^Thank goodness noble Apple only has the concerns of the consumers at heart and never ever frets about making a profit.
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. Mobile Phone Carrier Practices Questioned
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
By leaving the networks only those options to compete over, and by passing more appropriate price signals on to the consumer. As it is now, cell phone bills are some unknowable mixture of amortized handset costs and actual network usage costs. If people were to buy handsets and plans separately, they could pay the appropriate costs for the features they wanted on their cell phones, and ditto for their plans.
As it is now, you'd have to choose between getting an iPhone, or punishing AT&T for their poor network quality and customer service. If they were forced to unbundle, you could do both.
I think the main problem here isn't the "buy a phone from us, and you can only use it on our network" that's fair enough. The problem is when a network gets nationwide exclusive access to a new device, so the only way to use it is to sign up to their service.
This means networks are competing on negotiated exclusives ("Only network with iPhone etc."), rather than on price, network coverage, quality of service, quality of customer support etc. which would actually benefit the consumer.
This means networks are competing on negotiated exclusives ("Only network with iPhone etc."), rather than on price, network coverage, quality of service, quality of customer support etc. which would actually benefit the consumer.
Huh??? Apple needed a cell provider for its product to be marketable and AT&T was willing to give Apple what it wanted/needed networkwise to launch it. Apple would love universal access. Apple has roughly 75% of the mp3 market because of innovation/best product. Apple would gain huge market share if iPhone worked on all networks.
Oh. I get it. Sarcasm. Universal access benefits the consumer. Universal access also greatly benefits Apple since exponentially expands market.
Everytime the government tries to step in on free enterprise to make it better, they end up making it worse. Breaking up AT&T in 1984 was a horrible move and is what caused the US to be in the situation it is today with our lacking telecommunications technologies.
As another post mentions, they tried with the airlines...got worse.
They tried with the gas/oil companies....got worse.
They tried it with healthcare...got worse.
See the pattern forming here.
We invented telecommunications, AT&T was providing the world with the ability to communicate. They provided an excellent service and customer service. Things were simple. The reason we fell behind on our own creation is because of the anti-trust ruling (which has not happened since) which caused AT&T to stop focusing on the customer and have to focus on providing services to competing companies and fix their problems.
There is also a reason that the original AT&T companies are starting to combine back together, it makes sense for the consumer. Also note that it is not AT&T that has done the acquiring here, it is SBC Communications, which was the core RBOC after the divestiture.
The government's policy on business is TAKE CARE OF THE POLITICIANS. This all probably started because someone high up in the FCC wanted an iPhone and had a contract with another carrier, got upset, and started this ridiculous crusade. It's the same thing as social security in this country. The government keeps trying to fix it with no real success. This is because they don't pay into nor draw out of this fund, the politicians have a private fund to ensure they can continue living in 'La La Land' when they retire. If they had to pull out of the same fund as the rest of us, I can guarantee we would not have a Social Security problem.
Next time you want to blame at&t for bad customer service, bad wireless service, poor technology, whatever...just remember that the government is the one who created this problem and now they think they can fix it.
As another post mentions, they tried with the airlines...got worse.
They tried with the gas/oil companies....got worse.
They tried it with healthcare...got worse.
See the pattern forming here.
We invented telecommunications, AT&T was providing the world with the ability to communicate. They provided an excellent service and customer service. Things were simple. The reason we fell behind on our own creation is because of the anti-trust ruling (which has not happened since) which caused AT&T to stop focusing on the customer and have to focus on providing services to competing companies and fix their problems.
There is also a reason that the original AT&T companies are starting to combine back together, it makes sense for the consumer. Also note that it is not AT&T that has done the acquiring here, it is SBC Communications, which was the core RBOC after the divestiture.
The government's policy on business is TAKE CARE OF THE POLITICIANS. This all probably started because someone high up in the FCC wanted an iPhone and had a contract with another carrier, got upset, and started this ridiculous crusade. It's the same thing as social security in this country. The government keeps trying to fix it with no real success. This is because they don't pay into nor draw out of this fund, the politicians have a private fund to ensure they can continue living in 'La La Land' when they retire. If they had to pull out of the same fund as the rest of us, I can guarantee we would not have a Social Security problem.
Next time you want to blame at&t for bad customer service, bad wireless service, poor technology, whatever...just remember that the government is the one who created this problem and now they think they can fix it.
So if I buy a Ford, I should be able to choose what brand tires, oil, antifreeze...etc. it comes with?
With the iphone, you are buying a package deal, the iphone, and the service.
But, I do need to unlock mine to work in France later this year... I guess I'm torn
We live in a free market economy. Companies can make goods and decide to sell them in whatever market they please. If you, the consumer, doesn't like it, don't buy the product. It is as simple as that. No matter how hard you might like it to, a single company cannot cater to the needs of ever single consumer out there.
So if I buy a Ford, I should be able to choose what brand tires, oil, antifreeze...etc. it comes with?
With the iphone, you are buying a package deal, the iphone, and the service.
But, I do need to unlock mine to work in France later this year... I guess I'm torn
A much better analogy. If you think this is about free markets or capitalism or anything like that you're being duped. This is about corporatism. And if you turn this into just the government messing things up you've been duped a second time. They're not supporting these monopolists, because they're somehow incompetent. They're supporting these monopolists because they get a cut. ... And also because we let them. Saying "whatever the legislators do is only going to mess this up" only opens the door to let them screw us over some more. Instead we should be saying "stop screwing us over" because the legislators aren't going to go away. They're not going to do nothing. Even if they tell you they're doing nothing because they're "for small government", that's just more ******** for us to swallow.
If we live in a free market economy and you want to celebrate that, why would you support the theft by these natural monopolists?
So if I can buy a monopoly then I can charge anything I want? The fact that it's a monopoly (well in this case a oligopoly) out of the gate means that the normal capitalist tenants of competition, etc... do not apply. We took something that the 'public' in this case owned and sold it to a company (which I think is fine b/c private enterprises are 99% of the time much more efficient than the gov). The terms of that sale are what will end up getting adjusted if the providers continue to try and milk their customers though. Think all of the other utilities...
I'm not supporting anything. I haven't gone out and casted my voting dolars in favor of the iphone. If you think its theft there's is simple fix, don't buy it.
hey, seeing that you may have misread what apple asked AT&T to do, let me tell you. They asked AT&T to overhaul their entire network and servers to allow them to include visual voicemail, which cost att about 6 billion dollars. Then they asked them to revamp their edge network and provide more coverage, which they did, at a cost of about 3 billion dollars. Then, they forced them to overhaul their data rate plans, allowing people unfettered access to the EDGE network for a 5 dollar discount, which is a lot of revenue lost. Then the big one, apple reportedly gets abour 3 dollars of each iphone phone bill every month and gets half of the activation fee(apple gets $18) and reportedly keeps 5/8 profit of each iphone, with 1/8 going to att and the rest to pay off advertising and RD. So ATT basically bended over many many times for this iphone to work, and as a proud owner of one, i am very happy to see the carrier finally have to move to the beat of the manufacturer. Verizon is kicking itself over and over for this one. That is an EXTREME!!! situation
So if I buy a Ford, I should be able to choose what brand tires, oil, antifreeze...etc. it comes with?
With the iphone, you are buying a package deal, the iphone, and the service.
But, I do need to unlock mine to work in France later this year... I guess I'm torn
You can chose the oil, antifreeze, and tires. You purchase it with whatever brand Ford has a deal with, but if you're not happy with that brand of tire...or antifreeze, etc, you can change them the minute you drive your car off the lot.
For everyone whining "this is socialism!", "our government is trying to kill free enterprise" : Nobody is trying to stop "exclusive deals" or forcing Apple or anyone to "open up their devices for thrid party development". In fact, I say keep the excluive deals...but only for the sale.
For instance, only AT&T and Apple stores can sell iPhones for the next 5 years...and if you buy one, perhaps you get a discount on your rate plan if you sign up for AT&T service instead of chosing to go with another carrier. But you should have the option.
Our government doesn't have issues with this sort of exclusive scenario. They're simply saying that after puchsasing a device, it should be allowed to be used on another network, if one so choses. As i mentioned previously, this is probaly what the manufacturers want as well.
The first poster to make these points kind of glossed over the fact that this led to plummeting prices. Not a small deal. Where do you think our current telecom tech would be without the dirt-cheap phone rates that make the cost of long distance calls virtually negligible?
Breaking up AT&T was, by most accounts, a great move which led to a lot of our (and, by extension, the rest of the world's) current telecommunications technologies. Our trailing in some areas is not due to an excess of competition.
You really think flying is a worse experience now than it was in 1980 (security requirements aside)? Fares have withered in real terms, and yet been able to invest in planes that give every passenger a personal TV screen with a dozen channels.
As for gas / oil companies, that's complicated and getting off-course.
And... they tried it with health care? What exactly are you referring to?
having been to many other countries, I have first hand experience to tell you how horrible US cellular service is. if you go up to high in building, no connection. if you go too low, no connection. if you go take a dump, no connection. it's just sickening.
and this is not because US has a huge land. The connection even in the biggest city in US called New York is mediocre at best.
having GSM is no excuse either when you consider that the connection in Europe is fantastic and they use GSM.
and this 2 year mandatory contract system is a joke. if you have a bad connection, you are stuck for 2 years regardless of the pathetic service you are getting on your end for paying $50-$200 per month.
I would much rather see the system implemented in Korea, for example. They don't have contract system, and they don't subsidize the phone all that much. I would rather buy whatever phone I want and have the freedom to choose the service that fits me best rather than being stuck for 2 years.
Verizon probably has the best connection but their service is just as bad. They make you extend the contract for 1 year if you switch from data plan to phone plan or vice versa, and this is regardless of whether you got the phone subsidized by Verizon or from ebay.
gosh I am starting to have ulcer talking about the pathetic cellular service of this country.
and this is not because US has a huge land. The connection even in the biggest city in US called New York is mediocre at best.
having GSM is no excuse either when you consider that the connection in Europe is fantastic and they use GSM.
and this 2 year mandatory contract system is a joke. if you have a bad connection, you are stuck for 2 years regardless of the pathetic service you are getting on your end for paying $50-$200 per month.
I would much rather see the system implemented in Korea, for example. They don't have contract system, and they don't subsidize the phone all that much. I would rather buy whatever phone I want and have the freedom to choose the service that fits me best rather than being stuck for 2 years.
Verizon probably has the best connection but their service is just as bad. They make you extend the contract for 1 year if you switch from data plan to phone plan or vice versa, and this is regardless of whether you got the phone subsidized by Verizon or from ebay.
gosh I am starting to have ulcer talking about the pathetic cellular service of this country.
I would agree with you accept you need to take it further. I don't like all of the cell phone providers b/c they charge too much so I get some investors to start my own. Oh wait, I can't b/c the gov. has given the current providers a monopoly on the spectrum. This is when the capitalist argument breaks down. By giving these companies a monopoly on the spectrum the gov. has limited competition with an unpassable barrier to entry.
Of course this has more to do with my disdain toward cell phone service providers in general and less with them locking phones (which I couldn't really care less about).
Sounds like you're supporting monopolists.
I'm a little perplexed. What is the basis of this assumption?
The ball is in the consumers court. Don't cry because a company decides to sell their products in a market that isn't to your liking. Just dont buy it. If enough people have the same feeling as you, the company will be forced to move their products to a market that is more desirable to the largest consumer base. But judging by the number of iPhones sold, a pretty fair number of are happy with the market Apple has decided to sell there products in.
This really has very little to do with Apple and the iPhone. This is about the existing telecom control structure.
We're not talking about iphones. Apple's not the monopolist here. We're talking about the telecommunication infrastructure. Like most infrastructure its a natural monopoly. (though one that's been deceptively split up to give the false impression of competition) The consumer cannot simply decide not to telecommunicate anymore, then wait a few centuries and see if the monopolists got the message.
Not really. The iPhone would make Apple stinking rich if they opened it up to better more capable service providers. AT&T is okay... but there are plenty of people that think it is lacking in some way or another, such as insurance, coverage area, data plan/voice plan price, customer service. etc. So Apple would have made almost twice or three times as much money on the first day if they would have just opened the phone up to the more superior CDMA network and the other GSM networks. Locking something down to one company and saying that it was a good idea is just insane.
This isn't true at all. Even if you buy a subsidized phone, you will still win out in the end when it comes to getting a replacement phone... besides... the insurance is just like any other warranty. You may use it you may not. When my girlfriend lost her $650 Treo TWICE in one month (left it in mall first time, got held up at gun point the second time) Sprint and their insurance provider replaced her phone both times.
Let's see... she pays $6 a month for it. That's $72 a year. She has had her Sprint service for 8 years (1998) and it was cheaper then ($3) but I will use the $6. That is $576 for the entire 8 years. Her phone retailed for $679 up until the Treo 700 debuted. She saved herself $782 on TWO phones that Sprint replaced for her... the police report helped her not get the second incident counted against her because the insurance company won't keep replacing your phone over and over again when you keep loosing it and breaking it, but that is very understandable.
I am not attacking the quoted poster, this next comment is more for everyone. I love the iPhone, but Apple made a bad decision in leaving the phone locked... I would have rather waited another 2 years for an unlocked CDMA/GSM phone that would have been sold worldwide, rather than a US only, AT&T only crippled phone that we have now. And sugar coating the situation isn't going to make anything better.
Once you put all the cards on the table from all of the service providers, phone manufacturers, FCC committee members, rules & regulations, the US cell phone market is years behind europe and asia and Africa and the rest of the world. Apple made a business smart decision to go with AT&T since they have more customers nationwide therefore selling more iPhones (not to mentions those that would switch from other providers, but a 5 year exclusive contract is suck retarded. Steve must have gotten some good **** when he signed that deal.... he practically signed the iPhone's soul away.
Also on this idea that the consumer needs choice (Eddit: in the wireless telco infrastructure) that's another myth. What sorts of choice to you want in the infrastructure. "I'd like my data to arrive as slow as possible"? No, on the issues of infrastructure we want it to work as best as it can (and their may be disagreements about that), but it doesn't help to completely duplicate the infrastructure so that you can provide some minor difference to the other infrastructure. I challenge any of you that thing choice in your telecommunications infrastructure is so important to come up with a particular point of contention on that infrastructure. In other words the infrastructure that delivers 2-way data access to you over radio waves in metropolitan areas and along inter-states (talking US here). The important issues are usually just over how many resources to devote to it (should we obsolete the existing equipment simply to bring 40mbit per second throughput). Should we service provide to some shack in Montana. Having multiple duplicate providers in Manhattan do not solve these issues.
But that's not the issue. The issue is that our legislators have to decide what would make a more efficient economy -- allowing oligopolists to determine the limits of downstream hardware makers' innovation (crippling Bluetooth, etc.), or not. They have to choose the best trade off between a freedom for the upstream service providers and a practical freedom for the hardware makers.
Can we agree that it would seem to be more efficient for people to pay the true costs for the handsets they want, and pay the true costs for the network they want rather than the current limitied, cross-subsidized price mishmash? Why hasn't the market ironed this out already? It seems to me there must be an incentive problem.