AT&T Defends Itself Against Government Review
Arbetrary
There is noway AT&T is doing anything wrong, every provider offers it's "exclusive phone"
Sprint=Pre
T-mobile= G1 / myphone
Verizon= Storm
AT&T= iPhone
all of these phones are leading the way in how people use their handsets. I am posting this from my iPhone!
If the senate continues it's investigation it will only hurt the consumer by causing the wireless providers to raise prices to fight the FCC in a legal battle. Not to mention how samsung, lg, and HTC will react when they have to make GSM and CDMA model of every phone they want to sell here. I hope everyone wants to pay 2-3 times as much for a phone because that's what's going to happen! Say goodbye to your "free phone"
Sprint=Pre
T-mobile= G1 / myphone
Verizon= Storm
AT&T= iPhone
all of these phones are leading the way in how people use their handsets. I am posting this from my iPhone!
If the senate continues it's investigation it will only hurt the consumer by causing the wireless providers to raise prices to fight the FCC in a legal battle. Not to mention how samsung, lg, and HTC will react when they have to make GSM and CDMA model of every phone they want to sell here. I hope everyone wants to pay 2-3 times as much for a phone because that's what's going to happen! Say goodbye to your "free phone"
...
It won't take away innovation. No one will force the manufacturers to make CDMA and GSM models of each phone. It will eliminate exclusives for each phone, allowing whomever is willing to pay for them to carry them.
I've always liked the idea of a carrier having an exclusive premimum phone. It sucks that we don't have the iPhone, just for the buzz it generates, but it's part of the sales game. It"s what makes us salespeople, rather than order takers. We have to use our brains to get the business.
I've always liked the idea of a carrier having an exclusive premimum phone. It sucks that we don't have the iPhone, just for the buzz it generates, but it's part of the sales game. It"s what makes us salespeople, rather than order takers. We have to use our brains to get the business.
...
The only ones that seem to like exclusivity rights are the carriers and the reps that work for them. There is a reason the government has gotten involved. Consumers like myself don't feel the same as you. We feel that now that wireless is as mainstream as landlines were, that it is time to quit the game playing and start essentializing the consumers needs. With almost every household being wireless, There is not many more consumers that can sign on with a carrier. Buying a cellphone should be as easy as buying a phone for a landline. We have our carrier of choice and we want to have the same device choices. Two colleagues of mine switched carriers to obtain the Iphone. While they love the device, they loathe the network and wish to return t...
(continues)
(continues)
...
lol wireless carriers will just laugh at u with complaints like this. i understand your point but it wont matter to big companies like AT&T or VZW
...
You sir, Have just validated mine and many others points more than it could ever be. This is the mindset of carriers(mainly the ones you mentioned). Consumers are just puppets and lucrative assets that have no other value. We have no choice but to be hammered by egos and sterile thinking. Great business practice! I am not for government intervention, but you have referenced the very intellect that wireless carriers have failed in realizing the actual common complaints of consumers. If the carriers ignore these complaints, expect government actions to take place.
...
Yes, and customers are nothing more than greedy, dishonest, abrasive mouth breathers...
See? I can make exaggerations too.
Customers demand everything for free, or as close to free as possible. They also want to use whatever they get for free on whatever other network they choose. These demands are mutually exclusive.
You either accept being locked to a contract/carrier, or you purchase one of the many unlocked phones out there and chose your network.
See? I can make exaggerations too.
Customers demand everything for free, or as close to free as possible. They also want to use whatever they get for free on whatever other network they choose. These demands are mutually exclusive.
You either accept being locked to a contract/carrier, or you purchase one of the many unlocked phones out there and chose your network.
...
Why don't more people understand this? Has the gross national IQ dropped below 100 recently?
...
ALL.PHONES.NEED.TO.BE.AVAILABLE.UNLOCKED.
When that happens, the free market principles will be satisfied.
Will people still complain? Of course! This is America!
Exclusivity agreements are detrimental to consumer choice in an open market system. All phones should be available unlocked and small carriers should be able to purchase 10,000 units from a mfgr and install their own SIM locks so they can subsidize them if they want to.
Why does such a huge part of this community not understand why this is necessary?
When that happens, the free market principles will be satisfied.
Will people still complain? Of course! This is America!
Exclusivity agreements are detrimental to consumer choice in an open market system. All phones should be available unlocked and small carriers should be able to purchase 10,000 units from a mfgr and install their own SIM locks so they can subsidize them if they want to.
Why does such a huge part of this community not understand why this is necessary?
...
I agree that all smartphones need to be available unlocked (and you pay the unlocked price for them)
This will help with free market principles, but don't expect it until LTE is bigger for the simple fact that the current two largest carrier operate incompatible networks. once ATT and Verizon, and most other carriers are on LTE this will be more feasible for phone manufacturers. Trying to force companies to do this before the transition is stupid.
And sim locks won't work if another carrier offers the same exact phone. Unless they have a way that the phone will become a paperweight if someone tries activating it on another network, companies will not subsidize a phone beyond their early term fee because people could just buy it, pay...
(continues)
This will help with free market principles, but don't expect it until LTE is bigger for the simple fact that the current two largest carrier operate incompatible networks. once ATT and Verizon, and most other carriers are on LTE this will be more feasible for phone manufacturers. Trying to force companies to do this before the transition is stupid.
And sim locks won't work if another carrier offers the same exact phone. Unless they have a way that the phone will become a paperweight if someone tries activating it on another network, companies will not subsidize a phone beyond their early term fee because people could just buy it, pay...
(continues)
...
LTE won't fix the problem either, because LTE is only 700MHz in North America. LTE is 1600 MHz in Country X, 2100 MHz in Country Y and 2.6 GHz in Country Z. The more places you look, the worse it gets! This is why Vodafone isn't leading the charge for LTE- they have a huge mess on their hands just trying to build a workable radio they can sell in 4 different countries without redesigning the whole antenna...
Non-exclusivity is FAR more workable in the existing GSM spectrum globally then it will ever be in LTE because the 700MHz band is not a global standard. Existing quad-band technology has already paid for it's own R&D, so it's water under the bridge as far as exclusivity is concerned.
Non-exclusivity is FAR more workable in the existing GSM spectrum globally then it will ever be in LTE because the 700MHz band is not a global standard. Existing quad-band technology has already paid for it's own R&D, so it's water under the bridge as far as exclusivity is concerned.
...
Those "deals" are worked out by the phone manufacturers because it allows them to pour more money into R&D. Less of these deals =Less money for innovation.
Let me ask you a question, do you think that apple could've come up with all the money required to develop a release version of the iphone, find a manufacturing plan, and purchase enough materials for a nationwide launch without funding from ATT?
Yes, the iphone with ATT was a flop, but not all of this was the fault of ATT. Apple also used a cheap antenna set, meaning that even the "free" phones from ATT could get better reception.
I am all for phones being non-exclusive if 1)there are still exclusive phones for people who want something cheap. 2)non-exclusive phones are purch...
(continues)
Let me ask you a question, do you think that apple could've come up with all the money required to develop a release version of the iphone, find a manufacturing plan, and purchase enough materials for a nationwide launch without funding from ATT?
Yes, the iphone with ATT was a flop, but not all of this was the fault of ATT. Apple also used a cheap antenna set, meaning that even the "free" phones from ATT could get better reception.
I am all for phones being non-exclusive if 1)there are still exclusive phones for people who want something cheap. 2)non-exclusive phones are purch...
(continues)
...
how is the iphone a flop? its gotta be the best selling phone in the US. at&t network isnt great but its still an amazing phone.
...
Another point of us consumers just made by you. Why should we sacrifice better service for a great device? We are willing to dump good money on a premier phone and Apple is losing out to the consumers not willing to switch. Eliminating exclusivity is better for the manufacture, the consumer and beleive it or not the carrier because they would be forced to step up the game and prove why they are the better service provider rather than relying on fabricated jail tactics.
...
But against the manufacturers. Blame Apple for signing a three year exclusive with AT&T, not Verizon. Congress shouldn't be involved in this at all. This is just like an over-reaching, self-important, know-it-all, you're a dope, and I know what's best for you, government to do this kind of crap. Same with college football.
Open your eyes, it's not the carriers fault. Besides, there are phones just as good, if not better, than the iPhone out there with VZW. Heck, Alltel and Sprint have better phones. The Touch Pro and Diamond are only two. Those aren't exclusives to anyone. The Storm can do more than the iPhone, like MMS, tethering, BB Messenger, etc. People need to get over the iPhone. Annoying somebeeches.
Open your eyes, it's not the carriers fault. Besides, there are phones just as good, if not better, than the iPhone out there with VZW. Heck, Alltel and Sprint have better phones. The Touch Pro and Diamond are only two. Those aren't exclusives to anyone. The Storm can do more than the iPhone, like MMS, tethering, BB Messenger, etc. People need to get over the iPhone. Annoying somebeeches.
...
LTE will allow for "open" networks, allowing you to use nearly any LTE phone, on any LTE network provider.
VZW launches starting this year, AT&T in 2011.
VZW launches starting this year, AT&T in 2011.
...
but then the government will be mad that Everyone can't use their phones on Sprints WIMAX network, and this will start all over again
...
Wait so you really think LTE will solve this crap? I think it will only increase the annoyance because now you will have phones that actually could work on say at&t and verizon but won't because the networks won't allow it.
I don't see things getting better, only more frustrating.
I don't see things getting better, only more frustrating.
...
The LTE C-block stipulations require Verizon (Verizon ONLY) to require outside off deck devices to operate in that spectrum.
It does NOT prohibit mfgr from placing device restrictions (locks) on handhelds to prevent them from accessing VZWs 20 MHz of "open" airwaves.
Handset exclusivity is not addressed in the C-Block. The open device policy only addresses "Network Exclusivity" in the spectrum.
It does NOT prohibit mfgr from placing device restrictions (locks) on handhelds to prevent them from accessing VZWs 20 MHz of "open" airwaves.
Handset exclusivity is not addressed in the C-Block. The open device policy only addresses "Network Exclusivity" in the spectrum.
...
I think they were referring to that the two major carriers (ATT and Verizon) will be using the same cell technology, so it will be much cheaper for a manufacturer to make a phone that both companies can use. Now a company needs to decide if they want to make a CDMA phone (Verizon/Sprint/small regionals) or a GSM phone (ATT/TMOB/a lot of international companies)
This is one of the reasons there are so many unlocked (or unlockable ) GSM phones. (CDMA technology also makes unlocking more difficult). Once both transition to LTE, the choice will come down to LTE (Verizon, ATT, Etc) or WiMAX (sprint) which is a lot easier. You'll start seeing "unlocked" phone for verizon.
This is one of the reasons there are so many unlocked (or unlockable ) GSM phones. (CDMA technology also makes unlocking more difficult). Once both transition to LTE, the choice will come down to LTE (Verizon, ATT, Etc) or WiMAX (sprint) which is a lot easier. You'll start seeing "unlocked" phone for verizon.
...
Willing to dump good money?
Eliminating exlusivity is not better for the manufacturer.. you really think apple couldn't have worked out agreements for multiple carriers if they wanted? They went with one carrier because that way they not only got a ton of funding for RD, but a heck of a lot of advertising and a ton of money per device sold. Exclusive deals are a boon for companies like APPLE and RIM or they would not enter into them.
Offer to pay $800 for an unlocked iphone and then you can talk. $199 for a subsidized iphone is not "good enough" money to demanding phone availability on every network.
If phones are non-exclusive, you'll never see a phone subsidized past the Early Term fee amount (if they even go that low) while t...
(continues)
Eliminating exlusivity is not better for the manufacturer.. you really think apple couldn't have worked out agreements for multiple carriers if they wanted? They went with one carrier because that way they not only got a ton of funding for RD, but a heck of a lot of advertising and a ton of money per device sold. Exclusive deals are a boon for companies like APPLE and RIM or they would not enter into them.
Offer to pay $800 for an unlocked iphone and then you can talk. $199 for a subsidized iphone is not "good enough" money to demanding phone availability on every network.
If phones are non-exclusive, you'll never see a phone subsidized past the Early Term fee amount (if they even go that low) while t...
(continues)
...
They used a cheap antenna in the phone. That is one of the things causing reception issues. I'm not denying that it is selling well.
But with how many people complain about it.. you can't put the full weight of the failure on ATT when they offer free phones that make better calls and have better reception.
But with how many people complain about it.. you can't put the full weight of the failure on ATT when they offer free phones that make better calls and have better reception.
...
I think that Apple and ATT needed each other at the time. However, ATT as since then rode the coat tails of Apples product and is consistantly ignoring the complaints and issues at hand of consumers. This has weighed a tremendous amount of tension and frustration on the interest of what consumers did not think was as important at the time. Exclusivity needs to at least be very minimal at best. The razor was the most popular selling phone of all time. If it had a signed exclusivity for the same amount of time as the Iphone. This issue would have been brought forth many years ago. This has been a growing issue and it needs to be wrapped up and put to bed. Apple has accomplished many things in the wireless industry. Two of them are the redesign...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Carriers are already working on lessening their exclusivity deals. Verizon made an announcement months ago that they were lowering the minimal ammount of time a phone could be exclusive.
The reason the Iphone remains exclusive is they rework the deal every time a new version of the phone comes out.
Apple is also ignoring complaints. it took them THREE YEARS to integrate MMS into their software, an ability that basic phones have had for years. it also took them THREE YEARS for them to integrate Copy/paste which has been standard on smartphones since long before then. No matter how many complaints they get about connectivity issues with their phone, they still use cheap antenna's on it so basic phones get better reception/call clarit...
(continues)
The reason the Iphone remains exclusive is they rework the deal every time a new version of the phone comes out.
Apple is also ignoring complaints. it took them THREE YEARS to integrate MMS into their software, an ability that basic phones have had for years. it also took them THREE YEARS for them to integrate Copy/paste which has been standard on smartphones since long before then. No matter how many complaints they get about connectivity issues with their phone, they still use cheap antenna's on it so basic phones get better reception/call clarit...
(continues)
...
I am pretty sure iPhones have only been around for TWO YEARS, Dumb*ss. They just released their 3rd Generation iPhone. Learn how to count buddy.
...
Sorry, I mis-counted. I'm glad you agree with me that they were missing basic technology from their phones though.. because I'm sure you weren't trying to pull a straw man to invalidate my entire argument.
Yes, I'm sorry I made a mistake. That doesn't negate the fact that it still took them two years (and three generations of the phone) to gain the ability to get picture messaging and copy paste. That's pathetic.
heck,
https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=501 »
had picture messaging.
Yes, I'm sorry I made a mistake. That doesn't negate the fact that it still took them two years (and three generations of the phone) to gain the ability to get picture messaging and copy paste. That's pathetic.
heck,
https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=501 »
had picture messaging.
...
I agree with you but 100%, I think apple didn't understand how popular features like that were while they were creating the phone- i'm sure an Apple corporate said " who needs mms when we can have it sent through e-mail in 5 seconds?"
and that's the same thing the government does (except extreme) oh we received 130 letters from angry citizens and a senator read one of the letters and said "each letter represents 100 million people so everyone in the whole world is upset with how AT&T has the iPhone while no other carrier can have it. We should stop them and make it so everyone can have the iPhone no matter what carrier they have"
and that's the same thing the government does (except extreme) oh we received 130 letters from angry citizens and a senator read one of the letters and said "each letter represents 100 million people so everyone in the whole world is upset with how AT&T has the iPhone while no other carrier can have it. We should stop them and make it so everyone can have the iPhone no matter what carrier they have"
...
Flop? Look at the numbers, Moron. iPhone 3Gs= Number 1 Rated Smartphone by Consumers.
iPhone 3G = Number 2 Rated Smartphone by Consumers.
Boy, someone is drinking a little, I'd Say....
iPhone 3G = Number 2 Rated Smartphone by Consumers.
Boy, someone is drinking a little, I'd Say....
...
I was talking about the partnership with ATT and iphone, the fact that so many customers are dissatisfied with the coverage/call quality of the device (so much so that people write articles when they are actually able to use the phone where they're supposed to) that people are carrying a second phone as a backup when they need to make calls, etc.
I'm not denying that the phone sold and is selling well. I'm just saying that it had a lot of problems.
Savvy?
Ok, you can go back to your bridge now.
I'm not denying that the phone sold and is selling well. I'm just saying that it had a lot of problems.
Savvy?
Ok, you can go back to your bridge now.
...
Wow... Menno has final articulated himself to the point that he and I are 100% on the same page.
Your last two paragraphs there articulate my feelings exactly. Subsidized and unsubsidized markets need to exist, but one carrier must NOT have leverage with an mfgr to the point where it prevents a competing carrier from offering a particular handheld (with or without subsidy).
Glad to see we're on the same page now!
Your last two paragraphs there articulate my feelings exactly. Subsidized and unsubsidized markets need to exist, but one carrier must NOT have leverage with an mfgr to the point where it prevents a competing carrier from offering a particular handheld (with or without subsidy).
Glad to see we're on the same page now!
...
What happens if APPLE only wants to make a GSM iPhone with GSM 850/900/1800/1900 WCDMA 8501900/2100 bands?
Should the US government force Apple to create iPhones that work on CDMA & aws1700?
same goes for the enV series messaging phones- should LG be forced to make a quadband GSM version for that 0.01% of people that want an enV touch on T-mobile?
this is a perfect example of the US government starting something it doesn't know how to finish!
Should the US government force Apple to create iPhones that work on CDMA & aws1700?
same goes for the enV series messaging phones- should LG be forced to make a quadband GSM version for that 0.01% of people that want an enV touch on T-mobile?
this is a perfect example of the US government starting something it doesn't know how to finish!
...
Well duh. That's our government at work. It's how they justify their automatic pay increase.
...
THough I value much of what you have said in the past, I must absolutely disagree with you on this Slammer. This is going to ruin the private sector as far as wireless carriers are concerned. We already have the Government in the Auto Business. We already have the Government in the Banks. We have the Government trying their hardest to get into our Health Care. No you want them in our Cell Phone Carriers? You want complete regulation? Have you ever heard of Capitalism and Entreprenuers? Phone Exclusivity is part of business and should be 100% legal. You mean to tell me that the Government should regulate whether or not a Business (Phone Manufacturer) can sell a certain phone to another Business (Wireless Carrier). Bullsh*t!
Stop w...
(continues)
Stop w...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
