1 edit | Handset exclusivity not that big a deal Except for the iPhone, most(note: I said MOST & NOT all) cell phone users in the US don't really care about this issue at all. All the major carriers(Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, & Sprint) have plenty of competitive handsets(both cheap dump cellphones & high end smartphones) to please just about anybody.
The only reason that this has been an issue on the radar of the FCC & congresscritters is because of all the whining by the Apple lovers that they want the iPhone but don't want AT&T as their service provider.
Easy solution: pass 1 law that says Apple has to make both CDMA & GSM iPhones and they can't have an exclusive contract with any company unless they want Congress to smash their company for anti-trust violations. If that was done, the whole controversy on handsets would go away.
P.S.>> I am not really supporting that solution. Just saying that IF they did that, the whole handset controversy would end.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
approval from:
fAcEtIOUs 
| There's really nothing that needs done here. If iphone users were THAT peeved about AT&T, they wouldn't have set world records for sales when the 3GS came out. Consumers don't need Congress fighting their battles for them when they could have easily made a bigger impact by tanking sales. The problem is, those users couldn't possibly fathom living without their latest iphone gadget. Not busting on the iphone, just some of the moronic, over-the-top junkies. You know, the ones that complained they couldn't get a fully subsidized upgrade early, as if that's ever been par for the course. I'd love to have an iphone, but I'm not a typical spoiled Apple fanboy so I'm content to wait until it hits Verizon. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:The only reason that this has been an issue on the radar of the FCC & congresscritters is because of all the whining by the Apple lovers that they want the iPhone but don't want AT&T as their service provider. That's it. Give this man a cigar. |
|
 DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70
 ·AT&T Southwest
 ·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Google Voice
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Plus what about the Itouch. It don't have the phone built in it at all. So for those that wanted internet at their fingertips and can have a wi-fi service can have that.
I for one am looking for a non-super expensive Itouch. It may be a while before I get one though. |
|
| said by David:Plus what about the Itouch. It don't have the phone built in it at all. So for those that wanted internet at their fingertips and can have a wi-fi service can have that. I for one am looking for a non-super expensive Itouch. It may be a while before I get one though. You can get 1st generation 8GB iPod Touch for as low as $144.
»www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_e_7_1···d+touch+
My friend has one and with all the latest software, it works well. He must have about 50 apps on it.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
|
|
DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Thank you...  |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by fAcEtIOUs:The only reason that this has been an issue on the radar of the FCC & congresscritters is because of all the whining by the Apple lovers that they want the iPhone but don't want AT&T as their service provider. That's it. Give this man a cigar. Well, I'm a proponent of this request and I have no intention of getting an iPhone. Why would I want to unlock a carrier yet buy a locked platform?
Right now, the carriers are behaving like its not the public's airwaves. We don't have a section of the public park that says "Coleman coolers only" or one that says "No Coleman coolers allowed." We shouldn't treat our public airwaves any differently. These should be areas of maximum individual choice.
Now we can't, as LiamJunket suggests, force a private phone maker to create multiple versions of each phone -- but having a competitive carrier landscape that encourages them to do so is not only good for them, it's good for the consumer. It also forces the carrier to get good at carriage, rather than focusing on limiting user choice through handset restrictions.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Are we going to legislate that Apple be FORCED to make a CDMA iPhone also? Even if Apple didn't have an exclusivity agreement with ATT, it still wouldn't work on Verizon or Sprint. |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to funchords
Good luck. You and the Free Press aren't gonna do shit. The Courts will see this differently and money will prevail once again. Especially when you can't force a private company to do what YOU think is right by making a "law or rule" for it.
Next stop the US Supreme Court. |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | reply to funchords
Carriers are using the airwaves to deliver services that many members of the public value. That much is undeniable, assuming you agree with the basic economic concept that people generally don't enter into voluntary transactions that harm their welfare. Say an individual can either spend $50 a month on a cell phone plan, or they can spend it on some other item that they value. The fact that lots and lots of people elect to pay for cell phone services suggests very strongly that they value cell phones enough to sacrifice $50 for it, rather than spending that money on something different, like steak or DVDs.
Your public park analogy is not germane to the wireless exclusivity issue because wireless carriers have paid taxpayers for exclusive rights to use certain portions of the airwaves, much like homeowners have paid for exclusive domain over a plot of land. Wireless companies bid on airwaves in open auctions. While there are equivalents of public parks on the airwaves -- the 2.412-2.484ghz band, for instance -- like land, most of the airwaves aren't occupied by public parks.
Increasing the quantity of choices available to consumers is not the objective of public policy. A million choices do not necessarily constitute a welfare-maximizing marketplace; conversely, 5 choices do not necessarily constitute a non-welfare maximizing marketplace.
Re-engineering the wireless market via government regulation will increase consumer choice in a sense, while decreasing business choice. It will also hurt some consumers; namely, those who yearn for an iPhone-killer and are fine with exclusivity. Banning exclusivity will make it possible to use an iPhone with Verizon Wireless, but it will also cause Apple, Samsung, Blackberry and other phone makers to spend less money making innovative phones. It's hardly clear that this is a good policy choice, especially considering how rapidly the mobile marketplace is moving. |
|
DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70 Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·Google Voice
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72:Are we going to legislate that Apple be FORCED to make a CDMA iPhone also? Even if Apple didn't have an exclusivity agreement with ATT, it still wouldn't work on Verizon or Sprint. The bad part is... a lot of people don't realize this. Because they look at a cellphone as a cellphone.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
|
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to tiger72
said by tiger72:Are we going to legislate that Apple be FORCED to make a CDMA iPhone also? Absolutely not. As I said, this is not about the iPhone or forcing any private anybody to do anything.
said by tiger72:Even if Apple didn't have an exclusivity agreement with ATT, it still wouldn't work on Verizon or Sprint. That's right. Apple would have to decide whether or not to chase those customers with a CDMA iPhone. The decision would be theirs, they wouldn't have to ask for permission or make/break any deals.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:Good luck. You and the Free Press aren't gonna do shit. The Courts will see this differently and money will prevail once again. Especially when you can't force a private company to do what YOU think is right by making a "law or rule" for it. Next stop the US Supreme Court. Yeah, what a mess. The world will always suck. Might as well not try to make things right or better. That's the way to be!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 |
|
| reply to tiger72
I was just wondering... I bought an iphone, brought to the Philippines, got a technician to unlock it, bought different service provider SIM card and got it working!
Seems that back there, they have a way to "openline" the cellphone so that you can use it to whoever service provider you choose. You just need to purchase a pre-paid sim card. If that is legally possible there, then why can't we do it here? |
|
