DOJ Looks Into Exclusive Mobile Carrier Deals

[JMcEntegart]

After a couple of weeks of back and forth between the FCC and several U.S. senators, the Department of Justice has decided to look into exclusive contracts between wireless providers and phone manufacturers.

DOJ Looks Into Exclusive Mobile Carrier Deals : Read more

 

[chripuck]

I think this is a royal waste of time because they'll just screw it up. All Apple will have to do is offer it to some obscure regional carrier and then they can claim that it's no longer exclusive.

 

[chripuck]

Could this be the end of switching networks just to get your hands on a certain device? Let's hope so.

And seriously... that's like saying you hope McDonald's will start carrying Taco Bell taco's so you don't have to switch restaurants.

We as a consumer make a choice, the cell companies make a choice on what to carry and pay handsomely for that right to be the exclusive carrier. If you really want the product carrier A is offering then you go with them.

I think I'll write my senator and tell them they should look into Yum food brands exclusive contract with Pepsi because damnit, I want a Coke with my KFC or Taco Bell. /sarcasm

 

[doc70]

Good idea, and I hope the networks will have to think twice before intentionally handicapping a device just because they can do it knowing that no other network has that device (ATT tethering on iPhone, anyone? ). But will need a unified standard before one could switch networks at will while keeping the handset they like. I'm afraid though that the big money/corporations will get a compromise deal which will serve them well and will screw the customer, as always...

 

[Guest]

I think there should be a separation of cell service and cell phones. Much like for land lines where land line service and phones are not exclusively tied.

 

[doc70]

networks are (or should be ) just that: networks that provide the airspace and the bandwidth; one should be able to switch at will while keeping his preferred handset. That means the devices will have to be compatible with different standards (more expensive) or follow the rest of the world in using a unified standard for cellular. Networks don't manufacture the handsets and definitely should be prevented from intentionally handicapping a device just because they're the only ones that carry it...see tethering on iPhone, for instance... not to mention the stupid practice of locking a handset to a network; just plain anti-consumer. I'm afraid that the big money/corporations will get a compromise deal that serves them well and screws the customer, as always...

 

[hellwig]

I think once the government mandated that cell-phone users be allowed to switch their number between companies, much of the anti-trust issues went away. Sure, it would be nice to run that cool new phone with your existing carrier, and not lose those years of being a loyal customer (and possibly getting goods deals in return).

On the same note, why can't I get GM On-Star in my Hyundai if its such a worthwhile and possibly life-saving service? Lets face it, there are so many exclusive services out there, focusing solely on cell-phone companies won't get much done in the long run.

 

[esquire468]

[citation][nom]chripuck[/nom]And seriously... that's like saying you hope McDonald's will start carrying Taco Bell taco's so you don't have to switch restaurants. We as a consumer make a choice, the cell companies make a choice on what to carry and pay handsomely for that right to be the exclusive carrier. If you really want the product carrier A is offering then you go with them.I think I'll write my senator and tell them they should look into Yum food brands exclusive contract with Pepsi because damnit, I want a Coke with my KFC or Taco Bell. /sarcasm[/citation]

Not really a good analogy since AT&T is not making the iPhone, as is Taco Bell making their own Taco. If AT&T made the phone themselves then it would be a different story.

Regardless, exlcusive contracts have been around forever. While I would like to see a change, I don't necessarily think there is legally a way around it.

 

[Master Exon]

[citation][nom]chripuck[/nom]And seriously... that's like saying you hope McDonald's will start carrying Taco Bell taco's so you don't have to switch restaurants.[/citation]

Kind of a dumb comparison, considering that when you go to McDonalds, you don't have to sign a 2 year contract to eat a Big Mac.

 

[goodbird]

people don't see what apple is doing with the phone and MACs. I don't know why people think this phone is so great. For that reason I say, if you jump to a carrier for just one phone you deserve everything that happens to you. Apple suck so much money out people in every way. AT&T is just their stupid carrier they exploit.

 

[scook9]

This has been in place in the rest of the world for some time now. America is always behind on protecting consumer rights it seems. we have a bad wireless network, slower and more expensive ISP contracts, cell phones that are locked to certain networks. It is like the rest of the world has to advance then we just do it because that's easier than continuing to resist. I just switched to Verizon from Sprint this weekend (because I wanted better coverage in my area, not a specific phone) and picked a BlackBerry Storm as my phone. I can say that I have been very happy with it and was even happier to find it has the new standardized (in EU) micro-usb plug. The wireless headset I got with it had the same plug, that is progress, just took the EU making the first step for us to feel it. This country needs to stop letting large copmanies be so greedy, they can still make alot of money while still giving customers a choice. If not, then it's the companies fault for offering an inferior service. Natural selection will take its course.

 

[cablechewer]

I would love to see all phones initially sold unlocked. However to make it work the providers will need to reduce the monthly rates. Right now the monthly rate includes a subsidy for all the new phones that are handed out. I want to see a monthly rate that reflects the real cost of the network. If I can't afford to pay for a phone up front then I should have the option to 'finance' it and have a separate line item on my monthly bill that will show my payment for the phone. This way when I am finished paying for my phone the bill goes down. If I buy my phone outright then my bill would be lower from the outset.

Of course I would also like network providers to advertise the real cost of their service. Nothing feels worse than getting a decent monthly price and then getting your first bill with the extra 911, network access, local tax, sales tax and other charges. Be honest with me - tell me what the final number on my bill will be if I stay within my plan. Unfortunately that is a battle for another day. I want to see the phones unlocked first.

 

[justjc]

I know this sounds crazy to Americans, but here is how we do it in Denmark.

Most phones are available both with and without contracts. If you choose to accept a contract, to get the phone at a lower price, that contract can't bind you for more than 6 months. Most phones are sold unlocked. Those who get a phone, that is locked to a network, can contact the carrier, after the 6 months are up, and demand the carriers help in unlocking it. Finally the minimum price of ownership(the 6 months) has to be printed on all offers and commercials for a phone.

Apart from the few exclusive phones, most are offered by several carriers, the competition keeps prices on new phones reasonable and with the demanded minimum cost of ownership it's easy to compare offers. When the 6 months are up all carriers can be used, which ensures competition on that market too.

 

[chripuck]

Kind of a dumb comparison, considering that when you go to McDonalds, you don't have to sign a 2 year contract to eat a Big Mac.

You don't have to sign a 2 year contract with your cell provider as well... oh wait, you do that so you can get a cheaper phone price.

 

[chripuck]

[citation][nom]cablechewer[/nom]I would love to see all phones initially sold unlocked. However to make it work the providers will need to reduce the monthly rates. Right now the monthly rate includes a subsidy for all the new phones that are handed out. I want to see a monthly rate that reflects the real cost of the network. If I can't afford to pay for a phone up front then I should have the option to 'finance' it and have a separate line item on my monthly bill that will show my payment for the phone. This way when I am finished paying for my phone the bill goes down. If I buy my phone outright then my bill would be lower from the outset.Of course I would also like network providers to advertise the real cost of their service. Nothing feels worse than getting a decent monthly price and then getting your first bill with the extra 911, network access, local tax, sales tax and other charges. Be honest with me - tell me what the final number on my bill will be if I stay within my plan. Unfortunately that is a battle for another day. I want to see the phones unlocked first.[/citation]

So you want them to sell unlocked phones, reduce their monthly premiums and improve their network quality and capacity. Wow, glad you don't run the business I work for.

Do any of you actually know how they do it in Europe? How fractured their cell service is? How taking your phone from Germany to France and making a call will cost you an arm and a leg? How there are still plenty of exclusive cell phones in Europe (iPhone anyone?) How ridiculous their pricing structure is?

 

[rockerrb]

This is just another prime example of the government interfering in the free market. socialism.

 

[justjc]

@chripuck actually most of Europe have excellent cell service.

Costs of calling between countries are also fair, due to the fact that the EU monitors the market, most recently this resulted in EU setting the maximum cost of sending an SMS within the EU to 0.11€(~0.15 USD). And no, we don't pay to receive the message.
Source http/www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=5359

Your concrete example a German user calling in France will, cost 0.48 €(~0.67 USD) a minute, hardly an arm and a leg. That by the way is also a max price fixed by the EU.
Source http/www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=3396

About exclusive phones it's funny you brought up Germany and France. In Germany T-Mobile was forced, by the courts, to offer an unlocked iPhone and in France they already have the laws forbidding the exclusive bundling of cellphones to carriers.

The iPhone is one of the few cases this wasn't a good idea, probably because of Apples special deals with carriers, as the 2007 introduction prices for unlocked phones was 999€ in Germany and 749€ in France. There were however also offers with a contract that was available at a lower cost.

Apart from the iPhone most phones are carried by several carriers, and sold without carriers from electronic stores and supermarkets, meaning we got competition. We seldom pay more for the phone and a contract(with included talk) than the phone on it's own(without a contract).

I still can't believe people in the US can't see they're in a market favoring the carriers instead of favoring the consumers, like the one in Europe. If our way is Socialism I'm sure most Americans wopuldn't mind a little socialism in their lives.

 

[Wayoffbase]

[citation][nom]justjc[/nom]I still can't believe people in the US can't see they're in a market favoring the carriers instead of favoring the consumers, like the one in Europe. If our way is Socialism I'm sure most Americans wopuldn't mind a little socialism in their lives.[/citation]
I agree, except for the socialism part. It's more a matter of current U.S. laws favoring large corporations over the consumer, rather than socialism.

 

[scook9]

Justjc you are perfectly reinforcing what I said - not to steal your thunder.

And keep rubbing it in...sob sob...

 

[bigbadbrad]

Exclusivity between carriers and device manufacturers is anti-competitive and should be regulated. Competition is healthy for the economy.