Senators Request Probe Into Exclusive Carrier Deals

[Master Exon]

[citation][nom]chripuck[/nom]The government isn't going to save us people, we have to save ourselves.[/citation]

The government is run by the people (well, until recently), so making the government to fix it is saving ourselves. What you don't understand is that these are anti competitive practices. Anyone who defends contracts and exclusive phones is obviously ignorant and hasn't seen how things work anywhere else in the world.

 

[squatchman]

Man... if only GM dealers could have sold vehicles exclusive to their competitor's dealers.

Won't someone think of the innovation?!

 

[Niva]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]Anyone here ever purchased an unlocked phone? Anyone?[/citation]

The last 3 phones I've purchased have all been unlocked GSM phones. I've stayed with AT&T but the reason I get the phones is because I travel a lot and love to just swap cards when I go to another country and still maintain all my crap on my phone. By the way I've never cared for the iphone, it's all Nokia for me esp after the last 2 phones I bought from them.

 

[chripuck]

[citation][nom]Master Exon[/nom]The government is run by the people (well, until recently), so making the government to fix it is saving ourselves. What you don't understand is that these are anti competitive practices. Anyone who defends contracts and exclusive phones is obviously ignorant and hasn't seen how things work anywhere else in the world.[/citation]

I've spent ample time in Germany and I do tons of business with Germany. I speak with consultants every day from the EU. They have a completely different system than us, you want to buy an unlocked phone you pay just as much as we do, if not more. You want to call your girlfriend's cell phone for 10 minutes a day 15 days a month, expect a bill upwards of $30 just for those phone calls. Never mind calling your Mom, Dad, friends or using the internet.

No, instead I pay 39.99 a month, I can call my wife unlimited because we're on the same network, same with my Mom, Dad and Brother. I get weekends for free as well as evenings. I have over 5000 rollover minutes because of how few "anytime" minutes I use. Try that over in Europe buddy. You'd be paying out the ass. Sure you get choice, choice to pay even more for your phone.

Any nobody here has given one shred of evidence, anacdotal or otherwise, as to why exclusive phone/carrier agreements are anti-competitive... Someone, please.

 

[chripuck]

[citation][nom]Master Exon[/nom]The government is run by the people (well, until recently), so making the government to fix it is saving ourselves. What you don't understand is that these are anti competitive practices. Anyone who defends contracts and exclusive phones is obviously ignorant and hasn't seen how things work anywhere else in the world.[/citation]

What's anti-competitive? Enlighten me...

 

[chripuck]

[citation][nom]squatchman[/nom]Man... if only GM dealers could have sold vehicles exclusive to their competitor's dealers. Won't someone think of the innovation?![/citation]

Man, if only that were a true parrallel to the article. Too bad GM makes, sells and services their own product. Last I checked, AT&T only sells the product and the access fee to use it, service and production are carried out by manufacturer of the phone.

 

[chripuck]

[citation][nom]clist[/nom]...so what you're saying is that I should pay higher costs to my carrier since they're going to be giving money to the cell phone makers ("to innovate new phones") while still trying to make the same sort of profits they've always made - correct?Lets face it, the money from the carriers doesn't come from thin air, it comes from the bills of the people on the network. Charge more for the fancy phones, and less for the service, and simplify the whole system by cutting out the middle men involved in creating the exclusivity deal. I'd gladly pay more for a phone when I have the freedom to have it and it's services be non-branded, and be able to use it on any network.Cheers, CList[/citation]

ORRRRRRRR.... you could just not buy the big fancy phone. Do you need a Palm Pre or an iPhone. No, you just want one and don't want to pay the price. How about the choice of not giving your money to the company you don't agree with. It certainly worked for against GM... the American people spoke and deemed their products too crappy and look what happened.

Listen, I agree that some of the rates are ridiculous and they should look into that. I agree that service is subpar given the price we pay. Hell, I agree that locking phones to a network is wrong. But this article isn't about any of that.

This entire article is about one company helping funding another companies R&D into a new product so they can be the only ones offering it. There is nothing wrong with Apple agreeing to only sell the iPhone in the US to AT&T subscribers. What's wrong is if I leave AT&T and can't take my phone with me.

 

[bootleghooch]

[citation][nom]Dave_69[/nom]Congress should take actionDisagree. Every time Uncle Sam gets involved in business, it backfires. Let the markets choose what to do. You and I ("consumers" or "demand") are a better gauge for what should be bought/sold than a group of Harvard lawyers posing as this nation's "leaders."[/citation]

Did you already forget the recession that was caused in large part by deregulation?

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]bootleghooch[/nom]Did you already forget the recession that was caused in large part by deregulation?[/citation]
No. It was not. It was caused by greed.

 

[jungleboogiemonster]

Could you imagine if your computer would only would work with Comcast or Verizon or some other ISP? That would be nonsense! So why doesn't the same logic apply to cell phones?

 

[crashtest]

This is not a case of the government interfereing with the free market. There is a limited amount of radio bandwidth. It's considered a public resource, AT&T can't simply claim it or buy it all and shut everyone else out. The FCC is responsible for allowing use of this bandwidth. This limits competition so the FCC must also impose rules to ensure that the public is treated fairly. The FCC reviewing the buisness practices of companys using this public resource is exactly what it's supposed to do. If that bothers you then you need to come up with a new way of dividing up the available bandwidth.

 

[clist]

[citation][nom]chripuck[/nom]ORRRRRRRR.... you could just not buy the big fancy phone. Do you need a Palm Pre or an iPhone. No, you just want one and don't want to pay the price. [/citation]

ah, I think you missed my point. I want the fancy phone, and I'm more than happy to pay - full price - for it. What I don't want is to have the fancy phone paid for through some sideways mechanism (an exclusivity agreement via the carrier) which does little more than obfuscate the value of the goods I'm buying on both the phone side and the carrier side. ...I also don't want to feel like the money I give my carrier is being used to fund R&D on someone else's phone.

Of course this has nothing to do with the question of govt. protecting us from anti-competitive practices, it's just me expressing my annoyance with the way these deals work.

Cheers,
CList

 

[clist]

[citation][nom]chripuck[/nom]Man, if only that were a true parrallel to the article. Too bad GM makes, sells and services their own product. Last I checked, AT&T only sells the product and the access fee to use it, service and production are carried out by manufacturer of the phone.[/citation]

...the real problem with the auto makers and this analogy is geographic location - no one really needs to drive through Michigan to get any place else. Now see if GM were headquartered in NJ instead of Michigan, then we might have already seen a situation where the NJ Turnpike Authority only allows people to drive GM cars on the New Jersey turnpike, and then they could give a portion of the revenue to GM to keep their factories open

...I'm joking of course, not trying to make any real analogy to the phone thing...

Cheers,
CList