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

[Anuba]

The complete and utter ignorance of people that believe that somehow the government is actually going to solve a problem in a way that actually works just never ceases to amaze me. The government should just stay out of it and let the market decide and work it out for itself.

Right.

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer. Rates and fees are lower than in the US, coverage is better, speeds are higher, 3G was rolled out much earlier. This summer I'll have tree different Swedish iPhone carriers to choose from - TeliaSonera, Tre and Telenor. I'm paying $30/month for 100 Mbit broadband and $25 for my iPhone plan. I'm expecting that to drop when TeliaSonera is joined by two competitors.

Meanwhile in the US you're stuck with 3G coverage on par with Kazakhstan, and if you want an iPhone you're stuck with a dinosaur carrier with draconian contracts, ridiculously high fees, delayed implementation of MMS and tethering (the latter will cost extra!!). As for broadband, you're lucky to get slow as molasses 5 Mbit cable for 50 bucks/month.

Private enterprises + government that keeps them on their toes = match made in heaven.

Private enterprises that can do whatever the hell they want = hell. It doesn't encourage competition at all, instead you end up with a bunch of de-facto monopolies. As a result, the companies become complacent and lazy. They stop bothering with keeping their technology up to date. The quality of service goes down the toilet while they're busy jacking up their prices. Which, ironically, sounds exactly like life in the Soviet Union, except the masters are called AT&T and GM instead of the Communist Party.

 

[wiz7dome]

I never realized so many people on this forum hate the government. I figured most Mac fanboys were the liberal hippie type.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but when the state government here in Massachusetts deregulated the energy industry a couple years ago, my energy bill doubled in one month. Wasn't too psyched about that one.

And of course we all know the result of the financial industry deregulation over the past two decades - the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

So yeah, more regulation among in the wireless industry is sounding pretty good to me.

I don't want the government making iPhones or software, but then again nobody would ever suggest such a thing.

Regulation isn't a bad word.

If you can only do business as long as everything is tilted your way, then you should not be in business.

 

[iphones4evry1]

if the systems that carriers use are different then just because the system is open doesn't mean that the phone makers are going to manufacture them for all those different systems that carriers decide to use. that's that

That's right. But at least they will have the option and choice if they want to.

What is AT&T so afraid of ? Why do they need to pay extra money to Apple for exclusivity. Do they really think Apple is going to run away over to Sprint go backwards in technology? Lol. AT&T is wasting their money with this exclusivity. Some people will use T-mobile but most will continue to use AT&T. Verizon and Sprint aren't even a worry as the technology isn't even compatible. So why is AT&T wasting their money? Oh, right. It's so that they can lock their phones, charge outrageous fees, and no one can make they upgrade their network. That's right.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Right.

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer.

So let's have the government lay some ground rules (laws) down:

Net neutrality for all ISPs. Bandwidth must double for the same price every ten years.

There. Let them compete all they want, but the above should be set in stone.

 

[iphonics]

since this is the the US department of justice... i guess this doesnt affect Canada at all...

anyways here the only two GSM providers are Rogers, and Fido and they both already have the iPhone (granted Rogers owns fido)

 

[ryanwarsaw]

Th Mcdonald's argument with Coke are all lame. Imagine that the two companies made an agreement that Coke was only sold at Mcdonald's? That is a more apt comparison to what Apple and AT&T are doing.

It isn't a problem that MCD chooses only to sell coke. It would be a problem if only they sold Coke and made me sign a contract to buy a certain amount of Coke over two years to even enjoy my first Coke.



It wouldn't be a problem if AT&T chose only to sell the iPhone. As far as forcing a Big Mac to be sold elsewhere that doesn't fit either because it is their product there is no exclusivity deal there. Apple could only sell the iPhone at Apple stores that would also not raise any eyebrows.

The problem here is that when two companies do what Apple and AT&T are doing and lock it to one network this could very easily lead to price collusion as they lock out any competition for the device. The other issue is a continued locking of the device once the contract is completed. That is a pretty raw deal for the consumer.

I agree with the posters that think that if the IPhone was sold unlocked that is the end of the problem and then the agreements between Apple, AT&T and the consumer would be much more fair. Then they could keep their exclusive deal without people feeling cheated by it.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Right.

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer. Rates and fees are lower than in the US, coverage is better, speeds are higher, 3G was rolled out much earlier. This summer I'll have tree different Swedish iPhone carriers to choose from - TeliaSonera, Tre and Telenor. I'm paying $30/month for 100 Mbit broadband and $25 for my iPhone plan. I'm expecting that to drop when TeliaSonera is joined by two competitors.

Meanwhile in the US you're stuck with 3G coverage on par with Kazakhstan, and if you want an iPhone you're stuck with a dinosaur carrier with draconian contracts, ridiculously high fees, delayed implementation of MMS and tethering (the latter will cost extra!!). As for broadband, you're lucky to get slow as molasses 5 Mbit cable for 50 bucks/month.

Private enterprises + government that keeps them on their toes = match made in heaven.

Private enterprises that can do whatever the hell they want = hell. It doesn't encourage competition at all, instead you end up with a bunch of de-facto monopolies. As a result, the companies become complacent and lazy. They stop bothering with keeping their technology up to date. The quality of service goes down the toilet while they're busy jacking up their prices. Which, ironically, sounds exactly like life in the Soviet Union, except the masters are called AT&T and GM instead of the Communist Party.

Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008

Enough said. Those numbers should answer your question and give you an idea of why things are "better" in Sweden.

 

[ptsube]

People should be able to choose ANY phone that they want and use it on ANY carrier they like

Why? Can you choose any MP3 player and play any music on it? Or use it with any media player?

AT&T, nor Apple have anywhere close to a monopoly on the market. You want to FORCE two private companies to do something that is not in their best interests.

If you want Sync by Microsoft in your car, you have to buy a Ford. Are you going to force Microsoft to sell the technology to every car company, just because you want a Chevy? Or you could create your own company and equivalent software to compete with Microsoft, then license it to Chevy.

If you want an iPhone on another carrier, just create a competing phone without infringing on any patents and then you can sell it to whoever you want.

 

[normang]

Right.

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer. Rates and fees are lower than in the US, coverage is better, speeds are higher, 3G was rolled out much earlier. This summer I'll have tree different Swedish iPhone carriers to choose from - TeliaSonera, Tre and Telenor. I'm paying $30/month for 100 Mbit broadband and $25 for my iPhone plan. I'm expecting that to drop when TeliaSonera is joined by two competitors.

Meanwhile in the US you're stuck with 3G coverage on par with Kazakhstan, and if you want an iPhone you're stuck with a dinosaur carrier with draconian contracts, ridiculously high fees, delayed implementation of MMS and tethering (the latter will cost extra!!). As for broadband, you're lucky to get slow as molasses 5 Mbit cable for 50 bucks/month.

Private enterprises + government that keeps them on their toes = match made in heaven.

Private enterprises that can do whatever the hell they want = hell. It doesn't encourage competition at all, instead you end up with a bunch of de-facto monopolies. As a result, the companies become complacent and lazy. They stop bothering with keeping their technology up to date. The quality of service goes down the toilet while they're busy jacking up their prices. Which, ironically, sounds exactly like life in the Soviet Union, except the masters are called AT&T and GM instead of the Communist Party.

What keeps enterprises as honest as one can make them is competition, not government. I am not going to assume that competition alone is enough, there has to be some structure to reasonably regulate how business works, but to assume that things in the EU are cheaper because of government is way to simplistic, there are other factors.

 

[whatever]

It's ridiculous that you have an Iphone, in my opinion.

At least for me, "works at home" would be such an important feature that I would not buy any phone without it!

Same here. I have had Sprint phones (worst service I've ever had, could barely work in my state, MA), Verizon (would not work on my street), old AT&T (worked okay, but not in my house) and the new AT&T, works great everywhere. I'm on the road about 3 weeks a month, traveling the US and my iPhone has not yet failed me. And I'm still using the first generation iPhone, the Edge network seems to be getting faster...

 

[iphonics]

Right.

All you have to do is look at the situation with wireless and high-speed broadband coverage in the EU to realize that nosy governments are incredibly beneficial to the consumer. Rates and fees are lower than in the US, coverage is better, speeds are higher, 3G was rolled out much earlier. This summer I'll have tree different Swedish iPhone carriers to choose from - TeliaSonera, Tre and Telenor. I'm paying $30/month for 100 Mbit broadband and $25 for my iPhone plan. I'm expecting that to drop when TeliaSonera is joined by two competitors.

Meanwhile in the US you're stuck with 3G coverage on par with Kazakhstan, and if you want an iPhone you're stuck with a dinosaur carrier with draconian contracts, ridiculously high fees, delayed implementation of MMS and tethering (the latter will cost extra!!). As for broadband, you're lucky to get slow as molasses 5 Mbit cable for 50 bucks/month.

Private enterprises + government that keeps them on their toes = match made in heaven.

Private enterprises that can do whatever the hell they want = hell. It doesn't encourage competition at all, instead you end up with a bunch of de-facto monopolies. As a result, the companies become complacent and lazy. They stop bothering with keeping their technology up to date. The quality of service goes down the toilet while they're busy jacking up their prices. Which, ironically, sounds exactly like life in the Soviet Union, except the masters are called AT&T and GM instead of the Communist Party.

^ he makes a very good point!

 

[munkees]

cool, I hope they let the iPhone on other networks,

I got my iPhone 3G one month before the they announced the 3Gs. That means I could cancel my att contract pay the $175 fee, sell my iPhone and get a new iPhone 3Gs on another network

 

[muskratboy]

if i want my company to have an exclusive deal with another company that's my right. the government needs to stay out. what private citizens do are of no concern to the government as long as they're not infringing on the rights of others.

GEEEZ these people are missing the point.

so 2 companies should be able to make a contract that price fixes... say gasoline? Hey, what's the problem... it's just 2 private companies making a contract. So you have to pay $12 a gallon... it's just business, right?

it's not a monopoly. it's an anti-competitive practice.

now all you paranoid bomb-shelter babies just put down the pitchforks and chill out a little, hmmm?

 

[coleridge78]

If you are so ignorant as to think that government run Health-care is going to save the day, I don't want to write the obvious.

Just think for just one minute and ask yourself a couple questions before this goes off the deep end. If government can run Health-care better than anyone else, why is it that most everything else that government touches eventually is in shambles, look at California and Michigan, both these states are run into the ground by government and there are more coming.

I'd like you to explain that comment, though I doubt you can because I'm sure it's just something you heard somewhere. Specifically, California and Michigan are examples of two very different forms of failure, neither of which have to do with "the government" per se.

California's problem is an example of what happens when a large population with diverse interests experiments in direct democracy. Through their proposition system, any special interest who could manage to get 50% on generally low-turnout, marketing-driven votes, could mandate new spending for the state government. So, of course, in the end there are thousands of obligations, but nobody voting themselves tax increases to pay for such. It's not "the government" spending like drunken sailors, it's the electorate.

Michigan? A perfect example of what happens when the free market becomes "capitalism", which is something very different. Michigan (and Ohio) had almost exclusively privately-driven economies and service bases, all founded on one non-diversified cartel. When that cartel eventually succumbed to outside forces (ie, foreign cars that were better built and cheaper) after many decades, the obvious happened. This is one of many practical reasons why cartel capitalism is a Very Bad Thing and should not be confused with a free market, no matter how much certain cynical political manipulators and media millionaires would like you to confuse them.

This applies even here to this Telecomm debate, the free market will always decide if you leave it alone. Its when government meddles in the market, that it gets all screwed up, and if you cannot see that, you need to take the blinders off..

Anyone who thinks something "always" works is bound to be wrong. Aside from the fact that you have cartel capitalism mixed up with a free market. News flash, there is no free market without "government meddling". Without "the government", ie, you and me agreeing on some civilized boundaries, there's only The Guy With the Biggest Club Kills Your Ignorant Ass and Rapes Your Daughters.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008

Enough said. Those numbers should answer your question and give you an idea of why things are "better" in Sweden.

What the heck does population have to do with anything?!

Sweden: 173,732 sq. miles
USA: 3,794,066 sq. miles

WE HAVE TO LAY MORE CABLE.

Japan's population is 127 million and THEY have Internet on par with your precious Sweden. Population is meaningless.

 

[mrjosh]

If government can run Health-care better than anyone else, why is it that most everything else that government touches eventually is in shambles, look at California and Michigan, both these states are run into the ground by government and there are more coming.

In CA, part of the problem was brought on not only by the government but also the public. Many people have bought into the idea that any and all government must be bad, so the 'private sector' in CA have taken it upon themselves to set budget priorities and erect barriers to passing a budget. In my opinion, California's economy is an illustration that short term advantages are valued over long term benefits by most people - no matter what sector they are in.

And for the sake of relevency - I don't like AT&T so instead of an iphone, I'll get an ipod touch. It will compliment my cheapo t-mobile phone quite nicely. No 2 year commitment, and once I buy it, I own it.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Why? Can you choose any MP3 player and play any music on it? Or use it with any media player?

AT&T, nor Apple have anywhere close to a monopoly on the market. You want to FORCE two private companies to do something that is not in their best interests.

If you want Sync by Microsoft in your car, you have to buy a Ford. Are you going to force Microsoft to sell the technology to every car company, just because you want a Chevy? Or you could create your own company and equivalent software to compete with Microsoft, then license it to Chevy.

If you want an iPhone on another carrier, just create a competing phone without infringing on any patents and then you can sell it to whoever you want.

Exactly.

 

[wiz7dome]

Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008

Enough said. Those numbers should answer your question and give you an idea of why things are "better" in Sweden.

That makes no sense.

The reason why some things are better in Sweden is because they "get it".

There is NO such thing as a "free market". Free enterprise yes. Free market? Doesn't exist anywhere.

 

[synth3tik]

On one hand I would like to see the ability for customers to choose more, and therefor require that carried lower fees.

On the other hand, we live in a free market. Capitalism baby.

 

[SandynJosh]

If people want an iPhone, they have no other choice. If they live in an area where AT&T has poor coverage and can't get an iPhone on another network, and have to buy from a different service provider, then this hurts Apple's sales and is harmful to Apple.

you are ASSUMING that there is another carrier locally that can handle the iPhone signal AND has the robustness of service to not impact its other users once iPhone users become more . That condition may not exist in most cases.

 

[mosx]

Wow. I can't help but feel pity for the people in this thread who think that the government should stay out and let the wireless (and healthcare) industry stay on the current course.

As it is right now, you have four major carriers that have almost complete control of the market. Their prices are not at all competitive. It doesn't matter if I have AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint. I'll be paying roughly the same with all three of them. T-Mobile is the only one that is slightly cheaper than the other three. All four are perfectly happy with the way things are now and are doing nothing to compete with eachother. They're all raking in billions in profit as it is now and they only change little by little as they have to to make sure their profits don't fall. What they do change, however, is their practices to increase profits. Look at SMS as an example. Something that costs virtually nothing to facilitate, yet they rake in billions in profits by forcing people to spend 1000x what it costs to actually send and receive those messages.

Let's look at the way things work right now. If I go to AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint, the ONLY way I can NOT have a contract is to buy a phone that is compatible with their outrageously expensive prepaid services. When I was with Verizon before, the only way I could have contract free service was to use their prepaid service. Even if I bought a phone at full retail price, I would still have to sign a 1 or 2 year agreement to get the full service. I was recently told the same by AT&T. I would still have to sign a 1 year service agreement to be able to get the benefits of post paid service, even if I bought a phone at full retail. Only T-Mobile and smaller regional carriers offer the ability to buy a phone at retail price and sign up for contract free service that offers the benefits of post-paid service.

Imagine if other services were like cellular service. You go buy a $50,000 car but you can only use Arco gas. You go buy a $30 steak dinner but can only drink Bud Light with it.

I should be able to walk into any store, buy any mobile phone of my choice, and use it on any network fully featured with no contract. Networks should be competing for my money, not all seemingly working together to keep prices high.

I love my iPhone. But I am counting down the days until my AT&T contract is up. The very same day that contract expires I will be switching to one of the smaller regional services. Hopefully MetroPCS. $70 a month for 2 phones unlimited everything. Sure its "regional", but their coverage here in southern California is far better than AT&T and it has "local" coverage wherever I go. I just can't believe how bad AT&T's coverage is. I can be standing in an open parking lot with low buildings with several other people who have several other services. Verizon, T-Mobile, Boost Mobile, Virgin, MetroPCS.. they all get strong signals in the same place my iPhone will display "no service".

Oh and a small remark on healthcare. Any person with a double digit IQ should be disgusted with the way healthcare works in the US. Healthcare should absolutely NEVER be a for profit business. Vanity services like teeth whitening and breast enlargement can be for profit, because people who are vain deserve to be swindled. But basic healthcare should never be for profit. Look at cancer treatment. Cancer treatment could have advanced to the point of curing it once discovered. But it hasn't. Why? Because its more profitable for the drug companies to treat a patient long term with expensive drugs than it is to give them one drug that takes care of all of their problems. Look at how insurance companies work. They evaulate how profitable you'll be in the long term before offering you coverage. If you're someone that developed a medical condition and lost your health insurance (either due to job loss or insurance company dropping your coverage), its virtually impossible to get covered again. Look how many people get denied life saving treatment because it will cost too much money for the insurance company. How many people can't get coverage because of the fact that they got sick while covered and the bad economy took their job (thanks Bush!). It's absolutely disgusting. Of course, one problem is cost. Maybe if we didn't have nurses and other medical staff sitting around doing nothing for 8-12 hours, just being "on call" while earning a full pay check, things wouldn't be so expensive. Maybe if we had proper healthcare to begin with, higher costs wouldn't result from uninsured people not being able to pay their medical bills. The US pays more than double per patient compared to any other country with universal healthcare. Theres something wrong with that.

Edit: another good example of where the government needs to step in is broadband in this country. It's ridiculous that I only have the choice of DSL or cable from two different providers. Verizon serves this area but they're taking their sweet time installing FiOS (might not be until next year now) and they won't upgrade their copper lines. So I can only choose 1.5Mbps DSL or ridiculously expensive cable. Thanks to the duopoly, I have to deal with really slow speeds that shouldn't even be considered broadband in a modern world, or I have to deal with a high cost low cap cable service that goes out constantly and slows down when my neighbors are online.

 

[The Monkey]

Have we been transported to the Wacky Militia Forum? Unreal...

EDIT: With the exception of the very few posts like the one above mine, this thread is filled with the kind of knee-jerk thoughtless fail that I hoped was going out of style. I suppose it never does.

 

[rdowns]

Population of USA - 304,059,724 - July 2008

Population of Sweden - 9,045,389 July 2008

Enough said. Those numbers should answer your question and give you an idea of why things are "better" in Sweden.

Area to wire" for cell service

US - 3,790,000 square miles
Sweden - 173,746 square miles

 

[Tallest Skil]

Area to wire" for cell service

US - 3,790,000 square miles
Sweden - 173,746 square miles

Good; someone else got it.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

Have we been transported to the Wacky Militia Forum? Unreal...

Don't be such a communist. LOL I am with you here things have gone a bit wacky over this one.