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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Department of Justice Reviewing Wireless Carrier Exclusivity Agreements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Plus I think subsidies should go away, or at least make it so that when your subsidy is fulfilled your monthly rate is reduced.
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.
Unlocked Phones
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?
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?
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".
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.
There's no shortage of company "innovations" that come via Publicly funded R&D. Even if it starts at the level of DoD.
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.
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.
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.
AT&T uses GSM
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
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
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).
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.
- 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&T
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).
You completely forgot Centennial, and lack of features is the respective carrier's problem.
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.
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.