backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 59 comment(s) - last by namechamps.. on Jun 18 at 10:28 AM
Politicians go on the attack, requesting the FCC look into the mobile industry

Four U.S. senators are now requesting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) look into cell phone service providers and how they tie certain cell phones to one carrier.

It's possible there is too much emphasis on exclusive arrangements between phone manufacturers and U.S. carriers, which has made the senators nervous.  John Kerry (D-Mass), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) weren't specific on which manufacturers and carriers are working together exclusively.

"We ask that you examine this issue carefully and act expeditiously should you find that exclusivity agreements unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition in the commercial wireless marketplace," the four wrote in a letter to the FCC.

There have been reports and articles over the past year that showed both consumers and lawmakers who have been growing weary of the way a select group of phone manufacturers and service providers control the industry.

The Apple iPhone is currently available only for the AT&T network,  the Palm Pre available on Sprint Nextel, with several other similar circumstances.  Each major U.S. carrier has at least one exclusive phone, as Verizon Wireless has the BlackBerry Storm and T-Mobile has the Android-based G1 device along with Sprint and AT&T's exclusive phones.

Exclusivity contracts reportedly lower the price of phones for consumers, but the problem is that switching to a new carrier for a cell phone is troublesome.  The Rural Cellular Association, an organization representing around 80 small wireless companies, also wants to hear from the FCC as to whether or not exclusive contracts are better for consumers in the long run.  Small carriers such as MetroPCS have a difficult time getting high-profile phones, as they're only available for one of the big four service providers.

It should be interesting to see if the FCC is interested in trying to force manufacturers and carriers to open up their services to multiple platforms.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
And more of the free market potentially dies
By FITCamaro on 6/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By DixyCrat on 6/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By JosefTor on 6/16/2009 12:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
It does worry me with all these new government mandates. They have now ruined my credit card rewards... let's see what they can do next.

I am on the Sprint network and I can actually see some merit to not allowing at least super long contracts like the iPhone (or what motorola did with the original Razor). Sprint was put in a horrible position almost single handedly by Apple and Motorola. They lost customers even with lower prices for their plans, this led to not being to upgrade their network or spend as much on advertising as other companies (own opinion). Now that Sprint has the Palm Pre it should help out a bit, but unless the contract is super long, I doubt it will be game changing.

I can see the government putting a limit of a year on contracts for any one phone. (a new version of the phone would be capable of a new exclusive contract). This means that if a world changing phone comes out, we only have to wait a year for it (usually not long enough to give up specific carrier's benefits.... Sprint-low cost, T-Mobile-favorite 5, AT&T-rollover)


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 1:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can see the government putting a limit of a year on contracts for any one phone.
What compelling reason would the government have to make that rather arbitrary rule? And how is one year much different from the one- and two-year contracts that most of the industry uses today?


By fic2 on 6/16/2009 2:40:55 PM , Rating: 1
Pretty sure the gov't controls the airwaves that the cell companies are using. I would hope that there are some rules in the contracts that leased (?) the frequencies to the cell companies. If so, that would give them the right. Also, the cell phone companies are governed by the FCC which, I am sure, can pretty much change the rules when it sees fit.

It would be different because there would be no 2-year contracts.


By AEvangel on 6/16/2009 2:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It does worry me with all these new government mandates. They have now ruined my credit card rewards... let's see what they can do next.


While I don't agree with the government sticking there nose into anything the reward program was crazy in the way it worked since they charged the vendors higher fees to pay for these programs which meant that you the consumer ended up paying for it anyway with higher prices.

In regards to the cell phone issue, no one is making anyone buy the exclusive phones. It's ridiculous what our government feels it has the right to stick it's nose into even though nowhere was it ever given that right.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By daniyarm on 6/16/2009 12:41:21 PM , Rating: 5
It is not their right to lock out a huge group of potential customers just because they are with a different provider. It's not any different than buying a TV or a toaster. What if your TV worked only with Directv or Comcast and you had to buy a new one every time you moved or wanted to switch cable companies, how would you like that?

If AT&T was manufacturing a phone that worked only on AT&T network (like Directv receiver), that's a different story, but since the phone is generic and is only locked by AT&T due to an exclusive contract, that is a problem.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By rdeegvainl on 6/16/2009 1:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
It is their right to decide who they sell to. They aren't discriminating based on race or gender, so I see no problem here.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By daniyarm on 6/16/2009 3:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
That's the whole point, it is NOT their right to decide who to sell to. They can pick a distributor like AT&T and if AT&T want's to sell the phone at a lower price because I sign a contract with them, fine. But the manufacturer should be required to sell the phone UNLOCKED without any contracts so I can choose how I want to use the phone.

And by the way, discrimination is not only based on race or genger, it can be based on anything.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 3:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
What law do you suppose they are breaking with the exclusive carrier agreements? None that I'm aware of. It has nothing to do with discrimination - that's a completely separate thing.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By lightfoot on 6/16/2009 3:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has a legal monopoly on the manufacture and sale of the iPhone. If Apple were to continue gaining market share in the smartphone segment it is not unreasonable to assume that they would begin to monopolize the smartphone market.

If Apple were determined to have a monopoly, it would be illegal to tie any other product or service to the product that they have a legal monopoly of. Just as Microsoft cannot legally force users of Windows to use IE or MediaPlayer, Apple could not force users to use AT&T's network, nor force users to use iTunes. Apple has (to a limited extent) undermined this argument by offering to sell unlocked iPhones, but that may or may not protect them from the oppressive gaze of the government.

The only way to determine monopolistic behaviour is to investigate it. The particular law being violated would be Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 4:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, if Apple were to have a monopoly, you would be right. If...


By lightfoot on 6/16/2009 4:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know, if you don't investigate?

They are starting an investigation to see if they are using their collusive agreements to corner the market.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By rdeegvainl on 6/16/2009 5:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's the whole point, it is NOT their right to decide who to sell to.

Yes, it is their right to decide who to sell to.
quote:
But the manufacturer should be required to sell the phone UNLOCKED without any contracts so I can choose how I want to use the phone.

Why?

quote:
And by the way, discrimination is not only based on race or genger, it can be based on anything.

I never said discrimination was only based on race or gender, but not all discrimination is is illegal, or bad.


By FITCamaro on 6/17/2009 10:31:54 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If I have a product, I should be free to decide who to sell to. Otherwise you start to get into the area where a service provider should be required to offer a service in a particular area if they offer it in any other area. EVDO isn't offered across the entire country. Providers choose to offer it in areas where it makes financial sense to do so. A phone manufacturer making the choice which provider to supply a particular phone to is no different. It makes financial sense for them to take the money the provider gives them for the exclusive agreement. And the fact is that with GSM phones, you can buy any phone unlocked and out of contract for a higher price and use it with any other GSM service provider. You just might not get all the features you would on the service the phone was designed for. Except for the iPhone of course(at least legally) since its GSM chip isn't user removable.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By AEvangel on 6/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By daniyarm on 6/16/2009 3:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, let's remove these regulations and sell guns to convicted felons and children, drive cars with no emission standards, and dump toxic chemicals into rivers and lakes. And all because these regulations prevent smaller gun, car and chemical companies from making a go of it.


By AEvangel on 6/16/2009 3:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, let's remove these regulations and sell guns to convicted felons and children, drive cars with no emission standards, and dump toxic chemicals into rivers and lakes. And all because these regulations prevent smaller gun, car and chemical companies from making a go of it.


Well, since all those issues are criminal issues resolved by the courts, your sarcasm really shows how naive your are.


By erple2 on 6/17/2009 3:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting - the ones that benefit from no regulation are the large companies, too. So they benefit from more regulation and no regulation. So does that then mean that large companies always benefit?

However, you're right. If you don't like some part of a product for sale, do you have a right to force the company to change it? If I were to buy a car, then would it be "right" to force that seller to supply the Honda engine in the Chevy I just bought?

However, this works differently - in this case, it's like buying a Chevy means that I can only put Exxon gasoline in it to make it run, and only drive on roads with a particular name.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 1:05:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Is there anything about our economy the government is NOT going to try and dictate
The government has the (very valid) responsibility of protecting competition and consumer rights. You have a huge market here in terms of revenue and number of customers that is basically dominated by a few, very large players. I think it is reasonable for FCC, DOJ, etc. to at least keep an eye on what is going on.

When government turns a blind eye and lets large businesses "regulate themselves" for a period of time, the outcome is not always a good one. Some oversight is unfortunately necessary.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By AEvangel on 6/16/2009 2:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When government turns a blind eye and lets large businesses "regulate themselves" for a period of time, the outcome is not always a good one. Some oversight is unfortunately necessary.


The best thing we could hope for is government to turn a blind eye. Look at the internet they have had minimal intrusion into it and it's doing quite well regulating itself. Every time government gets involved all it does is stifle competition and make more costs for the consumer.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 2:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The best thing we could hope for is government to turn a blind eye
You mean like how they did with the banking industry for the past decade, allowing them to "regulate themselves"? That didn't exactly work out well.

In my opinion, some government oversight, at a minimum, would be wise. You don't want to have the situation again where the government is clueless or in denial about a growing problem. And some monitoring and oversight doesn't mean they have to get involved with all sorts of regulations either. Regulation only becomes necessary when problems are noted and when the industry cannot solve them on their own.


By AEvangel on 6/16/2009 3:26:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You mean like how they did with the banking industry for the past decade, allowing them to "regulate themselves"? That didn't exactly work out well.


Actually they were regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision, the same office that under a different name was in charge of the Savings and Loans of the 80's another financial fiasco caused by our government oversight.

The reason we are in this mess with our banking industry and housing markets is due to regulations that were placed in effect by our government.


By FITCamaro on 6/16/2009 10:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please. Banks were hardly not regulated.


RE: And more of the free market potentially dies
By chynn on 6/16/2009 3:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your opinions about the government butting into too much of the private sector's business, in general, the fact that both AT&T and MSFT corporations actively prevent the general public from buying iPhones on the open market or installing any browser when the OS is installed makes their actions eerily similar to those practiced by monopolies and cartels.

The facts that MSFT IE has ignored the W3C browser standards for so long and has used "own code syntax" to access MSFT web sites to force the general public to use their browser are practices directly comparable to IBM's business practices of the 60's and 70's. FYI, IBM was successfully prosecuted for monopolistic business practices during that time.

I don't mind AT&T discounting iPhones to their customers; that's their right. What I object to, and label as monopolistic, is AT&T not allowing the general public to purchase iPhones at retail prices from other vendors.

Same goes for Verizon, Sprint, and all the others. Cell phones should not be locked down to specific corporations; discounted, yes, but locked down, no!


By Ronin on 6/17/2009 1:06:06 AM , Rating: 2
AT&T, nor Apple, is doing anything wrong by entering into an exclusive contract with one other to provide a device to the public, and providing subsidies only to its customers to offset the cost of the phone. Why? Because it's in their best interest from a business standpoint, and because this has been going on for some time (in somewhat recent times, let's use the Blackjack as an example).

There is no monopoly, because there are multiple other devices that can be purchased that have similar functionality.

quote:
What I object to, and label as monopolistic, is AT&T not allowing the general public to purchase iPhones at retail prices from other vendors.


This is pretty funny, actually. How many other devices are in this exact same boat? The Pre and Storm are 2 that immediately come to mind, neither of which are offered by AT&T. Does that mean that Sprint and Verizon are also guilty of your so called monopolistic practices? Hardly. Your basis for argument is flawed, and has no legal stance.

These exclusive contracts are what the vendors have above and beyond their competition..each has their own leg up, but nowhere near to the point that it's a monopoly.

As far as the service costs, someone else mentioned this earlier, and they're right. They'll charge what people are willing to pay. If you don't want to pay $20/month for unlimited text messages, then you won't.


Easy fix
By Spivonious on 6/16/2009 11:49:16 AM , Rating: 3
There's an easy fix for this. Make it illegal to tie a phone to a contract. Sure phone prices will rise, as they'll no longer be subsidized by the carriers, but they'll all be unlocked and compatible with all carriers thus giving consumers more choice in their phone and carrier combination. This will result in better competition between carriers since they won't have the latest and greatest phone to rely on for new customers.




RE: Easy fix
By Doormat on 6/16/2009 11:58:35 AM , Rating: 3
Not really.

If you buy a GSM-based phone, you can choose between T-Mobile and AT&T. If you buy a CDMA-based phone you get to choose between Verizon and Sprint. Thats it.

Next generation (4G) it gets a little better, since T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T will all use LTE. However you'd still need a phone that can degrade to CDMA or GSM when the LTE network isn't available, so that will either increase the unit costs (for both GSM and CDMA licensing) or you buy a phone that works with either Verizon or AT&T/T-Mobile.


RE: Easy fix
By TreeDude62 on 6/16/2009 1:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
LTE is only for data. The voice is still going to be based on either CDMA or GSM.


RE: Easy fix
By mikecel79 on 6/16/2009 2:26:17 PM , Rating: 3
No it's not. Voice will be migrated to VOIP running over LTE with priority. Verizon has been testing this for months already internally and with their OEMs.


RE: Easy fix
By namechamps on 6/18/2009 10:28:02 AM , Rating: 2
Right now we have essentially voice networks with data slapped onto using a couple of hacks that allow it to co-exist with voice calls.

In next gen networks they will be wireless data networks.
Voice will just be another form of data, as will video conferencing, or stock quotes, or mp3, or internet.

Much in the way that your ISP doesn't see Vonage call as a phone call it simply sees it as another chunk of data to route.


RE: Easy fix
By eddieroolz on 6/16/2009 5:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
As much as that sounds great, we have to be realistic here.

When are we in North America ever going to get 4G? Japan's already testing it, yet major carriers in Canada and US are still testing their 3G network.

It's a shame that we can't have a set standard throughout the world and make it possible for us consumers to choose based on reliability and price rather than selection.


RE: Easy fix
By TomZ on 6/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Easy fix
By lightfoot on 6/16/2009 3:55:08 PM , Rating: 4
Other than the fact that you pay inflated service rates for subsidies that you may or may not be taking advantage of.


RE: Easy fix
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 5:44:29 PM , Rating: 1
Consumers pay what they want to pay. If the prices are higher than they want to pay, then they don't buy. So there's no such thing as "pay[ing] inflated service rates" unless someone is holding a gun to your head.

Really, the point of the subsidies is to help consumers bear the up-front equipment cost. I don't see much wrong with that practice myself. Most carriers allow you to pay the full price of the equipment up-front and then pay for their service month-to-month.


RE: Easy fix
By eddieroolz on 6/16/2009 5:56:37 PM , Rating: 3
You clearly have not been to Canada, where Rogers gets away with charging $30/month for 500MB of smartphone data.

They can get away with it because them and Fido, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rogers, is the only GSM operator in Canada.

How does $200+ for 5GB of data not be considered inflated charge? Or the 6.95 monthly system access fee on top of everything else? How about $20 for 2000 text?

There is such thing as inflated charge, my friend. You guys in the US get it better than us here north.


RE: Easy fix
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 6:02:20 PM , Rating: 1
Verizon charges $40/month for 250MB for mobile broadband, so I wouldn't say the pricing situation is that much better here.


RE: Easy fix
By eddieroolz on 6/16/2009 6:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the clarification, TomZ.


RE: Easy fix
By OCedHrt on 6/16/2009 5:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
The US industry is not the entire industry. I believe in most of Asia (Japan not included) cell phones are not tied to any particular carrier. This does not prevent them from subsidizing phones. You can still get phones for free by signing annual contracts.


RE: Easy fix
By iFX on 6/16/2009 5:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is how it works in Brazil; down there you can have an iPhone on any carrier you want and every phone comes "unlocked", even iPhones.


Troublesome
By tjr508 on 6/16/2009 11:50:36 AM , Rating: 1
It's funny how the wireless spectrum was sold allowing for such contracts. Will there be a refund for the companies that paid extra for closed platform airspace if they are later forced to open it up?

The current administration has shown that they have no problem with changing the rules midway through the game. This was shown with the DTV delay.




RE: Troublesome
By FITCamaro on 6/16/2009 12:15:39 PM , Rating: 4
They also have no problem breaking the law as proven in the GM/Chrysler "bankruptcies" in which they violated contract law. What company(or foreign government) is going to trust anything our government says now when they've proven that if they don't like the rules or don't agree with them because its not in the interest of their campaign contributors, they'll ignore them.


RE: Troublesome
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 1:09:15 PM , Rating: 3
Through the bankruptcy process, the government has a legal right to terminate contracts. Your assertion there is blatantly incorrect.

I do agree with you in principle, however. I think that the government was too quick to dismiss the rights of the various stakeholders that had secured debt. Philosophically, I don't see how that is any different than when communist or socialist government regimes decide to nationalize companies, essentially assuming ownership of something that was previously privately-owned. The US Government has basically done the same in the case of GM and Chrysler. It is very troubling.


RE: Troublesome
By QuantumPion on 6/16/2009 2:55:33 PM , Rating: 4
Here is a good car analogy.

I buy a car from you for $1000. But after I take the car, I say I am unable to pay you because I am broke.

You take me to small claims court, expecting to either get the car back, or negotiate some sort of payment plan.

Of the $1000 I was supposed to pay you, the judge keeps $600 for himself, gives you $100, gives me back $300, and lets me keep the car. Sound fair?


RE: Troublesome
By erple2 on 6/17/2009 3:34:03 PM , Rating: 1
That's not a good analogy. Let me fix it for you.

There are 4 people in the entire country. You, the woman you bought car from, the guy that lent the money to the seller to make the car and the judge.

Now, the car producer has invested her own time and efforts to make the car. They sold you the car. However, in the split second before you took delivery of the car, the seller then gave the car to the judge. Now the judge is the one that owns the car. But you have the car. So the judge now has to act in the best interests of the country. Clearly, just taking the car back from you hurts lots of people - the judge has no use for the car, and the creditor doesn't get paid for the loan the seller made. You don't have a car that you needed, but you're not technically worse off. The only one that comes out ahead is the seller - even then, they are really just in no worse shape than before.

Now, if the judge keeps 600 dollars for himself, that's good for the judge. The seller gets 100 dollars - more than they had initially anyway, and you get to keep your car, plus another couple bucks. The only one that suffers is the creditor, who is out the cash for the car. Either way, the creditor is the one that was screwed in either outcome.

Sounds to me like the economy as a whole is better off in the latter case..


I don't get it
By Jabroney701020 on 6/16/2009 3:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
What if I think it's unfair that California and Florida have nice beaches? I think the government should put beaches in every state. I want an Audi but I want to buy it from GM to use my GM Card points. The government should make GM sell Audi. I think banks have a monopoly on foreclosed homes and would like to see Wal-Mart own and sell foreclosed homes because I shop there sometimes. I think babysitters charge too much to watch my kids. Maybe the government can make the tooth fairy watch my kids for a lower cost, she doesn't seem to need money that much. I don't understand the logic in this. I am not good at history, and maybe someone can put up some examples, but have government dictated markets done well in past cultures? How could businesses function like this? Why would a company innovate anything? Why do we have patent laws? Has the patent system been destroying business all this time? I feel that democrats are trying to buy votes by pleasing a culture of "spoiled consumers".




RE: I don't get it
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 4:31:24 PM , Rating: 1
Way to overreact. Since you obviously didn't read the article, I'll copy/paste a little bit here for you.

"We ask that you examine this issue carefully and act expeditiously should you find that exclusivity agreements unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition in the commercial wireless marketplace," the four wrote in a letter to the FCC.

What's unreasonable about that?


RE: I don't get it
By kenferg1 on 6/16/2009 5:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously miss the point. It is unreasonable because the government (in this case four very liberal Democrats) interfere in the business of individuals contracting with business for service. It has come to the point that individual liberty is eroding away as so many of our countrymen ask the government to "protect" them. The government is happy to protect them; the price is individual freedom.

Right now there is fierce competition to deliver an iPhone killer by all of the carriers. The exclusive arrangement that Apple formed with AT&T along with the success of the iPhone have provided the market for invention and progress in the communications industry. People are voting with their dollars as to which carrier they will choose. Verizon, Sprint, & T-Mobile have had to scramble to catch up, but they are catching up.

For those predisposed to turn to the national government for protection, I suggest that you look at the Declaration of Independence for the list of abuses that government can heap upon individuals. Jefferson wrote, "...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Indeed, Americans are disposed to suffer one intrusion after another by our elected government on the rights of individuals. The intrusion into business and contracts is a gross violation of individual rights. This call by these polticians for the government to ensure choice and competition in the communications industry is another intrusion.

Slippery slope? You're damned right.


RE: I don't get it
By TomZ on 6/16/2009 5:35:26 PM , Rating: 1
I understand your point and can recognize the knee-jerk reaction of another libertarian to this semi-sensationalist article. But what these senators have asked is that the FCC check to see if competition or consumers have been harmed, and to take action if they have.

In other words, they are saying that if the free market is working properly, then do nothing. Re-read the quote above.

I don't think the mere act of the government spending some effort to understand a particular situation puts us down some slippery slope. That just doesn't make sense.


RE: I don't get it
By Jabroney701020 on 6/16/2009 7:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well I hope that is the case. I don't know much about this issue but I hope that these 4 are not already jumping into monopolistic accusations before doing exactly what you pointed out in the article. I do know that my tendency to over-react to these issues came from somewhere.


RE: I don't get it
By kenferg1 on 6/17/2009 10:06:42 PM , Rating: 1
My "knee jerk" reaction is the result of watching national politicians nationalize every problem that comes down the pike. My reaction is not knee jerk, it is anger and dismay that We the People continue to elect the least qualified people to manage our national affairs. We elect meddlesome, power-hungry, ego maniacs who are most interested in getting re-elected than in doing what is right.

Libertarian? Perhaps. How about just doing what is right and Constitutional? But then it is always that pesky old rag of a document that screws it up for people who want government to solve most of their problems.


RE: I don't get it
By stubeck on 6/16/2009 8:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
They're not all "very liberal" democrats, hell, ones a freaking republican.


RE: I don't get it
By smegz on 6/17/2009 3:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
in this case four very liberal Democrats


Umm 3 Dems, 1 Republican.

For the most part I agree with your statement. The iPhone's exclusivity has caused a major spike in smart phone development. There are far more choices now than there may have been if the iPhone was open to all carriers.

Many have speculated that Apple has already made the silent announcement that change is coming at the WWDC when they acknowledged the carriers selling the iPhone and AT&T was absent from the page. I don't think Apple likes being told what to do by a cellular carrier (i.e., which features they can include.) With AT&T stymieing their creativity by delaying or simply denying use of features, I honestly feel that Apple will announce a CDMA version of the iPhone sooner rather than later.


Texting plans are the true crime....
By tlbj6142 on 6/16/2009 1:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
If law makers want to "fix" something in the cell phone industry have them fix the $20 (or $30 family plan) all you can text plans. I can get 700 phone minutes for $40. And in many cases my call is "free" (friends, in network, evenings, weekend, etc.). Each minute of phone data is worth over a 1000 txt messages worth of network bandwidth, yet they charge me $20 for an all-you-can-txt plan. Its a crime.

I read Consumer Reports (a few months back) filed some sort of complain to the BBB? FTC? regarding this issue.




By TomZ on 6/16/2009 1:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
TXT charges are a massive rip-off in the cell phone industry. They are making billions of dollars of profit while consuming tiny amounts of bandwidth.

But on the other hand, users are well-informed of the costs and choose to use the service anyway, then it must be worth it to them. And so this is a great cash cow that the providers have stumbled into.


By FITCamaro on 6/16/2009 2:16:11 PM , Rating: 3
So don't pay for it. They have a service. You want it. The price will be what the market will bear. Do you view it criminal that Gillette gives away the razor but makes a huge profit on the blades?

The only crime is when people like you want to tell these companies how to do business. If you don't like how much a company charges for something, find another provider or don't have one at all. Alternatively, start a competing service.


By pequin06 on 6/16/2009 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's going to be the next headline.
Sony has God of War & inFamous and the PS2 is basically a monolopy by being the best selling console to date.
Microsoft has Halo and Gears of War and is winning the next gen console war.
It's just not right!

We need the goverment to get to the bottom of this!

/sarcasm




Limit exclusivity to 6 months
By aspenland on 6/17/2009 4:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
Exclusivity is important with new phones, as it allows the manufacturer to work with one service provider to iron out possible issues, and reward the carrier for this extra hassle. After 6 months all phones should be non-exclusive. The current market structure definitely limits competition.




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki