Democrats criticize AT&T's exclusive iPhone deal

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dswoodley, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #1
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    this man is a horse's ass, and until the dems took over, he was in charge of that subcommitee. for those who believe in net neutrality, he's public enemy #1 in the house. as is ted stevens in the senate.
     
  3. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    The real issue here is the fate of the analog TV frequencies, which are to be auctioned off soon. A battle royal is developing between the service providers and the internet titans over whether this spectrum will be utilized for more proprietary or new, open networks. I don't see where Apple even has a dog in this hunt.
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    From the article:

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

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

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

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

    'Rat
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    Like a lot of things in D.C., this debate is a token for a larger issue. Nobody there really cares about Apple requiring two-year contracts with AT&T -- every provider does that. The real debate:

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc11jul11,1,6530500.story
     
  6. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #6
    Color me confused:

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

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

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

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


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

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    Just for clarification but what good are analog TV signals to Digital cell phones? I thought the analog spectrum was going to be used for government agencies.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    Not that I've heard. I always understood the plan to be that the TV bands would be auctioned off by the government for new uses. In fact I seem to recall that the resale value of the analog spectrum was one of the driving forces behind the conversion to digital TV.
     
  9. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #9
    Did I just notice (maybe I'm a bit slow today) that a story that started in the PRSI ended up on the front page? That's creepy. So, even though this thread has been more or less abandoned, any guesses on how long before the front page thread gets moved back here (a la Greenpeace)?
     
  10. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #10
    Oh my God, I have to use the iPhone with AT&T during the exclusivity period. Time for the Senators and the Congressmen to get involved.

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

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

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #11
    Apologies for a bit of drift: nbs2, as far as needing a lot of money to get into the business, think of cell phones: Cost of towers, for one aspect. How many thousands of those are there? Commonly landowners' rents can be as much as $1,000 a month, depending on location.

    'Rat
     

Share This Page