What the FCC needs to do is stop the double billing of consumers by the carriers. Why do we (u.s.) page for incoming calls. That is the caller and reciever are paying for the same call. This is daylight robbery and everyone seems to accept it.
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. Senators Are Seeking Investigation into Carrier Handset Exclusivity Agreements
- Thread starter riverfreak
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am glad that the FCC is investigating. I mean the airwaves are regulated there is a high barrier to entry this is not the same as exclusivity agreements with fast food. There are alot of chains that sell burgers each a little different more than just 3 or 1 in some towns. This sort of thing needs to be stopped. the same goes for the price hikes on what cost the carrier zero texting.
This means nothing. It's not AT&T that's preventing Apple from moving on to other carriers. Reports have said that Apple has rewarded AT&T with another year of exclusivity a while ago. And this doesn't mean Apple has to develop an iPhone for another carrier. The 3G in the iPhone 3G/3G S is not compatible with T-Mobile and Sprint and Verizon use CDMA. If Apple wanted to expand and include multiple carriers in the US they would have by now.
I think the real question is how many of these rural carriers would make the necessary infrastructure investment to make the iPhone fully usable. I don't think the demand would be high enough to justify the investment.
While the phone will still work, some of the features of the phone (Visual Voicemail) won't work without carrier support.
Cell phones are not food or cars or anything else... but uniquely cell phones.
Carrier C has an exclusive on phone P so that people will use carrier C where there's a choice between carriers. Outside of the area where C (and often even its main competition) sells, exclusivity is moot. The local grocery could sell phone P without robbing C of any income.
Bear in mind that we're not talking just about the iPhone, but any exclusive phone that's unavailable in large areas of the country. Many don't have carrier dependent features.
As for Visual Voicemail, that's a fairly minimal change. Not a big deal. It's just accessing voicemail by direct index instead of stepping through it. Paying royalties for using it, might be a different story. (ATT, Verizon and Sprint all pay the patent holder.)
What kind of idiot are you? Ever heard of antitrust? Competition? No?
Go take a basic econ class. Or do they not teach those in high school anymore?
Why would they investigate this? Are you going to force a manufacturer to create a product for another company? It sounds pretty stupid to me. What should be investigated is how AT&T is getting plugged in the rear like a sailor. AT&T gets customers, but at what cost? How much of a profit is actually being made?
Leave them (carriers/manufacturers) alone... Most of the people who would rather have the iPhone on another carrier are probably for this more so than those happy with AT&T like I am
Leave them (carriers/manufacturers) alone... Most of the people who would rather have the iPhone on another carrier are probably for this more so than those happy with AT&T like I am
You guys have obviously never taken an economics class.
This is a similar situation to a monopoly. When companies raise their prices too high, it isn't feasible for another company to enter the market because of the huge sum of money they would have to spend in order to put up cell towers. That is why you don't see new cell phone companies pop up every time people complain about high prices. Since we are basically locked in to the couple cell companies that are around, they are able to (and do) charge what they please. It is the government's job to protect the consumer in this case.
This is a similar situation to a monopoly. When companies raise their prices too high, it isn't feasible for another company to enter the market because of the huge sum of money they would have to spend in order to put up cell towers. That is why you don't see new cell phone companies pop up every time people complain about high prices. Since we are basically locked in to the couple cell companies that are around, they are able to (and do) charge what they please. It is the government's job to protect the consumer in this case.
Then ask the FCC to investigate this:
Government Fees & Taxes (Primary)
911 Service Fee 0.70
Alabama Communications Service Tax 6.47
TOTAL GOVERNMENT FEES & TAXES $7.17
Government Fees & Taxes (Secondary)
911 Service Fee 0.70
Alabama Communications Service Tax 1.86
TOTAL GOVERNMENT FEES & TAXES $2.56
I'm paying close to $10 per month in TAXES on my cell bill. And I know for a fact, Alabama is one of the cheaper states. If the FCC and the federal government want to lower cell prices, they can cut their taxes.
Also, if AT&T makes a profit of $100 on your plan, they have to pay $35 in taxes. So, AT&T will adjust their prices to cover their losses due to taxes.
The government, as usual, gets to act like the fair outsider when they have their paws in the middle of it.
Government Fees & Taxes (Primary)
911 Service Fee 0.70
Alabama Communications Service Tax 6.47
TOTAL GOVERNMENT FEES & TAXES $7.17
Government Fees & Taxes (Secondary)
911 Service Fee 0.70
Alabama Communications Service Tax 1.86
TOTAL GOVERNMENT FEES & TAXES $2.56
I'm paying close to $10 per month in TAXES on my cell bill. And I know for a fact, Alabama is one of the cheaper states. If the FCC and the federal government want to lower cell prices, they can cut their taxes.
Also, if AT&T makes a profit of $100 on your plan, they have to pay $35 in taxes. So, AT&T will adjust their prices to cover their losses due to taxes.
The government, as usual, gets to act like the fair outsider when they have their paws in the middle of it.
There is no monopoly. There are 4 big carriers to choose from and many smaller, regional ones. How can you have a monopoly when you don't meet the mono requirement?
I am just amazed how the government so quick to challenge Windows Internet Explorer has been so slow to even look at the mobile telecom market. Washington lobbyists must have done an impeccable job.
+1
The government serves a purpose, if you don't like it move to northern Canada and be a hermit.
I want my government to serve a purpose. But investigating a lawful agreement between two parties is hardly worth their attention. Especially since the government engages in that type of behavior all the time. Ever heard of bidding? It is the precursor of an exclusivity agreement.
That sums it up right there. Unlike most niave folks on most web sites, there is no Democratic nor Republican party... there is just 1 party: The Lobbyist Party. Here is where I normally start my term limit rant, but I won't.
John
Amen, especially texting. I'd also love to know why the rates among the big 4 carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint) are so damn similar. I mean none of them have any non-prepaid plans less than $40/month? You'd think that over the course of however many years cell phones have been mainstream (a decade?), they would reduce the entry fee with four major competitors. Yet somehow it's all pretty much the same. They just keep adding services and charges.
What AT&T has with Apple is an agreement made after several negotiations. Verizon and Sprint had their chance at it and said no, there loss. (I really love the fact Verizon did not get the iPhone, they are the devil himself).
I'd much rather have Congress and the FCC investigate the raping roaming charges, the high text plans and other nickel-n-dime you type of charges on all carriers.
I don't know about roaming charges, but I don't see the government stepping in to analyze how much the price has to be. If they start to do that, then they would have to analyze the cable tv pricing and satellite tv pricing as well.
Where the government can step in is the investigation of what is leading to the seemingly high price or low service. So, the government will only analyze the 'structure' of that industry which eventually will lead to the exclusivity business.
I still have yet to read a valid argument as to why capitalism has failed (because it fundamentally cannot) or an argument as to why it's the Governments job to protect a consumer from something a consumer ultimately makes a decision on purchasing (i'm not forced to own a phone, are you?).
But if a valid argument was made on these two claims i think this thread would have digressed
But if a valid argument was made on these two claims i think this thread would have digressed
I wasn't the one who started this discussion about the content of signatures nor did I call individuals idiots. I called people (plural) who propose/approve govt getting involved in trying to fix every citizens boo-boo incomprehensible.
If it walks like a duck (nationalize banks), quacks like a duck (nationalize GM), flaps its wings like a duck (federal govt to determine private citizen pay) and swims like a duck (nationalize healthcare) it's a duck (socialist).
Those taxes go to different things. Regulating the industry, maintaining emergency wireless communications...
You can not cut a tax without cutting a service. Would you prefer if there was no emergency wireless comm?
Quadopoly?
_________________
Might be worth noting that they are finial looking into why SMS costs so damn much. (It shouldn't. It costs not much more to transmit 1,000,000 then 1,000,000,000. It's a fictional structure that makes telecom money.
Link