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

Peterkro said:
Insanity of a type very seldom seen even in the PSRI forum.
Click to expand...
So you are trying to tell us that competition is not the cornerstone of capitalism and that governments should prevent companies from making any sort of exclusive deals with suppliers in exchange for favorable pricing or exclusivity? What is left to give a company a competitive advantage in the marketplace other than price?

Do you have any understanding of how business works? This type of government interference smacks of socialism.
 
wlh99 said:
Why not? Almost all cell phones are subsidized and almost all are available from multiple carriers.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Apple went to each and every country and chose 1 wireless provider? To get less money?......no to let the highest bidder win!
 
aristotle said:
What is left to give a company a competitive advantage in the marketplace other than price?
Click to expand...
Well, the way things are going, you could get into bed with the government in order to get them to force competition out of business via taxes and regulations.
 
theyre barking up the wrong tree, should be going after the service contracts instead

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.
 
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...

No chance they would force Apple to make different versions. All they'd do is make it illegal for ATT to sign a deal to PREVENT other companies from using any phone.
 
nkawtg72 said:
the contracts they have the consumers signing are only in place because they know they cant retain customers any other way.
Click to expand...
Agreed, which is why I refuse to give them my patronage and money. I wish I could have an iphone, but I refuse to spend my money at AT&T—my choice.
 
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:
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.
Click to expand...

And you think getting the government involved will result in LOWER prices and LOWER taxes?

I've got a bridge to sell you...
 
aristotle said:
So you are trying to tell us that competition is not the cornerstone of capitalism
Click to expand...
Absolutely, cartels are the cornerstone of capitalism.
Do you have any understanding of how business works? This type of government interference smacks of socialism.
Click to expand...
Yet another person who appears to be entirely ignorant of the meaning of "socialism", "communism", and probably many other "isms" besides.
 
Glad this is finally happening. Cell phone companies have resorted to contracts to lock in customers instead of healthy competition- providing better services, competitive prices etc.

Those contracts are several forms, both the exclusivity agreement with apple, and forced subsidy, and term commitments.

Subsidies are great and I like them, but in no case should a consumer be forced to take the subsidy and a contract instead of an outright purchase.

Likewise, it is fine for a phone to only be in a GSM version, and only be sold by one carrier, but there should not be any artificial means added to lock it to a carrier. The consumer bought the phone, the consumer should be able to use it with whatever carrier he/she chooses.
 
So basically the DOJ is looking into the contract contracts between AT&T and Apple and Verizon and their exclusive iPhone wannabe's.

Nothing but good for the consumer can come of this.
 
BillyBobBongo said:
It scares me to think that there are people posting in this thread that thing what Apple and AT&T have is good thing. :eek:
Click to expand...

iphones4evry1 said:
I sense the presence of AT&T employees on this forum right now.
Click to expand...

so when Nike partnered with Michael Jordan and made a line of shoes, the government should have stepped in and said "shame on you. now people who like reebok better, cant walk around in shoes with MJs name plastered on them!!! you (MJ) must enter into and agreement with ALL shoes makers to make a line of shoes or none at all."

Nike and MJ making shoes together doesnt keep other shoe manufacturers out of the market or from entering the market. if anything it forces other manufacturers to find NEW and BETTER ways to stay competitive, which DOES benefit the consumer.
 
runeasgar said:
Could one company dominate 90% of the OS market if our anti-trust laws were effective, at all?
Click to expand...

Yes, it could easily, since the only real competition Microsoft face in the OS market is Apple who refuse to sell their OS separately, and Linux which the average user replaces with Windows if they get it on their netbook.

On topic, I find it frankly idiotic that Apple have been allowed to get away with tying their iPhone to one provider only. In America you seem to have backwards phone companies, barely beyond two tin cans and string, but in Europe we have 3G all over, and yet the iPhone is tied to one operator only in most countries. The only reason for a company to tie the iPhone to one operator only is so they can charge more for the privilege, e.g. paying extra for tethering. This is exploitative and insulting to customers. The options are, pay ungodly sums or no iPhone. Thats not really a choice is it, that's more like laughing in your face.
 
MacVixen said:
...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? :D
Click to expand...
Those "donations" have to come from somewhere. Oh wait, that's right, AT&T can charge whatever they want ... guess that means you and me will be paying for those "donations."
 
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