Sidebar Sidebar
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

cameronjpu said:
Whose fault is that? And who should fix it?
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in whose fault it is, or who will fix it. I personally doubt it could be "fixed" without a massive intervention, but I don't really care one way or the other. It is what it is. The point is, it is the state of things, and so we shouldn't allow that oligopoly to further distort their own or other markets through measures that are explicitly anti-competitive (exclusivity contracts that keep out any possible competitors) as opposed to measure that are competitive (cutting prices, offering new and better services, etc).

There is sometimes a fine line. But exclusivity contracts by a monopolist/oligopolist in any market are a pretty clear case.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I was in Singapore. Wow. All the phones are unlocked. Even the expensive phones. I couldn't believe it. I saw them take their SIM from one phone to another over and over. It was cool. Truly free. And the phones in Singapore are not that expensive.
 
macintoshtoffy said:
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.
Click to expand...

The lock is not required to keep you in the contract. It is the contract, and its termination fee that protects their subsidy. Some phones have been sold under contract, but unlocked even from the likes of US AT&T and US T-Mobile (rare, and not really advertised, but some of their phones aren't really locked), but not the iPhone. T-Mobile will unlock your phone after 90 days of service without any complaints. AT&T will only do so begrudgingly. Locked phones are illegal in many countries where subsidies still exist. The likely reason for the 90 day rule on T-Mobile US is that they have recouped enough of the subsidy after 90 days that you are no longer a flight risk if they have to enforce their ETF.

The early termination fee is tied to the *contract*. Once you sign that contract the phone is irrelevant and you must either continue to pay the contract or pay the ETF - which allows them to recoup their subsidy.

Lack of phone locking has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with recouping the subsidy. The only thing it does is provide an incentive for the buyer to continue feeding the subsidizing seller a revenue stream in the future beyond any financial risk they took with the subsidy.
 
Can't wait to use the iPhone on the Verizon network since AT&T is such a piece of **** company.

Ask any of us AT&T users who work in the Wall Street area how we feel about AT&T. The financial center of the world and we can barely get reception there (don't even bother with 3G). Pathetic.
 
iAmLegend said:
Can't wait to use the iPhone on the Verizon network since AT&T is such a piece of **** company.

Ask any of us AT&T users who work in the Wall Street area how we feel about AT&T. The financial center of the world and we can barely get reception there (don't even bother with 3G). Pathetic.
Click to expand...

You don't understand, so I'll restate it.

Apple will never make a CDMA iPhone. Ever. Verizon as it exists today will NEVER have the iPhone.

This is about unlocking for GSM carriers. AT&T, T-Mobile, Centennial Wireless, et. al.

NOT Verizon in any way.
 
^^I'd really like to see proof of some sort before i believe anything you spout off as fact.

kornyboy said:
It really could go either way. The prices for the phones could go up. Then again, competition between carriers could mean lower prices.
Click to expand...

I can see plan prices being lowered but phone prices climbing up. I dont buy a new phone every year, so this would be ideal for me.
 
I can only advise people to READ THE FRIGGING ARTICLE! :mad:

1. It's an investigation - not a ruling, not court filing.

2. It's not about Apple. It's not even primarily about Apple and AT&T.

3. It is mostly about whether big carriers have gotten together and used their market power to harm smaller carriers. (And they aren't saying that they are; they are investigating this).

The last quote in the WSJ article is the most accurate; it is from a former FCC wireless regulator who states that unless it's shown that AT&T used its market power to force Apple to sign an exclusivity agreement with them (and of course everyone knows that story), the iPhone won't be affected.

No one is suggesting that we will go to a system where we pay $700 for the iphone but can use it on any carrier.
 
Tallest Skil said:
You don't understand, so I'll restate it.

Apple will never make a CDMA iPhone. Ever. Verizon as it exists today will NEVER have the iPhone.

This is about unlocking for GSM carriers. AT&T, T-Mobile, Centennial Wireless, et. al.

NOT Verizon in any way.
Click to expand...

Congress WANTS the iPhone. Therefore they should MAKE Verizon build out a GSM network.

lol :D
 
ptsube said:
I like how you think the answer to monopolies, oligopolies, and duopolies, is excessive government regulation.

And I think your last comment will get you suspended.
Click to expand...

So, you think that the answer to monopolies, oligopolies, and duopolies is to let them do whatever they want?

Because that is the only less-"excessive" alternative to what I've stated in this thread, which is "leave their business be but don't allow them to distort the market".

What say you?
 
danpass said:
Congress WANTS the iPhone. Therefore they should MAKE Verizon build out a GSM network.

lol :D
Click to expand...

I thought you were going to say "MAKE Apple make a CDMA phone".

If Apple was told by the government to make a CDMA iPhone, they would simply stop making ALL iPhones.

That is not a joke. Repeat: that is not a joke. They stopped making the iSight when the EU banned one of its materials; they'd do it again.

But no, that isn't even relevant. EVERYONE is moving to LTE, so we'll have complete compatibility either way.
 
Businesses work together in their own interest, this is news? Why do we need to regulate this? This is stupid.
 
Skuman said:
If you want that, expect the end of handset subsidies.
Click to expand...

I’d rather pay full price and be able to choose a REASONABLE phone plan that will WORK PROPERLY with the way the phone was meant to work. In the end the subsidy ends up costing you MORE....only in smaller payments over time.
 
dgcaste said:
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.
Click to expand...

Umm, I think they're already doing this, which is why there are lots of anticompetitive prosecutions of Intel around the world.
 
Papajohn56 said:
Businesses work together in their own interest, this is news? Why do we need to regulate this? This is stupid.
Click to expand...

We don't need to regulate it if we're talking about chocolates or hairspray.

If we're talking about phone service, electricity, or water, we do. Because modern society would come to a standstill without the above. Sorry, that's the price you pay for living in a time and place where Og isn't going to come and crush your skull with a rock so he can rape your 9 year old daughter.
 
Tallest Skil said:
I thought you were going to say "MAKE Apple make a CDMA phone".

If Apple was told by the government to make a CDMA iPhone, they would simply stop making ALL iPhones.

That is not a joke. Repeat: that is not a joke. They stopped making the iSight when the EU banned one of its materials; they'd do it again.

But no, that isn't even relevant. EVERYONE is moving to LTE, so we'll have complete compatibility either way.
Click to expand...

haha, just mocking the attitude of Congress :)


the EU, oh boy that's another one :D
 
danpass said:
No need. ATT is part of their argument only because of the iPhone.
Click to expand...

You're simply wrong. Read the details of the investigation. It is not about the iPhone, even if the iPhone was the publicity straw that broke the camel's back.

It is about exclusivity contracts, which *no handset maker in their right mind wants*. They're a price of doing business because the carrier oligopoly dictates such.

Hence, it is decidedly about AT&T/Verizon, nobody else.
 
chaosconan said:
Will this ruling have an affect on Palm Pre locked with Sprint and Android phones like G1 locked with t-mobile and so forth?
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about the investigation and potential outcomes to say, but I wanted to point out that the G1 isn't a totally exclusive offering.

The G1 is a particular piece of hardware from HTC, which supplies hardware to most of the major cell phone players. That particular piece of hardware is only sold by T-Mobile, but I don't know about any exclusivity they have over the hardware. In particular, the same hardware is available from Google directly as "the Android Developer's Phone". The ADP version is identical except for lacking T-Mobile's logos and the T-Mobile "myFaves" app. The T-Mobile version is carrier locked, but can be unlocked after 90 days of service whereas the ADP is unlocked. Even if it was exclusive (with an exception for Google's developer phone distribution), very similar hardware is offered by HTC through other carriers so the hardware is nothing to fret too much about.

The G1 runs an Operating System called Android which is most definitely *not* exclusive. It is developed by Google in conjunction with the Open Handset Alliance and its goal is to be provided as widely as possible. Currently the only phones that run this OS are sold via T-Mobile, but the OS was really in sort of a beta state until May anyway so it is likely that the other carriers were not interested in shipping phones based on it until it matured better. As of May they introduced the 1.5 version of the OS and it has definitely matured into a stable and feature-ful Smart Phone OS so you should soon see similar (if not identical) hardware from other manufacturers with the same OS.

At that point Android will become an example of what most of us wish Apple had done with the iPhone. Even if they targetted it to a specific hardware platform that only Apple produces (as they do with Mac OS), they could have still sold it for open use on a variety of GSM providers and remained provider agnostic. They chose not to, but that topic goes beyond this one post (I just wanted to point out that Google/Android is showing us that it can be done a different way if you want to).
 
I don't know about you guys but I just want to be able to
1. buy any phone
2. be able to use it on any network
3. be able to switch networks whenever i want to with no contracts
4. and pay monthly rate (subscription based) or pay as you go.

So, if I don't like at&t this month and they provide me bad service I should be able to go to my iphone and switch network to Sprint or any others. :rolleyes:

Whatever happened to this business model? :mad:
 
Why does no one seem to be more upset about 2 year contracts???

What they should be investigating is these two-year contracts that are the norm here in the States. Those to me are contrary to the whole 'free-market', supply-and-demand ideal. If I sign a 2 yr contract today with any one of these carriers, for, say, $40 a month for 500 minutes/mo, and a year from now that same company changes their prices to where $40 gives you 1000 minutes/mo, I have to sign on for 2 more years at that point to get this new rate! how is that fair? How is that not hurting the consumer? If I were able to change carriers freely, I'm sure the price of plans would fall. And then all consumers would benefit.

I know you'll say the 2 yr contract is to pay for the 'free' phone you get when you sign up, but 1) I should have the option of bringing my own phone or paying full price, and not signing the 2 yr contract, and 2) like someone else mentioned, when your phone is paid for after 2 yrs, your monthly rate does not go down.


And why are we still paying when we receive phone calls????? The person calling me is paying, why should I pay as well???
 
polythene pam said:
Why does no one seem to be more upset about 2 year contracts???

And why are we still paying when we receive phone calls????? The person calling me is paying, why should I pay as well???
Click to expand...

Don't worry. The brilliant economists on this board will be around momentarily to tell you "you signed the contract!!"

Without, of course, ever addressing the fact that you have no choice, because the contract is the same wherever you go. Dealing with the real world is too hard for these people. Their weird Psuedo-Libertarian Fascist-Communist ideology is like freshman physics. Sounds great in theory, but in the real world there exist things like "friction" and "drag" and "market distorting oligopolies".
 
I would have no problems with a pre-paid cell phone. Except the cost is not competitive (plus my credits get used whether I'm making or receiving a call) so you end up paying almost as much as if you get a monthly, contract-bound plan.

My problem is that cell phone service is too expensive in general, and I would hope if we weren't bound by contracts the prices would drop because people would be able to change carriers when another one offered them a better deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back