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

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.
 
funnyent said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Guess who loses?

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. :)
 
esquire360 said:
I thought this would happen ... t is sucky for customers to not be able to choose
Click to expand...

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.
 
NokX said:
let's go after mcdonald's next because i REALLY want a mountain dew when i go there, but they only serve coke products.
Click to expand...
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?
 
funnyent said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
iphones4evry1 said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
the only problem is..

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.
 
NoExpectations said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

runeasgar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

I'm a little confused.
 
NokX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can we also go after almost every movie theater that sells exclusive coke too! I want my Pepsi.
 
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 .. :)
 
iphones4evry1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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..
 
JMax1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

iphones4evry1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

/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.
 
runeasgar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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