Sprint CEO: Exclusive Phone Deals Need Limits > Can't disagree

Can't disagree

The only other US carrier of any size that could deploy the iPhone is T-Mobile, and it doesn't support T-Mobiles AWS band for 3G.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply to VansHSI
I think exclusive deals should be allowed, period in the context you are speaking of.

Where does the government get off telling someone like apple that they HAVE to produce a phone for CDMA networks when they're only making it for GSM?

In the case of the iPhone, if they make it for GSM only, that's their choice. Where I distinguish my feelings over yours is that if it were CDMA, for example, then I should be able to take the phone I purchase to another CDMA carrier. That, however, doesn't affect exclusive agreements as to who they sell the phone through. Once I buy the phone and either settle my contract term OR pay the break out fee, the phone is mine - that's the deal.

However, still, there is NOTHING that will make me change my mind that would make me side on the fact that the government should force any maker to make a model of phone compatible on ALL carriers.. that's going way out of line.

If apple wants to only make a phone that works on ATT - then that should be their right to do so.. what would you like, you want tax subsidies given to apple to offset the extra cost of producing all those different variations of phones?

There is something about having phone models available to certain carriers - it creates competition. The iPhone is one of a rare case in phones.. it's one phone for one carrier. The crackberry has the curve available for all carriers - they wanted it to be that way and they were smart.. they're taking more market and growing faster than apple's iPhone.. apple has the right to limit their growth if they want to be stupid. It's anti-american to force a business into a business model that doesn't support their own desires.

Everyone has the ability to get an iPhone - just have to get the service it's made for. I'd like my Chevy Impala LTZ to be made to run on diesel and not unleaded... is it fair that I can't get it in a diesel model? Should the govt' make them produce it in a diesel version? .. same thing. Currently if I want that car, I can only put unleaded gas in it. You want the iPhone, go to ATT - you have NO rights guaranteed you to have any phone you want made for every network on the planet..

This argument is absurd..

So tell me, too.. when is NFL direct Ticket going to be on Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Charter, Dish Network, etc? DTV paid a lot of money to have that right to broadcast the Sunday ticket - it's what gives them the competitive edge and I support that.

I think your misunderstanding the whole argument , they are merely saying if the phone is produced in gsm , then it should be unlocked by default and allowed to be used on other gsm providers , they are not saying it should be made to suit every carrier by force.

I agree with them , any cdma phone should work on any cdma carrier , and the same with gsm , exclusivity deals should still be allowed. But if the user is willing to pay full cost for the phone it's their choice what provider they use it on.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

reply to Gbcue

reply to BosstonesOwn

reply to fiberguy
So, you support exclusivity agreements for GSM only? How can you say Apple should be allowed to make a GSM exclusive phone, but CDMA carriers can't also keep that exclusivity by locking the phone to their network? I don't see the difference there.

If you were talking about a boatload of work to make a phone GSM or CDMA, then I might be inclined to agree. However, the expense to make a phone GSM or CDMA isn't that great.

I honestly feel arguments like this (thank god) will be moot once the LTE migration is finished.

reply to n2jtx
This does mean that there'd have to be two different iPhones. I think they'd just come out with a new one that supported both. Of course, the exclusivity agreement means they don't have to think about it for now.

reply to fiberguy
I agree with parts of what you're saying. The government cannot and should not mandate what development and company must actively do, or mandate certain features be included. That's one reason I think the V-chip rule is bad, requiring certain programming, etc. They can't tell Apple to make a phone that supports anyone with a cell tower.

I think the government function is to say what companies must NOT do, like "you can't broadcast in analog anymore", "you can't cause interference", "you can't override statutory rights in a contract", "you can't own more than 35% of the cable television market". If they want to say "you can't make an exclusivity agreement", I'm all for it. That doesn't mean Apple has to sell to anyone, just that AT&T can't stop them.

Also, I think these monopoly power kind of issues belong to the FTC, not the FCC. Exclusivity agreements are about "restraint of trade", not spectrum or interoperability.

I'll make an exception on "prohibit but don't require" for things like safety concerns in planes, trains, and automobiles, and auditing requirements for financial institutions. Saying "If you make a car, it has to have a seatbelt and airbag" or "If you take people's money for savings and investments, you must do these things" is necessary. Ultimately the limit of our government comes from the Constitution plus politicians we elect, in theory that lets common sense override rigid ideology.

reply to en102
This is patently untrue, there are FCC approved versions of the iPhone for CDMA/LTE/GSM. While Apple may not be producing more than a few test samples they do exist in the US and are being tested on various carriers. Just like the Razr and other popular phones that came out as GSM first, they each had a CDMA variant that was quickly produced and sold once the exclusivity embargo was lifted.

Trust me nobody wants to see a GSM iPhone on T-Mobile. Perhaps once they deploy their 3G non edge network to any significance, but until then it's not going to be a step forward. Verizon Wireless is the only carrier that could make a significant impact in sales that Apple wants to see.

Plus a second GSM carrier only causes people to switch carriers, anyone wishing to go the CDMA route has to buy a new phone which would bring more sales to Apple. They're not stupid. They'll go with VZW, and come up with some excuse why the GSM phones are not being sold for other carriers to drive up sales for a bit, then once they sag, they'll lift that embargo.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com

reply to axus
Just need to make a world phone. GSM and CDMA....Just like the Storm. Supports both GSM via SIM and CDMA.

reply to NOCMan
being tested on various carriers? proof as they always say on here? They may have approved a GSM and CDMA phone but LTE? Nothing has been said of that one even being approved by the FCC because it would have been on the front page here along with who was testing what.

Also 3G works great where its available. Not in your city? Too bad.

reply to hottboiinnc

Not when you have 2 major carriers that still relay on CDMA. Why do you think the BB Storm has a SIM Card slot? So you can take it overseas and use it if you want on their networks and then come back here and use the VZW CDMA network.

Also the last time I checked VZW and Sprint used CDMA NOT GSM.

reply to Matt
Easy because CDMA phones can work on ANY CDMA Network (ie: VZW, Sprint, Cricket/Revol/MetroPCS) although CDMA carriers do NOT allow you to bring a phone to them. Even though ANY CDMA phone WILL work. But these carriers do not want this to happen.

iPhone is different due to its GSM, and if you jail break it, it will work on T-Mobile or any other GSM carrier.

reply to hottboiinnc