Do your research...I looked at Sprint and it's $99.99 for unlimited all. For AT&T it's $129.99 and their network is much larger than Sprint's.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do your research...I looked at Sprint and it's $99.99 for unlimited all. For AT&T it's $129.99 and their network is much larger than Sprint's.
Exactly, this would be cooler if the big 4 us providers were all GSM family and the same frequencies like in the UK or Europe.
i beg to differ. with more competition between carriers for prices for the phone, and esp. monthly plans, the prices will go down.
That how verizon was for me. I had a year left on my contract and was so frustrated I gladly paid the ETF.
Verizon's customer service was top notch.
ATT might be ok but it seems they are hands off the iphone.
I think in August or September they will be something about verizon/iphone that some will be happy to learn.
Thats not the same at all. Can you buy Coca-Cola any where else? Can you buy a Hyundai anywhere else but certain dealerships? No, you can only buy cell phone service for your iphone from AT&T.
By each having an exclusivity agreement, the wireless service providers are not competing based on service. They are having to compete based on what the cell phone manufacturers have produced. If someone wants a G1 for example, they will have to pay whatever the greedy monopoly owners at their wireless service provider force them to pay every month. Cell phone manufacturers and service providers should be separate, non-exclusive, independent industries, that each compete separately. Otherwise, we end up with situations like the iPhone only being offered by AT&T and then AT&T can charge whatever they want and you will be forced to pay it, and they won't be motivated to add new features and improve the service.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Amen, Bro! Give us more choices! Stop the ripoffs.
I think this is great and hope it changes some things in the cell phone market.
I've seen the whole argument above about this game not being out for my console, or I want Mountain Dew at this restaurant. These arguments are missing the point. *Anyone* can go buy an Xbox 360, Wii, or PS3 to play whatever games are available for it. I can go buy a QPC and then stop at a gas station or Taco Bell to get a Mountain Dew.
However, I live in South Dakota and I CANNOT buy an iPhone to use here. Sure I can go to Minneapolis, buy one. However, I have to have a local address and I don't so I can't port my number as directed by the FCC. Even if I decide to rent a PO box there or use a friends address, I'll still get service cut off after a month or two because of too much roaming.
We're now on the 3rd gen iPhone, and all I can get is an iPod Touch and a Palm Pre which is eh... at best.
It's more about discrimination from a location perspective. If AT&T doesn't want to offer service in Buttcrack, SD that's fine and I agree with it. However, if Buttcrack Wireless has great service here and is technology wise compatible with a phone, I should be able to get one.
Done.
I've seen the whole argument above about this game not being out for my console, or I want Mountain Dew at this restaurant. These arguments are missing the point. *Anyone* can go buy an Xbox 360, Wii, or PS3 to play whatever games are available for it. I can go buy a QPC and then stop at a gas station or Taco Bell to get a Mountain Dew.
However, I live in South Dakota and I CANNOT buy an iPhone to use here. Sure I can go to Minneapolis, buy one. However, I have to have a local address and I don't so I can't port my number as directed by the FCC. Even if I decide to rent a PO box there or use a friends address, I'll still get service cut off after a month or two because of too much roaming.
We're now on the 3rd gen iPhone, and all I can get is an iPod Touch and a Palm Pre which is eh... at best.
It's more about discrimination from a location perspective. If AT&T doesn't want to offer service in Buttcrack, SD that's fine and I agree with it. However, if Buttcrack Wireless has great service here and is technology wise compatible with a phone, I should be able to get one.
Done.
Finally..
Finally a sign that someone in the US government is thinking a bit. The exclusive carrier deals have absolutely nothing that would benefit the customer. Nothing. The iPhone brought such exclusivity to Finland and it's currently the first and only such device. Hopefully the last one too.
Those who say there's something good about exclusivity should think for a moment.
1) The only thing exclusivity does is completely deny any competition. In both the handset price and carrier service prices. No competition, higher prices.
2) Making exclusive deals means that customers have no choice. They'll have to take the crappy service if they want some particular device. Quite obvious disadvantages here.
3) Making exclusive deals illegal doesnt make subsidising illegal. Nothing stops carriers from offering a device for a subsidised price if you agree for a certain contract for some certain amount of time. You're bound by contract but not forced by carrier locks and exclusivity.
4) Without exclusivity the other carriers can offer their services too. That's called competition which brings the service costs down. And the phone will be marketed like any other device, openly and with a clear price. That makes it harder to hide the price in the monthly subscription and other costs.
Devices and carrier services are two completely different things. They must definitely be kept separate and exclusivity denied. The thing goes deeper than just exclusivity but think about this for a moment. People have the weird idea that iPhone brought 3rd party apps. Made them possible. Thats BS. Making 3rd party apps has been possible almost from the beginning of the GSM era for Symbian, WM, Palm and other platforms. There's nothing new to it. But in the US (and some other markets) the carriers have been able to block people from installing 3rd party apps because they have way too much control over the devices. All I can say is WTF.
Ok.. I'll leave it at that.
Finally a sign that someone in the US government is thinking a bit. The exclusive carrier deals have absolutely nothing that would benefit the customer. Nothing. The iPhone brought such exclusivity to Finland and it's currently the first and only such device. Hopefully the last one too.
Those who say there's something good about exclusivity should think for a moment.
1) The only thing exclusivity does is completely deny any competition. In both the handset price and carrier service prices. No competition, higher prices.
2) Making exclusive deals means that customers have no choice. They'll have to take the crappy service if they want some particular device. Quite obvious disadvantages here.
3) Making exclusive deals illegal doesnt make subsidising illegal. Nothing stops carriers from offering a device for a subsidised price if you agree for a certain contract for some certain amount of time. You're bound by contract but not forced by carrier locks and exclusivity.
4) Without exclusivity the other carriers can offer their services too. That's called competition which brings the service costs down. And the phone will be marketed like any other device, openly and with a clear price. That makes it harder to hide the price in the monthly subscription and other costs.
Devices and carrier services are two completely different things. They must definitely be kept separate and exclusivity denied. The thing goes deeper than just exclusivity but think about this for a moment. People have the weird idea that iPhone brought 3rd party apps. Made them possible. Thats BS. Making 3rd party apps has been possible almost from the beginning of the GSM era for Symbian, WM, Palm and other platforms. There's nothing new to it. But in the US (and some other markets) the carriers have been able to block people from installing 3rd party apps because they have way too much control over the devices. All I can say is WTF
.Ok.. I'll leave it at that
.
Companies like at&t, Microsoft and big oil prove that our anti-trust laws are just there to make us feel better, until we realize they are fluff.
Could one company dominate 90% of the OS market if our anti-trust laws were effective, at all?
Edit: Not to mention that the government's use of Windows far exceeds 90% share. Anti-trust laws are a farce.
I hope that you are joking and forgot that sarcasm tag because otherwise, you sound like a communist.
Exclusive deals are the hallmark of the free market economy and it is how one company can gain a competitive advantage over others. That is how capitalism works.
Exactly. And remember, the Wireless Carriers are not the 'monopolists' here. If anyone is guilty, and I don't think anyone really is, then it is Apple (and the other cell phone makers). They win with exclusive deals...all ATT did was say 'yes' when asked (something that the idiots over at Verizon refused to do).
It scares me to think that there are people posting in this thread that thing what Apple and AT&T have is good thing.
I agree. Many of us naturally only consider immediate short-term benefits to ourselves.
But the government continually circumventing businesses will only expand its own power and dictatorship—the snowball effect
Not a problem. Don't tell me you really believe there isn't already a CDMA iPhone prototype in the Top Secret Apple iPhone lab.
Next.
Nobody is forcing you to get an iPhone. Smartphones require data plans on top of the usual voice and texting and nobody at AT&T is forcing you to get an unlimited for everything type of plan. There are cheaper plans that still qualify for subsidized iPhone pricing.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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The biggest problem with this is.. the government is investigating phone exclusivity, but not the myriad of other evils the phone companies consistently inflict on people.
2 year contracts with huge early termination fees?
Locking down phones and nickel-and-diming you to death on ringtones and wallpaper?
Massively overpriced and under-provided data bandwidth?
The iPhone/at&t exclusivity deal is the least of our cellular problems in this country.
2 year contracts with huge early termination fees?
Locking down phones and nickel-and-diming you to death on ringtones and wallpaper?
Massively overpriced and under-provided data bandwidth?
The iPhone/at&t exclusivity deal is the least of our cellular problems in this country.
"My bad." You're right. I looked at the chart wrong. 69.99 compares with 89.99, and 99.99 compares with 149.99.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
I don't disagree with most of your sentiment, but I think 2-year contracts have been around a little longer than 3 years ago. I got my first cell phone back in 97 or 98 when then-PacBell (now AT&T) first entered the wireless business. I honestly don't recall a contract then, but when PacBell became Cingular I seem to recall 2 year contracts being fairly common. And I switched to Verizon back in 2001 and I KNOW there was a 2year committment I had to agree to then.
Regardless, I agree that I would rather pay "full-price" upfront for a phone, potenitally receive lower monthly costs, not worry about a contract, be able to switch to whatever provider I wanted to, whenever I wanted to. But I also think that could possibly put cell-phones out of reach for people with smaller incomes, so I believe things will stay exactly as they are. The DOJ will huff and puff, Congress shall beat their chests, the cell company lobbyists will throw campaign donations around and nothing will change. Ain't America great?
