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
Okay many people complain about cell service for the iPhone in NYC compare the area of NYC to Sweden. I get what you are saying but there are holes in that theory as well.
As others have said, this is not a valid argument. If America's population is larger the companies are larger too, and have more money and resources proportional to their customer base.
I've experienced no issues with service in NYC or Long Island except at my brother's girlfriends house in the Battery park area. I know other's have but what do you expect with all those damn buildings in the way.
This behavior is already illegal in Australia. The ACCC does not allow anti-competitive arrangements.
This is why Telstra (the AT&T of Australia) has Optus, Three and Vodafone to compete with.
As for value - I got my 3GS for $0 upfront and US$80 for unlimited calls, unlimited SMS and 1.5GB of data (24 month contract).
So all the doomsayers... it gets better with competition ..
I would like to see those on here who are defending AT&T explain why these two examples are bad for the consumer. Anyone want to give it a try?
Attachments
But that's the question, has this policy interfered with the rights of others? There are some strong arguments that it has, such as it limits the ability of smaller companies to get going, it limits consumer choice, etc.
I am sure there are arguments that would show that it hasn't as well, bottom line is I am not the department of Justice, it is their job to sort it all out and figure out if there is anything illegal here or not.
Just to build on mosx's point,
It interesting to read the comments about competition being the driving force, when business model's are being shifted away from paying for services as you go and adopting a contract model.
Customers are not with a company because they've competed and won in the marketplace. They remain with the company because they have a legal contract binding them to the company and breaking it would cost them additional $$$
It interesting to read the comments about competition being the driving force, when business model's are being shifted away from paying for services as you go and adopting a contract model.
Customers are not with a company because they've competed and won in the marketplace. They remain with the company because they have a legal contract binding them to the company and breaking it would cost them additional $$$
I think the argument is valid so far as companies can't afford to have the best coverage everywhere. It would be unreasonable to expect great coverage in remote areas of Alaska, as it would be if you were from Denmark to expect the same in Greenland. The issue here is the amount of complaints that come from places that are as densely populated as anywhere in Europe.
So?
Population density, USA: 31/sq km
Population density, Sweden: 20/sq km
50% more potential customers per square kilometer = even more reason for US carriers to get with the program.
haha good. i want my verizon iphone.
i wonder how soon it will be before any of this actually happens.
I don't think this means that apple will have to make one to work on their network
This oft-quoted "truism" has been conclusively debunked over and over. I won't do your research for you (because I doubt you care), but for any curious readers I'll offer a hint to fuel your googling: While the US has more area to wire,
1 - The per capita area does not differ so dramatically, and
2 - In fact, most wiring in America or any European country is done in denseley settled urban areas. The issue isn't wiring Sweden's 173k sq mi vs the US 3.8m sq mi; it's wiring Gothenburg vs wiring Minneapolis, ie, pretty much the same thing (economically and socially, taken on a per-capita basis).
So leave all of the smaller cities and towns out of it. Okay, that's a good idea.
I shouldn't need to put a sarcasm tag.
Business culture and objective has completely morphed in the US to finding away of generating money and profit while not actually providing any services.
Companies tip toe on investing on their infrastructure for the benefit of their customers.
Your example of remote area's is exactly why the government should be involved in matters such as this. In the US, the electric companies didn't see any advantage in running lines to rural areas....thus the rural electrification act in 1936
This SHOULD BE the LAW. We should be able to use our phone on EVERY/ANY carrier we want. If we follow the money, we will all realize only big companies win. Big corporations are BAD NEWS for consumers, especially when they PARTNER together. We live in a day and age where we should have choices, and Apple should benefit by providing such a deal too. I know it's easier for them to just make it compatible with one network, but I believe we should be able to buy the phone and have it work on any network. In addition, the subsidies are a joke. AT&T gets paid back in a few months for these iPhone contracts.
I am all for putting an end to these BS corporate deals that suck for consumers.
It would be great to just go to Apple and pay $699 for an iPhone 3GS. Then activate it for ANY carrier we wish. We would pay so much less money too. Although up front costs would be greater, we could buy reasonably priced voice and data plans. In addition, we could all get the best coverage by the provider for the area we live in. That system makes so much more sense than these BS contracts tying us to AT&T.
The day Apple is no longer in bed with AT&T exclusively, I will buy an iPhone and switch to ANY other provider. I am sick of AT&T's BS. No tethering for the iPhone (not even for a fee) even though a cheap phone can get it on their network. No MMS, a feature that is also available for other cheap phones. AT&T's network is crap too, and they cannot handle the iPhone contracts so they give us all TERRIBLE SERVICE. Terrible customer service. Terrible coverage. Terrible unavailable features COMMON to other carriers and other phones at AT&T. I am SICK SICK SICK of AT&T.
And let's not all blame AT&T, APPLE is doing NOTHING to help us out. We should already be on Verizon or any other carrier that could provide service!
I WANT ANY OTHER PROVIDER. I will dump AT&T in a heartbeat, and that will most likely make Apple more money because will have to be compatible with another carrier's network... NO PROBLEM! I am SICK of the most worthless company in the world, AT&T! We all bash Microsoft, but Microsoft has more executive responsibility and better product/service offerings than AT&T. In fact, my rating of AT&T would not be one on a scale of one to ten - ten being the highest!
I HATE AT&T... and I really dislike Apple for not doing more for us fans to get us out of the AT&T NIGHTMARE!
I am all for putting an end to these BS corporate deals that suck for consumers.
It would be great to just go to Apple and pay $699 for an iPhone 3GS. Then activate it for ANY carrier we wish. We would pay so much less money too. Although up front costs would be greater, we could buy reasonably priced voice and data plans. In addition, we could all get the best coverage by the provider for the area we live in. That system makes so much more sense than these BS contracts tying us to AT&T.
The day Apple is no longer in bed with AT&T exclusively, I will buy an iPhone and switch to ANY other provider. I am sick of AT&T's BS. No tethering for the iPhone (not even for a fee) even though a cheap phone can get it on their network. No MMS, a feature that is also available for other cheap phones. AT&T's network is crap too, and they cannot handle the iPhone contracts so they give us all TERRIBLE SERVICE. Terrible customer service. Terrible coverage. Terrible unavailable features COMMON to other carriers and other phones at AT&T. I am SICK SICK SICK of AT&T.
And let's not all blame AT&T, APPLE is doing NOTHING to help us out. We should already be on Verizon or any other carrier that could provide service!
I WANT ANY OTHER PROVIDER. I will dump AT&T in a heartbeat, and that will most likely make Apple more money because will have to be compatible with another carrier's network... NO PROBLEM! I am SICK of the most worthless company in the world, AT&T! We all bash Microsoft, but Microsoft has more executive responsibility and better product/service offerings than AT&T. In fact, my rating of AT&T would not be one on a scale of one to ten - ten being the highest!
I HATE AT&T... and I really dislike Apple for not doing more for us fans to get us out of the AT&T NIGHTMARE!
So leave all of the smaller cities and towns out of it. Okay, that's a good idea.
I shouldn't need to put a sarcasm tag.
i think the point here is to sell it unlocked so people ion whatever area can get the service best for them. You would still have to buy it from AT&T and sign their contract and they would get paid as would Apple. I don't see why people would be opposed to this?
AT&T is NOT paying anything extra to Apple, and they are also outspending all the other carriers (with the possible exception of Verizon) upgrading their network. Fear has nothing to do with it.
I suspect Apple went to Verizon first because they were number two, and had more market share to gain than AT&T. Verizon couldn't see past "business as usual" and turned Apple down. AT&T, who got to their market share by using more forward thinking; adapting to faster networks even though they were not essential to their business at the time, for example, was open to new ideas from Apple.
Being able to see the as yet unseeable future and planning accordingly is rare. While Apple and AT&T may see it differently, their visions match up better then most of the rest of the cell phone carriers did or they wouldn't be the combo to beat.
Because the first three bold parts are completely contrary.
I'm not paying AT&T squat if I can buy it legally unlocked.
what was the rason for that? I live typically in very remote areas. The reason that had to be done as only the government could have undertaken such a venture as it wasn't cost effective. If the USA government wants to put 3G towers up in remote areas I have no problem with that either. To expect AT&T to do so is a different kettle of fish. It seems we agree.
You would have to if it is only sold from Apple and AT&T. the choice is yours as far as freedom of network but where it is sold and contract terms fall with in AT&T and Apple's right to do business as they see fit. Sure you could buy it off of ebay or whatever but you would pay the full price. Somebody would still have to have signed the contract to get it in the first place thus you are paying AT&T either way.
No analogies needed...
No need to compare cars to Coke to McDonalds, or NYC to Sweden or soup to nuts or... whatever.
We can use Reality. History. That which IS.
AT&T has had an exclusive lock on the iPhone since day 1. Nowhere else to go (in the US). You have an iPhone, AT&T has had your undivided attention, like the icy grip of Death's bony fingers grasping your nethermost regions.
What have they (AT&T) done in return for their loyal customers? How have they made our lives oh so better? By saying "no". No to MMS, No to tethering, No to using your phone elsewhere after the contract. No.
They have rewarded us with higher fees than any other smartphone on any other network, however. Smartphones that can have MMS and tethering.
So, I'd say AT&T hasn't covered themselves in glory by how they have rewarded their customers. Their continued "up yours" to those who pay more than most is insulting. If their network isn't ready for MMS/tethering/data service after all this time, what the frog have we been (over) paying for all this time?
The iPhone via AT&T - a visible symbol of our lips on the posterior of AT&T's corporate body. And we pay for the privilege.
No need to compare cars to Coke to McDonalds, or NYC to Sweden or soup to nuts or... whatever.
We can use Reality. History. That which IS.
AT&T has had an exclusive lock on the iPhone since day 1. Nowhere else to go (in the US). You have an iPhone, AT&T has had your undivided attention, like the icy grip of Death's bony fingers grasping your nethermost regions.
What have they (AT&T) done in return for their loyal customers? How have they made our lives oh so better? By saying "no". No to MMS, No to tethering, No to using your phone elsewhere after the contract. No.
They have rewarded us with higher fees than any other smartphone on any other network, however. Smartphones that can have MMS and tethering.
So, I'd say AT&T hasn't covered themselves in glory by how they have rewarded their customers. Their continued "up yours" to those who pay more than most is insulting. If their network isn't ready for MMS/tethering/data service after all this time, what the frog have we been (over) paying for all this time?
The iPhone via AT&T - a visible symbol of our lips on the posterior of AT&T's corporate body. And we pay for the privilege.
Somewhat.
The idea of something being "cost effective" can be as misleading as it is relative.
Laying Fiber all across the US would be a huge undertaking, however, the effects of such would pay off over generations. Corporate culture is only interested in quarterly earnings, so such an undertaking is often brushed off UNLESS they can secure the use of such an undertaking for themselves.
AT&T could enable tethering and MMS at no additional cost, however, that isn't in the 'best' interest of its shareholders. That is where its main obligation lies.
100% Agreed.