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

[coleridge78]

You are genuinely deceived.


You forget that Apple also signed the contract. It was a two way street. And the contract has a specified term, ie its not permanent.

Apple will be free to go with anyone should they choose to or, OH MY, continue with their current carrier.

Yes, and me signing myself into slavery would be a two way street.

You seem to have missed the essential point. Hint: it isn't about Apple. It's about the entity who is currently one-half of a two-party oligopoly which effectively controls a vital market. Two parties which, in fact, were only relatively recently split apart after having a monopoly for a century.

 

[danpass]

Or they could sell directly to the customer and *SHOCK!* *HORROR!* allow the end user to go to their carrier of choice to purchase a connection pack.

that's another choice Apple may choose.




well ..... at least as long as they have that choice

 

[Tallest Skil]

No they haven't been. You purchase a subsidised phone, its locked in. If you want an unlocked phone, you get it full price. The lock in is there to ensure that people stay on the network for the company to recoup the cost of the subsidy plus profit.

*facepalm*

NO. I'm saying that if they are FORCED to have ONLY unlocked phones, they will compete by offering larger and larger subsidies.

 

[diamond.g]

I guess you haven't hung around with enough libertarians - yes, there are those who advocate community militias and armaments in lieu of a national standing army

That works well, until you have a country like NK/Iran/et al ready to nuke you, then what do you do??

Uh... that's what every company ever has done for decades.

The problem is you have to continually take the subsidy if you want to not feel like the cell company is screwing you. Notice after your 2 year contract is up they don't reduce your monthly bill...

 

[magpie maniac]

[sigh] The Nanny State is at it again.

 

[chaosconan]

1. Yes, they'll sell more.
2. NO. It's their most profitable item.
3. Yes, they'll get more people.
4. Yes, we'll actually have a non-warranty-voiding choice.

Wow, that's fantastic. Please break that agreement.

 

[danpass]

Yes, and me signing myself into slavery would be a two way street.

You seem to have missed the essential point. Hint: it isn't about Apple. It's about the entity who is currently one-half of a two-party oligopoly which effectively controls a vital market. Two parties which, in fact, were only relatively recently split apart after having a monopoly for a century.

someone else already mentioned that the major carriers each have their own exclusive phone choices.

so the majority chooses the iPhone over the Storm.


obviously the iPhone's fault.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

*facepalm*

NO. I'm saying that if they are FORCED to have ONLY unlocked phones, they will compete by offering larger and larger subsidies.

Yes, and like a typical so and so you never ask, "well, where does the money come from to cover these subsidies". The companies want an assurance they can make the money back for the subsidy they provide.

You really are deluded that some how they can offer larger and larger subsidies and it would have no impact. What do you think would happen? the person would go to the company with the largest subsidies and then move to a carrier with the lowest price structure.

 

[coleridge78]

No they haven't been. You purchase a subsidised phone, its locked in. If you want an unlocked phone, you get it full price. The lock in is there to ensure that people stay on the network for the company to recoup the cost of the subsidy plus profit.

Both Vodafone and XT Network offer both options; subsidised with a contract or full price without a contract. You make the choice.

I don't live in a country with a truly competitive carrier market, but from what I've read about Europe it sounds like you're right. Carriers compete on price in many ways, and on services, but it looks like the subsidy is pretty much take it or leave it, and about the same (ie, the price of the phone...) across carriers.

 

[kingnimrod]

Government intrusion only makes things worse. There is NO monopoly here, and companies have the absolute right to make any kind of exclusivity agreements they want to.

You idiots who think this kind of interference will make your life better need to wake up. This is akin to the government forcing Mercedes to start selling their cars through Ford dealerships. It makes no sense....

What industry will the government find next to be of "vital importance" and take over or regulate it to death?

 

[Tallest Skil]

Yes, and like a typical so and so you never ask, "well, where does the money come from to cover these subsidies". The companies want an assurance they can make the money back for the subsidy they provide.

You really are deluded that some how they can offer larger and larger subsidies and it would have no impact. What do you think would happen? the person would go to the company with the largest subsidies and then move to a carrier with the lowest price structure.

OF COURSE the money comes from the customer's monthly rates. But guess what? THAT HAPPENS NOW. It's NO different, except you get to choose what phone on what carrier. That's the POINT.

Oh, wait. You just don't understand at all what I'm saying.

COMPANIES are not selling the phones. They CAN, of course, at an unsubsidized rate, and then the person goes the carrier for a plan.

But I'm saying that CARRIERS still sell the phones, but with subsidies, JUST like today.

The CARRIERS will compete with each other over the amount of subsidy you get if you get a plan from them.

Manufacturers of phones sell at full price. CARRIERS sell at a subsidized rate that is made up in your PLAN if you buy the phone from them. If NOT, the plan is cheaper.

WOW, I hope that cleared it up.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

That works well, until you have a country like NK/Iran/et al ready to nuke you, then what do you do??.

Who said I agreed? You've got some reading problems mate if you can't even tell the fact I was pointing out people who make such an argument.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

OF COURSE the money comes from the customer's monthly rates. But guess what? THAT HAPPENS NOW. It's NO different, except you get to choose what phone on what carrier. That's the POINT.

Assuming the person stays with the carrier who provides the subsidies.

Reading comprehension isn't your forté as clearly demonstrated by that post.

 

[chaosconan]

So, when Microsoft comes out with Zune Phone are they going to lock their phone with a carrier or will it be unlocked? And if Microsoft wants to catch-up wouldn't it be better for them to keep it unlocked so that all carriers can sell it?

 

[diamond.g]

Who said I agreed? You've got some reading problems mate if you can't even tell the fact I was pointing out people who make such an argument.

I wasn't disagreeing with you.


I would like subsidies to go away. If I am willing to buy a Mac for thousands of dollars, why should I not be willing to buy a cellphone for hundreds.

 

[randyhudson]

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.

You don't have a choice. Consider this: I want to purchase a Panasonic 50-inch plasma. I can do this, and then choose independantly to provide electricity and programming to that television using whatever power, cable, and/or satellite provider I wish. On the other hand, I want to purchase an iPhone, I am restricted to AT&T service, and iTunes for purchasing music and video.

Or how about this: I choose to purchase a BMW 335i, but I have to purchase premium gasoline exclusively from Shell for the lifetime of the car. If I sell my BMW to some else 5 years later, the same restriction applies to the new owner. Is this choice? Can a consumer really make a choice for the future owner of the vehicle?

 

[Tallest Skil]

Assuming the person stays with the carrier who provides the subsidies.

Reading comprehension isn't your forté as clearly demonstrated by that post.

Finish reading my post.

 

[cameronjpu]

Ever notice that there's dozens of brands to choose from, or *gasp* you can turn on the faucet in your house and it comes out?

Last time I checked, I can't turn on the faucet in my house and have cell phone service come out. Or choose from dozens of brands of cell phone service, costing anywhere from $.25 to $3 a bottle, at the grocery store.

Silly me, you're SO right.

But then again, they do have dozens of brands of cell phone service, costing anywhere from $10-$100 a month, at the mall. Do you have one of those near you?

 

[coleridge78]

someone else already mentioned that the major carriers each have their own exclusive phone choices.

so the majority chooses the iPhone over the Storm.


obviously the iPhone's fault.

You still missed the point, and no amount of rolling your eyes will cover it up.

It's not anti-competitive if a minor player has an exclusivity contract, by definition--because they are a minor player.

It is anti-competitive if a monopolist or oligopolist does it, because regardless of how they attained their market position, they are not allowed to use it to distort OTHER markets. Precisely because this results, effectively, in a planned economy.

AT&T and Verizon are the two halves of the old Bell monopoly, and have an effective two-party oligopoly over cell phone service in the US. Sprint and T-Mobile have national presences, but as a result of not inheriting a monopolist's profits and bank account and tech headstart, they cannot hope to be true competitors. I love T-Mobile, but I can't deny that their coverage doesn't, and will not, begin to touch AT&T and Verizon. The market cannot take care of this, because unless Ma Bell turn so bad as to spur an armed revolt, there will never be a critical mass of switchers to T-Mobile/Sprint precisely on account of their lesser coverage. It's a chicken and egg.

And that is fine. That's the market we find ourselves with. What ISN'T fine is then allowing the Bell carrier to attempt to COMMUNISTICALLY PLAN the market for cell phones via exclusivity contracts.

Edit to add: I thought that telling you explicitly in my last reply that I was talking about AT&T, not Apple, might have cleared it up, yet you still think I'm blaming something on the iPhone. Either you're not actually reading anything and you're just a troll, or you jumped the gun a little there... I've done it myself, no biggie.

 

[coleridge78]

Silly me, you're SO right.

But then again, they do have dozens of brands of cell phone service, costing anywhere from $10-$100 a month, at the mall. Do you have one of those near you?

You're simply lying. There are no such services that are serious service-level competitors to AT&T and Verizon. They don't exist.

 

[ptsube]

Here's a simple law: Prohibit provider-locking. That's it. Easy. I don't mind with contracts, subsidy, exclusivity, whatever, but why should we still be using a provider locked cellphones? Would anybody buy PCs locked into Comcast? Nope. Would anybody buy landline phones locked into QWEST? Nope. Why cellphone should be any different? Without provider locking, there will be a healthier competition as consumers can simply use the phones on another network if they don't like the service of the current one.

Before anybody whining about paying full price for unlocked phones, that's bull. I take Singapore, again, as an example. Over there, subsidized and under-contract high end smartphones, including the iPhone, are sold unlocked out of the box. Unlocked != no subsidy. It's unrelated, and US carriers are using this scare tactics to brainwash consumer to accept their provider-locking crap.

US DoJ is obviously missing the point. It's not about exclusivity. It's the provider-locking that's keeping the US cellular market in the stone age. I mean come on, we're still PAYING for incoming calls/SMS for God's sake.

Agreed.

 

[cameronjpu]

You're simply lying. There are no such services that are serious service-level competitors to AT&T and Verizon. They don't exist.

Whose fault is that? And who should fix it?

 

[Tallest Skil]

Whose fault is that? And who should fix it?

No one's "fault". Everyone sucks but the established providers.

And heck, no, the GOVERNMENT shouldn't be the one to fix it.

 

[cameronjpu]

No one's "fault". Everyone sucks but the established providers.

And heck, no, the GOVERNMENT shouldn't be the one to fix it.

Exactly what I'm saying. Shouldn't fix it, nor is the government able to fix it.

 

[danpass]

You still missed the point, and no amount of rolling your eyes will cover it up.

It's not anti-competitive if a minor player has an exclusivity contract, by definition--because they are a minor player.

It is anti-competitive if a monopolist or oligopolist does it, because regardless of how they attained their market position, they are not allowed to use it to distort OTHER markets. Precisely because this results, effectively, in a planned economy.

AT&T and Verizon are the two halves of the old Bell monopoly, and have an effective two-party oligopoly over cell phone service in the US. Sprint and T-Mobile have national presences, but as a result of not inheriting a monopolist's profits and bank account and tech headstart, they cannot hope to be true competitors. I love T-Mobile, but I can't deny that their coverage doesn't, and will not, begin to touch AT&T and Verizon. The market cannot take care of this, because unless Ma Bell turn so bad as to spur an armed revolt, there will never be a critical mass of switchers to T-Mobile/Sprint precisely on account of their lesser coverage. It's a chicken and egg.

And that is fine. That's the market we find ourselves with. What ISN'T fine is then allowing the Bell carrier to attempt to COMMUNISTICALLY PLAN the market for cell phones via exclusivity contracts.

By your logic, if Apple had signed with Sprint, then Sprint/Apple would be the bad guys.

Because they would have succeeded.

Just like progressive income taxing, punish the one who succeeds. Again by your logic, he's got all the money .... MAKE him share.


why continue to demonstrate your socialism?