Incoming FCC Chair Agrees to 'Review' Exclusive Phone Deals
What if we want it the other way around?
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
Other than that, your examples didn't make sense. maybe you should take some economics/business classes.
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)
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
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)
(continues)
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.
This forum is closed.