FCC To Investigate Exclusive Handset Deals

Except that it isn't. People abroad where cell phone contracts are not standard practice pay full retail price for the phone. You can already do the same here if you like. Some of us though would like the choice of a discount in exchange for a contract.Which will raise the price of phones.

We frequently have arguments over whether or not cell phones are luxuries, but regardless of our opinions on the issue, one fact that cannot be dismissed is that contract-reduced prices of a phones do put these more in reach of low income people who might not otherwise be able to afford a phone at all. Requiring people to pay full price for a phone each time will screw over people who would not be able to get what would have otherwise been a zero-cost phone.

You also have friday off or you are sitting around wasting time.

The stupidity on this forum is mind-boggling. People don't seem to understand the economics and basic government rules involved in exclusive contracts and "subsidies".

Look, you pay for the entire price of the phone *over the length of your contract*. The "subsidy" you think you're getting is simply distributed over each monthly bill. AT&T and Apple don't "bite the bullet" and offer to take a loss so you can get your pretty little iPhone.

The reality of the situation is that you end paying far more for your phone than you would if exclusive contracts were banned. Without these exclusivity agreements phone manufacturers would be forced to engage in price wars with their competition to sell their products to as many consumers as possible. Right now they sell their products to one carrier, and as a result there is no downward pressure whatsoever on the "unsubsidized" price of the phone.

Also think about those basic data and voice plans. You pay the full price of the plan whether you purchase a "subsidized" iPhone or not. That means you're paying for the supposed subsidization of these smartphones *even if you bring your own phone*!!! Without exclusivity agreements voice and data plans would experience downward trends (unless the wireless carriers collude to keep prices up, which is entirely possible).

Now as for government's role, you don't understand the Constitution grants the government the *duty* to protect the consumer's right to *choice*. In other words, the choice to buy a phone and use it on any network that's available. With exclusivity arrangements in place, the phone is not really *yours* since you don't even have the right to use it on the network of your choice. It's highly analogous to the evils of DRM.

Additionally, the Constitution *does not grant corporations rights*. A corporation is a made-up identity. They're not treated like individuals. That's why a group of executives can drive a giant company worth hundreds of billions into the ground, jeopardizing the state of an entire nation's economy, and walk away with their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses guilt and liability free.

Corporations' "rights" are simply derived through laws enacted by Congress. Essentially any legislation that is anti-consumer is technically unconstitutional, but let's not get into that.

So you're going to pay full price and get locked into a contract for 2yrs. because the contract doen't affect the price of the phone...

Here's how it works. You pay full price on the phone and come and go as you want moving around to different carriers or you agree to be a customer for 2 years and get the phone for free or cheap. Now here's what happened next, we deregulated some more and verizon and att bought up all the small cariers they had sold of when things were regulated in the late 90's so in general we're left with 2 big players that cover the country and some smaller carriers still left. AT&T took over my area, they had to because verizon couldn't be the only provider and the deals from years ago when cellular one existed and was dismantled basically left them in control which left att in control with a small 'local' carrier wearing the costume. My phones have been identical to AT&T phones since they existed doing wireless except maybe I got a different color by default but all I needed was an unlocked GSM phone.

Now lets get to the iPhone, it comes out, GSM phone, sim card, data capable and purposely made to not work on other GSM carriers without modification. This is the problem unless you live outside the US then pretty much every GSM provider that wants the iPhone gets it.

These companies do not print money, so all the money they have comes from us. There is no subsidy, just hocus pocus. They raise the price $200 so they can cut the price by $200 and make you feel like you've saved something.

Correct! The power to regulate this sort of thing rests with the states, where the will of the people wields much more power than at the federal level.

The communications industry LOVES the FCC, because they can lobby and buy deregulation from one source, and control policy for the entire country. As you say, this is not in the Constitution, and therefor falls to the States.

Why shouldn't the people of NY or California be able to pass state laws forbidding tying hardware to network access, or bandwidth caps, or any "Non-Competitive" activity on the part of service providers? It's the right of states to do so, not the Fed, as you correctly stated.

The very entities you appear to be defending, would scream bloody murder if this "power" were returned to the states where it belongs. Big powerful industry LOVES big government! It's an unholy marriage at odds with the best interests of the people.

Bob

Also they make alot money by locking you into a contract, and overcharging.(ie text message fees).Its more of a make you think your saving money. It does not cost apple $400 to make the iphone »news.top100.biz/shopping ··· -at-173/ (granted thats a year old so cost have likely come down) therfore you can see your not saving as much as you think with a subsidized phone.

I don't think it's any business of the states, either, but you make a good point about big business and big government going hand in hand. Monopolist corporations like AT&T absolutely love being able to lobby the government to regulate their small-fry competition out of business.

I agree with the Sanyo phones. They are awesome!

"Now as for government's role, you don't understand the Constitution grants the government the *duty* to protect the consumer's right to *choice*. In other words, the choice to buy a phone and use it on any network that's available. With exclusivity arrangements in place, the phone is not really *yours* since you don't even have the right to use it on the network of your choice. It's highly analogous to the evils of DRM."

Please point out, oh brilliant constitutional scholar, just which article and/or clause "grants" this mythical power to the government.

This ought to be interesting.

Just wait. It has just begun.

This crowd wants the government to stay out of everything until they want something then they want the government to fix it the way they want it.
If it has value for you pay for it if not then go elsewhere. If the iPhone had been a failure no one would care if AT&T was the only carrier. Verizon told them to get lost. Why should customers on the Verizon network get the iPhone. AT&T gambled and won now everybody wants to punish them for not saying no. Why should anybody take chance if the profits are going to be divided equally.

Sanyo/Sprint is exclusive Almost like AT&T/Apple

Correct...but the Sanyo/Sprint point was only brought up to show that the cell companies do spend time and money in R&D to develop phones the way THEY want, for there network.

Apple and AT&T didnt design the phoen together did they? I thought Apple made it and then shopped around?

the biggest issue is that cell phones never gained a standard in the US like say DOCSIS with cable modems. i can take my customer owned modem from Comcast to TWC or Cablevision and get it provisioned on an account thanks to there being standards.

You mean like a GSM phone where I can make calls almost anywhere in the world. I think the call it Global Standard for Mobile if I'm not mistaken. I wonder what standard means

so there is one and a few of our carriers just decided to ignore it. did CDMA have benefits over GSM or was it that CDMA makers had the lower bid when those carriers went out for hardware.

And you could still get that. Handset freedom does not mean carriers cannot offer free/cheap handsets in return for a contract, not in the least.

that is what i understood about the iPhone.