U.S. Department of Justice Reviewing Wireless Carrier Exclusivity Agreements

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/06/u-s-department-of-justice-reviewing-wireless-carrier-exclusivity-agreements/)

The Wall Street Journal reports (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124689740762401297.html) that the U.S. Department of Justice has opened a preliminary inquiry into potential anti-competitive practices by the country's largest wireless carriers. One of the major issues being investigated is the existence of handset exclusivity contracts such as that between AT&T and Apple for the iPhone.Among the areas the Justice Department could explore is whether wireless carriers are hurting smaller competitors by locking up popular phones through exclusive agreements with handset makers, according to the people. In recent weeks lawmakers and regulators have raised questions about deals such as AT&T's exclusive right to provide service for Apple Inc.'s popular iPhone in the U.S.AT&T and Verizon are expected to be the prime targets of the inquiry, as the two companies control a combined 60% of the U.S. wireless market and an additional 90 million landline subscribers.

The inquiry comes several weeks after several U.S. Senators issued a letter (http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=314462) to the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to investigate the exclusivity arrangements between handset manufacturers and wireless carriers.

Article Link: U.S. Department of Justice Reviewing Wireless Carrier Exclusivity Agreements (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/06/u-s-department-of-justice-reviewing-wireless-carrier-exclusivity-agreements/)

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)

Now this comes out. Phone companies and wireless providers have been doing this for years.

[DELLsFan]

It's about time!

[xIGmanIx]

i cant imagine anything bad coming from this other than the carriers hiking up their subscription prices as "retaliation" if they can't make certain devices carrier specific. As a consumer i prefer this, i just hope the hardware manufacturers support it as well.

[excaza]

Exclusive handsets have been a staple of wireless providers for pretty much as long as they've been around. Pretty sad that it takes the iPhone to finally cause concern with the practice.

Hopefully something good comes from it. Like Verizon getting the iPhone.

[Boneoh]

Good news for consumers

[xIGmanIx]

Exclusive handsets have been a staple of wireless providers for pretty much as long as they've been around. Pretty sad that it takes the iPhone to finally cause concern with the practice.

Hopefully something good comes from it. Like Verizon getting the iPhone.

i don't know if the iPhone was the driving factor. I would like to be able to check out the Palm Pre but since my company uses AT&T, no dice

[Xavier]

Hopefully this loosens the controlling grip of the wireless companies. But I have this feeling that not much is going to change, at least not anytime soon.

[dagamer34]

Exclusivity contracts plus the fact that AT&T refuses to unlock an iPhone after your two year contract is up. As far as I know, they've never had such a stern refusal with any other phone. This has shady written all over it.

[esquire360]

I thought this would happen ... t is sucky for customers to not be able to choose

[NokX]

if i want my company to have an exclusive deal with another company that's my right. the government needs to stay out. what private citizens do are of no concern to the government as long as they're not infringing on the rights of others.

[wolfshades]

I fully expect the Justice Department to affect a ruling that would eliminate these types of exclusivity agreements on the grounds that they provide a sort of psuedo-monopoly.

[krye]

Good!

I hope they make this carrier-locking BS illegal soon so that we can break away from AT&T. They are the worst carrier EVER!

I am in NY and the service is a joke. I can't make calls from my own home! I have to go outside to make a phone call. It's ridiculous. If I could get my iPhone officially supported/blessed on Sprint or Verizon's network, I'd drop AT&T in a heartbeat.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)

Good news for consumers

It really could go either way. The prices for the phones could go up. Then again, competition between carriers could mean lower prices.

At any rate Apple will not be able to negotiate prices with every carrier.

[NokX]

I thought this would happen ... t is sucky for customers to not be able to choose

what do you mean "not be able to choose"?

i chose to leave US Cellular to go with AT&T to get the iPhone. i had a choice.

[terryzx]

People should be able to choose ANY phone that they want and use it on ANY carrier they like

[techfreak85]

haha good. i want my verizon iphone.:p
i wonder how soon it will be before any of this actually happens.

[optophobia]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)



It really could go either way. The prices for the phones could go up. Then again, competition between carriers could mean lower prices.

At any rate Apple will not be able to negotiate prices with every carrier.

agreed. Not necessarily a good thing.

[NokX]

People should be able to choose ANY phone that they want and use it on ANY carrier they like


then buy phones from companies that do that and get the message out. running to the government for every one of life's "problems" isn't the way to do it.

let's go after mcdonald's next because i REALLY want a mountain dew when i go there, but they only serve coke products.

[funnyent]

As much as AT&T has failed, this could be a big hurt for Apple. It's kind of like trying to put Vista on different types of computers, now Apple will have to make different models of the iPhone. This is because AT&T and Verizon and Sprint all run of different networks. Well, now the iPhones would all need different chips.

[solarguy17]

You guys just don't get it. Just becuase they won't be able to do carrierlocks anymore doesn't mean they have to make the phone work on sprint and/verizon. Since ATT and verizon use differettech all apple has to do is make the phone only tdma combatible (which it s now) and then that lockks it to only AT&T and tmbile. They still won't put on verizon becuase the govnment can't force them to make a product.

Although with Obama as our president the whole industry will be socialized and it won't matter any way.

[idkew]

GOOD!

I was with T-Mobile for a decade before I switched a few eeeks ago to AT&T for the 3GS.

The switch has been full of headaches.
• Took a week to activate my wife's iPhone. Had to call 3 times before someone would help. Waited on hold for 1 hour and 15 minutes to get it activated. While on hold, I called again and the person who answered told me to send her iPhone in since it was defective and go through a complicated process to get my money back. When I hung up with him, the other person took me off hold and fixed it, partially.
• When her iPhone was activated, they never activated the data plan, had to call again for that.
• AT&T charged me for service before the 3GS was even shipped from Apple. Initially they refused to refund the token amount ($6). They eventually gave me $20 even though all I asked for was $6.

I never had one problem with T-Mobile in 10 years.

[coday182]

Yeah well it seems like a good deal, but think twice. This whole &$(#@ 'in country is going to turn into a communist nation under the new leadership in Washington, however it's happening even faster than I thought it would. Taking the money from the people who have worked for it, and deserve it, and distributing it to others who haven't put in the time or effort. Like the way Apple is very strict about quality-control, and uses exclusivity with AT&T as a means to make sure the iPhone isn't ruined by a bunch of wireless companies doing anything to make a profit.

It's like you are making lemonade. You only sell it to a certain distributor because they keep it nice and cold and fresh, and you have a reputation for the best lemonade which is what made your business. Then after you've been doing it for some time, the government comes out of nowhere and says you have to give it to all the distributors who want it no matter what.

Of course, nobody will do anything about it I imagine because we can't see the forest for the trees. All we hear is "you might be able to get an iPhone with whatever service provider you have now." But we don't think about things like how AT&T has a special voicemail server, among other things, designed for the iPhone. If you buy one with sprint or verizon, will you be getting an iPhone with features that your network won't be able to support? Or will Apple just have to throw away the option to choose which voicemail you want to listen to, and we'll be back to doing it the same way we have fo the last 10 years.

(sorry not the best example, but it's off thetop of my head)

[andiwm2003]

i wish they would look into the fact that the iPhones can not be unlocked after the two year contract is up.

At that point I have fully paid back my subsidized iphone and it should be unlocked. but even my not subsidized G2 phone is not usable as phone.

I switched to a different phone and ATT essentially blocked the phone function on MY PRIVATE IPHONE by deactivating the Sim card. And apple blocks me from using any other Sim card.

I can't even take my current ATT Sim card and use it in my old ATT iPhone.:mad:

[tekcor]

The article doesn't say that Apple would be required to manufacture different iPhones, only that AT&T wouldn't be the only one to support them. Verizon wouldn't necessarily get the iPhone because it can't work on Verizon's network. That's Verizon's issue, not Apple's. The government can't force Apple to produce a CDMA iPhone.

So in the U.S. it's really only T-Mobile who would gain access to the iPhone. If Verizon wants to bring their network up to modern technology to gain access to the iPhone market, that's their business.

[iphones4evry1]

Secretly, we all know that Steve Jobs is behind this. :D

At Apple's WWDC they made it pretty obvious that they were unhappy that AT&T is limiting their progress.

I hope the result of this is nullification of the exclusivity agreements. I would be happy if they simply rule that the agreements cannot be renewed/extended once they expire.

[xIGmanIx]

As much as AT&T has failed, this could be a big hurt for Apple. It's kind of like trying to put Vista on different types of computers, now Apple will have to make different models of the iPhone. This is because AT&T and Verizon and Sprint all run of different networks. Well, now the iPhones would all need different chips.

I don't see this as a problem since Apple approached Verizon in the first place and when they wouldn't give Apple complete control they took it to the sinking cingular who gave them whatever they wanted. In the US it would only be two types of phones. If RIM can do it, i am sure Apple can figure out how to make it work.

[Truffy]

I'm surprised that it's taken this long! :rolleyes:

[JMax1]

This is pretty ridiculous. There is no pseudo-monopoly. The two companies made an agreement. No one is forcing you to buy the iPhone, so it's still a choice. It's not as if it is steel or petroleum they are monopolizing - thing everyone really needs in the society. But there are so many choices for cell phones! It is one's vanity that wants the iPhone (if carriers are really that important to you), so you need to make the choice to switch. No case. throw it out.

[NoExpectations]

Apple loses.....they won't be able to get as high of a subsidy (kickback) from multiple carriers versus a single carrier.

Customer loses.....less subsidy for Apple means higher cost iPhones for us.



Who wins? Do the wireless carriers win? Less subsidy means lower upfront costs....more upfront profit.

Oh....Congress wins. As they debate this bill, all of them will be open to opinions and campaign contributions. :)

[Xearoii]

People never fail to amaze me...

[JediSkipdogg]

I thought this would happen ... t is sucky for customers to not be able to choose

You can choose another carrier and get another kind of phone.

Why should AT&T have to make a phone for every carrier out there since very few use the same technology? Is it Apple's fault that Verizon is still using CDMA and hasn't upgraded their network?

Why can't I buy a Pontiac and have it warrantied at Hyundai? Or how about getting a Whopper at Mcdonald's? Or Big Mac sauce on a Tripple Cheese at Wendy's.

There is nothing with anti-trust or anything illegal in what they are doing. It's called contracts with companies and private business should be allowed to have them. Next the government will say cell phone rates are too high for lower income so everyone has the right to a phone.

[ULFoaf]

no wonder there are verizon iPhone rumors.

[adamcz]

let's go after mcdonald's next because i REALLY want a mountain dew when i go there, but they only serve coke products.
I agree. Should it be illegal for any componay to have an exclusive agreement with any other company? Why just cell phones? What if I want to play Bioshock on a Nintendo Wii? What if I want real NFL players in the football game that 2k sports makes? What if I want UPS to deliver to my post office box? Are all these contracts that companies have signed with one another (as well as the great soda example nokx listed) unconstitutional?

[Mal]

As much as AT&T has failed, this could be a big hurt for Apple. It's kind of like trying to put Vista on different types of computers, now Apple will have to make different models of the iPhone. This is because AT&T and Verizon and Sprint all run of different networks. Well, now the iPhones would all need different chips.

Actually, any ruling on this couldn't force Apple to make multiple versions of the iPhone, but simply to sell them to smaller carriers that have the technology to support it. At the moment, I don't know of any other than T-Mobile (which isn't exactly small), but there are probably local phone companies that haven't yet been bought up that would be interested.

I don't really see this changing much. Even without an outright exclusivity agreement, companies aren't going to want to make a bunch of different versions, as you said, so most phones will work with two US carriers at most, instead of just one. I think a better plan would simply to disallow locked phones, so every phone is unlocked and useable on any supported carrier, but I still don't think the government is the route for this (after all, the government should keep it's hands out of business except to enforce contracts and copyrights).

jW

[Sky Blue]

The government shouldn't be meddling with businesses. Cell phone companies are free to do what they want.

[rdowns]

The govt. has no business meddling here. Simply a way for them to bring up something everyone complains about and make it look like they're doing something. I doubt much, if anything, comes out of it.

[iphones4evry1]

Apple loses.....they won't be able to get as high of a subsidy (kickback) from multiple carriers versus a single carrier.
Customer loses.....less subsidy for Apple means higher cost iPhones for us.

WTF ??? I would rather pay $500 for my phone and only $50 per month instead of paying $199 for my phone and $100 per month!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:
This whole "TWO year contract" thing didn't start until about three years ago. Before that, it was only a 12 month contract, and before that there were no contracts. I know because I had my first cell phone back in 1996. My monthly fee was $29.99 and the tax was only about $1.00 per month.

[andiwm2003]

This is great.

If we can force apple to give the iphone to all carriers then we also can force apple to give OS X to all computer makers.

And we can force apple to allow all MP3 player to work with iTunes.

And we can stop Sony and Nitendo of having exclusive games for their consoles.

And we can force BMW to allow GM dealers to sell BMW's.

Sarcasm off.

[NoExpectations]

WTF ??? I would rather pay $500 for my phone and only $50 per month instead of paying $199 for my phone and $100 per month!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

And there lies the fault with your logic. There are other 3G phones out there that are sold by multiple carriers.....are they getting their service at half the price? No. Every iPhone user is paying the same rate as any other 3G phone at ATT.

[runeasgar]

T-Mobile is the only US cellular provider with a compatible data network..

So really, at&t and T-Mobile are the only two companies that could have the iPhone anyway.

And apparently at&t's 3G network is far more expansive than T-Mobile's.

Doesn't sound like we have anything to gain.

Edit: And creating new phones for Verizon or Sprint would just be a step backwards in terms of technology.

[iphones4evry1]

And there lies the fault with your logic. There are other 3G phones out there that are sold by multiple carriers.....are they getting their service at half the price? No. Every iPhone user is paying the same rate as any other 3G phone at ATT.

And how many of those phones are offered on multiple networks?

FYI: At Sprint, $69.99 gets you unlimited voice, data, text. At AT&T, unlimited voice, data, text costs $149.99. So, if Sprint was allowed to sell the iPhone, you could save $80.00 per month. That is exactly why the FCC is investigating. AT&T has formed an illegal monopoly over the iPhone.

So really, at&t and T-Mobile are the only two companies that could have the iPhone anyway. Edit: And creating new phones for Verizon or Sprint would just be a step backwards in terms of technology.

I understand your point, but exclusivity agreements should be illegal. They have allowed AT&T to have a monopoly over the iPhone and it has hurt customers because the customers can't go anywhere else if they don't like the way AT&T is treating them. America formed antitrust laws a long time ago for a reason; so that consumers would have choice.

[elppa]

Among the areas the Justice Department could explore is whether wireless carriers are hurting smaller competitors by locking up popular phones through exclusive agreements with handset makers, according to the people.

Smaller competitors like T-Mobile with their exclusive G1, or smaller competitors like Sprint with their exclusive Pre?

I'm a little confused.

[isepic]

then buy phones from companies that do that and get the message out. running to the government for every one of life's "problems" isn't the way to do it.

let's go after mcdonald's next because i REALLY want a mountain dew when i go there, but they only serve coke products.

Can we also go after almost every movie theater that sells exclusive coke too! I want my Pepsi.

[craznar]

This behavior is already illegal in Australia. The ACCC does not allow anti-competitive arrangements.

This is why Telstra (the AT&T of Australia) has Optus, Three and Vodafone to compete with.

As for value - I got my 3GS for $0 upfront and US$80 for unlimited calls, unlimited SMS and 1.5GB of data (24 month contract).

So all the doomsayers... it gets better with competition .. :)

[runeasgar]

And how many of those phones are offered on multiple networks?

FYI: At Sprint, $69.99 gets you unlimited voice, data, text. At AT&T, unlimited voice, data, text costs $149.99. So, if Sprint was allowed to sell the iPhone, you could save $80.00 per month. That is exactly why the FCC is investigating. AT&T has formed an illegal monopoly over the iPhone.

i might be mistaken, but aren't the voice and data costs for any other 3G phone on at&t around the same price?

how exactly is this related to the iphone?

if you want to say that at&t is ripping ALL their customers off - sure, i'll agree with that. i don't think it has anything to do with phone exclusivity, however.

i chose my iphone, not at&t. at&t was just a by-product.

[jointsmoking]

Good news for consumers

How so?


I think we will end up paying more for phones and more for service if the exlusive deals are ended. It's not really in the States interest to regulate what I buy or what ATT sells.

[ericksgotmac]

What are the chances something could get pushed to stop the companies from making us agree to contracts or maybe even be able to break our contract with AT&T without paying the $200 and switching to T-Mobile or whatever else o.O..

[QCassidy352]

This is pretty ridiculous. There is no pseudo-monopoly. The two companies made an agreement. No one is forcing you to buy the iPhone, so it's still a choice. It's not as if it is steel or petroleum they are monopolizing - thing everyone really needs in the society. But there are so many choices for cell phones! It is one's vanity that wants the iPhone (if carriers are really that important to you), so you need to make the choice to switch. No case. throw it out.

Agreed. The government has forgotten what the anti-trust laws are really about. A "monopoly" on one example from a class of luxury goods is no monopoly at all.

FYI: At Sprint, $69.99 gets you unlimited voice, data, text. At AT&T, unlimited voice, data, text costs $149.99. So, if Sprint was allowed to sell the iPhone, you could save $80.00 per month. That is exactly why the FCC is investigating. AT&T has formed an illegal monopoly over the iPhone.

/facepalm

This post fails on so many levels. For now, I'll just point out that unlimited everything at sprint is $99.99. $69.99 is the base plan for the Pre. Arguing with this post beyond that just makes my head hurt.

[Diseal3]

T-Mobile is the only US cellular provider with a compatible data network..

So really, at&t and T-Mobile are the only two companies that could have the iPhone anyway.

And apparently at&t's 3G network is far more expansive than T-Mobile's.

Doesn't sound like we have anything to gain.

Edit: And creating new phones for Verizon or Sprint would just be a step backwards in terms of technology.

your my new best friend.... AT&T has the best and most covered 3g network compared to tmobile.. Apples phone is international and making a CDMA iPhone is just pointless as it is not cost effective nobody wins with this and we will have to pay higher prices for the same phone...

[JediSkipdogg]

And how many of those phones are offered on multiple networks?

FYI: At Sprint, $69.99 gets you unlimited voice, data, text. At AT&T, unlimited voice, data, text costs $149.99. So, if Sprint was allowed to sell the iPhone, you could save $80.00 per month. That is exactly why the FCC is investigating. AT&T has formed an illegal monopoly over the iPhone.



I understand your point, but exclusivity agreements should be illegal.

Do your research...I looked at Sprint and it's $99.99 for unlimited all. For AT&T it's $129.99 and their network is much larger than Sprint's.

[Xenious]

The article doesn't say that Apple would be required to manufacture different iPhones, only that AT&T wouldn't be the only one to support them. Verizon wouldn't necessarily get the iPhone because it can't work on Verizon's network. That's Verizon's issue, not Apple's. The government can't force Apple to produce a CDMA iPhone.

So in the U.S. it's really only T-Mobile who would gain access to the iPhone. If Verizon wants to bring their network up to modern technology to gain access to the iPhone market, that's their business.

Exactly, this would be cooler if the big 4 us providers were all GSM family and the same frequencies like in the UK or Europe.

[techfreak85]

How so?


I think we will end up paying more for phones and more for service if the exlusive deals are ended.(snip)
i beg to differ. with more competition between carriers for prices for the phone, and esp. monthly plans, the prices will go down.

[aristotle]

Exclusive handsets have been a staple of wireless providers for pretty much as long as they've been around. Pretty sad that it takes the iPhone to finally cause concern with the practice.

Hopefully something good comes from it. Like Verizon getting the iPhone.
Not going to happen until Verizon is on LTE. CDMA is dead.

[bruinsrme]

Good!

I hope they make this carrier-locking BS illegal soon so that we can break away from AT&T. They are the worst carrier EVER!

I am in NY and the service is a joke. I can't make calls from my own home! I have to go outside to make a phone call. It's ridiculous. If I could get my iPhone officially supported/blessed on Sprint or Verizon's network, I'd drop AT&T in a heartbeat.

That how verizon was for me. I had a year left on my contract and was so frustrated I gladly paid the ETF.

Verizon's customer service was top notch.
ATT might be ok but it seems they are hands off the iphone.

I think in August or September they will be something about verizon/iphone that some will be happy to learn.

[xIGmanIx]

You can choose another carrier and get another kind of phone.

Why should AT&T have to make a phone for every carrier out there since very few use the same technology? Is it Apple's fault that Verizon is still using CDMA and hasn't upgraded their network?

Why can't I buy a Pontiac and have it warrantied at Hyundai? Or how about getting a Whopper at Mcdonald's? Or Big Mac sauce on a Tripple Cheese at Wendy's.

There is nothing with anti-trust or anything illegal in what they are doing. It's called contracts with companies and private business should be allowed to have them. Next the government will say cell phone rates are too high for lower income so everyone has the right to a phone.

Thats not the same at all. Can you buy Coca-Cola any where else? Can you buy a Hyundai anywhere else but certain dealerships? No, you can only buy cell phone service for your iphone from AT&T.

[iphones4evry1]

Smaller competitors like T-Mobile with their exclusive G1, or smaller competitors like Sprint with their exclusive Pre?

I'm a little confused.

By each having an exclusivity agreement, the wireless service providers are not competing based on service. They are having to compete based on what the cell phone manufacturers have produced. If someone wants a G1 for example, they will have to pay whatever the greedy monopoly owners at their wireless service provider force them to pay every month. Cell phone manufacturers and service providers should be separate, non-exclusive, independent industries, that each compete separately. Otherwise, we end up with situations like the iPhone only being offered by AT&T and then AT&T can charge whatever they want and you will be forced to pay it, and they won't be motivated to add new features and improve the service.

[JohnnyLemonhead]

Justice Dept. FTW

[Boneoh]

WTF ??? I would rather pay $500 for my phone and only $50 per month instead of paying $199 for my phone and $100 per month!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

Amen, Bro! Give us more choices! Stop the ripoffs.

[Vmaatta]

Finally a sign that someone in the US government is thinking a bit. The exclusive carrier deals have absolutely nothing that would benefit the customer. Nothing. The iPhone brought such exclusivity to Finland and it's currently the first and only such device. Hopefully the last one too.

Those who say there's something good about exclusivity should think for a moment.

1) The only thing exclusivity does is completely deny any competition. In both the handset price and carrier service prices. No competition, higher prices.
2) Making exclusive deals means that customers have no choice. They'll have to take the crappy service if they want some particular device. Quite obvious disadvantages here.
3) Making exclusive deals illegal doesn’t make subsidising illegal. Nothing stops carriers from offering a device for a subsidised price if you agree for a certain contract for some certain amount of time. You're bound by contract but not forced by carrier locks and exclusivity.
4) Without exclusivity the other carriers can offer their services too. That's called competition which brings the service costs down. And the phone will be marketed like any other device, openly and with a clear price. That makes it harder to hide the price in the monthly subscription and other costs.

Devices and carrier services are two completely different things. They must definitely be kept separate and exclusivity denied. The thing goes deeper than just exclusivity but think about this for a moment. People have the weird idea that iPhone brought 3rd party apps. Made them possible. That’s BS. Making 3rd party apps has been possible almost from the beginning of the GSM era for Symbian, WM, Palm and other platforms. There's nothing new to it. But in the US (and some other markets) the carriers have been able to block people from installing 3rd party apps because they have way too much control over the devices. All I can say is WTF :eek:.

Ok.. I'll leave it at that :o.

[Shrapnel]

I think this is great and hope it changes some things in the cell phone market. :)

I've seen the whole argument above about this game not being out for my console, or I want Mountain Dew at this restaurant. These arguments are missing the point. *Anyone* can go buy an Xbox 360, Wii, or PS3 to play whatever games are available for it. I can go buy a QPC and then stop at a gas station or Taco Bell to get a Mountain Dew.

However, I live in South Dakota and I CANNOT buy an iPhone to use here. Sure I can go to Minneapolis, buy one. However, I have to have a local address and I don't so I can't port my number as directed by the FCC. Even if I decide to rent a PO box there or use a friends address, I'll still get service cut off after a month or two because of too much roaming.

We're now on the 3rd gen iPhone, and all I can get is an iPod Touch and a Palm Pre which is eh... at best.

It's more about discrimination from a location perspective. If AT&T doesn't want to offer service in Buttcrack, SD that's fine and I agree with it. However, if Buttcrack Wireless has great service here and is technology wise compatible with a phone, I should be able to get one.

Done.

[runeasgar]

I understand your point, but exclusivity agreements should be illegal. They have allowed AT&T to have a monopoly over the iPhone and it has hurt customers because the customers can't go anywhere else if they don't like the way AT&T is treating them. America formed antitrust laws a long time ago for a reason; so that consumers would have choice.

Companies like at&t, Microsoft and big oil prove that our anti-trust laws are just there to make us feel better, until we realize they are fluff.

Could one company dominate 90% of the OS market if our anti-trust laws were effective, at all?

Edit: Not to mention that the government's use of Windows far exceeds 90% share. Anti-trust laws are a farce.

[aristotle]

I agree. Should it be illegal for any componay to have an exclusive agreement with any other company? Why just cell phones? What if I want to play Bioshock on a Nintendo Wii? What if I want real NFL players in the football game that 2k sports makes? What if I want UPS to deliver to my post office box? Are all these contracts that companies have signed with one another (as well as the great soda example nokx listed) unconstitutional?
I hope that you are joking and forgot that sarcasm tag because otherwise, you sound like a communist.

Exclusive deals are the hallmark of the free market economy and it is how one company can gain a competitive advantage over others. That is how capitalism works.

[NoExpectations]

Do your research...I looked at Sprint and it's $99.99 for unlimited all. For AT&T it's $129.99 and their network is much larger than Sprint's.

Exactly. And remember, the Wireless Carriers are not the 'monopolists' here. If anyone is guilty, and I don't think anyone really is, then it is Apple (and the other cell phone makers). They win with exclusive deals...all ATT did was say 'yes' when asked (something that the idiots over at Verizon refused to do).

[BillyBobBongo]

It scares me to think that there are people posting in this thread that thing what Apple and AT&T have is good thing. :eek:

[corinhorn]

Yeah well it seems like a good deal, but think twice. This whole &$(#@ 'in country is going to turn into a communist nation under the new leadership in Washington, however it's happening even faster than I thought it would. Taking the money from the people who have worked for it, and deserve it, and distributing it to others who haven't put in the time or effort. Like the way Apple is very strict about quality-control, and uses exclusivity with AT&T as a means to make sure the iPhone isn't ruined by a bunch of wireless companies doing anything to make a profit.

It's like you are making lemonade. You only sell it to a certain distributor because they keep it nice and cold and fresh, and you have a reputation for the best lemonade which is what made your business. Then after you've been doing it for some time, the government comes out of nowhere and says you have to give it to all the distributors who want it no matter what.

Of course, nobody will do anything about it I imagine because we can't see the forest for the trees. All we hear is "you might be able to get an iPhone with whatever service provider you have now." But we don't think about things like how AT&T has a special voicemail server, among other things, designed for the iPhone. If you buy one with sprint or verizon, will you be getting an iPhone with features that your network won't be able to support? Or will Apple just have to throw away the option to choose which voicemail you want to listen to, and we'll be back to doing it the same way we have fo the last 10 years.

(sorry not the best example, but it's off thetop of my head)I agree. Many of us naturally only consider immediate short-term benefits to ourselves.

But the government continually circumventing businesses will only expand its own power and dictatorship—the snowball effect

[DELLsFan]

As much as AT&T has failed, this could be a big hurt for Apple. It's kind of like trying to put Vista on different types of computers, now Apple will have to make different models of the iPhone. This is because AT&T and Verizon and Sprint all run of different networks. Well, now the iPhones would all need different chips.

Not a problem. Don't tell me you really believe there isn't already a CDMA iPhone prototype in the Top Secret Apple iPhone lab.

Next.

[Peterkro]

I hope that you are joking and forgot that sarcasm tag because otherwise, you sound like a communist.

Exclusive deals are the hallmark of the free market economy and it is how one company can gain a competitive advantage over others. That is how capitalism works.

Insanity of a type very seldom seen even in the PSRI forum.

[runeasgar]

Not a problem. Don't tell me you really believe there isn't already a CDMA iPhone prototype in the Top Secret Apple iPhone lab.

Next.

Since when has Apple had a penchant for out of date technologies?

[aristotle]

WTF ??? I would rather pay $500 for my phone and only $50 per month instead of paying $199 for my phone and $100 per month!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

Nobody is forcing you to get an iPhone. Smartphones require data plans on top of the usual voice and texting and nobody at AT&T is forcing you to get an unlimited for everything type of plan. There are cheaper plans that still qualify for subsidized iPhone pricing.

[runeasgar]

The biggest problem with this is.. the government is investigating phone exclusivity, but not the myriad of other evils the phone companies consistently inflict on people.

2 year contracts with huge early termination fees?

Locking down phones and nickel-and-diming you to death on ringtones and wallpaper?

Massively overpriced and under-provided data bandwidth?

The iPhone/at&t exclusivity deal is the least of our cellular problems in this country.

[iphones4evry1]

unlimited everything at sprint is $99.99. $69.99 is the base plan for the Pre. Arguing with this post beyond that just makes my head hurt.

"My bad." You're right. I looked at the chart wrong. 69.99 compares with 89.99, and 99.99 compares with 149.99.

[MacVixen]

WTF ??? I would rather pay $500 for my phone and only $50 per month instead of paying $199 for my phone and $100 per month!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:
This whole "TWO year contract" thing didn't start until about three years ago. Before that, it was only a 12 month contract, and before that there were no contracts. I know because I had my first cell phone back in 1996. My monthly fee was $29.99 and the tax was only about $1.00 per month.

I don't disagree with most of your sentiment, but I think 2-year contracts have been around a little longer than 3 years ago. I got my first cell phone back in 97 or 98 when then-PacBell (now AT&T) first entered the wireless business. I honestly don't recall a contract then, but when PacBell became Cingular I seem to recall 2 year contracts being fairly common. And I switched to Verizon back in 2001 and I KNOW there was a 2year committment I had to agree to then.

Regardless, I agree that I would rather pay "full-price" upfront for a phone, potenitally receive lower monthly costs, not worry about a contract, be able to switch to whatever provider I wanted to, whenever I wanted to. But I also think that could possibly put cell-phones out of reach for people with smaller incomes, so I believe things will stay exactly as they are. The DOJ will huff and puff, Congress shall beat their chests, the cell company lobbyists will throw campaign donations around and nothing will change. Ain't America great? :D

[sleeks]

The article says that the Justice Department may also look into whether carriers are unduly limiting the applications they allow to run on their wireless networks.


Hmmm....Slingplayer

[u49aa2]

I hope this also happens in the UK.

[aristotle]

Insanity of a type very seldom seen even in the PSRI forum.
So you are trying to tell us that competition is not the cornerstone of capitalism and that governments should prevent companies from making any sort of exclusive deals with suppliers in exchange for favorable pricing or exclusivity? What is left to give a company a competitive advantage in the marketplace other than price?

Do you have any understanding of how business works? This type of government interference smacks of socialism.

[wlh99]

Apple loses.....they won't be able to get as high of a subsidy (kickback) from multiple carriers versus a single carrier.



Why not? Almost all cell phones are subsidized and almost all are available from multiple carriers.

[iAlexG]

WOW i really hope verizon gets the Iphone!!!

[NoExpectations]

Why not? Almost all cell phones are subsidized and almost all are available from multiple carriers.

Why do you think Apple went to each and every country and chose 1 wireless provider? To get less money?......no to let the highest bidder win!

[corinhorn]

What is left to give a company a competitive advantage in the marketplace other than price?Well, the way things are going, you could get into bed with the government in order to get them to force competition out of business via taxes and regulations.

[nkawtg72]

there's nothing wrong with two(or more) companies entering into a business contract with each other. the government should leave well enough alone.

their arrangement does not prevent other companies from doing the same, or entering into the market, etc. therefore there's nothing monopolistic about it.

this is just a bunch of politicians grandstanding for their constituents.

what they should be looking into are the contracts the carriers are requiring consumers to sign in order to get service. when the consumers aren't happy with the service provided, they DON'T have a choice to leave and go elsewhere without pay huge fees.

I AM NOT referring to subsidies either. i am strictly speaking of service contracts and having to pay early termination fees.

the only contracts a consumer should have to sign should be related to the purchase of cellular equipment that is subsidized. if i leave a carrier before that contract is over, i either hand back over the phone, or i pay the "difference" on the subsidy.

i should be able to leave ATT, or Tmobile at any time i am not happy with their service and go somewhere else. the contracts they have the consumers signing are only in place because they know they cant retain customers any other way.

[KingYaba]

Can't say I agree with this.

[cameronjpu]

As much as AT&T has failed, this could be a big hurt for Apple. It's kind of like trying to put Vista on different types of computers, now Apple will have to make different models of the iPhone. This is because AT&T and Verizon and Sprint all run of different networks. Well, now the iPhones would all need different chips.

No chance they would force Apple to make different versions. All they'd do is make it illegal for ATT to sign a deal to PREVENT other companies from using any phone.

[iphones4evry1]

It scares me to think that there are people posting in this thread that thing what Apple and AT&T have is good thing. :eek:

I sense the presence of AT&T employees on this forum right now.

[corinhorn]

the contracts they have the consumers signing are only in place because they know they cant retain customers any other way.Agreed, which is why I refuse to give them my patronage and money. I wish I could have an iphone, but I refuse to spend my money at AT&T—my choice.

[cameronjpu]

WTF ??? I would rather pay $500 for my phone and only $50 per month instead of paying $199 for my phone and $100 per month!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:
This whole "TWO year contract" thing didn't start until about three years ago. Before that, it was only a 12 month contract, and before that there were no contracts. I know because I had my first cell phone back in 1996. My monthly fee was $29.99 and the tax was only about $1.00 per month.

And you think getting the government involved will result in LOWER prices and LOWER taxes?

I've got a bridge to sell you...

[skunk]

So you are trying to tell us that competition is not the cornerstone of capitalismAbsolutely, cartels are the cornerstone of capitalism.
Do you have any understanding of how business works? This type of government interference smacks of socialism.Yet another person who appears to be entirely ignorant of the meaning of "socialism", "communism", and probably many other "isms" besides.

[crees!]

Time is better spent investigating the Federal Reserve.

[wlh99]

Glad this is finally happening. Cell phone companies have resorted to contracts to lock in customers instead of healthy competition- providing better services, competitive prices etc.

Those contracts are several forms, both the exclusivity agreement with apple, and forced subsidy, and term commitments.

Subsidies are great and I like them, but in no case should a consumer be forced to take the subsidy and a contract instead of an outright purchase.

Likewise, it is fine for a phone to only be in a GSM version, and only be sold by one carrier, but there should not be any artificial means added to lock it to a carrier. The consumer bought the phone, the consumer should be able to use it with whatever carrier he/she chooses.

[cameronjpu]

AT&T has formed an illegal monopoly over the iPhone.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

[corinhorn]

Time is better spent investigating the Federal Reserve.+1

[Peace]

So basically the DOJ is looking into the contract contracts between AT&T and Apple and Verizon and their exclusive iPhone wannabe's.

Nothing but good for the consumer can come of this.

[nkawtg72]

It scares me to think that there are people posting in this thread that thing what Apple and AT&T have is good thing. :eek:

I sense the presence of AT&T employees on this forum right now.

so when Nike partnered with Michael Jordan and made a line of shoes, the government should have stepped in and said "shame on you. now people who like reebok better, cant walk around in shoes with MJs name plastered on them!!! you (MJ) must enter into and agreement with ALL shoes makers to make a line of shoes or none at all."

Nike and MJ making shoes together doesnt keep other shoe manufacturers out of the market or from entering the market. if anything it forces other manufacturers to find NEW and BETTER ways to stay competitive, which DOES benefit the consumer.

[windywoo]

Could one company dominate 90% of the OS market if our anti-trust laws were effective, at all?


Yes, it could easily, since the only real competition Microsoft face in the OS market is Apple who refuse to sell their OS separately, and Linux which the average user replaces with Windows if they get it on their netbook.

On topic, I find it frankly idiotic that Apple have been allowed to get away with tying their iPhone to one provider only. In America you seem to have backwards phone companies, barely beyond two tin cans and string, but in Europe we have 3G all over, and yet the iPhone is tied to one operator only in most countries. The only reason for a company to tie the iPhone to one operator only is so they can charge more for the privilege, e.g. paying extra for tethering. This is exploitative and insulting to customers. The options are, pay ungodly sums or no iPhone. Thats not really a choice is it, that's more like laughing in your face.

[iphones4evry1]

...so I believe things will stay exactly as they are. The DOJ will huff and puff, Congress shall beat their chests, the cell company lobbyists will throw campaign donations around and nothing will change. Ain't America great? :D
Those "donations" have to come from somewhere. Oh wait, that's right, AT&T can charge whatever they want ... guess that means you and me will be paying for those "donations."

[corinhorn]

Absolutely, cartels are the cornerstone of capitalism.Cartels are the cornerstone of fascism, not a free market.

[Tallest Skil]

Didn't read the thread, didn't read the article, don't need to.

I speak for everyone when I say: MAKE THIS NONSENSE ILLEGAL. :D

[iphones4evry1]

And you think getting the government involved will result in LOWER prices and LOWER taxes?

I've got a bridge to sell you...

Do you have a picture of the bridge? Can you ship it to me?

Do you accept paypal from Africa? :D

[skunk]

Cartels are the cornerstone of fascism, not a free market.Who said anything about a free market? Isn't the term "free market" an oxymoron anyway?

[corinhorn]

Didn't read the thread, didn't read the article, don't need to.

I speak for everyone when I say: MAKE THIS NONSENSE ILLEGAL. :DYou don't speak for me. But then, you didn't know that because you didn't read the thread

[haravikk]

I hope something happens with this. Fair enough if some carriers can't sell the iPhone because it doesn't support their network properly (not because it's "locked"), or carriers that offer the iPhone with some features disabled MUST make it clear to the user up-front.

I'm sick of having a particular phone be only offered by one carrier, as it just makes me more inclined to stick with what I have than buy that new phone. With more carriers we'd hopefully see more competitive pricing, and maybe even Apple dropping some of the ludicrous mark-up on the iPhone.

[cameronjpu]

It scares me to think that there are people posting in this thread that thing what Apple and AT&T have is good thing. :eek:

No one is saying that it is a "good thing" for us. But companies having the ability to do business free of government second guessing their choices is definitely good for us. And as two private, non monopolistic companies, ATT and Apple should be free to shake hands and agree to whatever deal they want with each other. It hurts no one except those who willingly choose to deal with them, which pretty much by definition means that those people aren't hurt.

[Sakura Eclair]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/06/u-s-department-of-justice-reviewing-wireless-carrier-exclusivity-agreements/)

The Wall Street Journal reports (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124689740762401297.html) that the U.S. Department of Justice has opened a preliminary inquiry into potential anti-competitive practices by the country's largest wireless carriers. One of the major issues being investigated is the existence of handset exclusivity contracts such as that between AT&T and Apple for the iPhone.AT&T and Verizon are expected to be the prime targets of the inquiry, as the two companies control a combined 60% of the U.S. wireless market and an additional 90 million landline subscribers.

The inquiry comes several weeks after several U.S. Senators issued a letter (http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=314462) to the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to investigate the exclusivity arrangements between handset manufacturers and wireless carriers.

Article Link: U.S. Department of Justice Reviewing Wireless Carrier Exclusivity Agreements (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/06/u-s-department-of-justice-reviewing-wireless-carrier-exclusivity-agreements/)

Actually I do feel that iPhone has put this issue in front of everyone and mostly due to the time of exclusitvity it has with AT&T.

While this practice of signing to exclusive contracts a new "hot" phone (remember the Razr?) these contracts have usually lasted between 6 months up to a year, but not longer than that. In the case of the iPhone it seems to run at least 3 years exclusively with AT&T.

If the original iPhone or the iPhone 3G be made available to other carriers (Metro PCS, Cricket, T-Mobile, etc), then this would not be an issue.

Even the Pre seems to be headed to Verizon next year, so Sprint's exclusivity might not be too long. Only the iPhone and the AT&T-Apple agreement will put to a heavier scrutiny IMHO.

[sam10685]

Bring the iPhone to T-mobile of America-- I'll buy it instantly. ...AT&T A-holes.

[WickedRabbit]

Although this would be cool to see all handsets available to all carriers, don't expect much, if anything from this. Manufacturers would still have to support it and given that CDMA and GSM requires two devices to be built instead of one (CDMA devices, for example, are typically slightly thicker/heavier than their GSM counterparts, but you get better battery life on CDMA as opposed to GSM) all that will happen is that an "exclusive contract" would no longer exist and instead manufacturers will just take sides and choose who they want to make their devices for.

Seeing as how the world is on GSM and only Verizon/Sprint and literally a few other small countries around the world use CDMA, don't hold your breath on a lot of companies jumping to CDMA. Why do you think Verizon is making a push towards LTE? It's because they know that CDMA - while offering major advantages over GSM - is ultimately hurting their business because the majority of handset manufacturers would rather make one device that they can ship to the majority of the world instead of having to make an entirely seperate device to give to only a few select companies.

It's the same reason that not too many companies are supporting T-Mobile's 3G network because it runs off a unique 1700mhz frequency that no one else but T-Mobile uses (in other words, requires a unique device to be built just for T-Mobile).

This investigation won't get rid of exclusive agreements because then other industries would jump in on the bandwagon (videogames, etc.) and I'm sure the government doesn't want to start "dictating" all of the various industries.

For those that want a Verizon iPhone, Verizon's jump to LTE is more likely to push Apple in to doing a deal with Verizon. For those wondering, Verizon was originally the first choice Apple went with, but Verizon declined the agreement because Apple didn't want any Verizon branding or Verizon branded services on the iPhone (no Vcast, etc.) and that's how Verizon makes their money. They weren't willing to agree. As you can tell, AT&T was willing to agree to this deal and there is no AT&T branding or AT&T branded services on the iPhone, but they exist on every other phone.

[normang]

The complete and utter ignorance of people that believe that somehow the government is actually going to solve a problem in a way that actually works just never ceases to amaze me. The government should just stay out of it and let the market decide and work it out for itself.

How many times does the government have to step in and try and "fix" something that more times than I can count made it worse. far worse than if they left it alone. In actuality, name something that the government has actually fixed in recent history?

This is just more bad news; and for those of you who are so short sighted to think that somehow government is going to make the iPhone appear on your carrier of choice, without making it more expensive, or more difficult has their head in the proverbial sand.

And for those of you that whine the loudest about the poor coverage in your area, chances are if you looked at a coverage map. you might have known this up front and elected to go a different way. Even if the map didn't accurately point this out for you, there are people on every service in existence that winds up living, working, or going some place that does not have cell coverage or good cell coverage, so get over it.

[dnguyen]

competition is good!!!

[gsfgf]

It scares me to think that there are people posting in this thread that thing what Apple and AT&T have is good thing. :eek:

It scares me to see how many people are willing to forgo the ability to freely make a contract, which is a basic element of free market capitalism, over a cell phone.

btw, to everyone talking about monopolies, one monopolizes a market, not a product. If you don't want to deal with ATT, you don't have too. There are plenty of providers out there. If ATT doesn't satisfy enough customers, they will feel it in their wallets and either change their ways or fail. Sure it sucks to pay to end a phone contract, but you signed the contract, so you have to follow it. That's how a contract works.

[corinhorn]

Who said anything about a free market? Isn't the term "free market" an oxymoron anyway?No.

[iphones4evry1]

so when Nike partnered with Michael Jordan and made a line of shoes, the government should have stepped in and said "shame on you. now people who like reebok better, cant walk around in shoes with MJs name plastered on them!!! you (MJ) must enter into and agreement with ALL shoes makers to make a line of shoes or none at all."

Nike and MJ making shoes together doesnt keep other shoe manufacturers out of the market or from entering the market. if anything it forces other manufacturers to find NEW and BETTER ways to stay competitive, which DOES benefit the consumer.

I don't ever recall having to enter into a two year contract for a pair of shoes, paying a "monthly service fee," and being charged a "roaming fee." Have you? :rolleyes:

I like the example someone had above: If McDonalds has an agreement with CocaCola and only sells CocaCola, I can get in my car, drive somewhere else and buy a Pepsi. If I walk into an Apple Store and buy and iPhone and they say "we only sell AT&T service," I can't just get in my car and drive elsewhere and buy service for my iPhone.

[SandynJosh]

Finally a sign that someone in the US government is thinking a bit. The exclusive carrier deals have absolutely nothing that would benefit the customer. Nothing.

Those who say there's something good about exclusivity should think for a moment.

This site has been full of people who are in favor of more competition to the iPhone from other manufacturers; claiming competition is a good thing.

Competition arises out of each company seeking a competitive advantage. That advantage is rooted in some kind of difference over the competition. If the government were to deny a company the right to maintain that difference then what's the point of free enterprise?

The government created the piecemeal situation of carriers we have today, so if you could have better coverage in your area through Verizon or Sprint, it's not AT&T's fault. What the government is trying to do, once more, is fix a problem it created in the 1970's through further meddling in the communications market.

If you took one look at the investment AT&T has made and is committed to making to have the fastest, largest network of towers in the USA, and at the same time complain how much it costs you to use that network, you'd be darn happy at how little it costs you to be part of it.

If the other carriers were to make the same investment to upgrade their speed and coverage then they might have a basis for feeling left out of the exclusivity because their system could handle the load and provide the speed. However, then you'd be paying more per month for the service as well.

Nothing comes out of thin air without an infrastructure, and those that use the infrastructure will pay for the greater speed and load they put on it.

While I use Verizon because AT&T is weak in my area, and I'd LOVE to have Verizon and an iPhone here, there is no reason to think they will be upgrading my area anytime soon to have the load capacity and speed that will be required to support what the iPhone will require.

In the overall picture of things, the iPhone/AT&T alliance makes the most sense for the next year or so. I suspect it will make less sense as the other carriers, who may be strong in certain markets where AT&T is weak, and who upgrade their infrastructure to support the iPhone.

The infrastructure has to be in place first, or the customers who buy a iPhone or other data-hungry phone, will be ill-served. It was apparent that even AT&T with it's superior infrastructure was sorely tested in some markets with the load the iPhone put on it's infrastructure when it first hit the market. While we'd all love to sport an iPhone today, that functions to it's maximum potential anywhere we are, such a thing is going to evolve along with the infrastructure, not because the Justice Department decrees it.

[windywoo]

No one is saying that it is a "good thing" for us. But companies having the ability to do business free of government second guessing their choices is definitely good for us. And as two private, non monopolistic companies, ATT and Apple should be free to shake hands and agree to whatever deal they want with each other. It hurts no one except those who willingly choose to deal with them, which pretty much by definition means that those people aren't hurt.

It hurts all those who want an iPhone but don't want to be tied to one provider. Do you really think that Apple and AT&T do it for the benefit of the customer? Tying a phone to one provider is like letting a car run on only one type of road.

[nkawtg72]

Yes, it could easily, since the only real competition Microsoft face in the OS market is Apple who refuse to sell their OS separately, and Linux which the average user replaces with Windows if they get it on their netbook.

On topic, I find it frankly idiotic that Apple have been allowed to get away with tying their iPhone to one provider only. In America you seem to have backwards phone companies, barely beyond two tin cans and string, but in Europe we have 3G all over, and yet the iPhone is tied to one operator only in most countries. The only reason for a company to tie the iPhone to one operator only is so they can charge more for the privilege, e.g. paying extra for tethering. This is exploitative and insulting to customers. The options are, pay ungodly sums or no iPhone. Thats not really a choice is it, that's more like laughing in your face.


id be careful about saying how much better europe is at doing things. that is debatable, and not a suitable topic for this forum, so ill leave it at that.

that said though. apple has the right to sell their product for whatever price, and through whoever they want to. just because i cant afford one, or dont like shopping or doing business with the company they choose to sell it through, doesnt make it wrong.

id like to own a McLaren F1. it costs over 1 million $$$. should the government step in and say its not fair to price it that high, or like a lot of cars out there, not sell it in North America?!

it's called Capitalism and a Free Market economy for a reason. Neither of which is a product of Communsim, which in a case like this would have interfered and dictated who could make what, how much it had to sell for, where it could get bought, and who should be allowed to buy it.

[corinhorn]

I don't ever recall having to enter into a two year contract for a pair of shoes, paying a "monthly service fee," and being charged a "roaming fee." :rolleyes:The poster was talking about exclusive business deals, not questionable wireless practices.

[AidenShaw]

I am in NY and the service is a joke. I can't make calls from my own home! I have to go outside to make a phone call. It's ridiculous.

It's ridiculous that you have an Iphone, in my opinion.

At least for me, "works at home" would be such an important feature that I would not buy any phone without it! :eek:

[NoExpectations]

what they should be looking into are the contracts the carriers are requiring consumers to sign in order to get service. when the consumers aren't happy with the service provided, they DON'T have a choice to leave and go elsewhere without pay huge fees.



Then don't sign a contract....and pay list price for your cell phone.

[solarguy17]

This whole "TWO year contract" thing didn't start until about three years ago. Before that, it was only a 12 month contract, and before that there were no contracts. I know because I had my first cell phone back in 1996. My monthly fee was $29.99 and the tax was only about $1.00 per month.

where did you sell cell phone at??? Lambodia?!?!?

In 2001 I sold vz for RS and we always had 1 &2 yr options. We alwaystried to convince ppl to go with the. 1 yr btu the 2 yr with no activiation fee was always an option. In fact I think Cingular or att had 3 yr contracts!!!

And the cheapest plan was only local (your county and maybe the donut counties) with no LD with 200 day, 2000 n&w for $30.

But it was alwAys contracted.

[steamed.hams]

I really hope that this investigation leads to more power in the consumers' hands.

[iphones4evry1]

And for those of you that whine the loudest about the poor coverage in your area, chances are if you looked at a coverage map. you might have known this up front and elected to go a different way. Even if the map didn't accurately point this out for you, there are people on every service in existence that winds up living, working, or going some place that does not have cell coverage or good cell coverage, so get over it.

How long have you been employed by AT&T? Do they teach you to say that?
If people want an iPhone, they have no other choice. If they live in an area where AT&T has poor coverage and can't get an iPhone on another network, and have to buy from a different service provider, then this hurts Apple's sales and is harmful to Apple.

[AbSoluTc]

I can't believe some of the analogies I am hearing in this thread. Lol. Does anyone realize that once phones are NO LONGER exclusive to the carrier - the price goes UP! Who do you think subsidizes the cost? Lol. The GOVERNMENT? What a joke. There is nothing wrong with one carrier having one phone and not another. Nothing wrong with exclusive agreements. Nada.

If you want the iPhone - you go with AT&T. If you don't like AT&T, you don't get an iPhone. It's that simple. All the damn whiners the past few years is getting absurd. Not to mention the GOVERNMENT needs to stay the HELL OUT OF THE PRIVATE/PUBLIC sector and focus on getting rid of the trillions of dollars of debt they just made and you know - regular duties. I guess people think the government dipping their fingers in all the pies is a good thing? Don't think so. We are on a fast track to becoming a socialist society. If you can't see that your freaking blind.

LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE damnit! If you don't like AT&T stop bitching and whining and go with one of the other 3 carriers. :rolleyes:

[dgcaste]

i cant imagine anything bad coming from this other than the carriers hiking up their subscription prices as "retaliation" if they can't make certain devices carrier specific. As a consumer i prefer this, i just hope the hardware manufacturers support it as well.

carriers are already charging the most they can get away with. it's not a matter of hiking up prices. if they could have done this in the past and made more money, they would have. however, if they all raised prices at the same time, that could be collusion, which is illegal, and THEN they'd be in some deep poo

[corinhorn]

If people want an iPhone, they have no other choice.Sure they do, they can choose not to get one. Wanting something does not mean you are entitled to it.

[rdowns]

I can't believe some of the analogies I am hearing in this thread. Lol. Does anyone realize that once phones are NO LONGER exclusive to the carrier - the price goes UP! Who do you think subsidizes the cost? Lol. The GOVERNMENT? What a joke. There is nothing wrong with one carrier having one phone and not another. Nothing wrong with exclusive agreements. Nada.

If you want the iPhone - you go with AT&T. If you don't like AT&T, you don't get an iPhone. It's that simple. All the damn whiners the past few years is getting absurd. Not to mention the GOVERNMENT needs to stay the HELL OUT OF THE PRIVATE/PUBLIC sector and focus on getting rid of the trillions of dollars of debt they just made and you know - regular duties. I guess people think the government dipping their fingers in all the pies is a good thing? Don't think so.

Pretty much agree with you up to here. The govt. has no business in this issue.

We are on a fast track to becoming a socialist society. If you can't see that your freaking blind.

LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE damnit! If you don't like AT&T stop bitching and whining and go with one of the other 3 carriers. :rolleyes:

Totally lost me here. These socialist country arguments are just ridiculous.

[dgcaste]

I can't believe some of the analogies I am hearing in this thread. Lol. Does anyone realize that once phones are NO LONGER exclusive to the carrier - the price goes UP! Who do you think subsidizes the cost? Lol. The GOVERNMENT? What a joke. There is nothing wrong with one carrier having one phone and not another. Nothing wrong with exclusive agreements. Nada.

If you want the iPhone - you go with AT&T. If you don't like AT&T, you don't get an iPhone. It's that simple. All the damn whiners the past few years is getting absurd. Not to mention the GOVERNMENT needs to stay the HELL OUT OF THE PRIVATE/PUBLIC sector and focus on getting rid of the trillions of dollars of debt they just made and you know - regular duties. I guess people think the government dipping their fingers in all the pies is a good thing? Don't think so. We are on a fast track to becoming a socialist society. If you can't see that your freaking blind.

LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE damnit! If you don't like AT&T stop bitching and whining and go with one of the other 3 carriers. :rolleyes:

Please don't make a fool out of yourself, speaking about things you don't understand. Stopping private companies from monopolizing individual markets is good for consumers as well as other companies that are trying to compete, but can't, because of unfair competition.

fair competition and fair markets will drive down the cost of cellular services. if you don't want this, then you're the one that's blind.

go be a concern troll on some AOL forum please.

[Glial]

I guess that whole "getting government involved in business is a bad thing" hasn't sunk in quite yet.

[iphones4evry1]

The poster was talking about exclusive business deals, not questionable wireless practices.

My point was that he wasn't comparing apples to apples. The CocaCola McDonalds exclusivity is an appropriate comparison.

[nkawtg72]

I don't ever recall having to enter into a two year contract for a pair of shoes, paying a "monthly service fee," and being charged a "roaming fee." Have you? :rolleyes:

I like the example someone had above: If McDonalds has an agreement with CocaCola and only sells CocaCola, I can get in my car, drive somewhere else and buy a Pepsi. If I walk into an Apple Store and buy and iPhone and they say "we only sell AT&T service," I can't just get in my car and drive elsewhere and buy service for my iPhone.

you took my statement out of context. i was ONLY commenting on the idea that two entities have the right to enter into a contract with one another and that that act alone is not wrong or monopolistic.

i dont like contracts, high fees, etc etc, but i do have the choice NOT to enter into those. i may give up the opportunity to buy/own an iPhone in doing so, but its still a choice.

unfortunately, i dont believe the mcdonalds example really works here. if you are equating coca-cola to apple, and mcdonalds to att, then you only are proving the point that coke can choose to distribute their product through whatever channels they choose to. if what you were wanting was a pepsi then you must go to somewhere that sells that. the problem is, people are saying they want the "coke", but they think they should be able to buy it at any/all "restaurants" of their choosing without restriction or limitation.

[rdowns]

Please don't make a fool out of yourself, speaking about things you don't understand. Stopping private companies from monopolizing individual markets is good for consumers as well as other companies that are trying to compete, but can't, because of unfair competition.

fair competition and fair markets will drive down the cost of cellular services. if you don't want this, then you're the one that's blind.

go be a concern troll on some AOL forum please.


Sure, just like it happened in other areas the govt. stuck their noses and taxing authority into like cable TV and local phone service. :rolleyes:

[mciarlo]

I can understand having an exclusivity deal, but telling me that my phone is worthless unless I stay with AT&T after my contract is up is wrong.

If anything comes out of this, exclusive phones should be carrier unlocked once your contract ends so you can either stay with said company or go elsewhere with your phone. You own it - you should be able to use it how you wish.

[dgcaste]

Pretty much agree with you up to here. The govt. has no business in this issue.

the market isn't perfect, and only a few forces exist to fix the distortion that some companies create.

the government has no place telling companies how much to charge for a product, or what products to make, because these are things the 'free market' will take care of through supply and demand. but the government DOES have a place commanding firms to not mis-advertise (i.e., lie), or from muscling out competition through sheer market power (Microsoft, Intel, Google), or to force companies to consider their external costs (coal power generation, companies dumping PCB's into a river, taxing polluters).

I trust the government as much as I trust private companies - very little. But if I can arrange a deadlock between the two, the two bulls can keep themselves in check while I stroll by safely.

[corinhorn]

Please don't make a fool out of yourself, speaking about things you don't understand. Stopping private companies from monopolizing individual markets is good for consumers as well as other companies that are trying to compete, but can't, because of unfair competition.

fair competition and fair markets will drive down the cost of cellular services. if you don't want this, then you're the one that's blind.

go be a concern troll on some AOL forum please.It would hardly be fair competition if the government told a business not to have exclusive deals with another business.

[dgcaste]

Sure, just like it happened in other areas the govt. stuck their noses and taxing authority into like cable TV and local phone service. :rolleyes:

Care to be more specific? What is it you claim happened (or didn't)?

[windywoo]

id be careful about saying how much better europe is at doing things. that is debatable, and not a suitable topic for this forum, so ill leave it at that.

it's called Capitalism and a Free Market economy for a reason. Neither of which is a product of Communsim, which in a case like this would have interfered and dictated who could make what, how much it had to sell for, where it could get bought, and who should be allowed to buy it.

I'm only referring to cellphones and as far as they are concerned Europe is far better provided for.

I'd much rather the government at least had some say in how things were priced, rather than leaving it all up to companies who want to make as much money as they can, cutting as many corners as they can, customer satisfaction being simply an added bonus.

[dgcaste]

It would hardly be fair competition if the government told a business not to have exclusive deals with another business.

ok, let's explore a scenario.

Intel, through sheer market power, tells computer manufacturers "if you only sell Intel-based computers, you will get a steep discount in Intel chips".

How is that fair to the competition? Remember - the free market is based on the spirit of EVERYONE having a chance to compete, not just people or firms with massive amounts of capital and market power.

[sbrhwkp3]

It's About Time :):)

[PeterQVenkman]

The government should just stay out of it and let the market decide and work it out for itself.

Yeah, how do you like your health care costs? Still expect the market to "work itself out" in your favor?

[Peace]

the market isn't perfect, and only a few forces exist to fix the distortion that some companies create.

the government has no place telling companies how much to charge for a product, or what products to make, because these are things the 'free market' will take care of through supply and demand. but the government DOES have a place commanding firms to not mis-advertise (i.e., lie), or from muscling out competition through sheer market power (Microsoft, Intel, Google), or to force companies to consider their external costs (coal power generation, companies dumping PCB's into a river, taxing polluters).

I trust the government as much as I trust private companies - very little. But if I can arrange a deadlock between the two, the two bulls can keep themselves in check while I stroll by safely.

You might want to add Apple,Inc. to that list since it now pretty much controls how the smartphone market goes.

My opinion.ymmv:)

[SandynJosh]

So you are trying to tell us that competition is not the cornerstone of capitalism and that governments should prevent companies from making any sort of exclusive deals with suppliers in exchange for favorable pricing or exclusivity? What is left to give a company a competitive advantage in the marketplace other than price?

Just so you know:

competition is the cornerstone of Free enterprise.

unfair competition is the cornerstone of capitalism

USA was founded on protecting and encouraging free enterprise, capitalism didn't come along until later. Capitalism, without proper government control, has given us the the Great Depression and our current economic mess. Socialism, since you brought it up, arose as a response to uncontrolled capitalistic excesses. Neither has a thing to do with free enterprise, except that free enterprise is often wounded when the government and capitalism begin to shoot it out.

[PeterQVenkman]

ok, let's explore a scenario.

Intel, through sheer market power, tells computer manufacturers "if you only sell Intel-based computers, you will get a steep discount in Intel chips".

How is that fair to the competition? Remember - the free market is based on the spirit of EVERYONE having a chance to compete, not just people or firms with massive amounts of capital and market power.

IIRC, didn't Intel do exactly that in Europe?

but yeah, let the free market work itself out! They have our best interests at heart, right? They don't just want to make gobs of money, right? ;)

[nkawtg72]

Then don't sign a contract....and pay list price for your cell phone.

once again on this forum, someone who doesnt read before responding. my statement had no bearing on a SERVICE contract as it related to SUBSIDIES.

[Dmac77]

I personally have no problem with exclusivity agreements. IMO, this is just another example of the government messing with things that they should leave alone.

Don

[PeterQVenkman]

I personally have no problem with exclusivity agreements. IMO, this is just another example of the government messing with things that they should leave alone.

Don

but I want an iPhone, not on the crappy AT&T network.

more bars in more places, more dropped calls and voice quality that sounds like darth vader over Xbox Live.

[iphones4evry1]

I personally have no problem with exclusivity agreements. IMO, this is just another example of the government messing with things that they should leave alone.

Don

Like elections?

[normang]

How long have you been employed by AT&T? Do they teach you to say that?
If people want an iPhone, they have no other choice. If they live in an area where AT&T has poor coverage and can't get an iPhone on another network, and have to buy from a different service provider, then this hurts Apple's sales and is harmful to Apple.

Your ignorance of reality is amazing.. There are exclusive phones on every network. If I wanted an iPhone so badly, that I am willing to buy it on AT&T at the moment, no matter where I live or work, is just foolish. If I can do some simple checking, look at the coverage map, talk to my neighbors, friends. others that maybe on AT&T and find that coverage in an area where I really need it is poor "before I buy", than I have to decide whether to go elsewhere, or live with it.

As far as it hurting Apple sales, sure it would always be good for Apple if they had other outlets to sell iPhones, and amazingly, they do, in how many countries now around the world? Last count I see, 88 countries.. Sure, it would be nice if there was another carrier here in the US that supports the iPhone, and right now the only one that could is T-Mobile, and you can go there if your willing to pay a high price for a used or new iPhone, and be on Edge only (no 3G with possible rare exceptions), and unlock your phone on your own.

[AbSoluTc]

Please don't make a fool out of yourself, speaking about things you don't understand. Stopping private companies from monopolizing individual markets is good for consumers as well as other companies that are trying to compete, but can't, because of unfair competition.

fair competition and fair markets will drive down the cost of cellular services. if you don't want this, then you're the one that's blind.

go be a concern troll on some AOL forum please.


Lol. You are one of the MANY fools here to think the government needs to "intervene" to create "fair competition and market". The government only succeeds in jacking up the prices in the process because they could not stay out of it not to mention they can't even manage the IRS and you want them to to "stick it to AT&T and Apple" for having an agreement? Right. Ok.

What is unfair competition? Someone has more money than another? Someone has a better/newer product and is only available here or there? Isn't that what competition is? How the hell do you have competition if EVERYONE has the same thing? Where is the incentive to provide quality service? There is none. How about this, I think Verizon should have to sell some of their towers to all the other carriers so EVERYONE has a fair chance at providing good service.

A mobile phone bailout. Yeah. Why not fix the gas prices first. Find an alternative to gas. Provide incentives and money to it's people to switch over to solar power. Help create a cleaner world and a country that does NOT have to depend so much on others.

Nah, that won't happen because all the whiners over at Verizon want the iPhone and think it's UNFAIR that only AT&T has it - boohoo...waaaah. What a bunch of loosers!

[dgcaste]

IIRC, didn't Intel do exactly that in Europe?

but yeah, let the free market work itself out! They have our best interests at heart, right? They don't just want to make gobs of money, right? ;)

Yes, it was a true scenario.

The free market works a few things out: the effective distribution of inputs and outputs, and price.

The free market does NOT sort itself out in terms of market power. Concentration of power begets more concentration, and it starts destroying the incentive to effectively distribute inputs and outputs, and by the time the day is over, a single company makes whatever it wants and charges whatever it wants, not with supply and demand in mind, but with revenues in mind.

A company in truly perfect competition "takes" prices, it doesn't "set" them. There is nothing wrong with trying to maximize profits, but that all happens within the framework of supply and demand, not within the framework of "I'm going to charge as much as possible to maximize profits".

Think about water, water is something we pay relatively little for, because no one can set prices. If someone jacks up the price of water, we just go buy someone else's. Demand is almost perfectly elastic. Imagine if there was only one person that could make and sell water. He could charge thousands for a gallon, if not more. A single person may be willing to pay $1,000,000 for a gallon, but if he set that price, then only one person would buy water. A monopolistic firm will set a price that will maximize profits (price x sales), making the price number bigger while sales going down involves an important tradeoff.

[katzky]

:D Go Mac...!!!!!!!!! :apple:

surendettement (http://commissiondesurendettement.net)

[Dmac77]

but I want an iPhone, not on the crappy AT&T network.

more bars in more places, more dropped calls and voice quality that sounds like darth vader over Xbox Live.

I hate to sound like a jerk, but IMO, you just have to wait until AT&T upgrades their network in your area, or until AT&T loses exclusive rights to the iPhone. IMO the government should be able to force companies to make phones available for every carrier. It gets way to complicated with CDMA networks. If Apple or another company has to provide every model of their phone to every network operator, there are going to be problems. Exclusivity agreements motivate companies to snatch up the next big thing, and are good for business IMO.

Don

[MizzouCowboy]

I don't ever recall having to enter into a two year contract for a pair of shoes, paying a "monthly service fee," and being charged a "roaming fee." Have you? :rolleyes:

I like the example someone had above: If McDonalds has an agreement with CocaCola and only sells CocaCola, I can get in my car, drive somewhere else and buy a Pepsi. If I walk into an Apple Store and buy and iPhone and they say "we only sell AT&T service," I can't just get in my car and drive elsewhere and buy service for my iPhone.

No, but you can get in that same car and drive down the road to buy another phone and another service. You're not forced to buy the iPhone. It's been stated on this thread earlier, a monoply is on a market, not a product.

[wiz7dome]

The amount of people claiming to understand how business works and how this is nothing more than government meddling is nothing short of :eek::eek:

Government sets the rules by which businesses operate.

Governments do NOT have a profit motive only a duty to represent the best interest of the people (even if they screw it up)

To those who say government shouldn't ever be involved in business....too late!!

If you break your ridiculous 2 year agreement and refuse to pay the ETF where do they take you? That's right.....court (part of the Judicial branch in the US)

And how is it possible to even entertain a 2 year agreement with ETF's that are non negotiable and completely legal? Yep....the Legislative Branch of government.

Businesses have NO problem using the government to swing everything to its advantage. However, when the people decide that the government is supposed to work in the interest of the people, suddenly there's a cry of "interference"................ nonsense.

Beyond that, the real way businesses work has nothing to do with competition . As an earlier poster stated, its about "competitive advantage". However, there is a point at which trying to gain competitive advantage itself becomes anti competitive.


Competition takes place in the market place, NOT in who can buy a Senator to change laws to favor business. To that end, many large companies in the US do not compete, they consume or sabotage.

[corinhorn]

Yeah, how do you like your health care costs? Still expect the market to "work itself out" in your favor?Give it time, and it will, but not if the government starts poking its fingers in it. At that point it will get worse.

[Dmac77]

No, but you can get in that same car and drive down the road to buy another phone and another service. You're not forced to buy the iPhone. It's been stated on this thread earlier, a monoply is on a market, not a product.

Exactly, if you want an iPhone that badly, you just need to deal with the crappy signal. If you don't want to deal with that, go get a Storm or something.

Don

[AbSoluTc]

No, but you can get in that same car and drive down the road to buy another phone and another service. You're not forced to buy the iPhone. It's been stated on this thread earlier, a monoply is on a market, not a product.

Exactly. This whole thread boils down to one cold hard fact - there are people that want the iphone but don't want to switch carriers. They refuse to do so and don't think they should have to. So, they raise a stink and cry foul. Yet the same carrier that doesn't have what they want is the same one that is screwing them over from the get go. Locked phones, crap customer service, crap phones - etc etc. HOWEVER, that's ok. :rolleyes:

[cameronjpu]

It hurts all those who want an iPhone but don't want to be tied to one provider. Do you really think that Apple and AT&T do it for the benefit of the customer? Tying a phone to one provider is like letting a car run on only one type of road.

Enough with the terrible car analogy. If you can't make the point without comparing it (necessarily imperfectly) to cars, don't bother.

The point is, it is not ATT nor Apple's job to do ANYTHING for the benefit of any customer but their own. Why would it be?

[windywoo]

No, but you can get in that same car and drive down the road to buy another phone and another service. You're not forced to buy the iPhone. It's been stated on this thread earlier, a monoply is on a market, not a product.

But if he wants to buy one particular product then why would they make life difficult for him? Why should the customer be forced to buy a phone they don't want?

[wlh99]

It would hardly be fair competition if the government told a business not to have exclusive deals with another business.

That's not the problem. AT&T can be the exclusive reseller of the phone. No need for the government to interfere there. They can and should work out whatever they want between themselves. But once I buy the phone the agreement between Apple and AT&T should be done, and I should be able to activate it with T-Mobile. *I* shouldn't be part of the agreement, just AT&T and Apple.

AT&T and Apple are dictating to me I shouldn't do business with one of AT&T's competetors. Fair competition would prevent that obligation.

[windywoo]

Enough with the terrible car analogy. If you can't make the point without comparing it (necessarily imperfectly) to cars, don't bother.

The point is, it is not ATT nor Apple's job to do ANYTHING for the benefit of any customer but their own. Why would it be?

Mate, I didn't start the car analogy.

[iphones4evry1]

As an earlier poster stated, its about "competitive advantage". However, there is a point at which trying to gain competitive advantage itself becomes anti competitive.

To that end, many large companies in the US do not compete, they consume or sabotage.

+1

[normang]

Yeah, how do you like your health care costs? Still expect the market to "work itself out" in your favor?

If you are so ignorant as to think that government run Health-care is going to save the day, I don't want to write the obvious.

Just think for just one minute and ask yourself a couple questions before this goes off the deep end. If government can run Health-care better than anyone else, why is it that most everything else that government touches eventually is in shambles, look at California and Michigan, both these states are run into the ground by government and there are more coming.

Or ask yourself, how are they going to pay for it.. There are two ways, high taxes, or limit care, where government decides ultimately whether you live or die because they will decide whether your care or you are an acceptable risk. While we all die eventually, I would prefer to have my own choices, and not some government bureaucrat making the choice for me, which is the ultimate outcome of any government run system.

This applies even here to this Telecomm debate, the free market will always decide if you leave it alone. Its when government meddles in the market, that it gets all screwed up, and if you cannot see that, you need to take the blinders off..

[SAN66]

The government always casts a wide net with its reviews and then whittles down to more focused policies.

At the very least, I doubt they'll force companies to abolish exclusivity contracts and subsidies, but we can hope that they introduce policies to stop phone companies from hardware/software locking phones to specific carriers so you can take your phone to a compatible carrier once your contract is up, without having to hack it.

[dgcaste]

Lol. You are one of the MANY fools here to think the government needs to "intervene" to create "fair competition and market". The government only succeeds in jacking up the prices in the process because they could not stay out of it not to mention they can't even manage the IRS and you want them to to "stick it to AT&T and Apple" for having an agreement? Right. Ok.

What is unfair competition? Someone has more money than another? Someone has a better/newer product and is only available here or there? Isn't that what competition is? How the hell do you have competition if EVERYONE has the same thing? Where is the incentive to provide quality service? There is none. How about this, I think Verizon should have to sell some of their towers to all the other carriers so EVERYONE has a fair chance at providing good service.

A mobile phone bailout. Yeah. Why not fix the gas prices first. Find an alternative to gas. Provide incentives and money to it's people to switch over to solar power. Help create a cleaner world and a country that does NOT have to depend so much on others.

Nah, that won't happen because all the whiners over at Verizon want the iPhone and think it's UNFAIR that only AT&T has it - boohoo...waaaah. What a bunch of loosers!

You misunderstand what "unfair competition" means. Then, you're mixing unrelated concepts together, into a black and white framework of politics, throwing some oddly inappropriate emotion on top, and sprinkling it with random words heard in AM radio.

It's unsurprising to realize that you don't understand the concept of competition, because you are quoted as saying "what is unfair competition", so I will explain it to you.

To compete is to vie for prices, if you want to make more money, you can't jack up the price, because the market does that through buyers and sellers. All you can do is drop your fixed and variable costs through the use of less/cheaper labor or capital.

Unfair competition enters the picture, and now a firm with better technology and more efficient operations can't compete because Microsoft owns ~90% of the OS market, and they've effectively locked in customers to a point where it's painful to change to something better because people don't have time, skills, etc.

Free Market is NOT a "free for all", it's the ability to enter the market to compete, and exit when you can't. When a company can block you from entering or exiting (the former more often than the latter), there is no free market competition, but a locked market where customers and sellers aren't making decisions, but where just firms are making those decisions.

What ends up happening is that YOU and I get less for more.

I'm not asking the government to "take over" anything, I'm asking the government to make unfair practices illegal. Private companies shouldn't be public, I would agree with that point because the public doesn't want to take risk in an everyone-in-or-everyone-out fashion. But if the government doesn't make some things illegal, the market can and will fail.

For example, only the government can make these things illegal:

1- lying in advertising. the free market cannot fix this. a good lie is a good lie, and you will buy something that's not what you thought it was. if this has never happened to you, you're the one that's lying.

2- monopolies. in a monopoly, everyone but a few lose. if there was one company making gasoline in the world, you would be taking a bike to work and milk would cost tens of dollars per gallon.

3- dumping carcinogens into the environment, possibly your backyard or source of water. if you don't want this regulated, you must hate your life. besides it being illegal, companies don't have an incentive to not do this, because it is not part of their costs, and if it's cheaper to dump and it's legal to do so, THEY WILL.

4- I don't have all afternoon to keep going. you get the idea. hopefully.

[JMax1]

I think congress needs to pass a bill saying that Catherine Zeta Jones can be the spokeswoman for AT&T. It's not fair that she has signed a contract with T-Mobile, saying that she can only work for T-Mobile. T-Mobile totally has a monopoly on her. It's not fair!

[cameronjpu]

Yeah, how do you like your health care costs? Still expect the market to "work itself out" in your favor?

I love it when someone uses an example that he thinks proves his point, but it actually proves the other person's....

[corinhorn]

AT&T and Apple are dictating to me I shouldn't do business with one of AT&T's competetors. Fair competition would prevent that obligation.They are not dictating to you. They are trying to get your patronage and you have a choice to give it or not to give it.

[AbSoluTc]

That's not the problem. AT&T can be the exclusive reseller of the phone. No need for the government to interfere there. They can and should work out whatever they want between themselves. But once I buy the phone the agreement between Apple and AT&T should be done, and I should be able to activate it with T-Mobile. *I* shouldn't be part of the agreement, just AT&T and Apple.

AT&T and Apple are dictating to me I shouldn't do business with one of AT&T's competetors. Fair competition would prevent that obligation.

So you knowingly purchased a phone knowing full well that the only carrier for that phone was AT&T and you are now complaining that you should have a choice? You had a choice. You chose to forget the fact that you can not out of the box use the phone on tmobile. Now you want to complain? I guess the word EXCLUSIVE means nothing.

[dgcaste]

The amount of people claiming to understand how business works and how this is nothing more than government meddling is nothing short of :eek::eek:

Government sets the rules by which businesses operate.

Governments do NOT have a profit motive only a duty to represent the best interest of the people (even if they screw it up)

To those who say government shouldn't ever be involved in business....too late!!

If you break your ridiculous 2 year agreement and refuse to pay the ETF where do they take you? That's right.....court (part of the Judicial branch in the US)

And how is it possible to even entertain a 2 year agreement with ETF's that are non negotiable and completely legal? Yep....the Legislative Branch of government.

Businesses have NO problem using the government to swing everything to its advantage. However, when the people decide that the government is supposed to work in the interest of the people, suddenly there's a cry of "interference"................ nonsense.

Beyond that, the real way businesses work has nothing to do with competition . As an earlier poster stated, its about "competitive advantage". However, there is a point at which trying to gain competitive advantage itself becomes anti competitive.


Competition takes place in the market place, NOT in who can buy a Senator to change laws to favor business. To that end, many large companies in the US do not compete, they consume or sabotage.

+1 insightful.

people think 'I know the meaning of the words free, market, and competition, and I go to the store every week, so I think I know how it works, and I don't want NoBama controlling anything!'

All they have to do is pick up two books, one on economics, and one on history. Take a few days reading each. Then come back and let's have an intelligent discussion on relevant data and theory, not an emotional bash-fest of dirty words and Rush Limbaugh quotes.

[Tallest Skil]

To that end, many large companies in the US do not compete, they consume or sabotage.

Case in point: Apple today.

Great OS, but where did it come from? Buyout of NeXT.

Logic Studio? Emagic. DVD Studio Pro? Spruce Technologies. Color? Silicon Color. Shake? Nothing Real. Motion? Silicon Grail.

Apple also bought the FileMaker guys, but they haven't incorporated the software as an Apple product.

[AbSoluTc]

I think congress needs to pass a bill saying that Catherine Zeta Jones can be the spokeswoman for AT&T. It's not fair that she has signed a contract with T-Mobile, saying that she can only work for T-Mobile. T-Mobile totally has a monopoly on her. It's not fair!

Hehe. Thats the best post in this thread :D

I love the T-Mobile commercials when she is in them. I love the "milky minutes" commercials from AT&T too.

[iphones4evry1]

Exactly. This whole thread boils down to one cold hard fact - there are people that want the iphone but don't want to switch carriers. They refuse to do so and don't think they should have to. So, they raise a stink and cry foul. Yet the same carrier that doesn't have what they want is the same one that is screwing them over from the get go. Locked phones, crap customer service, crap phones - etc etc. HOWEVER, that's ok. :rolleyes:

Okay, let me get this. I walk into an Apple Store and buy an iPhone without a contract for $599 (or whatever) and walk out of the Apple Store and go home (see, I didn't even bring the car; I walked this time). Now I go home, get on the internet and start comparing cell phone service plans (as consumers do when they live in a country with a fair, free market), and I find a plan that is nice and I go to activate my phone, but WAIT! The phone is LOCKED! It says I can ONLY use AT&T! That is NOT freedom, that is a monopoly. The consumer does not have a choice.

If there did not appear to be something wrong with this whole situation, then the FCC would have never begun an investigation into it. Think about that. The FCC sensed that something was not right.

I can understand having an exclusivity deal, but telling me that my phone is worthless unless I stay with AT&T after my contract is up is wrong.

If anything comes out of this, exclusive phones should be carrier unlocked once your contract ends so you can either stay with said company or go elsewhere with your phone. You own it - you should be able to use it how you wish.

:)

[akira2501]

if the systems that carriers use are different then just because the system is open doesn't mean that the phone makers are going to manufacture them for all those different systems that carriers decide to use. that's that

[T-Bone]

I never realized so many people on this forum hate the government. I figured most Mac fanboys were the liberal hippie type.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but when the state government here in Massachusetts deregulated the energy industry a couple years ago, my energy bill doubled in one month. Wasn't too psyched about that one.

And of course we all know the result of the financial industry deregulation over the past two decades - the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

So yeah, more regulation among in the wireless industry is sounding pretty good to me.

[whatever]

Companies like at&t, Microsoft and big oil prove that our anti-trust laws are just there to make us feel better, until we realize they are fluff.

Could one company dominate 90% of the OS market if our anti-trust laws were effective, at all?

Edit: Not to mention that the government's use of Windows far exceeds 90% share. Anti-trust laws are a farce.
How could one company dominate the OS market, simply they did everything right in the early days. Microsoft is not a monopoly, just a success story.

[normang]

Okay, let me get this. I walk into an Apple Store and buy an iPhone without a contract for $599 (or whatever) and walk out of the Apple Store and go home (see, I didn't even bring the car; I walked this time). Now I go home, get on the internet and start comparing cell phone service plans (as consumers do when they live in a country with a fair, free market), and I find a plan that is nice and I go to activate my phone, but WAIT! The phone is LOCKED! It says I can ONLY use AT&T! That is NOT freedom, that is a monopoly.

If there did not appear to be something wrong with this whole situation, then the FCC would have never begun an investigation into it. Think about that. The FCC sensed that something was not right.

You can unlock the phone if you want, there are tools to do it, if you want to. The iPhone will only work on one network, GSM, so you cannot get it to work on Verizon or a CDMA network no matter how much you whine.

You have no clue what a monopoly is, its the government, they have the power to tax you, take away your freedom for real. You have choices with the iPhone, and right now its whether you want to get one and use it on AT&T or unlock it yourself. its your choice.. Eventually it will change, but not right now.

Life isn't fair, never has been, never will be, get over it..

[Tallest Skil]

...but WAIT! The phone is LOCKED! It says I can ONLY use AT&T! That is NOT freedom, that is a monopoly. The consumer does not have a choice.

You have the choice not to buy an iPhone. End of discussion. I want it unlocked more than anyone else. ANYONE. Else. But this is the same thing as suing McDonalds for making you fat.

Look up the word "monopoly" in a dictionary.

[AbSoluTc]

Okay, let me get this. I walk into an Apple Store and buy an iPhone without a contract for $599 (or whatever) and walk out of the Apple Store and go home (see, I didn't even bring the car; I walked this time). Now I go home, get on the internet and start comparing cell phone service plans (as consumers do when they live in a country with a fair, free market), and I find a plan that is nice and I go to activate my phone, but WAIT! The phone is LOCKED! It says I can ONLY use AT&T! That is NOT freedom, that is a monopoly. The consumer does not have a choice.

If there did not appear to be something wrong with this whole situation, then the FCC would have never begun an investigation into it. Think about that. The FCC sensed that something was not right.



:)


Nevermind the fact that you know full well that the iPhone is only available on AT&T. Further more, if you do not know this, you are either living under a rock or did not do your homework before hand. Who buys a phone first and then shops the carrier? You shop the carrier and then pick your phone.

You do realize on the BACK of the shiny new iphone you "theoretically" purchased, it states that it ONLY WORKS WITH ONE CARRIER and then goes on to tell you the requirements of said carrier.

Again, you failed to read and research. The only thing you are proving is the fact that anyone NOT ON AT&T that wants the iphone are whining because they cant have one on the carrier they are on. Again, boo ****ing hoo.

[Anuba]

The complete and utter ignorance of people that believe that somehow the government is actually going to solve a problem in a way that actually works just never ceases to amaze me. The government should just stay out of it and let the market decide and work it out for itself.
Right. :rolleyes:

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer. Rates and fees are lower than in the US, coverage is better, speeds are higher, 3G was rolled out much earlier. This summer I'll have tree different Swedish iPhone carriers to choose from - TeliaSonera, Tre and Telenor. I'm paying $30/month for 100 Mbit broadband and $25 for my iPhone plan. I'm expecting that to drop when TeliaSonera is joined by two competitors.

Meanwhile in the US you're stuck with 3G coverage on par with Kazakhstan, and if you want an iPhone you're stuck with a dinosaur carrier with draconian contracts, ridiculously high fees, delayed implementation of MMS and tethering (the latter will cost extra!!). As for broadband, you're lucky to get slow as molasses 5 Mbit cable for 50 bucks/month.

Private enterprises + government that keeps them on their toes = match made in heaven.

Private enterprises that can do whatever the hell they want = hell. It doesn't encourage competition at all, instead you end up with a bunch of de-facto monopolies. As a result, the companies become complacent and lazy. They stop bothering with keeping their technology up to date. The quality of service goes down the toilet while they're busy jacking up their prices. Which, ironically, sounds exactly like life in the Soviet Union, except the masters are called AT&T and GM instead of the Communist Party.

[wiz7dome]

I never realized so many people on this forum hate the government. I figured most Mac fanboys were the liberal hippie type.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but when the state government here in Massachusetts deregulated the energy industry a couple years ago, my energy bill doubled in one month. Wasn't too psyched about that one.

And of course we all know the result of the financial industry deregulation over the past two decades - the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

So yeah, more regulation among in the wireless industry is sounding pretty good to me.


I don't want the government making iPhones or software, but then again nobody would ever suggest such a thing.

Regulation isn't a bad word.

If you can only do business as long as everything is tilted your way, then you should not be in business.

[iphones4evry1]

if the systems that carriers use are different then just because the system is open doesn't mean that the phone makers are going to manufacture them for all those different systems that carriers decide to use. that's that

That's right. But at least they will have the option and choice if they want to.

What is AT&T so afraid of ? Why do they need to pay extra money to Apple for exclusivity. Do they really think Apple is going to run away over to Sprint go backwards in technology? Lol. AT&T is wasting their money with this exclusivity. Some people will use T-mobile but most will continue to use AT&T. Verizon and Sprint aren't even a worry as the technology isn't even compatible. So why is AT&T wasting their money? Oh, right. It's so that they can lock their phones, charge outrageous fees, and no one can make they upgrade their network. That's right.

[Tallest Skil]

Right. :rolleyes:

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer.

So let's have the government lay some ground rules (laws) down:

Net neutrality for all ISPs. Bandwidth must double for the same price every ten years.

There. Let them compete all they want, but the above should be set in stone.

[iphonics]

since this is the the US department of justice... i guess this doesnt affect Canada at all...

anyways here the only two GSM providers are Rogers, and Fido and they both already have the iPhone (granted Rogers owns fido)

[ryanwarsaw]

Th Mcdonald's argument with Coke are all lame. Imagine that the two companies made an agreement that Coke was only sold at Mcdonald's? That is a more apt comparison to what Apple and AT&T are doing.

It isn't a problem that MCD chooses only to sell coke. It would be a problem if only they sold Coke and made me sign a contract to buy a certain amount of Coke over two years to even enjoy my first Coke.



It wouldn't be a problem if AT&T chose only to sell the iPhone. As far as forcing a Big Mac to be sold elsewhere that doesn't fit either because it is their product there is no exclusivity deal there. Apple could only sell the iPhone at Apple stores that would also not raise any eyebrows.

The problem here is that when two companies do what Apple and AT&T are doing and lock it to one network this could very easily lead to price collusion as they lock out any competition for the device. The other issue is a continued locking of the device once the contract is completed. That is a pretty raw deal for the consumer.

I agree with the posters that think that if the IPhone was sold unlocked that is the end of the problem and then the agreements between Apple, AT&T and the consumer would be much more fair. Then they could keep their exclusive deal without people feeling cheated by it.

[AbSoluTc]

Right. :rolleyes:

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer. Rates and fees are lower than in the US, coverage is better, speeds are higher, 3G was rolled out much earlier. This summer I'll have tree different Swedish iPhone carriers to choose from - TeliaSonera, Tre and Telenor. I'm paying $30/month for 100 Mbit broadband and $25 for my iPhone plan. I'm expecting that to drop when TeliaSonera is joined by two competitors.

Meanwhile in the US you're stuck with 3G coverage on par with Kazakhstan, and if you want an iPhone you're stuck with a dinosaur carrier with draconian contracts, ridiculously high fees, delayed implementation of MMS and tethering (the latter will cost extra!!). As for broadband, you're lucky to get slow as molasses 5 Mbit cable for 50 bucks/month.

Private enterprises + government that keeps them on their toes = match made in heaven.

Private enterprises that can do whatever the hell they want = hell. It doesn't encourage competition at all, instead you end up with a bunch of de-facto monopolies. As a result, the companies become complacent and lazy. They stop bothering with keeping their technology up to date. The quality of service goes down the toilet while they're busy jacking up their prices. Which, ironically, sounds exactly like life in the Soviet Union, except the masters are called AT&T and GM instead of the Communist Party.


Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008

Enough said. Those numbers should answer your question and give you an idea of why things are "better" in Sweden.

[ptsube]

People should be able to choose ANY phone that they want and use it on ANY carrier they like

Why? Can you choose any MP3 player and play any music on it? Or use it with any media player?

AT&T, nor Apple have anywhere close to a monopoly on the market. You want to FORCE two private companies to do something that is not in their best interests.

If you want Sync by Microsoft in your car, you have to buy a Ford. Are you going to force Microsoft to sell the technology to every car company, just because you want a Chevy? Or you could create your own company and equivalent software to compete with Microsoft, then license it to Chevy.

If you want an iPhone on another carrier, just create a competing phone without infringing on any patents and then you can sell it to whoever you want.

[normang]

Right. :rolleyes:

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer. Rates and fees are lower than in the US, coverage is better, speeds are higher, 3G was rolled out much earlier. This summer I'll have tree different Swedish iPhone carriers to choose from - TeliaSonera, Tre and Telenor. I'm paying $30/month for 100 Mbit broadband and $25 for my iPhone plan. I'm expecting that to drop when TeliaSonera is joined by two competitors.

Meanwhile in the US you're stuck with 3G coverage on par with Kazakhstan, and if you want an iPhone you're stuck with a dinosaur carrier with draconian contracts, ridiculously high fees, delayed implementation of MMS and tethering (the latter will cost extra!!). As for broadband, you're lucky to get slow as molasses 5 Mbit cable for 50 bucks/month.

Private enterprises + government that keeps them on their toes = match made in heaven.

Private enterprises that can do whatever the hell they want = hell. It doesn't encourage competition at all, instead you end up with a bunch of de-facto monopolies. As a result, the companies become complacent and lazy. They stop bothering with keeping their technology up to date. The quality of service goes down the toilet while they're busy jacking up their prices. Which, ironically, sounds exactly like life in the Soviet Union, except the masters are called AT&T and GM instead of the Communist Party.

What keeps enterprises as honest as one can make them is competition, not government. I am not going to assume that competition alone is enough, there has to be some structure to reasonably regulate how business works, but to assume that things in the EU are cheaper because of government is way to simplistic, there are other factors.

[whatever]

It's ridiculous that you have an Iphone, in my opinion.

At least for me, "works at home" would be such an important feature that I would not buy any phone without it! :eek:

Same here. I have had Sprint phones (worst service I've ever had, could barely work in my state, MA), Verizon (would not work on my street), old AT&T (worked okay, but not in my house) and the new AT&T, works great everywhere. I'm on the road about 3 weeks a month, traveling the US and my iPhone has not yet failed me. And I'm still using the first generation iPhone, the Edge network seems to be getting faster...

[iphonics]

Right. :rolleyes:

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer. Rates and fees are lower than in the US, coverage is better, speeds are higher, 3G was rolled out much earlier. This summer I'll have tree different Swedish iPhone carriers to choose from - TeliaSonera, Tre and Telenor. I'm paying $30/month for 100 Mbit broadband and $25 for my iPhone plan. I'm expecting that to drop when TeliaSonera is joined by two competitors.

Meanwhile in the US you're stuck with 3G coverage on par with Kazakhstan, and if you want an iPhone you're stuck with a dinosaur carrier with draconian contracts, ridiculously high fees, delayed implementation of MMS and tethering (the latter will cost extra!!). As for broadband, you're lucky to get slow as molasses 5 Mbit cable for 50 bucks/month.

Private enterprises + government that keeps them on their toes = match made in heaven.

Private enterprises that can do whatever the hell they want = hell. It doesn't encourage competition at all, instead you end up with a bunch of de-facto monopolies. As a result, the companies become complacent and lazy. They stop bothering with keeping their technology up to date. The quality of service goes down the toilet while they're busy jacking up their prices. Which, ironically, sounds exactly like life in the Soviet Union, except the masters are called AT&T and GM instead of the Communist Party.

^ he makes a very good point!

[munkees]

cool, I hope they let the iPhone on other networks,

I got my iPhone 3G one month before the they announced the 3Gs. That means I could cancel my att contract pay the $175 fee, sell my iPhone and get a new iPhone 3Gs on another network :)

[muskratboy]

if i want my company to have an exclusive deal with another company that's my right. the government needs to stay out. what private citizens do are of no concern to the government as long as they're not infringing on the rights of others.

GEEEZ these people are missing the point.

so 2 companies should be able to make a contract that price fixes... say gasoline? Hey, what's the problem... it's just 2 private companies making a contract. So you have to pay $12 a gallon... it's just business, right?

it's not a monopoly. it's an anti-competitive practice.

now all you paranoid bomb-shelter babies just put down the pitchforks and chill out a little, hmmm?

[coleridge78]

If you are so ignorant as to think that government run Health-care is going to save the day, I don't want to write the obvious.

Just think for just one minute and ask yourself a couple questions before this goes off the deep end. If government can run Health-care better than anyone else, why is it that most everything else that government touches eventually is in shambles, look at California and Michigan, both these states are run into the ground by government and there are more coming.

I'd like you to explain that comment, though I doubt you can because I'm sure it's just something you heard somewhere. Specifically, California and Michigan are examples of two very different forms of failure, neither of which have to do with "the government" per se.

California's problem is an example of what happens when a large population with diverse interests experiments in direct democracy. Through their proposition system, any special interest who could manage to get 50% on generally low-turnout, marketing-driven votes, could mandate new spending for the state government. So, of course, in the end there are thousands of obligations, but nobody voting themselves tax increases to pay for such. It's not "the government" spending like drunken sailors, it's the electorate.

Michigan? A perfect example of what happens when the free market becomes "capitalism", which is something very different. Michigan (and Ohio) had almost exclusively privately-driven economies and service bases, all founded on one non-diversified cartel. When that cartel eventually succumbed to outside forces (ie, foreign cars that were better built and cheaper) after many decades, the obvious happened. This is one of many practical reasons why cartel capitalism is a Very Bad Thing and should not be confused with a free market, no matter how much certain cynical political manipulators and media millionaires would like you to confuse them.

This applies even here to this Telecomm debate, the free market will always decide if you leave it alone. Its when government meddles in the market, that it gets all screwed up, and if you cannot see that, you need to take the blinders off..

Anyone who thinks something "always" works is bound to be wrong. Aside from the fact that you have cartel capitalism mixed up with a free market. News flash, there is no free market without "government meddling". Without "the government", ie, you and me agreeing on some civilized boundaries, there's only The Guy With the Biggest Club Kills Your Ignorant Ass and Rapes Your Daughters.

[Tallest Skil]

Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008

Enough said. Those numbers should answer your question and give you an idea of why things are "better" in Sweden.

What the heck does population have to do with anything?!

Sweden: 173,732 sq. miles
USA: 3,794,066 sq. miles

WE HAVE TO LAY MORE CABLE. :D

Japan's population is 127 million and THEY have Internet on par with your precious Sweden. Population is meaningless.

[mrjosh]

If government can run Health-care better than anyone else, why is it that most everything else that government touches eventually is in shambles, look at California and Michigan, both these states are run into the ground by government and there are more coming.

In CA, part of the problem was brought on not only by the government but also the public. Many people have bought into the idea that any and all government must be bad, so the 'private sector' in CA have taken it upon themselves to set budget priorities and erect barriers to passing a budget. In my opinion, California's economy is an illustration that short term advantages are valued over long term benefits by most people - no matter what sector they are in.

And for the sake of relevency - I don't like AT&T so instead of an iphone, I'll get an ipod touch. It will compliment my cheapo t-mobile phone quite nicely. No 2 year commitment, and once I buy it, I own it.

[AbSoluTc]

Why? Can you choose any MP3 player and play any music on it? Or use it with any media player?

AT&T, nor Apple have anywhere close to a monopoly on the market. You want to FORCE two private companies to do something that is not in their best interests.

If you want Sync by Microsoft in your car, you have to buy a Ford. Are you going to force Microsoft to sell the technology to every car company, just because you want a Chevy? Or you could create your own company and equivalent software to compete with Microsoft, then license it to Chevy.

If you want an iPhone on another carrier, just create a competing phone without infringing on any patents and then you can sell it to whoever you want.

Exactly.

[wiz7dome]

Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008

Enough said. Those numbers should answer your question and give you an idea of why things are "better" in Sweden.

That makes no sense.

The reason why some things are better in Sweden is because they "get it".

There is NO such thing as a "free market". Free enterprise yes. Free market? Doesn't exist anywhere.

[synth3tik]

On one hand I would like to see the ability for customers to choose more, and therefor require that carried lower fees.

On the other hand, we live in a free market. Capitalism baby.

[SandynJosh]

If people want an iPhone, they have no other choice. If they live in an area where AT&T has poor coverage and can't get an iPhone on another network, and have to buy from a different service provider, then this hurts Apple's sales and is harmful to Apple.

you are ASSUMING that there is another carrier locally that can handle the iPhone signal AND has the robustness of service to not impact its other users once iPhone users become more . That condition may not exist in most cases.

[mosx]

Wow. I can't help but feel pity for the people in this thread who think that the government should stay out and let the wireless (and healthcare) industry stay on the current course.

As it is right now, you have four major carriers that have almost complete control of the market. Their prices are not at all competitive. It doesn't matter if I have AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint. I'll be paying roughly the same with all three of them. T-Mobile is the only one that is slightly cheaper than the other three. All four are perfectly happy with the way things are now and are doing nothing to compete with eachother. They're all raking in billions in profit as it is now and they only change little by little as they have to to make sure their profits don't fall. What they do change, however, is their practices to increase profits. Look at SMS as an example. Something that costs virtually nothing to facilitate, yet they rake in billions in profits by forcing people to spend 1000x what it costs to actually send and receive those messages.

Let's look at the way things work right now. If I go to AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint, the ONLY way I can NOT have a contract is to buy a phone that is compatible with their outrageously expensive prepaid services. When I was with Verizon before, the only way I could have contract free service was to use their prepaid service. Even if I bought a phone at full retail price, I would still have to sign a 1 or 2 year agreement to get the full service. I was recently told the same by AT&T. I would still have to sign a 1 year service agreement to be able to get the benefits of post paid service, even if I bought a phone at full retail. Only T-Mobile and smaller regional carriers offer the ability to buy a phone at retail price and sign up for contract free service that offers the benefits of post-paid service.

Imagine if other services were like cellular service. You go buy a $50,000 car but you can only use Arco gas. You go buy a $30 steak dinner but can only drink Bud Light with it.

I should be able to walk into any store, buy any mobile phone of my choice, and use it on any network fully featured with no contract. Networks should be competing for my money, not all seemingly working together to keep prices high.

I love my iPhone. But I am counting down the days until my AT&T contract is up. The very same day that contract expires I will be switching to one of the smaller regional services. Hopefully MetroPCS. $70 a month for 2 phones unlimited everything. Sure its "regional", but their coverage here in southern California is far better than AT&T and it has "local" coverage wherever I go. I just can't believe how bad AT&T's coverage is. I can be standing in an open parking lot with low buildings with several other people who have several other services. Verizon, T-Mobile, Boost Mobile, Virgin, MetroPCS.. they all get strong signals in the same place my iPhone will display "no service".

Oh and a small remark on healthcare. Any person with a double digit IQ should be disgusted with the way healthcare works in the US. Healthcare should absolutely NEVER be a for profit business. Vanity services like teeth whitening and breast enlargement can be for profit, because people who are vain deserve to be swindled. But basic healthcare should never be for profit. Look at cancer treatment. Cancer treatment could have advanced to the point of curing it once discovered. But it hasn't. Why? Because its more profitable for the drug companies to treat a patient long term with expensive drugs than it is to give them one drug that takes care of all of their problems. Look at how insurance companies work. They evaulate how profitable you'll be in the long term before offering you coverage. If you're someone that developed a medical condition and lost your health insurance (either due to job loss or insurance company dropping your coverage), its virtually impossible to get covered again. Look how many people get denied life saving treatment because it will cost too much money for the insurance company. How many people can't get coverage because of the fact that they got sick while covered and the bad economy took their job (thanks Bush!). It's absolutely disgusting. Of course, one problem is cost. Maybe if we didn't have nurses and other medical staff sitting around doing nothing for 8-12 hours, just being "on call" while earning a full pay check, things wouldn't be so expensive. Maybe if we had proper healthcare to begin with, higher costs wouldn't result from uninsured people not being able to pay their medical bills. The US pays more than double per patient compared to any other country with universal healthcare. Theres something wrong with that.

Edit: another good example of where the government needs to step in is broadband in this country. It's ridiculous that I only have the choice of DSL or cable from two different providers. Verizon serves this area but they're taking their sweet time installing FiOS (might not be until next year now) and they won't upgrade their copper lines. So I can only choose 1.5Mbps DSL or ridiculously expensive cable. Thanks to the duopoly, I have to deal with really slow speeds that shouldn't even be considered broadband in a modern world, or I have to deal with a high cost low cap cable service that goes out constantly and slows down when my neighbors are online.

[The Monkey]

Have we been transported to the Wacky Militia Forum? Unreal...

EDIT: With the exception of the very few posts like the one above mine, this thread is filled with the kind of knee-jerk thoughtless fail that I hoped was going out of style. I suppose it never does.

[rdowns]

Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008

Enough said. Those numbers should answer your question and give you an idea of why things are "better" in Sweden.

Area to wire" for cell service

US - 3,790,000 square miles
Sweden - 173,746 square miles

[Tallest Skil]

Area to wire" for cell service

US - 3,790,000 square miles
Sweden - 173,746 square miles

Good; someone else got it. :p

[ryanwarsaw]

Have we been transported to the Wacky Militia Forum? Unreal...

Don't be such a communist. LOL I am with you here things have gone a bit wacky over this one.

[iPhoneNYC]

Why this is certainly an unexpected route to separating ATT from the iPhone. Let's hope it works --- we need more choice!

[ryanwarsaw]

Area to wire" for cell service

US - 3,790,000 square miles
Sweden - 173,746 square miles

Okay many people complain about cell service for the iPhone in NYC compare the area of NYC to Sweden. I get what you are saying but there are holes in that theory as well.

[windywoo]

Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008

Enough said. Those numbers should answer your question and give you an idea of why things are "better" in Sweden.

As others have said, this is not a valid argument. If America's population is larger the companies are larger too, and have more money and resources proportional to their customer base.

[rdowns]

Okay many people complain about cell service for the iPhone in NYC compare the area of NYC to Sweden. I get what you are saying but there are holes in that theory as well.

I've experienced no issues with service in NYC or Long Island except at my brother's girlfriends house in the Battery park area. I know other's have but what do you expect with all those damn buildings in the way. :D

[iphones4evry1]

This behavior is already illegal in Australia. The ACCC does not allow anti-competitive arrangements.

This is why Telstra (the AT&T of Australia) has Optus, Three and Vodafone to compete with.

As for value - I got my 3GS for $0 upfront and US$80 for unlimited calls, unlimited SMS and 1.5GB of data (24 month contract).

So all the doomsayers... it gets better with competition .. :)

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer. Rates and fees are lower than in the US, coverage is better, speeds are higher, 3G was rolled out much earlier. This summer I'll have tree different Swedish iPhone carriers to choose from - TeliaSonera, Tre and Telenor. I'm paying $30/month for 100 Mbit broadband and $25 for my iPhone plan. I'm expecting that to drop when TeliaSonera is joined by two competitors.

Meanwhile in the US you're stuck with 3G coverage on par with Kazakhstan, and if you want an iPhone you're stuck with a dinosaur carrier with draconian contracts, ridiculously high fees, delayed implementation of MMS and tethering (the latter will cost extra!!). As for broadband, you're lucky to get slow as molasses 5 Mbit cable for 50 bucks/month.

Private enterprises + government that keeps them on their toes = match made in heaven.

Private enterprises that can do whatever the hell they want = hell. It doesn't encourage competition at all, instead you end up with a bunch of de-facto monopolies. As a result, the companies become complacent and lazy. They stop bothering with keeping their technology up to date. The quality of service goes down the toilet while they're busy jacking up their prices. Which, ironically, sounds exactly like life in the Soviet Union, except the masters are called AT&T and GM instead of the Communist Party.

I would like to see those on here who are defending AT&T explain why these two examples are bad for the consumer. Anyone want to give it a try?

[cmwade77]

if i want my company to have an exclusive deal with another company that's my right. the government needs to stay out. what private citizens do are of no concern to the government as long as they're not infringing on the rights of others.

But that's the question, has this policy interfered with the rights of others? There are some strong arguments that it has, such as it limits the ability of smaller companies to get going, it limits consumer choice, etc.

I am sure there are arguments that would show that it hasn't as well, bottom line is I am not the department of Justice, it is their job to sort it all out and figure out if there is anything illegal here or not.

[wiz7dome]

Just to build on mosx's point,


It interesting to read the comments about competition being the driving force, when business model's are being shifted away from paying for services as you go and adopting a contract model.

Customers are not with a company because they've competed and won in the marketplace. They remain with the company because they have a legal contract binding them to the company and breaking it would cost them additional $$$

[kazoonuke]

Another waste of tax dollars!! Again

[ryanwarsaw]

As others have said, this is not a valid argument. If America's population is larger the companies are larger too, and have more money and resources proportional to their customer base.

I think the argument is valid so far as companies can't afford to have the best coverage everywhere. It would be unreasonable to expect great coverage in remote areas of Alaska, as it would be if you were from Denmark to expect the same in Greenland. The issue here is the amount of complaints that come from places that are as densely populated as anywhere in Europe.

[Anuba]

Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008
So?

Population density, USA: 31/sq km
Population density, Sweden: 20/sq km

50% more potential customers per square kilometer = even more reason for US carriers to get with the program.

[FDX]

haha good. i want my verizon iphone.:p
i wonder how soon it will be before any of this actually happens.


I don't think this means that apple will have to make one to work on their network

[coleridge78]

Area to wire" for cell service

US - 3,790,000 square miles
Sweden - 173,746 square miles

This oft-quoted "truism" has been conclusively debunked over and over. I won't do your research for you (because I doubt you care), but for any curious readers I'll offer a hint to fuel your googling: While the US has more area to wire,

1 - The per capita area does not differ so dramatically, and

2 - In fact, most wiring in America or any European country is done in denseley settled urban areas. The issue isn't wiring Sweden's 173k sq mi vs the US 3.8m sq mi; it's wiring Gothenburg vs wiring Minneapolis, ie, pretty much the same thing (economically and socially, taken on a per-capita basis).

[iphones4evry1]

Population density, USA: 31/sq km
Population density, Sweden: 20/sq km

50% more potential customers per square kilometer = even more reason for US carriers to get with the program.

+2 ... more people + higher fees, and no MMS ? :confused:

[ryanwarsaw]

This oft-quoted "truism" has been conclusively debunked over and over. I won't do your research for you (because I doubt you care), but for any curious readers I'll offer a hint to fuel your googling: While the US has more area to wire,

1 - The per capita area does not differ so dramatically, and

2 - In fact, most wiring in America or any European country is done in denseley settled urban areas. The issue isn't wiring Sweden's 173k sq mi vs the US 3.8m sq mi; it's wiring Gothenburg vs wiring Minneapolis, ie, pretty much the same thing (economically and socially, taken on a per-capita basis).

+1

[Tallest Skil]

2 - In fact, most wiring in America or any European country is done in denseley settled urban areas. The issue isn't wiring Sweden's 173k sq mi vs the US 3.8m sq mi; it's wiring Gothenburg vs wiring Minneapolis, ie, pretty much the same thing (economically and socially, taken on a per-capita basis).

So leave all of the smaller cities and towns out of it. Okay, that's a good idea.

I shouldn't need to put a sarcasm tag. :D

[wiz7dome]

I think the argument is valid so far as companies can't afford to have the best coverage everywhere. It would be unreasonable to expect great coverage in remote areas of Alaska, as it would be if you were from Denmark to expect the same in Greenland. The issue here is the amount of complaints that come from places that are as densely populated as anywhere in Europe.


Business culture and objective has completely morphed in the US to finding away of generating money and profit while not actually providing any services.


Companies tip toe on investing on their infrastructure for the benefit of their customers.

Your example of remote area's is exactly why the government should be involved in matters such as this. In the US, the electric companies didn't see any advantage in running lines to rural areas....thus the rural electrification act in 1936

[Scottsdale]

This SHOULD BE the LAW. We should be able to use our phone on EVERY/ANY carrier we want. If we follow the money, we will all realize only big companies win. Big corporations are BAD NEWS for consumers, especially when they PARTNER together. We live in a day and age where we should have choices, and Apple should benefit by providing such a deal too. I know it's easier for them to just make it compatible with one network, but I believe we should be able to buy the phone and have it work on any network. In addition, the subsidies are a joke. AT&T gets paid back in a few months for these iPhone contracts.

I am all for putting an end to these BS corporate deals that suck for consumers.

It would be great to just go to Apple and pay $699 for an iPhone 3GS. Then activate it for ANY carrier we wish. We would pay so much less money too. Although up front costs would be greater, we could buy reasonably priced voice and data plans. In addition, we could all get the best coverage by the provider for the area we live in. That system makes so much more sense than these BS contracts tying us to AT&T.

The day Apple is no longer in bed with AT&T exclusively, I will buy an iPhone and switch to ANY other provider. I am sick of AT&T's BS. No tethering for the iPhone (not even for a fee) even though a cheap phone can get it on their network. No MMS, a feature that is also available for other cheap phones. AT&T's network is crap too, and they cannot handle the iPhone contracts so they give us all TERRIBLE SERVICE. Terrible customer service. Terrible coverage. Terrible unavailable features COMMON to other carriers and other phones at AT&T. I am SICK SICK SICK of AT&T.

And let's not all blame AT&T, APPLE is doing NOTHING to help us out. We should already be on Verizon or any other carrier that could provide service!

I WANT ANY OTHER PROVIDER. I will dump AT&T in a heartbeat, and that will most likely make Apple more money because will have to be compatible with another carrier's network... NO PROBLEM! I am SICK of the most worthless company in the world, AT&T! We all bash Microsoft, but Microsoft has more executive responsibility and better product/service offerings than AT&T. In fact, my rating of AT&T would not be one on a scale of one to ten - ten being the highest!

I HATE AT&T... and I really dislike Apple for not doing more for us fans to get us out of the AT&T NIGHTMARE!

[ryanwarsaw]

So leave all of the smaller cities and towns out of it. Okay, that's a good idea.

I shouldn't need to put a sarcasm tag. :D

i think the point here is to sell it unlocked so people ion whatever area can get the service best for them. You would still have to buy it from AT&T and sign their contract and they would get paid as would Apple. I don't see why people would be opposed to this?

[SandynJosh]

That's right. But at least they will have the option and choice if they want to.

What is AT&T so afraid of ? Why do they need to pay extra money to Apple for exclusivity. Do they really think Apple is going to run away over to Sprint go backwards in technology? Lol. AT&T is wasting their money with this exclusivity. Some people will use T-mobile but most will continue to use AT&T. Verizon and Sprint aren't even a worry as the technology isn't even compatible. So why is AT&T wasting their money? Oh, right. It's so that they can lock their phones, charge outrageous fees, and no one can make they upgrade their network. That's right.

AT&T is NOT paying anything extra to Apple, and they are also outspending all the other carriers (with the possible exception of Verizon) upgrading their network. Fear has nothing to do with it.

I suspect Apple went to Verizon first because they were number two, and had more market share to gain than AT&T. Verizon couldn't see past "business as usual" and turned Apple down. AT&T, who got to their market share by using more forward thinking; adapting to faster networks even though they were not essential to their business at the time, for example, was open to new ideas from Apple.

Being able to see the as yet unseeable future and planning accordingly is rare. While Apple and AT&T may see it differently, their visions match up better then most of the rest of the cell phone carriers did or they wouldn't be the combo to beat.

[Tallest Skil]

i think the point here is to sell it unlocked so people ion whatever area can get the service best for them. You would still have to buy it from AT&T and sign their contract and they would get paid as would Apple. I don't see why people would be opposed to this?

Because the first three bold parts are completely contrary.

I'm not paying AT&T squat if I can buy it legally unlocked.

[ryanwarsaw]

Business culture and objective has completely morphed in the US to finding away of generating money and profit while not actually providing any services.


Companies tip toe on investing on their infrastructure for the benefit of their customers.

Your example of remote area's is exactly why the government should be involved in matters such as this. In the US, the electric companies didn't see any advantage in running lines to rural areas....thus the rural electrification act in 1936

what was the rason for that? I live typically in very remote areas. The reason that had to be done as only the government could have undertaken such a venture as it wasn't cost effective. If the USA government wants to put 3G towers up in remote areas I have no problem with that either. To expect AT&T to do so is a different kettle of fish. It seems we agree.

[ryanwarsaw]

Because the first three bold parts are completely contrary.

I'm not paying AT&T squat if I can buy it legally unlocked.

You would have to if it is only sold from Apple and AT&T. the choice is yours as far as freedom of network but where it is sold and contract terms fall with in AT&T and Apple's right to do business as they see fit. Sure you could buy it off of ebay or whatever but you would pay the full price. Somebody would still have to have signed the contract to get it in the first place thus you are paying AT&T either way.

[gilkisson]

No need to compare cars to Coke to McDonalds, or NYC to Sweden or soup to nuts or... whatever.

We can use Reality. History. That which IS.

AT&T has had an exclusive lock on the iPhone since day 1. Nowhere else to go (in the US). You have an iPhone, AT&T has had your undivided attention, like the icy grip of Death's bony fingers grasping your nethermost regions.

What have they (AT&T) done in return for their loyal customers? How have they made our lives oh so better? By saying "no". No to MMS, No to tethering, No to using your phone elsewhere after the contract. No.

They have rewarded us with higher fees than any other smartphone on any other network, however. Smartphones that can have MMS and tethering.

So, I'd say AT&T hasn't covered themselves in glory by how they have rewarded their customers. Their continued "up yours" to those who pay more than most is insulting. If their network isn't ready for MMS/tethering/data service after all this time, what the frog have we been (over) paying for all this time?

The iPhone via AT&T - a visible symbol of our lips on the posterior of AT&T's corporate body. And we pay for the privilege.

[skellener]

Break up the carriers!

They should be either network providers or content providers - but they should NOT allowed to be both. Same goes for wired ISPs!!!

[wiz7dome]

what was the rason for that? I live typically in very remote areas. The reason that had to be done as only the government could have undertaken such a venture as it wasn't cost effective. If the USA government wants to put 3G towers up in remote areas I have no problem with that either. To expect AT&T to do so is a different kettle of fish. It seems we agree.

Somewhat.

The idea of something being "cost effective" can be as misleading as it is relative.

Laying Fiber all across the US would be a huge undertaking, however, the effects of such would pay off over generations. Corporate culture is only interested in quarterly earnings, so such an undertaking is often brushed off UNLESS they can secure the use of such an undertaking for themselves.

AT&T could enable tethering and MMS at no additional cost, however, that isn't in the 'best' interest of its shareholders. That is where its main obligation lies.


Break up the carriers!

They should be either network providers or content providers - but they should NOT allowed to be both. Same goes for wired ISPs!!!

100% Agreed.

[ptsube]

The article says that the Justice Department may also look into whether carriers are unduly limiting the applications they allow to run on their wireless networks.


Hmmm....Slingplayer

It is "their" network. I don't like not having MMS, tethering, or full Slingplayer support, but I am paying a fee to use "their" network". The best way I can show my distaste is going to a different carrier.

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Man, American public school education has clearly failed us.

There is absolutely no monopoly of any kind here. None. Anyone who wants a Smartphone-type device has dozens of choices on several networks.

Apple is a company trying to realize a profit. So is AT&T. They have decided to marry the iPhone to the AT&T network in an exclusivity agreement that both considered mutually beneficial. Companies are allowed to make such commitments.

If you don't like their iPhone ownership scheme, don't buy one. Choose a Palm Pre or any one of the other options out there, or choose the best network for you and see what they offer for hardware.

The LAST thing anyone should ever want is more US federal government intervention into private enterprise. Sure, consumer safety and anti-trust functions are still important, but aside from those private enterprise should remain exactly that--private. Between private companies, and subject to the approval or disapproval of their customer base.

For all those whining about contract termination fees, data plan costs, and exclusivity arrangements, I say: vote with your wallet. Don't buy them. If enough people refused to sign on to these arrangements, and more people chose "pay as you go" phones, the major carriers would have to adjust. The paying customer is always right. If people were refusing to buy iPhones because of AT&T, Apple would find a way to terminate their agreement with AT&T early (some sort of buyout). Just look at Firewire--it made a comeback on the new portables, right? That's because enough "pro" users said they would not upgrade without it.

If you want innovation and technological advancement, then you don't want government intervention to throw cold water on the major players providing it. Protection of intellectual capital does not only involve protecting patent rights and copyrights--it also involves allowing innovators to bring their goods to market under their own terms.

Short term, this looks great. "Dude--I'll be able to score an iPhone from T-Mobile! SCWEET!" Long term, however, this is absolutely awful. It sets yet another bad precedent for obtrusive federal government intrusion into the private sector.

[coleridge78]

It is "their" network. I don't like not having MMS, tethering, or full Slingplayer support, but I am paying a fee to use "their" network". The best way I can show my distaste is going to a different carrier.

Heh, it is "their" network which has greatly benefited from AT&Ts history of being a monopoly, and now, part of (effectively) a two-player cartel, both sides of which are halves of said "split-up" monopoly.

I agree with your sentiment in a market with real choices, but phone service isn't one of them unless you're lucky enough to live in a place where T-Mobile has decent coverage.

[diamond.g]

A lot of our problem lies in the fact that Americans (as a whole) do not like the high upfront costs. The easiest way to get competition amongst carriers is to force them to advertise prices as the full commitment price. IE take the most expensive plan and the least expensive plan and show the full 24 month cost to the user upfront. Most people have no idea that they are paying 2400 for two years worth of service. People don't see it that way, they only see the phone cost (199) and then the 100 dollars a month they pay(or thereabouts).
Plus I think subsidies should go away, or at least make it so that when your subsidy is fulfilled your monthly rate is reduced.

[Anuba]

This oft-quoted "truism" has been conclusively debunked over and over. I won't do your research for you (because I doubt you care), but for any curious readers I'll offer a hint to fuel your googling: While the US has more area to wire,

1 - The per capita area does not differ so dramatically, and

2 - In fact, most wiring in America or any European country is done in denseley settled urban areas. The issue isn't wiring Sweden's 173k sq mi vs the US 3.8m sq mi; it's wiring Gothenburg vs wiring Minneapolis, ie, pretty much the same thing (economically and socially, taken on a per-capita basis).
The thing is... while we have countless broadband, land and wireless carriers in Sweden, the government owns the infrastructure. The old copper landline net is from back in the day when the government had a monopoly on telephony. The fiber network for broadband etc was rolled out in the late 90's/early 2000's for about $1B worth of taxpayer money. The carriers just plug into the existing infrastructure. Since their investment is minimal, employing their services is dirt cheap and the availability is great. I live in a small town and I have more bandwidth than I'd know what to do with... 100 mbit coming out of an ethernet socket in the wall. If I don't like that particular company I'll just switch to 50 Mbit cable, and if that's not my cup of tea either I'll get 24 Mbit DSL out of the phone jack.

I think Obama was talking about doing something similar in the US... building new communication infrastructure as part of New Deal II. I think it would be a very smart move. I don't see why broadband should be handled differently from roads, really. 1000 Mbit broadband to all American homes by 2012, do it Barack. If you leave it up to the corporations it's not gonna happen before the year 3000.

[w0by]

Hey I think it's fine if it's going to unlock phones. I don't mind paying $500.00 for a phone if it's legally unlocked and can be used on any carrier. I think it would be fantastic. I can't stand it that when you buy a phone it's locked to the carrier, even though you paid for the phone. In my opinion, when you buy a phone and you own it, you should be able to put it on any network that you'd like. If you buy a car, are you required to take it to Chevrolet for oil changes? I think not. If you buy a computer, are you required to use it only with Comcast internet? I think not. Why should cell phone companies be making the choice?

[coleridge78]

Man, American public school education has clearly failed us.

There is absolutely no monopoly of any kind here. None. Anyone who wants a Smartphone-type device has dozens of choices on several networks.


Your understanding of markets has clearly failed. No, there is not a monopoly; there is, however, a two-entity oligopoly, who offer essentially the same services at the same prices. And who are the two halves of the former monopoly company in that market, which was "split".

[wiz7dome]

Man, American public school education has clearly failed us.

There is absolutely no monopoly of any kind here. None. Anyone who wants a Smartphone-type device has dozens of choices on several networks.

Apple is a company trying to realize a profit. So is AT&T. They have decided to marry the iPhone to the AT&T network in an exclusivity agreement that both considered mutually beneficial. Companies are allowed to make such commitments.

If you don't like their iPhone ownership scheme, don't buy one. Choose a Palm Pre or any one of the other options out there, or choose the best network for you and see what they offer for hardware.

The LAST thing anyone should ever want is more US federal government intervention into private enterprise. Sure, consumer safety and anti-trust functions are still important, but aside from those private enterprise should remain exactly that--private. Between private companies, and subject to the approval or disapproval of their customer base.


First this is somewhat of a fallacy in that there isn't a private court system to enforce contracts, nor is there a private system to create the laws that make it legal. These require the involvement of the Government. Government comes into play when you file for your LTD, LLC or S Corp. And it is that same government that allows your corporate asset protections to exist. Its well within its right to change these laws when it no longer serves the best interest of the people.


For all those whining about contract termination fees, data plan costs, and exclusivity arrangements, I say: vote with your wallet. Don't buy them. If enough people refused to sign on to these arrangements, and more people chose "pay as you go" phones, the major carriers would have to adjust. The paying customer is always right. If people were refusing to buy iPhones because of AT&T, Apple would find a way to terminate their agreement with AT&T early (some sort of buyout). Just look at Firewire--it made a comeback on the new portables, right? That's because enough "pro" users said they would not upgrade without it.

If you want innovation and technological advancement, then you don't want government intervention to throw cold water on the major players providing it. Protection of intellectual capital does not only involve protecting patent rights and copyrights--it also involves allowing innovators to bring their goods to market under their own terms.


There's no shortage of company "innovations" that come via Publicly funded R&D. Even if it starts at the level of DoD.

[ryanwarsaw]

One very good reason for no unlocked version is that carriers are factoring in their greedy roaming policies. For example I am now living in India and using my iPhone (jailbroken and unlocked of course) that I am still paying the contract to on O2 UK. It does become a monopoly on service and not on a product at that point. I have been out of the UK for 8 months now still paying O2.

Am I supposed to pay several Pounds per minute to make local calls while the local rate is much much lower? There is also the fact that I can not get a local number assigned.

If you give valid proof you immigrated to another country they should be forced at the very least to assign you a local number with their local provider if you pay off the subsidy. I didn't know i would move to India a few months into my contract. I should not be penalized in such a way for not being able to predict the future.

This can only be achieved through a monopoly on service by the provider. Even after my 18 months are up they still will not unlock it. I know that this applies to O2 but the terms for AT&T mirror the example. So is it right for them to ask me to pay roaming rates the rest of my life to use my phone?

Luckily they won't even service my phone outside the UK even if I did pay their roaming. So O2 supplies the outrageous roaming fees and Apple couples that up with denying my service outside of the country of origin. O2 gets into the game again by not unlocking it for me in January when my contract is up.

Apple has been using very bad business strategies for consumers in many areas and not just the USA. It isn't just AT&T I don't know about them as I don't use their service. Apple has signed deals in a multitude of countries that allow their customers to be hurt.

[mikejfrd]

Despite the outcome of this, no one can force Apple make a CDMA version of the iphone. Also what makes everyone that hates ATT so much think that Verizon can do such a better job?

[Tallest Skil]

Despite the outcome of this, no one can force Apple make a CDMA version of the iphone. Also what makes everyone that hates ATT so much think that Verizon can do such a better job?

No one is saying ANYTHING about a CDMA version. There are dozens of other GSM carriers in the US, you know.

A CDMA version would be worthless, anyway.

[MoonDogg]

just fyi... att uses a GSM network and here is a good list of all the "smaller" GSM providers

http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml

[munkees]

Despite the outcome of this, no one can force Apple make a CDMA version of the iphone. Also what makes everyone that hates ATT so much think that Verizon can do such a better job?

CDMA is an extra added on the out of date D-AMPS network, where the iPhone is a GSM, and it not just the telephone side of GSM, but also all voices is transmitted as vocoder, it is what makes GSM a much clear voice signal.

Verizon is DAMPS/TDMA.

also the iPhone does it data though GPRS (General Packet Radio Service).

[AbSoluTc]

One very good reason for no unlocked version is that carriers are factoring in their greedy roaming policies. For example I am now living in India and using my iPhone (jailbroken and unlocked of course) that I am still paying the contract to on O2 UK. It does become a monopoly on service and not on a product at that point. I have been out of the UK for 8 months now still paying O2.

Am I supposed to pay several Pounds per minute to make local calls while the local rate is much much lower? There is also the fact that I can not get a local number assigned.

If you give valid proof you immigrated to another country they should be forced at the very least to assign you a local number with their local provider if you pay off the subsidy. I didn't know i would move to India a few months into my contract. I should not be penalized in such a way for not being able to predict the future.

This can only be achieved through a monopoly on service by the provider. Even after my 18 months are up they still will not unlock it. I know that this applies to O2 but the terms for AT&T mirror the example. So is it right for them to ask me to pay roaming rates the rest of my life to use my phone?

Luckily they won't even service my phone outside the UK even if I did pay their roaming. So O2 supplies the outrageous roaming fees and Apple couples that up with denying my service outside of the country of origin. O2 gets into the game again by not unlocking it for me in January when my contract is up.

Apple has been using very bad business strategies for consumers in many areas and not just the USA. It isn't just AT&T I don't know about them as I don't use their service. Apple has signed deals in a multitude of countries that allow their customers to be hurt.

Quit whining. You said your phone is unlocked. Swap in a local carriers sim and be done with it. Also, if you are in another country for the past 8 months well, you can terminate your contract. You do know that right? You could have saved yourself 6 months of payment and just payed the EFT. However, I think people just like to hear themselves whine instead.

[ryanwarsaw]

Quit whining. You said your phone is unlocked. Swap in a local carriers sim and be done with it. Also, if you are in another country for the past 8 months well, you can terminate your contract. You do know that right? You could have saved yourself 6 months of payment and just payed the EFT. However, I think people just like to hear themselves whine instead.

There is no ETF in the UK, you do know that right? The option offered is to just pay off the entire contract. What advantage would there be in me doing that? I keep the contract going because I may need it when I fly through an airport or whatever and don't have a local SIM. I am paying for the service either way so I will not terminate the contract.

[aristotle]

No one is saying ANYTHING about a CDMA version. There are dozens of other GSM carriers in the US, you know.

A CDMA version would be worthless, anyway.

T-Mobile - smaller network and they use 700 Mhz I believe for 3G which is not compatible with the 3G iPhone.
AT&T Mobility
CellularOne (Dobson and Western Wireless & Highland) - not nationwide, roams on AT&T
Cincinnati Bell - small local carrier that roams on AT&T
Immix Wireless -small local carrier that roams on AT&T
i wireless - small local carrier that roams on AT&T
indigo wireless - small local carrier that roams on AT&T
West Virginia Wireless - small local carrier that roams on AT&T
Einstein PCS - small local carrier that roams on AT&T
Edge Wireless - small local carrier that roams on AT&T
Simmetry - small local carrier that roams on AT&T
SunComm Wireless - small local carrier that roams on AT&T
NPI Wireless - small local carrier that roams on AT&TOther than AT&T, no other carrier in the US supports the iPhone in 3G mode.

[diamond.g]

CDMA is an extra added on the out of date D-AMPS network, where the iPhone is a GSM, and it not just the telephone side of GSM, but also all voices is transmitted as vocoder, it is what makes GSM a much clear voice signal.

Verizon is DAMPS/TDMA.

also the iPhone does it data though GPRS (General Packet Radio Service).

CDMA2000 stinks. But overall CDMA (air interface) is actually superior to GSM. Why do you think 3G is ran on it (WCDMA)?

[munkees]

CDMA2000 stinks. But overall CDMA (air interface) is actually superior to GSM. Why do you think 3G is ran on it (WCDMA)?

3G is EGPRS and not WCDMA. it is an enhanced EDGE network, hence why the iPhone is backwards compatible to the EDGE network.

I stand corrected the ATT is a WCDMA with EDGE (GPRS).

[Tallest Skil]

Other than AT&T, no other carrier in the US supports the iPhone in 3G mode.

You completely forgot Centennial, and lack of features is the respective carrier's problem.

[diamond.g]

3G is EGPRS and WCDMA. it is an enhanced Edge network, hence why the iPhone is backwards compatible to the EDGE network.
Um, where do you get the idea that WCDMA isn't what makes up UMTS/HSPA (AKA 3G)?

[munkees]

Um, where do you get the idea that WCDMA isn't what makes up UTMS/HSPA (AKA 3G)?

ATT is using WCDMA as you said along with EDGE (EGPRS).

[akm3]

As much as AT&T has failed, this could be a big hurt for Apple. It's kind of like trying to put Vista on different types of computers, now Apple will have to make different models of the iPhone. This is because AT&T and Verizon and Sprint all run of different networks. Well, now the iPhones would all need different chips.

*Can* do it and *Forced* to do it are different.

[NoExpectations]

Case in point: Apple today.

Great OS, but where did it come from? Buyout of NeXT.

Logic Studio? Emagic. DVD Studio Pro? Spruce Technologies. Color? Silicon Color. Shake? Nothing Real. Motion? Silicon Grail.

Apple also bought the FileMaker guys, but they haven't incorporated the software as an Apple product.

Don't forget the Mouse....that came from XEROX.

[Theaser]

Good!

I hope they make this carrier-locking BS illegal soon so that we can break away from AT&T. They are the worst carrier EVER!

I am in NY and the service is a joke. I can't make calls from my own home! I have to go outside to make a phone call. It's ridiculous. If I could get my iPhone officially supported/blessed on Sprint or Verizon's network, I'd drop AT&T in a heartbeat.

Yes, it would be awesome when we actually get to choose our own phones and which carriers we want to use. Which then would make the carriers try harder (like ATT) to attract customers by offering better cellular services, rather than telling us they have better phones. We demand the ability to have an official unlock to our phones.

About your Verizon supported iPhone, it won't happen unless Apple decides to make a GSM version. ;)

[coleridge78]

Don't forget the Mouse....that came from XEROX.

iTunes was also bought.

But I would dispute that any of this means what Tallest Skil was trying to say it does. (Or I might have misunderstood him/her.)

I'd also not lump the purchase of NeXT in with any of the others. That was basically an ancillary to bringing Jobs back in, not something they bought for a piece of software. Some of Nextstep madeit into OS X, but it certainly wasn't a wholesale adoption--and Apple had sold and developed Unix OSes for years prior.