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

[samab]

I pick Singapore only as an example. A lot of people here are arguing that they have to pay full price for an unlocked phone, which is the reason I used Singapore as an example where subsidized phones are unlocked. Try reading my earlier posts instead of making claims and changing topics all the time.

It really doesn't matter from the consumer's view if they give you a completely unlocked phone at subsidized price --- when the carriers charge you a king's ransom for ETF.

The iphone paradise (Hong Kong) allows simlocking, allows exclusive phones, adopted American style "bill and keep" mobile termination rates --- from a structural legal framework point of view, it is exactly the same thing as the US.

 

[digiguy23]

Most of the phones are tied to a specific carrier. Makes no sense

 

[pika2000]

It really doesn't matter from the consumer's view if they give you a completely unlocked phone at subsidized price --- when the carriers charge you a king's ransom for ETF.

The iphone paradise (Hong Kong) allows simlocking, allows exclusive phones, adopted American style "bill and keep" mobile termination rates --- from a structural legal framework point of view, it is exactly the same thing as the US.

Here we go again, just keep changing the flow of the discussion. Ignoring points and nitpicking stuff just to proof your point.

Why are you so adamant about ETF? Most people will obey the contract, not having to deal with ETF. It's how it is. It's a simple tradeoff of getting a subsidized phone. That sounds fair to me. Nothing to do with having the phones provider-locked. Don't want to risk ETF, go prepaid. At least without provider-locking, I know that once I'm done with the contract, I can take the phone that I paid for and use it somewhere else, unlike currently in the US where even after the contract, the phone is still provider-locked. Or are you more interested in thinking that you're "cheating the man," intentionally get into a contract and trying to get out of it without penalty?

You seem to indicate that the consumer's view is what matters. And also stating that Hong Kong has the same legal framework, exactly the same thing in the US. Fine. I'll take that. But explain this. Why can't I buy the iPhone unlocked in the US, officially from Apple/AT&T? Why won't AT&T unlock the iPhone, even after the contract is done? Obviously that's not the same consumer experience then huh.

 

[arkmannj]

I want a Verizon iPhone as much as anyone. but this may not be a good thing.
it could hurt consumers in the end.

let the free market do it's thing, if consumers want phones on multiple carriers then money and direct contact with the phone makers are the best ways to show that. We need less government involvement in our lives (including businesses) not more.

 

[flar]

it blows my mind how many people seem to think this comes down to "their right to choose" who they do business with, but in the same breath are prepared to deny a private entity the same "right".

If this were a totally open market segment I might agree with you, but cell phone service is not totally open.

There is only a limited set of frequency spectra on which anyone can do business in the cell phone industry and AT&T was given custody by the people to run that business on one of the better ones.

Ignoring the CDMA providers for the moment, in the end, there is only really room for one other entity to really operate in this country and effectively do business and T-Mobile is that entity.

Right now the cell phone industry is pretty much full here in the states, there will be no other competitors to come along. There is no threat of competition that hasn't already been identified and tied down.

At this point these companies (particularly AT&T since T-Mobile is somewhat more open, though only marginally so) can relax and institute whatever practices make sense for them and the grand consumer choice which is supposed to keep the market in check is "do you want cell phone service or not?"

Now it isn't quite so cut and dried as that since there are the CDMA providers, but as others have said - that technology is reaching its limits. Also, a number of smaller providers have been licensing rights to reuse AT&T's network to provide smaller regional services in some parts of the US, but they clearly operate at AT&T's whim.

Your arguments all sound well and good in the larger, more general, scope of an anonymous free market, but the cell phone industry has a precious resource (transmission rights within the US airwave spectrum) that it has been given custody of that changes these equations in a very real and very serious way and your lofty "give the obnoxious money-grubbing corporations freedom or go away" arguments fall very flat until you acknowledge this and work it into your reasons.

Oh, and, by the way, Apple did not choose to enter into this agreement because it was in *their* best interest. They were forced into accepting the agreement in order to get in the game because of the lack of alternate players in the industry - a lack imposed by the nature of this industry and its reliance on a small number of airwave frequencies which they have been given custody of by the people. Where was the "freedom of choice" there?

 

[flar]

before you start using economic terms, maybe you should learn what they mean. you CAN NOT have a free market and also have government intervention. what follows is the definition of Free Market. if you don't believe me, look it up.

--------------------

A free market is a term that economists use to describe a market which is free from government intervention (i.e. no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system and no governmental monopolies). Within the ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the coerced by a third party (such as by government via transfer payments) [1] and they engage in trade simply because they both consent and believe that it is a good enough choice. In addition, in a free market, force is not used to prevent competition among buyers or among sellers (called free competition). Therefore, force is not a determinant of price, but rather price is the effect of buying and selling decisions en masse as described by the law of supply and demand. Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets or regulated markets, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, which according to free market theory causes markets to be less efficient.[2] Where government intervention exists, the market is a mixed economy. In the marketplace the price of a good or service helps communicate consumer demand to producers and thus directs the allocation of resources toward consumer, as well as investor, satisfaction. In a free market, price is a result of a plethora of voluntary transactions, rather than political decree as in a controlled market. Through free competition between vendors for the provision of products and services, prices tend to decrease, and quality tends to increase. A free market is not to be confused with a perfect market where individuals have perfect information and there is perfect competition.

Where in that definition does the case fall of a company which is given the "right" to use a precious and limited resource by the people in order for them to do business?

There are not infinite cell phone network possibilities - there are only 4 voice frequencies and 2 3G frequencies available. After that there is no more room for competition.

In order to apply these rules of "free market" you need to have an open possibility of another party to come along and enter the game. That doesn't exist here, the 2 3G frequencies (really only 1 of them makes sense in the worldwide arena) have both been spoken for.

And, how does this apply to companies that have licensed their rights to provide service to the people that own the very resource that they had to license?

 

[ifonehacks]

This would be nice. Unlocking would no longer be needed. Apple's contract is up in 2010 and I don't think it will be renewed. Imagine that you walk in to T-mobile and buy an iPhone rather than buying off Ebay and unlocking. That would be nice. I hope it happens.

 

[JGowan]

I like how the system works now.

Consider the price of the iPhone. I seriously doubt it would have come down so fast if every carrier could use it.

Actually, in my opinion, when all carriers can sell it, they'll become FREE. Competition. As soon as one offers it for $99, they all will. Then someone will drop to $49 and they all will follow... finally, someone will go FREE and they all will. We'll also see plan pricing decrease once the iPhone becomes a free agent. Finally, when the phone and pricing are free/and or rock bottom, then the choice will be made by coverage and service. People will choose based on that alone as the other 2 equations will be moot.

 

[MarkAK]

Actually, in my opinion, when all carriers can sell it, they'll become FREE. Competition. As soon as one offers it for $99, they all will. Then someone will drop to $49 and they all will follow... finally, someone will go FREE and they all will. We'll also see plan pricing decrease once the iPhone becomes a free agent. Finally, when the phone and pricing are free/and or rock bottom, then the choice will be made by coverage and service. People will choose based on that alone as the other 2 equations will be moot.

Again why would we buy it from the cell service provider?
Do you buy your PC from your ISP?

In the future you will buy it from the manufacturer with all their designed in features (and they will warrenty and service it) and you will then enter into a contract with a cell service provider. It could be so simple.

 

[flar]

I like how the system works now.

Consider the price of the iPhone. I seriously doubt it would have come down so fast if every carrier could use it. What happened is that the other carriers made similar deals with the requirement of the handset provider to do better.

As such competition in devices became very fast paced and now you can get that $500 iPhone for only $99 today...

Sorry, this is incorrect.

The original iPhone was sold without subsidy. This was one of the "Apple innovations" in the cell phone industry - selling phones without subsidies. There were rumors that Apple got a kickback from the contracts instead, but either way, there was no subsidy - you paid the same amount for the phone as it was advertised to cost and you paid tax on that same amount to prove it.

When the iPhone 3G came out, AT&T had time to renegotiate with Apple and switch to a subsidy instead. Now when you buy an iPhone, you pay a much cheaper price, but you pay tax on "the full price" which is several hundred dollars more. The drop in price you saw was solely due to the enabling of the subsidy and had nothing to do with Apple being forced to make the phone cheaper.

 

[aperture01]

whatever this is stupid

am i the only one who hates verizon??
I really can't stand their phones, or their image. And yeah so what they have an expansive network (that for most people somehow seems to get coverage on the moon), but it's CDMA and only relevant in this country.

I don't see apple ever designing for that. perhaps they'll make an LTE iphone but in that case AT&T and Verizon will both have crappy networks and be at square one.

I've had AT&T/Cingular for over 8 years now, and have had no problem with their service. Sure sometimes I don't get bars when others do or a call gets dropped but geez I see that on every cell phone, on various networks.

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

And how the hell has exclucivity allowed them to have a monopoly? Apple and AT&T agreed to be exclusive, it allows control over the system, hardware and distribution. That's forcing all PC software developers to make the same product for mac, so that everyone can have it. You want an iPhone you have to buy the whole package. And in the US AT&T is part of that package. Unhappy drop your service and go get a Blackberry Storm from Verizon.

Say there wasn't an exclucivity contract, that doesen't mean apple has to sell it to every carrier out there. What if carrier A or B doesen't support necessary technology to allow complete use of the phone?

 

[flar]

This would be nice. Unlocking would no longer be needed. Apple's contract is up in 2010 and I don't think it will be renewed. Imagine that you walk in to T-mobile and buy an iPhone rather than buying off Ebay and unlocking. That would be nice. I hope it happens.

If they want to enable that, then Apple would have to develop hardware that supports T-Mobile's 3G frequencies. I'm guessing that shouldn't take much development, but it would mean having to stock 2 different versions of the phone, or going the added expense of a dual-band-3G phone (most phones are already quad-band for voice so having 2 bands for 3G wouldn't be that far out of the question - just a small added expense they would have to swallow).

Otherwise, the most that could come from an unlocked iPhone would be people buying them unlocked and using them on T-Mobile's EDGE network at reduced speeds. They would also give up Visual Voicemail unless T-Mobile saw it worth their while to implement it for the few who went that route.

But I'm pretty sure that for T-Mobile to sell it directly would require the hardware to support their 3G network (I can't imagine them marketing an EDGE version of the phone against AT&T's 3G version).

 

[aperture01]

word up.

there's nothing wrong with two(or more) companies entering into a business contract with each other. the government should leave well enough alone.

their arrangement does not prevent other companies from doing the same, or entering into the market, etc. therefore there's nothing monopolistic about it.

this is just a bunch of politicians grandstanding for their constituents.

what they should be looking into are the contracts the carriers are requiring consumers to sign in order to get service. when the consumers aren't happy with the service provided, they DON'T have a choice to leave and go elsewhere without pay huge fees.

I AM NOT referring to subsidies either. i am strictly speaking of service contracts and having to pay early termination fees.

the only contracts a consumer should have to sign should be related to the purchase of cellular equipment that is subsidized. if i leave a carrier before that contract is over, i either hand back over the phone, or i pay the "difference" on the subsidy.

i should be able to leave ATT, or Tmobile at any time i am not happy with their service and go somewhere else. the contracts they have the consumers signing are only in place because they know they cant retain customers any other way.

I agree with you here completely this is the real issue.

 

[samab]

Here we go again, just keep changing the flow of the discussion. Ignoring points and nitpicking stuff just to proof your point.

Why are you so adamant about ETF? Most people will obey the contract, not having to deal with ETF. It's how it is. It's a simple tradeoff of getting a subsidized phone. That sounds fair to me. Nothing to do with having the phones provider-locked. Don't want to risk ETF, go prepaid. At least without provider-locking, I know that once I'm done with the contract, I can take the phone that I paid for and use it somewhere else, unlike currently in the US where even after the contract, the phone is still provider-locked. Or are you more interested in thinking that you're "cheating the man," intentionally get into a contract and trying to get out of it without penalty?

You seem to indicate that the consumer's view is what matters. And also stating that Hong Kong has the same legal framework, exactly the same thing in the US. Fine. I'll take that. But explain this. Why can't I buy the iPhone unlocked in the US, officially from Apple/AT&T? Why won't AT&T unlock the iPhone, even after the contract is done? Obviously that's not the same consumer experience then huh.

Perhaps you want to take your extremely old 2 year old phone to another carrier, but most people don't. And every phone except the iphone can be unlocked for free by the carriers. Whether the end-users obtain those unlocking codes from their carriers, that's an entirely different matter.

The BIG difference between Hong Kong and USA is that Hong Kong has 6 carriers and the Bush administration allowed telecom mergers to take place and the American market went from 6 national carriers down to 4 national carriers. Nothing to do with simlocking laws, nothing to do with exclusivity --- it is the allowance of telecom mergers with minimal amount of anti-trust oversight.

 

[flar]

I'm not sure how this works in other countries, but perhaps one of the problems in the US was that the infrastructure was left to the companies. Now we have the situation where the frequencies are essentially a shared resource "owned" by the people. They license use of that frequncy (set) to a company who spends a huge amount of money building an infrastructure of towers to support transmission on that frequency and now we have a deadlock. If the companies are not playing in the best interest of the people, they sort of have the "right" to deny usage rights for the shared resource (via the FCC). But, if they do so then the company will likely "take their towers and go home" leaving them with no real alternative for a new company to step in and do better.

If this was simply a matter of running wires as it had been for earlier technologies, then a new company could start up and string new wires - even while the old company was still providing service. They could then provide an alternative alongside the existing company that had built the previous infrastructure and potentially drive it out of business.

But, in the case of airwave frequencies, you can't have 2 "wires" coexisting on the frequencies that have been adopted by the industry. There do happen to be 2 sets of frequencies in use for 3G, but that doesn't open the game up much and 1 of those frequencies is much more popular world-wide which makes it the main frequency to worry about.

So, we can't have a new company build towers around the US to compete on the existing frequency as long as the old company owns it. (Not to mention having to add double the towers would increase the eyesore ratio.) And you can't remove rights from the current company if they aren't playing to your satisfaction because that would leave a sudden hole.

It seems like the solution should have been to view the building of the towers as part of the "resource" of the airwave frequencies rather than leaving it to the private companies. In the end, we now have a resource that is partly "owned" by the people, and partly "owned" by the private companies (due to their investment in the towers) and no ability to be agile about its allocation. In practice, the precious resource of the airwave frequencies was effectively "given away" and a private company is now sitting pretty on a drug that we all want... ;-)

(Although I'd love to be proven wrong and hear that the licensing agreement for these frequencies included provisions to reclaim the spectrum for violations in a way that could allow a new provider to step in...)

 

[chaosconan]

pika2000 and samab

Please keep it going. I love reading your arguments and rebuttal. This is very educational. You guys are Awesome!!!

 

[rjohnstone]

Where in that definition does the case fall of a company which is given the "right" to use a precious and limited resource by the people in order for them to do business?

The people didn't give AT&T the "right" to those frequencies, AT&T bought that right from the people. The "people" were well compensated.

There are not infinite cell phone network possibilities - there are only 4 voice frequencies and 2 3G frequencies available. After that there is no more room for competition.

In order to apply these rules of "free market" you need to have an open possibility of another party to come along and enter the game. That doesn't exist here, the 2 3G frequencies (really only 1 of them makes sense in the worldwide arena) have both been spoken for.

And, how does this apply to companies that have licensed their rights to provide service to the people that own the very resource that they had to license?

You obviously have no clue how mobile technology works do you?

There are only 2 GSM frequencies used in the US and Canada (850 and 1900), 4 primary CDMA frequencies (700, 800, 1700 and 2100) and 3 3G UMTS/HSDPA (850, 1700 and 1900)
and the 700 band will be available very soon.

Cell frequencies operate within a range and not on any one specific frequency.

Within those frequencies are channels that allow multiple carriers to operate in the same base frequency range while still retaining a proprietary connection. This method is not done very much in the US, but it is available

So your frequency limitations argument fails.

Again why would we buy it from the cell service provider?
Do you buy your PC from your ISP?

Poor analogy as you don't "need" and ISP to use a PC.
They have these cool things called removable media and install CD/DVD's.
You don't "need" internet access to use a PC. You can perform this stuff called "work" or even have fun on a PC without an ISP. A PC is still a functioning PC even without internet access.

A cell phone is pretty useless without a carrier providing service to it.
A cell phone without service is a paperweight or a portable game player and/or media at best. But it is no longer a phone.

 

[polaris20]

am i the only one who hates verizon??
I really can't stand their phones, or their image. And yeah so what they have an expansive network (that for most people somehow seems to get coverage on the moon), but it's CDMA and only relevant in this country.

I don't see apple ever designing for that. perhaps they'll make an LTE iphone but in that case AT&T and Verizon will both have crappy networks and be at square one.

I've had AT&T/Cingular for over 8 years now, and have had no problem with their service. Sure sometimes I don't get bars when others do or a call gets dropped but geez I see that on every cell phone, on various networks.

And how the hell has exclucivity allowed them to have a monopoly? Apple and AT&T agreed to be exclusive, it allows control over the system, hardware and distribution. That's forcing all PC software developers to make the same product for mac, so that everyone can have it. You want an iPhone you have to buy the whole package. And in the US AT&T is part of that package. Unhappy drop your service and go get a Blackberry Storm from Verizon.

Say there wasn't an exclucivity contract, that doesen't mean apple has to sell it to every carrier out there. What if carrier A or B doesen't support necessary technology to allow complete use of the phone?

I don't like AT&T or Verizon here in IL. AT&T is nearly useless in most areas, and Verizon isn't all that hot the further from the city you get. T-Mobile, in my experience works the best. I'll also add that I've traveled in California, Washington State, NC, SC, Florida, Boston, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas, Vegas, and Arizona using a variety of phones on these networks (Treos, Blackjacks, and Blackberrys on AT&T, Q's, Blackberrys and Saga on Verizon, Blackberry and various Moto flip phones on T-Mobile) and honestly T-Mobile was the best. Slow internet access, but call quality and consistency were fantastic.

All anecdotal, yes. But I can't quite understand the near infallible praise heaped upon either Verizon or AT&T.

 

[AbSoluTc]

am i the only one who hates verizon??
I really can't stand their phones, or their image. And yeah so what they have an expansive network (that for most people somehow seems to get coverage on the moon), but it's CDMA and only relevant in this country.

I don't see apple ever designing for that. perhaps they'll make an LTE iphone but in that case AT&T and Verizon will both have crappy networks and be at square one.

I've had AT&T/Cingular for over 8 years now, and have had no problem with their service. Sure sometimes I don't get bars when others do or a call gets dropped but geez I see that on every cell phone, on various networks.




And how the hell has exclucivity allowed them to have a monopoly? Apple and AT&T agreed to be exclusive, it allows control over the system, hardware and distribution. That's forcing all PC software developers to make the same product for mac, so that everyone can have it. You want an iPhone you have to buy the whole package. And in the US AT&T is part of that package. Unhappy drop your service and go get a Blackberry Storm from Verizon.

Say there wasn't an exclucivity contract, that doesen't mean apple has to sell it to every carrier out there. What if carrier A or B doesen't support necessary technology to allow complete use of the phone?

No, your not the only one that hates Verizon either. I do to. We have had them for years. Customer service is a joke, the phones always have problems, not to mention they are crap. The selection of phones again - junk. You also have to deal with the crap they load up on them. More junk.

They "might" have the largest network, but it means NOTHING when the customer service and devices used and needed - are crap.


This is why I tried the iPhone 3G in August of last year. I have had AT&T for a year now and picked up the 3GS. I have been very happy with the service and customer service is awesome. I switched my family over to AT&T and got rid of Verizon. Don't plan to go back - iPhone/LTE/Unlock or whatever. They are terrible.

 

[Stately]

There's no downside to YOU! You get the phone you want on the network you want! Of course, you'd like it. I'd like to have my iPhone on Verizon (they offer 3G in my area and AT&T doesn't -- so I'm stuck on Edge), but I believe in the agreement and will wait it out. AT&T's contract will only last so long.

There are downsides to the businesses it would affect if the goverment decided in favor of this thinking. Major downsides that I don't want to see happen. Business has a right to thrive and grow and to invent ways of advantage. That's the purpose of competition: finding ways to create choice that will lure the consumer to you. If every phone company had exactly the same phones, exactly the same service, exactly the same rates -- well, I suppose we would all choose the logo we liked better or the shortest name to make our monthly bill paying-checking writing easier. But that's not business. Let businesses create their own differences instead of trying to make them all the same with all the same advantages.

You seem to forget as well as many here that AT&T was the one company who BELIEVED in Apple and agreed to their terms of doing the phone exactly how they wanted. AT&T didn't even SEE the phone until just before Steve's keynote in January 2007. Shouldn't AT&T's faith garner them the right to have the phone in the exclusive manner it was originally agreed upon?

Hindsight is 20/20. Sure any and every phone company who passed on Apple before HISTORY is wishing they had made the deal first. But they didn't. AT&T made the right move and deserve whatever deal that is now in place without the government butting in.

Your way of thinking is tantamount to thinking that it's unfair that DREAMWORKS and McDONALD'S teamed up to bring toys from their latest SHREK FILM to be sold with their children's menu at McDonald's instead of the restaurant that you tend to go to. Where does it stop? Does it stop at Major chain fast food or can now Mom and Pop restaurants complain that they want the toys too so they can sell them with their food? It's ludicrous, yes?! But it's the same thinking that you are proposing is a good thing ---> AND IT ISN'T!!!!

Funny, cause from what I heard, AT&T was the second choice. Verizon was the first choice and they turned the iphone down. AT&T needed something new and fresh to bring in more cash. Also if you feel that that's just how businesses are run, then wow is all I can say. It DOES show that you are in favor of an oligopolistic system. If this is so, then all phone companies need to bring all prices way down to accommodate, because frankly, we are being abused as consumers, not helped in any way. I don't know why that is not visible to some of the posters here. Not to mention that is not how all businesses are run. The last time I checked businesses were developed as a way to make life easy for the customer, to please the customer with ones efforts in a particular field and for the owner to turn an honest profit for said service. This example that you support is greed and nothing more. I don't care if one has millions, thousands or only pennies, this behavior should not be supported. When you speak of businesses having the right to grow and find advantages, that doesn't really apply for businesses like phone companies. Essentially all your paying for is a connection. Is there a group of guys that hold two ends of a giant wire together somewhere using all their muscle so I can get a better connection with AT&T than with Tmobile? No. What I'm saying is, the way you describe this type of business is as if it were some sort of trade or required a special skill of some kind and that those in question should have the right to hike prices just because they know people can't escape and that is terribly inconsiderate on their part my friend. There's no ten dollar milk and the shelves are somehow empty at the end of every day. It's about greed and nothing more. All he skill involved comes from he makers of the phones, we get great features imbedded and hate using them after a while because of what? Greed.

 

[flar]

The people didn't give AT&T the "right" to those frequencies, AT&T bought that right from the people. The "people" were well compensated.

Well, yes, obviously AT&T paid for the use of those frequencies. The point is, they didn't just independently decide to start up and provide service out of the blue without any say - they had to apply for the licenses to provide that service. Somewhere there is a contract that governs their ability to provide these services. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the stipulations in that contract. Certainly, it would be wise for "the people" to stipulate various contractual obligations that enhance the competitiveness of the service in future iterations of the contract if they aren't already there. Given how much is done to ensure phone service to remote and low income regions of the US, I doubt that the contract was left totally open to the quality and nature of the services that were to be provided on those licensed frequencies.

You obviously have no clue how mobile technology works do you?

I probably have enough information to get myself in trouble. ;-)

But I think I know more than you gave me credit for.

There are only 2 GSM frequencies used in the US and Canada (850 and 1900), 4 primary CDMA frequencies (700, 800, 1700 and 2100) and 3 3G UMTS/HSDPA (850, 1700 and 1900)
and the 700 band will be available very soon.

Cell frequencies operate within a range and not on any one specific frequency.

Agreed. You also have to examine how those frequencies are used in other countries as that tends to come up in whether or not handset manufacturers are willing to build phones that support your carrier's frequencies. In that respect AT&T seems to have gotten the more popular 3G network and so enjoys an easy road with handset manufacturers already.

Within those frequencies are channels that allow multiple carriers to operate in the same base frequency range while still retaining a proprietary connection. This method is not done very much in the US, but it is available

So your frequency limitations argument fails.

OK, that conflicts with my understanding and descriptions I've seen elsewhere. From what I've seen and read, the channels within the range seem to be there for multiple simultaneous calls to be handled at the same time, not for multiple independent carriers to use that part of the spectrum at the same time. I've seen lots of descriptions of carriers sharing hardware infrastructure - including towers and antenna even - and descriptions of carriers operating on another's network (i.e. one company owns the frequency range and manages the towers and transmissions on that frequency band and rents use of it to another in the same manner as a roaming agreement), but I've never seen any description that says that 2 carriers can both provide independent service on the same frequency range.

Where have you seen sharing of a frequency band described?

 

[Skuman]

People who live outside the US who have "open" cellphone markets (my definition: you buy a cellphone from a store and you get a sim from your cellphone service provider; if you want a subsidised cellphone, you get it (unlocked) from the service provider and sign a contract with an early termination fee) really wonder why people from the US are in a tizz about the "free market" vs "socialism/communism". This is a system that just works. We're wondering when you'll revert to this open system, in the same way we're wondering which country is going to be last to go metric: Myanmar, Liberia or the USA.

 

[windywoo]

Poor analogy as you don't "need" and ISP to use a PC.
They have these cool things called removable media and install CD/DVD's.
You don't "need" internet access to use a PC. You can perform this stuff called "work" or even have fun on a PC without an ISP. A PC is still a functioning PC even without internet access.

A cell phone is pretty useless without a carrier providing service to it.
A cell phone without service is a paperweight or a portable game player and/or media at best. But it is no longer a phone.

Maybe a better analogy is buying your TV and only being allowed to watch certain stations.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Maybe a better analogy is buying your TV and only being allowed to watch certain stations.

You are only allowed to watch certain stations. You can get the free local channels unless you pay monthly for a package of more stations from a provider.

A better, better analogy is someone complaining that they can only watch a certain show on a certain station (I had an example earlier in the thread: you complain that you can't watch Mythbusters on Cartoon Network even though you want to).

 

[rjohnstone]

OK, that conflicts with my understanding and descriptions I've seen elsewhere. From what I've seen and read, the channels within the range seem to be there for multiple simultaneous calls to be handled at the same time, not for multiple independent carriers to use that part of the spectrum at the same time. I've seen lots of descriptions of carriers sharing hardware infrastructure - including towers and antenna even - and descriptions of carriers operating on another's network (i.e. one company owns the frequency range and manages the towers and transmissions on that frequency band and rents use of it to another in the same manner as a roaming agreement), but I've never seen any description that says that 2 carriers can both provide independent service on the same frequency range.

Where have you seen sharing of a frequency band described?

Up until 3 years ago, AT&T and T-Mobile shared towers and the same 850 band frequency in the state of Arizona.
Cingular (AT&T) was in the process of switching all their towers from TDMA to GSM and needed to be able to support the newer GSM handsets while they phased out the older TDMA ones.
They entered into a sharing agreement with T-Mobile to share T-Mobiles GSM space while they got thiers up and running.
AT&T now uses the 1900 GSM band in AZ and has since phased out the sharing agreement with T-Mobile.

As for how they can share the same frequecy, that's pretty easy actually. Every phone transmit the carrier info when it registers with a tower. This tells the tower what frequency and channels it can use and what carrier to route the signal too if a call comes in.

Works very similar to how a network router works.

GSM 850 band operates within the followng spectrum [824.0–849.0 Uplink / 869.0–894.0 Downlink / Channel 128–251]

GSM 1900 uses [1850.0–1910.0 Uplink / 1930.0–1990.0 Downlink / Channel 512–810]