Home  ›  News  ›

Incoming FCC Chair Agrees to 'Review' Exclusive Phone Deals

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 22 replies

What if we want it the other way around?

justfinethanku

Jun 19, 2009, 2:43 PM
I'm assuming that there are a few senaters out there that don't want to give up Verizon and switch to AT&T just to get the iPhone.

Q: What happens if the other carriers still refuse to carry a phone, even if the anti-exclusivity legislation is passed?

Are they going to then force every carrier to carry and subsidize every phone on the market to promote "choice"?

This is a free market, screw the FCC.
...
WiWavelength

Jun 19, 2009, 4:02 PM
justfinethanku said:
This is a free market, screw the FCC.


Wrong. It is not a free market.

As long as wireless carriers' business models are entirely dependent upon use of public property (e.g. spectrum), then wireless carriers' business models and wireless carriers themselves are fairly subject to stringent government scrutiny. The FCC has a Congressional mandate to act in the public interest and to ensure that its licensees -- stewards of public property -- serve the public interest.

To apply this principle to the current issue, if handset exclusivity is protectionism that unduly harms wireless competition, hence is contrary to the public interest, then the FCC has a responsibility to examine and...
(continues)
...
Drunk

Jun 19, 2009, 4:31 PM
Not only did I not read what you said but I say what the one dude said
Screw the FCC
...
HumanStudios

Jun 19, 2009, 5:31 PM
People are dumb sometimes, and shortsited. These companies are gyrating on our nethers with cheese graters, and we're just okay with it? It's public property, yet they're using it to make money off of things they have no right to make money on. There was someone else who posted something that made a lot of sense. We don't get our cars from DMV, or our electronic devices from our Power company, or water heaters from the gas companies (though some do provide installation services). Why is it we have to get our cell phones from the service providers? How are they getting away with this for so long?
...
Drunk

Jun 19, 2009, 6:02 PM
Buy an unlocked phone from the manufacture, like sony or nokia. it's not that hard. oh and screw the FCC and corporate america
...
CellStudent

Jun 20, 2009, 12:46 AM
Buy an unlocked phone from the manufacture, like sony or nokia. it's not that hard. oh and screw the FCC and corporate america


It ALMOST seems like you're starting to get it, here. This is what I'd like to see:

"All phones should be available unlocked (at whatever free-market price the market will support) and all carriers should have the right to activate those unlocked phones on their own network should they decide to do so."

This is not about Verizon vs. AT&T in my eyes. It really is about openness of devices, especially for rural carriers and the Cricket's and MetroPCS's out there.

Carriers should not have the right to prevent their competitors from operating in a competitive open market by denying ...
(continues)
...
Menno

Jun 20, 2009, 12:02 PM
ATT subsidizes the Iphone because they paid a heck of a lot of money to apple to be able to do so. This money was used to develop and manufacture the phone on a scale large enough for the demand.

Cell phone manufacturers benefit greatly from exclusive deals as well, possibly even more than the Cell companies do.

Oh, and BBTour is a reworking of the BB Bold.

I am all for having more phones available in an "unlocked" version, but you won't see multiple companies subsidizing every phone. Why? Because current subsidies for high end devices are HIGHER than the early terms for most carriers. So if a person buys a phone with Verizon, then cancels, unlocks the phone, they can then activate it on any network they want, and verizon takes ...
(continues)
...
CellStudent

Jun 20, 2009, 11:14 PM
First off, scale of mfgr makes products CHEAPER per unit, not more expensive.

Second, my concern has nothing to do with whether a company "does or doesn't" carry a particular model. My concern focuses only on whether a company "can or can't" carry a product.

If Papa Smith Cellular in Jingle Bells, WY wants to allow iPhones on his 9 cell site network then he should have the right to buy them unlocked (at a market-driven price point) and resell to his 79 customers at whatever price they are willing to pay him.

Declaring an economic model unfeasible does NOT mean that we should prevent Papa Smith and his customers from engaging in financial stupid decisions.

Survival of the fittest, but at least let everybody play the game! A man w...
(continues)
...
Menno

Jun 21, 2009, 5:28 PM
I agree that more phones should be available unlocked. Where I disagree with you is that I do not believe it is the governments place to dictate which phones are allowed on which network, or to force carriers to not seek exclusive deals.
...
CellStudent

Jun 21, 2009, 7:35 PM
I still say allowing carrier exclusivity agreements is no different then allowing GM to manufacture cars that will ONLY run on Shell gasoline.


Why should American consumers tolerate that level of conniving and backroom back scratching? How this situation has avoided anti-trust regulation this long is simply a mystery to me.
This behavior is clearly "in restraint of open competition" with tier 2 and tier 3 carriers.
If anything ever comes of this movement it will only affect future devices anyway.
Carriers and builders will just have to redefine their relationships. The builders will advertise their phones, carriers will advertise their services and the consumers can pick the combination that works best for them.
...
Menno

Jun 21, 2009, 8:34 PM
You can't compare it to car companies because you don't have to sign any long term contract with a gasoline company to get a discount on that GM car. If shell offered me a free (or nearly free) car that would run on their gasoline that I agreed to pay x amount per gallon for 2 years for... seems a lot more fair than the current practice of gas spiking 6 months in advance because of oil futures, no?

This is more akin to Dish network offering DVR's which ONLY work with their equipment, which they already do.

However Direct TV, Cable, etc all offer their own versions of DVR's to compensate, and while one provider may have the "most popular" or "highest rated" equipment, this does not mean the others are not competitive.

Not being ab...
(continues)
...
CellStudent

Jun 22, 2009, 8:02 PM
Menno said:
And there is nothing preventing these 2nd and 3rd tier carriers from banding together and getting a Rural Carrier Alliance exclusive phone.


All the Rural Cellular Association customers bundled together in one buyers group would STILL be considered an insignificant market force to garner the economies of scale enjoyed by T-mobile or even Boost.

The massive difference in scale between AT&T and VZW vs TheRestOfThem certainly warants investigation of anti-trust and anti-competitive behavior among the top-tier carriers.
...
Menno

Jun 22, 2009, 9:28 PM
No it doesn't.

Most of those "minor carriers" are Virtual Carriers who don't own their own towers/antennas. There are companies that are growing quite fast. Around here Immix wireless is growing quickly by buying up ATT towers in several states, even though they offer service in only a few counties. It is not impossible for a smaller carrier to grow.

See Cricket, MetroPCS, etc. No, they are not the same size as Verizon, but they are growing rapidly.

"Fair competition" doesn't mean everyone has to be the same size. Those companies are doing quite well for themselves. Will they ever be as big as ATT/Verizon? who knows... they are City Wireless services and would need to do some significant overhauls to become nationwide, but it...
(continues)
...
SPCSVZWJeff

Jun 19, 2009, 6:41 PM
Except for the fact that these wireless companies paid billions for the right to use the spectrum it is public property.

The use of the radio spectrum and the devices are two different things. While it is true that the FCC must approve every handset, not because they want to change the way marketing is done but in order to make sure that the device does not impact the use of spectrum negatively.

The government has no business telling private industry how to conduct their business as long as they are not violating any laws.
it is all feel-good stuff done by a government that is out of control and power hungry.

There is case law that could prohibit these power hungry senators from accomplishing this if presented to the Supreme Co...
(continues)
...
Drunk

Jun 19, 2009, 7:02 PM
Screw the FCC and stick it to the man
...
Menno

Jun 20, 2009, 11:56 AM
You can buy an unlocked phone and activate it on your network. You get it from the carriers because they take a hit on the cost of the phone in exchange for a contract.

Other than that, your examples didn't make sense. maybe you should take some economics/business classes.
...
texaswireless

Jun 20, 2009, 12:02 AM
They pay billions to use the spectrum. There is a difference between regulation and meddling.
...
Menno

Jun 20, 2009, 11:53 AM
Yes, because as soon as a carrier tried that the government would swoop in and claim it WAS public airwaves. Cell companies are using "public spectrum" because that's what the government decided to call it.

This is nothing more than a "vote for me" issue that the senate is bringing forward. In the long run (even in the short run) Having a phone "exclusive" to one carrier or the other does not adversely effect the consumer (besides them throwing temper tantrums in stores) All carriers have phones that can do the same thing, use the same features, and most of them have some variation of the same phone.

Maybe the senate should do something useful.. like getting our budget in check, improving our image internationally, you know.. somet...
(continues)
...
WiWavelength

Jun 20, 2009, 1:46 PM
Menno said:
Cell companies are using "public spectrum" because that's what the government decided to call it.


That is because it is "public spectrum." It is public property. Such is the only plausible system.

AJ
...
Menno

Jun 20, 2009, 2:11 PM
And this gives the government the right to control the devices using the spectrum to ensure that there isn't one adversly effecting it.

It does not give them the right to force a carrier to support/offer the iphone just because some spoiled brat wants it on his regional carrier.

And the government does nothing to maintain that spectrum. You are saying it is public "property" but all it is is radio waive length, aka empty air. Cell companies have to foot the cost of the towers, the technology in the phones, and the technology that makes using that spectrum possible. The government has no right to tell the company what phones they need to offer, or tell the people who make cellphones who they need to sell to.

If you want to "stick...
(continues)
...
Mektah

Jun 21, 2009, 4:51 AM
The government isn't trying to 'force' anyone to use it. However the current problem is that other carriers in the U.S do not have the opportunity to offer the Iphone. It doesn't make them not be able to be competitive but it does prevent them from being directly competitive. Basically, the way that economic laws are set is so if I have a product. I sell that other people use to offer services. I can't restrict who can or cannot offer my product, because. This harbors competition because AT&T can exclusively control product pricing such as data plans. If other companies were able to offer the same phone with cheaper plans it would force AT&T to compete price wise. By having exclusivity they have to compete very little. Obviously the...
(continues)
...
Menno

Jun 21, 2009, 5:34 PM
What is preventing carriers from offering alternative devices?

Yes, they cannot offer the iphone, but they can offer Blackberries, Windows mobile phones, the pre, etc. You don't need to offer the same exact product to remain competative.

Oh, and apple, as the creator of the iPhone does have the right to decide who can sell their device (and Microsoft can stop development on Office for OS X if they so choose) Your products are your products to distribute as you see fit.
...
texaswireless

Jun 20, 2009, 2:49 PM
That these companies pay outragious fees to use in regards to their "for profit" business. The terms of the auctions stated they could use within certain guidelines, guidelines that did not include this form of regulation. And look what happened when they did place equipment regulations on spectrum with this last auction. They received far less money given to the "public" compared with auctions of unregulated spectrum in regards to equipment.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.