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

[flar]

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.

Yes, T-Mobile was using AT&T networks in many areas while they built out their own, but my understanding was that it was via a roaming agreement, not by managing its own transmitters on the same frequency as AT&T. In that article I linked to you will see that this was a 2-way agreement since both of them had areas covered that the other wanted (though I think AT&T built themselves out of the need for it faster than T-Mobile). It was roaming, not "using the same frequencies" and it was only possible on that kind of scale because both had a need that the other could satisfy.

As T-Mobile built towers in various areas they switched off their roaming agreements with AT&T, but it required actually installing their own transmitters, not simply switching frequencies to a new frequency. This happend in a lot of markets, not just AZ.

 

[charlituna]

I am glad to see there are still american institutions capable of defending consumer interests against corporate giants. Let's hope they force companies to more honest practices. Apple should be fines as well for initiating this whole thing.

Apple hardly initated all this. device locking has been going on for, well as long as cell phones have existed. Apple didn't really have a choice if they wanted to get the someone to service the phone and to help pay the development costs. They are well aware that folks want a choice even if it is just ATT or T-Mobile. Apple isn't likely to keep the phones locked one day longer than required by their contract with ATT. nor are they likely to give an extensions they don't have to

Even worse, they still force you into a contract even if you bring your own phone.

you sure about that. as in you bought a full price iphone and then went to ATT to activate it and they made you sign a contract, with ETF etc.

because if that is true, someone needs to tell Apple they were lied to cause they are saying full price is no contract.

 

[marksman]

For me this says pretty much everything I need to read about this to dismiss this as nonsense.

AT&T and Verizon are expected to be the prime targets of the inquiry, as the two companies control a combined 60% of the U.S

Really? We are launching anti-trust investigations because the top 2 companies in an industry who account for 60% of the business are doing something that others don't like?

This is a non-starter in terms of exclusivity agreements. Phone manufacturers can make exclusivity agreements with carriers if they want to...it is their product and they can certainly decide who they want selling it.

People are trying to flip it around, but the reality is this is the phone makers agreeing with the wireless companies so they can have their phones distributed. Beyond that though, there are other issues. Again, fundamentally, it is a non-starter to be telling manufacturers who they have to sell their product to... they can sell it to whomever they want.

 

[pika2000]

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.

The 2 year upgrade cycle becomes a trend simply because that's the average contract length in the US. I don't see what relevance that is into carriers locking phones. Besides, whatever I want to do with the phone that I already pay for should not have anything to do with the carrier. As for unlocking codes, why does the iPhone have to be different? Why don't carriers simply advertise upfront that users can ask for unlock codes for free? Why does it have to be a "secret"? Why do users have to beg/go through difficult conversation to get their phones unlocked? (this is with AT&T, T-mobile has the unadvertised 90day policy and is pretty lenient) Why prepaid phones are still provider-locked? Why don't the carriers simply unlock the phones in the first place? In short, provider-locking have no logic behind it. It's simply an anti-competitive business practice. That's my point. We don't see PCs being locked on Comcast as the sole ISP. We don't see landline phones being locked into QWEST. The lay consumers don't care about those things either, but we don't see provider-locking-kind of business practices with those markets. Why cellphones have to be different?

Okay, now we're talking about Bush. This is actually a good thing, especially for those people that are claiming US cellular market is a free market. Fact is, it's not a free market, as the government is already involved like you have stated. The least they should do now is prevent anti-competitive practices and put more consumer protection.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

None of your comments make one bit of sense to me.

Then you need to go back to school and keep repeating it until either you get it or your brain explodes.

 

[pika2000]

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.

Unless if AT&T decided to give Apple a boat-load of money. I don't think AT&T want Apple to go, especially after seeing the sales of the 3G and 3GS. Apple is already irked with AT&T (a lot of the complaints about the iPhone are AT&T related, plus MMS+tethering), but in the end, if the price is right, they could extend the exclusivity.

I don't really have a problem with exclusivity. It's their choice. However, my major issue is provider locking. Like I already stated, in other countries, iPhones are being sold exclusively through a carrier, but it's unlocked out of the box. I fail to see why AT&T has to lock the iPhone. This is imo the real issue, and the DoJ is looking at it from the wrong way.

 

[pika2000]

you sure about that. as in you bought a full price iphone and then went to ATT to activate it and they made you sign a contract, with ETF etc.

because if that is true, someone needs to tell Apple they were lied to cause they are saying full price is no contract.

There was a story about a guy with his old first gen iPhone that is out of contract already. He wanted to get the iPhone 3GS, and give the old iPhone to his family member. Obviously since the iPhone is locked to AT&T, the family member has to go with AT&T, and when they got in, AT&T wanted the person to be on another 2 year contract, even though technically that 1st gen iPhone is out of contract already.

AT&T does sell no-contract iPhones at full price (nothing new, they do this for all other phones they sell), but all of them are still provider locked, even though technically you're paying full price with no commitment. Talk about illogical.

I'm just going to say this again. I have no issue with contracts (I was ready to get the iPhone when it was first announced, thinking that since Apple is selling it at full price and they're talking how they would change the cellphone market that it would not be locked. But decided not to once I know it's still provider-locked) nor exclusivity. My beef complaint is provider-locking.

 

[xIGmanIx]

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).

not exactly, its like saying i can only buy a certain TiVo to work on your cable, not satelite because Comcast made a deal, not because the hardware is limiting you

 

[iphones4evry1]

AT&T charges waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much for voice minutes.
They force us to buy at least $39.99 worth of minutes every month, and most people don't even use a quarter of that. They need a $29.99 plan for voice minutes. I would still be spending much more on data and text. Voice minutes are sooooooo yesterday. We still need them because we still make phone calls, but we don't need several thousand minutes every month. That's just ridiculous!

 

[Winters75]

That and Euroweenies all live on top of each other. Real countries like the USA and Australia have to deal with distance, low densities (while the USA has high density overall, it is all concentrated in a few cities, the density in most places is low).

Move somewhere else...

 

[MarkAK]

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.

You don’t need cell service to use a BB, iphone or any smart phone. Are you using it to its fullest capability? No but you can use it (as you stated) as an iPOD or PDA etc....

Again I should be able to by my cell phone directly from the manufacturer and receive better technical service also!

What about land line phones? I don’t buy them from the service provider......anymore. I can buy it from the manufacturer or authorized retailer and elect to use it with phone service or not (paperweight).

I buy my TV from Best buy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to Direct TV and I was told I had to buy a new TV?

I buy my Phone from BestBuy not AT$T.
What if I changed from AT$T to Comcast and I was told I had to buy a new phone?

I buy my PC from BestBuy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to AT$T and I was told I had to buy a new PC?

All three of these devices require you to purchase a service to fully use them.

I buy my gas from any gas station I choose.
What if I change from Mobile to Getty and the car manufacturer told me i had to buy a new car......lol okay you get my point.

 

[diamond.g]

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.

Everytime someone mentions rocking the boat of the established players using the federal government that argument always pops up. We Americans seem to believe (almost to a fault) that if the people want something the market will provide.

you sure about that. as in you bought a full price iphone and then went to ATT to activate it and they made you sign a contract, with ETF etc.

because if that is true, someone needs to tell Apple they were lied to cause they are saying full price is no contract.

AT&T tells you that you are agreeing to a data plan for two years and that the device has to have one to operate on the network. Someone posted something in the iPhone forum that claimed they are starting to do data sweeps. Adding a data plan to those whom are not using one. According to the agreement Apple has with AT&T you have to have a data plan to use the iPhone on the AT&T network. At least that is what they told that poster.

 

[marco114]

I buy my TV from Best buy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to Direct TV and I was told I had to buy a new TV?

I buy my Phone from BestBuy not AT$T.
What if I changed from AT$T to Comcast and I was told I had to buy a new phone?

I buy my PC from BestBuy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to AT$T and I was told I had to buy a new PC?

All three of these devices require you to purchase a service to fully use them.

I buy my gas from any gas station I choose.
What if I change from Mobile to Getty and the car manufacturer told me i had to buy a new car......lol okay you get my point.

Ok, but that's not a feature of a car when you buy it. When you BUY an iPhone, you are agreeing to the terms. If you don't agree. don't buy. If cars were advertised the same way, then you'd have to make the decision to buy a car.

What you are implying is that those cars and TVs you mention are already "open" to numerous networks and gas stations. They are advertised and not restricted in that way.

When you buy an iPhone, you're agreeing to use it on AT&T. there's nothing scrupulous about it. sorry.

 

[nkawtg72]

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 ......

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?

with all do respect, although this sounds like a convincing argument, it in actually has nothing to do with two entities agreeing to do business together. Apple agreeing to distribute their product through ATT has nothing to do with ATT and whether its living up to this quote bargain that you are speaking of to manage wireless spectrum. i wont even begin to argue with you that you have that twisted beyond reality with the way it really is.

also, at what point did someone put the gun to apple's head and tell them to make a phone in the first place? the choice you ask about, was a voluntary one on apple's part to enter in the market. its entrance into the market wasnt blocked by any monopoly that another cellphone manufacturer may have had on the market, nor did apple's entrance into the market (along with the agreement they made with att) create a monopoly preventing any other manufacturer from remaining or entering into the market as well. apple brought competition to the market, hence forcing other manufacturers as well as carriers to pay attention and to also make a voluntary choice to either continue down the path they were on or provide competition to apple's smartphone.

wisely, they chose to provide competition, and that's why we see them putting specific models of phones and service plans up in direct competition to the iPhone on ATT.

Apple did go to verizon, and couldnt get what they wanted, so they went to ATT and met with success. as my previous post suggests, there is NO RIGHT to happiness, only the pursuit of it. to say that the agreement that apple made was NOT in their best interest makes you sound pretty naive. you are suggesting then, that apple only agreed to the terms out of the goodness of their hearts because they wanted to see ATT make a crap load of money. forgive me, but apple's agreement with ATT may not have been perfect for them, but it was the best agreement any manufacturer had been able to get out of a cell carrier in decades.

apple expected visual voicemail, and att had to step up and integrate the necessary technologies to support it.

apple asked for at home activation and got that too. and before you point out to me that they no longer do that, ill remind you that the original phone wasnt subsidized. in store activation, for good reason, helps protect ATT financial investment in the sale of the phone.

apple was even able to prevent a carrier from BRANDING a device used on their network. i cant say all phones, but every phone ive come in contact with has always had the logo of its respective carrier plastered all over it, many times instead of or more prominent than the logo of the manufacturer.

add to that one, apple was also successful in not letting a carrier load a device up with all of its own junk software.

so dont try and pretend that apple didnt like or even benefit from this agreement that was "forced" (to use your words) down their throat.

 

[Tallest Skil]

not exactly, its like saying i can only buy a certain TiVo to work on your cable, not satelite because Comcast made a deal, not because the hardware is limiting you

But the hardware IS limiting you in this case, so that's not applicable.

The iPhone doesn't work on T-Mobile's, Centennial's, or anyone else's 3G network, and you can't use it on Verizon, Sprint, or any of the local CDMA providers at all.

 

[diamond.g]

with all do respect, although this sounds like a convincing argument, it in actually has nothing to do with two entities agreeing to do business together. Apple agreeing to distribute their product through ATT has nothing to do with ATT and whether its living up to this quote bargain that you are speaking of to manage wireless spectrum. i wont even begin to argue with you that you have that twisted beyond reality with the way it really is.

also, at what point did someone put the gun to apple's head and tell them to make a phone in the first place? the choice you ask about, was a voluntary one on apple's part to enter in the market. its entrance into the market wasnt blocked by any monopoly that another cellphone manufacturer may have had on the market, nor did apple's entrance into the market (along with the agreement they made with att) create a monopoly preventing any other manufacturer from remaining or entering into the market as well. apple brought competition to the market, hence forcing other manufacturers as well as carriers to pay attention and to also make a voluntary choice to either continue down the path they were on or provide competition to apple's smartphone.

wisely, they chose to provide competition, and that's why we see them putting specific models of phones and service plans up in direct competition to the iPhone on ATT.

Apple did go to verizon, and couldnt get what they wanted, so they went to ATT and met with success. as my previous post suggests, there is NO RIGHT to happiness, only the pursuit of it. to say that the agreement that apple made was NOT in their best interest makes you sound pretty naive. you are suggesting then, that apple only agreed to the terms out of the goodness of their hearts because they wanted to see ATT make a crap load of money. forgive me, but apple's agreement with ATT may not have been perfect for them, but it was the best agreement any manufacturer had been able to get out of a cell carrier in decades.

apple expected visual voicemail, and att had to step up and integrate the necessary technologies to support it.

apple asked for at home activation and got that too. and before you point out to me that they no longer do that, ill remind you that the original phone wasnt subsidized. in store activation, for good reason, helps protect ATT financial investment in the sale of the phone.

apple was even able to prevent a carrier from BRANDING a device used on their network. i cant say all phones, but every phone ive come in contact with has always had the logo of its respective carrier plastered all over it, many times instead of or more prominent than the logo of the manufacturer.

add to that one, apple was also successful in not letting a carrier load a device up with all of its own junk software.

so dont try and pretend that apple didnt like or even benefit from this agreement that was "forced" (to use your words) down their throat.

You don't get device branding if you get the device from the manufacturer. I do think that the gov should make it a rule that you can get your phone unlocked for use on any carrier with a compatible network after you fulfill the contract terms (either 2 years or ETF). The unlock code should be from the device manufacturer and not the service provider that way we don't get the stupid charge like they did for wireless number portability (which was also mandated by the gov).

 

[windywoo]

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).

No, the analogy still holds, because you can choose which provider, at least you can where I live. Your analogy is more like someone complaining they can only talk to customers on one network, something which would cause a huge outcry.

 

[nkawtg72]

You don’t need cell service to use a BB, iphone or any smart phone. Are you using it to its fullest capability? No but you can use it (as you stated) as an iPOD or PDA etc....

Again I should be able to by my cell phone directly from the manufacturer and receive better technical service also!

What about land line phones? I don’t buy them from the service provider......anymore. I can buy it from the manufacturer or authorized retailer and elect to use it with phone service or not (paperweight).

I buy my TV from Best buy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to Direct TV and I was told I had to buy a new TV?

I buy my Phone from BestBuy not AT$T.
What if I changed from AT$T to Comcast and I was told I had to buy a new phone?

I buy my PC from BestBuy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to AT$T and I was told I had to buy a new PC?

All three of these devices require you to purchase a service to fully use them.

I buy my gas from any gas station I choose.
What if I change from Mobile to Getty and the car manufacturer told me i had to buy a new car......lol okay you get my point.

the problem with arguments like this is they tend to ignore one major fact:
you, as an individual, ARE CHOOSING to participate in the market.

no one is forcing you to buy a tv, and when you do buy one, no one is telling you where you have to buy it from. i would like to buy brand X of a tv from best buy, but they only carry brands Y and Z. should the government step in and tell brand X and best buy, that they must sell brand X to me because im able to get brand X at WalMart?

no one is forcing you to buy a car. your decision to buy a car, means you will have to invest in it to continue to use it. that means buying gas, and again, you have a choice on where to buy gas. do i have the "right" to complain that i can't get Chevron gas at a BP?! if you had your way, it sounds like i should. i think chevron gas is better, but i like the hot dogs at BP better, so i would rather shop there. before you say, but Ford cant tell me i have to use BP gas. do they, no. can they require it? believe or not, yes. if when you bought the car from Ford you signed a contract, and made an agreement, that for X number of years, or for the life of the car, or for the duration of the warranty, or for the duration of the Ford financing, that you would use only BP gas, then by contract (enforceable by law) you would have to do that. and going back to that warranty point for a moment. when you buy a car, it comes with a manufacturers warranty (sometimes you even buy an additional or extended) and in the terms of that warranty it defines how you must use the car, and take care of the car, in order for the warranty to cover any problems with the car. racing, is a good example. most warranties come right out and say that if they determine that you used the vehicle for extreme duty situations like that, the warranty is void. but wait, i paid for the warranty!!! and isnt it my car!!!! dont i have the RIGHT to take that car racing?!?! answers: YES, YES, and YES. but Ford also has the right to say you violated the contract, so they wont fix the transmission.

buying a computer, again is a choice. using that computer on the internet, again is a choice. buying the computer is one market. getting on the internet is another. the two markets are independent of one another. believe it or not, i can actually make a choice to participate in the Internet market, and also choose NOT to participate in the Computer market. i can choose to go to the public library, and browse the internet for free. or go to a friends house and use his. or go to my school and use a computer lab.

to carry that out further. those are all choices and options i have to participate in the internet market, but they all come with a "price", i must agree to specific terms of use when i do it. to use the library or school, i may have to agree to a time limit, or even a restriction on the sites i can go to (ie NO PORN). or to use my friends, i must agree to only be there during times of the day that are convenient to him and may not be that convenient to me.

like my previous posts have said, at least in the US, you do NOT have the Right to a product or even a Right to participate in a Market. i will not rehash that here, if it matters to you, go back to page 18 or 19 on this forum and read my post discussing it.

ive tried to stay away from too many analogies, but i am reminded of one.

if i were to walk up to you on the street and tackle you face first into the pavement, i would have violated your Rights. my Rights end where yours begin. however, if you and i were on a football field during a game and i did the same thing, there would be nothing wrong with that. why is that?! because you and i agreed to participate in the game and to the terms (rules) of engagement. if these rules are not pleasant to you, then get off the field of play and out of the game.

choosing to own a cell phone and having cellular service, and participating in that market, means agreeing to certain rules. those rules are presented to you in the form of a contract, and terms of service, when you buy your phone or activate service. if you do not like those terms, dont agree to them. i dont like the way a lot of carriers run their businesses any more than the rest of you, but i still recognize that they are within their "right" to do so.

 

[nkawtg72]

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.

i cant speak for everyone, but even though i may agree with you and that an open system for cell phone purchase and activation would be great, i at the same time do not believe in a government interfering in a market. a consumers choice in participating in a market is exactly that, a choice. as long as the consumer as been properly informed of the terms of agreements or contracts, then i believe both parties (consumer and carrier) have behaved appropriately and nothing is wrong.

at the same time, what is at issue here, goes beyond the open market idea. it boils down to the government stepping in and interfering with the contracts of two private entities (apple and att for example) that have by choice decided to do business with each other. yes i think the government should monitor the markets for many reasons, but in this case, i am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with the exclusive agreements found between carriers and manufacturers.

 

[RaceJunkie]

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.

Rim does it why not Apple? If they want to be part of the cellular network then I say make them play fair. I love all my Apple devices but until Apple gets off their ass and spreads out to other carriers I will keep enjoying my loyal Blackberry.

 

[nkawtg72]

You don't get device branding if you get the device from the manufacturer. I do think that the gov should make it a rule that you can get your phone unlocked for use on any carrier with a compatible network after you fulfill the contract terms (either 2 years or ETF). The unlock code should be from the device manufacturer and not the service provider that way we don't get the stupid charge like they did for wireless number portability (which was also mandated by the gov).

personally, i agree with you. i think once you fulfill your end of the deal, then you should be able to use the device you invested time and money in however you like. whether a carrier allows you to use an unlocked phone on their network though should be up to them. i doubt too many would have a problem with that but my point is that just because we're able to get our devices unlocked at the end of contract, doesnt mean we will be guaranteed to find somewhere to use it.

 

[pdjudd]

Rim does it why not Apple? [/
Because they don't want to? You cannot force a company to participate in a market that they do not want to unless one company (in this case Apple) has huge market power.

quote]If they want to be part of the cellular network then I say make them play fair.

Every provider has exclusive phones on their networks. Why should Apple have to help their competitors create a better device. That is competition. You cannot penalize a company simply because they cannot accommodate everybody. It's absurd to think that supporting every carrier is an absolute requirement. CDMA is a minority technology. That is the only thing that Apple has to justify.

I love all my Apple devices but until Apple gets off their ass and spreads out to other carriers I will keep enjoying my loyal Blackberry.

See you are already making a choice here. If one comany does not make the product you want or offer the services you require, spend your money elsewhere. Sure its too bad that you can't always get what you want, but that's life. Life is not fair, never been claimed to be.

 

[nkawtg72]

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

i know others have already responded to this, but let me give it a stab too.

i pay for service with comcast. i chose comcast over several other options. some people only have one option, i luckily had many. i digress.

i pay for digital cable, and high speed internet with comcast. i get a specific set of channels with my purchase.

i have a friend who lives just an hour and a half away from me. he has comcast too. as a matter of fact, he has the same selection of services as i do. we've even compared our contracts, and their exactly the same.

HOWEVER, he's getting several channels in HD that i don't in his area. he's also getting channels in standard def that i dont get at all.

my point to this is that yes you are right, i can buy pretty much any tv and use it on comcast, but that is still no guarantee that ill get the same functionality out of it as someone else even if i have the same contract as they do with comcast.

cable content providers, broadcasters, cable companies, etc etc all have these same exclusivity contracts between themselves as the cell carriers and manufacturers do, which ultimately determines exactly what the consumers are able to do with their devices.

if my friend can get SpeedHD on his Comcast, why cant I?

once again, there is nothing new or on the surface wrong with these types of agreements. at least in the US, they are an integral part of our economy.

 

[diamond.g]

personally, i agree with you. i think once you fulfill your end of the deal, then you should be able to use the device you invested time and money in however you like. whether a carrier allows you to use an unlocked phone on their network though should be up to them. i doubt too many would have a problem with that but my point is that just because we're able to get our devices unlocked at the end of contract, doesnt mean we will be guaranteed to find somewhere to use it.

Well I do feel that the carriers should provide a cheaper level of service (basically sans subsidy repayment) after you fulfill the contract. It is too bad Americans as a whole like the whole subsidy thing. With it being so ingrained in our culture it is near impossible to break. Note how Apple tried (and failed miserably) to get out of the whole subsidy thing. People didn't buy, but with the phone selling at "199" people are all over it like white on rice...

 

[nkawtg72]

See you are already making a choice here. If one comany does not make the product you want or offer the services you require, spend your money elsewhere. Sure its too bad that you can't always get what you want, but that's life. Life is not fair, never been claimed to be.

ditto to that