem to be the catalysts (whether officially or just symbolically) because they are the ones getting mentioned in the news stories and phones have been locked to carriers in the US for years so why now?


If I want to play Metal Gear Solid 4 I have to buy a PS3. If I want to watch Monday Night Football I have to pay for ESPN (and if I want to watch Thursday night games I must pay for DirecTV). If I want On-Star I have to buy GM. If I want FCP I have to buy a Mac.

Where is the line in the sand?


Lethal

Do you have to buy an iPhone to get AT&T?

[eezing]

The cell phone carriers. Who benefits from gas prices? Gas companies? Who benefits from car sales?

You guys act like if something isn't exactly how you want it then it must be anticompetetive.

Although you are right about At&t being the beneficiary of exclusivity, I'm confuses with the remainder of your post.

[LethalWolfe]

What do you say to the person who doesn't have At&t service at their home?

Please don't say "don't get an iPhone".
Well telling them to get an iPhone would just be stupid though wouldn't it? I don't think it's Apple's or AT&T's responsibility to make sure every man, woman, and child on Earth has equal access to their products and services.


Lethal

[leekohler]

Although you are right about At&t being the beneficiary of exclusivity, I'm confuses with the remainder of your post.

That is what confuses me as well. How is this NOT anti-competitive?

Well telling them to get an iPhone would just be stupid though wouldn't it? I don't think it's Apple's or AT&T's responsibility to make sure every man, woman, and child on Earth has equal access to their products and services.


Lethal

Correct, but doesn't Apple miss out on selling their product to a wider range of folks with this deal?

[eezing]

Do you have to buy an iPhone to get AT&T?

Yea, I was thinking along the same lines. That guy's argument just isn't the same.

[eezing]

Well telling them to get an iPhone would just be stupid though wouldn't it? I don't think it's Apple's or AT&T's responsibility to make sure every man, woman, and child on Earth has equal access to their products and services.


Lethal

This is why I think it's more beneficial for Apple to not be exclusive to At&t. Because of the point you just made, they are cutting sales out.

[LethalWolfe]

Although you are right about At&t being the beneficiary of exclusivity, I'm confuses with the remainder of your post.
IMO both sides benefit. If Apple didn't feel like they would benefit from an exclusive deal they wouldn't have sought out an exclusive deal. AT&T gets sales but Apple gets control and thru that control Apple feels they can make a better product and provide a better end user experience.

Do you have to buy an iPhone to get AT&T?
I don't have to buy MGS4 to get a PS3 either.

Correct, but doesn't Apple miss out on selling their product to a wider range of folks with this deal?
That's Apple's business decision to make. Apple has never been about selling the maximum amount of product to the maximum amount of people. Apple isn't Dell. To pull out the over-used car analogies (:D), should the feds force BMW to make their cars more available to a wider audience of consumers? What about Sears and Craftsman tools?

Since we are on this topic, what do you guys think about the iPhone functions that are only accessible if you buy MobileMe?


Lethal

[MikePA]

Yea, FOX news would have you believe that. Please guy, don't regurgitate what some republican spokesperson said; remember, they have incentives beyond political views to say things such as that.

Although I do somewhat agree with your statement, your signature explains a lot.

I always get a kick out of people who, when presented with truth, dismiss it with trite drivel. Don't deal with it just spout left wing dogma. No different than BHO claiming FoxNews is against him when the FACTS show just the opposite. What he really meant was FoxNews isn't populated by 'reporters' that are nothing more than sycophants and stenographers. ABC and NBC are fighting to see which of them can be the best gerbil.

[Ugg]

You don't see anything anti-competitive? AT&T locks you into their service if you happen to like the device they have paid to work only on their network. Imagine if Verizon and Comcast did this with house phones!

I don't know if you're old enough to remember when Ma Bell did exactly that. All phones were owned by the company and they were leased at x dollars per month to the customer. Long Distance charges were outrageous.

When the company was broken up, there were a lot of crap phones rushed to the market but at least customers had choice.

What's different this time around is that there are other choices of phones and carriers.

Someone earlier pointed out that what if only certain TVs worked with certain channels? Well, we're already seeing that in a way with some TVs having built in access to amazon and Netflix' Roku and even Apple's :apple: TV.

For me, the deciding issue should be one of access. There are a lot of people out there who don't get any ATT reception but get Sprint or Verizon or T Mobile reception. If ATT can't or won't serve a market, then their competitors should be able to sell the iPhone.

Mobile phone usage is too ubiquitous for there to be so many deadzones in urban and suburban areas. The telcos should pay a price for their laziness.

[zap2]

If I want to play Metal Gear Solid 4 I have to buy a PS3. If I want to watch Monday Night Football I have to pay for ESPN (and if I want to watch Thursday night games I must pay for DirecTV). If I want On-Star I have to buy GM. If I want FCP I have to buy a Mac.

Where is the line in the sand?


Lethal

The problem is these comparisons are just off. The MGS4 only works with the PS3 because it's technically designed to run on the PS3. The programing of the game is for the PS3. Its not as though it could easily play on the Xbox 360, it would take a ton of effort to port...it be a whole new product. That comparison is off because for the iPhone to run on T mobile(in the US) it wouldn't be a new product, it be a same thing. Porting MGS4,that would be like if the government forced Apple to release a CDMA iPhone...something I don't think anyone is suggesting

Why don't we just talk about if its anti-competitive? Because so far the comparison have been distorting the real picture. I made a post, you quoted it and respond, but I don't think you really address my main point, so I'll reword it

Once you buy the device(either outright, an ETF, or pay your whole contract until its up) AT&T should have no right to say "yes, you own that device, but you can't use it with competitors services, even if its technically do able"

How is that not anti-competitive? AT&T is forcing your personal device not to work with the competition.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The problem is these comparisons are just off. The MGS4 only works with the PS3 because it's technically designed to run on the PS3. The programing of the game is for the PS3. Its not as though it could easily play on the Xbox 360, it would take a ton of effort to port...it be a whole new product. That comparison is off because for the iPhone to run on T mobile(in the US) it wouldn't be a new product, it be a same thing. Porting MGS4,that would be like if the government forced Apple to release a CDMA iPhone...something I don't think anyone is suggesting

For the most part though this is because Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo choose to use different technologies, instead of one agreed upon one. That's really the only reason why they won't work. After all game systems are basically just PCs. Why can't they just use standards?

[zap2]

For the most part though this is because Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo choose to use different technologies, instead of one agreed upon one. That's really the only reason why they won't work. After all game systems are basically just PCs. Why can't they just use standards?

But that's changing the argument, as it stands now, MS, Nintendo and Sony use different standard, so porting MGS4 would be a ton of work.


(This is why I don't like the comparisons.....people focus on the wrong parts.)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

But that's changing the argument, as it stands now, MS, Nintendo and Sony use different standard, so porting MGS4 would be a ton of work.


(This is why I don't like the comparisons.....people focus on the wrong parts.)

So you all would be fine if AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon all chose to, over the next few years, change their wireless technologies to something nonstandard? That way they could continue their exclusivity plans, but you guys would stop complaining, right?

[zap2]

So you all would be fine if AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon all chose to, over the next few years, change their wireless technologies to something nonstandard? That way they could continue their exclusivity plans, but you guys would stop complaining, right?

no....I wouldn't want that, but if it happened, then I wouldn't favor the government telling Apple or other companies they need to design phones with different type of technology.


But again...people are changing the argument from what it is to what they find useful for their arguement. As it stands, AT&T and T Mobile use the same standard(along with many world wide)....so I'll just make this point one more time, and see if we can focus on that

Once you buy the device(either outright, an ETF, or pay your whole contract until its up) AT&T should have no right to say "yes, you own that device, but you can't use it with competitors services, even if its technically do able"

How is that not anti-competitive? AT&T is forcing your personal device not to work with the competition.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

no....I wouldn't want that, but if it happened, then I wouldn't favor the government telling Apple or other companies they need to design phones with different type of technology.


But again...people are changing the argument from what it is to what they find useful for their arguement. As it stands, AT&T and T Mobile use the same standard(along with many world wide)....so I'll just make this point one more time, and see if we can focus on that

Once you buy the device(either outright, an ETF, or pay your whole contract until its up) AT&T should have no right to say "yes, you own that device, but you can't use it with competitors services, even if its technically do able"

How is that not anti-competitive? AT&T is forcing your personal device not to work with the competition.

well really they aren't telling you that. If you modify your firmware (which will have no detrimental effect on you, or your relationship with AT&T, they won't come after you) you can run your phone on T-Mobile. Without question.

[zap2]

well really they aren't telling you that. If you modify your firmware (which will have no detrimental effect on you, or your relationship with AT&T, they won't come after you) you can run your phone on T-Mobile. Without question.

No, Apple/AT&T partner ship is very clearly saying that(you no longer have a warranty from Apple, and AT&T won't give you an unlock code, despite them doing that for almost every other phone they have)

Not to mention Apple has come out and said they think jailbreaking is illegal
(source http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal )

[Capt Crunch]

For those of you that think there should be a law that allows you to use an iPhone on other carriers, do you think there should be a law that forces OSX to be able to run on any PC hardware?

[LethalWolfe]

The problem is these comparisons are just off. The MGS4 only works with the PS3 because it's technically designed to run on the PS3. The programing of the game is for the PS3. Its not as though it could easily play on the Xbox 360, it would take a ton of effort to port...it be a whole new product. That comparison is off because for the iPhone to run on T mobile(in the US) it wouldn't be a new product, it be a same thing. Porting MGS4,that would be like if the government forced Apple to release a CDMA iPhone...something I don't think anyone is suggesting
Console makers pay developers a ton of money to make titles exclusive to their system. For example, MS paid $50 million dollars to get exclusive downloadable content for Grand Theft Auto IV. $50 million for just exclusive add-ons as the game itself is on the 360, PS3, and PC. Developers & publishers actually prefer to make cross platform games because the wider audience means potentially bigger sales. Creating a game from the ground up to be cross-platform is not that much more difficult then creating it for a single system. Pretty much the only reason games go exclusive is the same reason phones go exclusive, a company paid top dollar for the rights.


Once you buy the device(either outright, an ETF, or pay your whole contract until its up) AT&T should have no right to say "yes, you own that device, but you can't use it with competitors services, even if its technically do able"
Do you think pretty much everything Apple does violates anti-competitive laws then because Apple is all about vertical integration and creating its own ecosystem?

Does it suck that I can't buy an iPhone and use it w/my cell provider (Sprint)? Yes. Do I think that it is illegal? No. If Apple and AT&T were illegally leveraging their position to the point of nearly running every other company out of business it would be a different situation but I haven't seen any evidence that that is what they are doing.


How is that not anti-competitive? AT&T is forcing your personal device not to work with the competition.
Everyone keeps talking about me, me, me and that's one reason I don't really agree w/the anti-competitive (in the legal sense) talk in this thread. I mean, businesses can do things to hinder their competition w/o it being illegal just like a business can be a monopoly w/o it being illegal. There is nothing inherently illegal about companies signing exclusive deals w/each other. Might it piss people off? Sure. I mean, I'm pissed that EA signed an exclusive deal w/the NFL and in doing so killed off the NFL2K games which had developed into the only legit competition go EA's flagship game Madden Football. But was it illegal? Apparently not. There are plenty of other cell phones and other carriers to chose from. It's like not when MS got tagged for anti-competitive practices years ago when the options were pretty much MS or nothing. If exclusivity in and of itself becomes illegal then a whole lotta businesses are gonna be in trouble.

And if it's not just about AT&T and Apple then why does that seem to be the focal point? Is it because no one really gave a crap until enough people started crying that they couldn't get an iPhone?


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc2009033_855911.htm) has a decent write up showing both sides and here are a couple of links about a lobbying group called RCA (Rural Cellular Association) which seemed to start the push for this: Link #1 (http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/06/18/senators-challenge-ts-exclusive-iphone-deal), Link #2 (http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080702/BIZ0102/807020347/1008&nav_category=&template=emailto).

From Link #1,

"The hearing was called by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to study the effect that long-term exclusivity deals have on the wireless market and particularly on people living in rural areas. It was called partly in response to a filing that the Rural Cellular Association made last year to the Federal Communications Commission, arguing that exclusive handset deals turn rural customers into second-class citizens because in some cases they have no option to buy the latest and most popular phones."

Emphasis mine.

I read in another story (lost the link, party foul I know) where smaller providers in the rural areas are afraid they won't be able to compete as the larger providers expand into their territory w/exclusive phone deals. Part of me thinks that might be anti-competitive in a legal sense and part of me thinks that's just business. I mean, it's sad to drive thru areas w/deserted downtown areas, but is it really criminal that people stopped going to the mom and pop stores and started going to the new mall a few miles down the road?


Lethal