That's fine but they can't force Apple to build a CDMA phone so the best you'd get is T-Mobile until 2011 or later.
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
That's fine but they can't force Apple to build a CDMA phone so the best you'd get is T-Mobile until 2011 or later.
I personally hope that the iPhone stays on AT&T and that Apple can strong-arm AT&T into better service and better rates. I left Verizon for the iPhone. I see no problem with carriers having certain exclusive phones. Verizon has done that for years, hello chocolate and EnV, and gotten away with it. It is only now that another carrier has, by far IMO, a superior phone to any other phone they hope to offer.
U.S. Senators Are Seeking Investigation into Carrier Handset Exclusivity Agreements
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Four U.S. senators are urging the Federal Communications Commission to investigate whether cell phone operators that sell phones on an exclusive basis are unfairly restricting consumer choice.
The senators are asking the FCC to consider, among other things, whether there's too many of these arrangements between dominant U.S. carriers and handset makers, and if they limit a U.S. customers' ability to use their phones for certain features.
The four senators calling for the inquiry—John Kerry, D-Mass., Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.—didn't identify what deals they were alluding to.
AT&T Inc. has an arrangement to exclusively offer the Apple Inc. iPhone in the U.S. Meanwhile, Sprint Nextel Corp. sells the Palm Inc. Pre on an exclusive basis as well. An Apple representative had no comment. Spokespeople for AT&T, Sprint and Palm weren't immediately available for comment.
The senators said they would hold a hearing on Wednesday to examine competition issues and determine if legislative action is necessary.
Author: Ben Charny at ben.charny@dowjones.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124516287121119063.html?ru=yahoo#mod=yahoo_hs
EMAIL YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN IF YOU CARE!
Here's an update, with today's date, from All Things Digital: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/...carrier-exclusivity/?reflink=ATD_yahoo_ticker
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Four U.S. senators are urging the Federal Communications Commission to investigate whether cell phone operators that sell phones on an exclusive basis are unfairly restricting consumer choice.
The senators are asking the FCC to consider, among other things, whether there's too many of these arrangements between dominant U.S. carriers and handset makers, and if they limit a U.S. customers' ability to use their phones for certain features.
The four senators calling for the inquiry—John Kerry, D-Mass., Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.—didn't identify what deals they were alluding to.
AT&T Inc. has an arrangement to exclusively offer the Apple Inc. iPhone in the U.S. Meanwhile, Sprint Nextel Corp. sells the Palm Inc. Pre on an exclusive basis as well. An Apple representative had no comment. Spokespeople for AT&T, Sprint and Palm weren't immediately available for comment.
The senators said they would hold a hearing on Wednesday to examine competition issues and determine if legislative action is necessary.
Author: Ben Charny at ben.charny@dowjones.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124516287121119063.html?ru=yahoo#mod=yahoo_hs
EMAIL YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN IF YOU CARE!
Here's an update, with today's date, from All Things Digital: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/...carrier-exclusivity/?reflink=ATD_yahoo_ticker
By ending exclusivity agreements, carriers will have to compete for customers.
For example, if AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Tmobile all offered the iPhone, they would be competing on price of service. AT&T charges $30 for data, so Verizon says "we will give you data for only $25," so people who's contracts have expired go to Verizon because it costs less. Then, Sprint says "$20 data" and they get the new business. Then Tmobile says "$19 data" and now no one is going to AT&T, so AT&T lowers their data fee to $20 to attract customers again. Eventually, they all hit a price point in which they can not go any lower and still balance their budget sheets. Maybe that amount is $18, and so all four carriers eventually end up charging $18. That is how the free market works. Without exclusivity agreements, they would be competing for texting plans also.
Right now, the major competition price war between carriers is with the "Family Plan."
No, just offer an unlocked iPhone for sale straight from Apple. Also make Apple let use unlock our devices after our contracts with AT&T end
(Also have Sprint/Verizon open those networks up)
Have you seen the Australian iphone data plans --- 3 carriers selling iphones in Australia and their data plans suck big time.
iPhone's long term exclusivity DOESN'T affect data plan pricing at all --- because smart phone data pricing has been the same $30 on AT&T and Verizon before the iphone was launched. And all these smart phones never had any long term exclusivity.
I'd argue that they already compete for customers currently. The exclusive devices they offer are part of the competition.
instead of focusing on drawing customers in by phone options, it will be service options!
And how is this good for the providers?
Oh wait, I forgot nobody is supposed to care about them or their viability.
The FCC won't make them change things just so prices are more competitive for customers.
All Things Digital analyzed what the senators said, and it goes right at AT&T:
An interesting list and one that seems to single out AT&T, though it doesnt mention the carrier by name. Indeed, limiting a consumers ability to take full advantage of handset technologies, such as the ability to send multimedia messages or the ability to tether a device to a computer for Internet use is exactly what AT&T will do later this week when the iPhone 3G S and iPhone OS 3.0 debut without the carriers support for their new tethering and MMS capabilities.
And then theres this: The iPhone 3G S is compatible with high-speed packet access 7.2 technology, which offers theoretical peak download speeds of up to 7.2 Mbps. But AT&T doesnt plan to begin deploying HSPA 7.2 until later this year and the company doesnt expect to complete the rollout until 2011.
Finally, the companys refusal to sell the iPhone in rural areas where it provides only roaming coverage certainly restricts consumer choice with respect to which handsets are available depending on a consumers geographic region, particularly for consumers living in rural America.
Clearly, if the senators responsible for this letter were looking for a case study for the problems with exclusive carrier-device agreements, theyve got one ready-made in AT&T.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/...carrier-exclusivity/?reflink=ATD_yahoo_ticker
An interesting list and one that seems to single out AT&T, though it doesnt mention the carrier by name. Indeed, limiting a consumers ability to take full advantage of handset technologies, such as the ability to send multimedia messages or the ability to tether a device to a computer for Internet use is exactly what AT&T will do later this week when the iPhone 3G S and iPhone OS 3.0 debut without the carriers support for their new tethering and MMS capabilities.
And then theres this: The iPhone 3G S is compatible with high-speed packet access 7.2 technology, which offers theoretical peak download speeds of up to 7.2 Mbps. But AT&T doesnt plan to begin deploying HSPA 7.2 until later this year and the company doesnt expect to complete the rollout until 2011.
Finally, the companys refusal to sell the iPhone in rural areas where it provides only roaming coverage certainly restricts consumer choice with respect to which handsets are available depending on a consumers geographic region, particularly for consumers living in rural America.
Clearly, if the senators responsible for this letter were looking for a case study for the problems with exclusive carrier-device agreements, theyve got one ready-made in AT&T.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/...carrier-exclusivity/?reflink=ATD_yahoo_ticker
Uh, it makes them compete to provide better service and get more customers.
Think much?
I just wish they would unlock your phones after the contract is over... I mean we pretty much paid $2000 over a period of 2 years and yet we can only use our phones with the same carrier.
What if you decide to go on an international trip, why do we have to pay roaming charges when we can easily pay local charges which would be much cheaper?
Why do we pay incoming charges when even in developing countries like India, the incoming calls and texts are free?
I don't really care if they do not change the exclusive agreements but they definitely need to look at these issues. We as consumers are getting robbed while the people WE elected get pwned by lobbyists.
-X
What if you decide to go on an international trip, why do we have to pay roaming charges when we can easily pay local charges which would be much cheaper?
Why do we pay incoming charges when even in developing countries like India, the incoming calls and texts are free?
I don't really care if they do not change the exclusive agreements but they definitely need to look at these issues. We as consumers are getting robbed while the people WE elected get pwned by lobbyists.
-X
Once again the government is trying to "fix" something that isn't broken. If you do not like the exclusivity agreement a phone manufacturer has with a provider, DO NOT BUY IT! Its that simple. No one is forcing you to buy ANY cell phone much less a phone that is tied to only one carrier. Getting the government involved in this (or text messages) will only lead to higher prices for everyone down the line. Do you really think that if the government puts a cap on text messages at $.05 a text, that those companies won't make up the difference somewhere else?
The entitlement attitude of the masses will ultimately be the demise of this once great country. We do not need the government sticking its nose in every aspect of our lives.
The entitlement attitude of the masses will ultimately be the demise of this once great country. We do not need the government sticking its nose in every aspect of our lives.
Business Week had an interesting perspective on this investigation in saying that it has nothing to do with multiple carriers rather it has to do with the technology investment a handset manufacturer would have to make to optimize a phone for a given network. Obviously, you wouldn't be able to use a GSM phone such as the iPhone on a CDMA network like Verizon without a new headset and this is why many phone manufacturers have exclusivity agreements because they don't want to have to create multiple versions of the same phone.
Apparently more than you have. From a real world business perspective, not allowing the companies to offer exclusive hardware would unfairly limit their competitive options.
a Pollyanna utopian world where all phones work on all networks and you get all the features for $5 a month isn't good in the long run for companies or consumers. You can wish for it all you want, it's not going to happen.
Also think about when prior to the iPhone when AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon carried he same BB models (some of them), where was the competition in the rates? No where, that's right they competed on the price of the handset not on the rates.
The same thing will happen when the iPhone is offered on other carriers. You will not see a rate price competition, they'll just discount the handset $20 more than the next guy.
The same thing will happen when the iPhone is offered on other carriers. You will not see a rate price competition, they'll just discount the handset $20 more than the next guy.
Thanks for proving me right. A company that cannot compete without being a monopoly isn't worthy of being in business at all.
Just because they don't offer services in a way you want doesn't make them a monopoly. It is still a free and open market. You just don't like the choices.
I'd imagine there's a belief that if the iPhone was unlocked and usable on every network then AT&T would already have enabled MMS and tethering and maybe even offered it for free so users wouldn't go elsewhere. They might even drop the data fee and lower the monthly voice charges. A scenario like this would be bad for the industry and consumers in the long run.
One of the worst things that could happen to the telecom industry would be a race to the bottom where every company was undercutting each other with constantly lowering rates. Innovation would slow to a crawl and services would be far worse than they are now.
Despite the anti-corporate sentiment seen on these forums, these companies aren't gouging us with their monthly charges. We're not getting screwed.
The government doesn't need to get even more involved in telling companies how they can do business and defining how they can and cannot be competitive. They do a terrible job in every circumstance.
I think cellphone exclusivity is great as it creates competition for companies and gets them to improve their service and or product.
What I don't like is having phones locked. I think that's wrong since it forces you to buy one product along with another product. We should be allowed to buy a cellphone as we please and not be forced to tie ourselves into a contract with a company we may or may not be happy with. I've been to the philippines and think their system of selling cellphones is great: Buy an unlocked phone. Choose your plan with any company the phone will work with.
The partnership between the cellphone carrier and cellphone maker should stay in place as it that partnership would ensure that the cellphone would perform the way its designed to.
So if my dreams were to come true, I would see the iPhone being sold unlocked ONLY at Apple and ATT stores since they have the exclusivity agreement, but like the 1st generation, you just buy and take it home. From there, you can decide to take it to ATT and activate it with them, where you're guaranteed to have visual voicemail and whatever network driven features there are on the phone to work. But if you dont like their service in your area, you can choose a company that better suits you such at T-mobile. since the phoen is unlocked. However, since they don't have a partnership with Apple, you can't be guaranteed 3G speeds or visual voicemail, etc, but at least you have a phone that would work.
Well, at least, thats my opinion.
What I don't like is having phones locked. I think that's wrong since it forces you to buy one product along with another product. We should be allowed to buy a cellphone as we please and not be forced to tie ourselves into a contract with a company we may or may not be happy with. I've been to the philippines and think their system of selling cellphones is great: Buy an unlocked phone. Choose your plan with any company the phone will work with.
The partnership between the cellphone carrier and cellphone maker should stay in place as it that partnership would ensure that the cellphone would perform the way its designed to.
So if my dreams were to come true, I would see the iPhone being sold unlocked ONLY at Apple and ATT stores since they have the exclusivity agreement, but like the 1st generation, you just buy and take it home. From there, you can decide to take it to ATT and activate it with them, where you're guaranteed to have visual voicemail and whatever network driven features there are on the phone to work. But if you dont like their service in your area, you can choose a company that better suits you such at T-mobile. since the phoen is unlocked. However, since they don't have a partnership with Apple, you can't be guaranteed 3G speeds or visual voicemail, etc, but at least you have a phone that would work.
Well, at least, thats my opinion.
Philippines and other places look good --- because they are basically dominated by grey goods that were sourced from the first world, box broken (unofficial unlocked of subsidized phones from the first world), flipped around Europe through a million rounds of VAT tax fraud, then imported into Philippines and the other countries without paying import duties.
Go and look at Italy's completely unlocked no contract 3GS prices --- TIM just announced it today, it's a thousand dollar.