[Klempenski]

Lot of big words to say no more Storm only on Verizon or iPhone only on AT&T

FT.com / Companies / Telecoms - DoJ to review handset arrangements

[SurrealCivic]

this is the only way to go..

No more protecting carriers, the consumers need to make their own choice. The best decision is the decision of a consumer, either a family decision or an individual decision or even a business decision, the consumer needs to make their own choice and not be limited or forced.

[LaPerla]

good! Ijust have had 2 months of fight with ATT reps.. They refused to connect my Unlocked pearl flip to BB service because it was not made for this very company.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[stuaw11]

this is the only way to go..

No more protecting carriers, the consumers need to make their own choice. The best decision is the decision of a consumer, either a family decision or an individual decision or even a business decision, the consumer needs to make their own choice and not be limited or forced.

Or it can operate with an opposite effect curtailing advancement in technology. Some manufacturers may decide not to release devices if they have to make them for all of the carriers seeing as there is CDMA, GSM ATT, and GSM Tmo (using AWS bands). Then there's WIMAX and LTE, and all the variants of hybrid devices with these new data/old voice bands- it gets VERY messy. This could honestly HURT the customer in the long run if you force manufacturers to make all 3 models when they dont want to.

Furthermore, I see nothing in our law or Constitution that you cannot freely form business contracts. The government has NO right to meddle in private business or mess with contracts. Trust me this will end up in court if something is decided against the manufacturers because they will be essentially told by the government how to run their business, which is outside the government's power and authority.

Yeah it sucks certain phones are only on certain carriers, but thats life. The carriers choose the phones they want on their network, and the carrier/manufacturer has EVERY legal right to form a business contract with each other including an exclusive time period deal.

[ace587]

would be nice if DoJ mandated all to go LTE

[stuaw11]

It still makes no sense. The iphone and even Storm have been out for 1+ years and the government sat on their hands. Now the little guys start crying momma and the government springs into action trying to govern business now. Thats just totally wrong for government to interfere here with private business contracts between 2 willing parties.

Are the smaller carriers willing to give up THEIR exclusive products to the bigger carriers too now? Pre, Sidekick, etc.? Those are products that COULD be keeping people with them! This could backfire in their faces very easily.

I also dont think any of this will help the smaller carriers all that much. ATT and VZW have their reputation to live on, Sprint is known as the f-up carrier from their recent few years, and Tmobile for a way smaller coverage area and lack of 3g.

I dont think this would sway a whole ton of people away from ATT/VZW if you get rid of exclusives, especially taking away the little guy's advantage of having their specific exclusives as well.

I still feel this could deter handset makers from producing desirable devices if they have to go through all the trouble of making many different variants for all the carriers. Thats a lot of R&D, testing, time, employee labor, manufacturing costs, etc. Could even see handsets go up in cost as a result.

People/carriers need to stop whining to the government. If you want a phone that bad youll move carriers to get that device, or else youll use a device your carrier offers. Each carrier offers at least similar functioning devices that will suit their customer's needs

[axe50]

Spoken like someone who is happy with their carrier choice.

I doubt that this will translate into more costs for the manufacturer. If a phone was not made for a particular vendors technology (GSM, CDMa, etc) then that should be fine and that model exempt from being offered to all. It will push up demand for world devices and hybrids for sure though.

I think this would be a great thing. Carriers should be getting contracts based on the price of their plans and service quality they offer, not because they were big enough to negotiate exclusivity of a device.

If you remove the handset from the equation decisions are made solely on those factors which will intensify competition. This will inevitably drive costs down for the larger companies, (and by extension, our bills) and in turn drive service up for the smaller companies.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Bargsbeer]

Although I think this would be a great idea, I hate the idea of the government interfering with business (we have enough of that in the U.S.)

[lnichols]

I don't think this will deter the handset makers at all. Nothing says that they have to make a GSM version and a CDMA version, its more that you can't make GSM phone and only sell it to AT&T, or make a CDMA phone and sell it to Verizon. It's basically to prevent a Verizon or an AT&T (Number 1 and 2) from using there number 1 and 2 status to get an exclusive on a phone or the entire manufacturer's lineup and the manufacturer agreeing cause that particular carrier have more customers, even though they could sell more if they could sell to all CDMA and/or GSM carriers. The number 1 or 2 could say if you don't give us exclusive we won't carry any phone then the maker will likely buckle to have access to the larger base. They would be using there size and user base to poach even more customers from smaller carriers by locking those carriers out of the phones that people want. Those are things that monopolies do. I don't know about you but I don't want there to only be a Verizon and AT&T as the only two carriers cause they already have the highest rates.

And as for the Pre comments and comparing that as an exclusive, everyone knows that Verizon will have it, and there will likely be an unlocked GSM version. Exclusive release and then letting other carriers have it in 90 days, and exclusive carry are different.

[Devlyn16]

Another thing to consider is how this would impact Authorized resellers.

Would this enable them to get new Phones on Launch day instead of wating several weeks for the equipment to trickle down to them?

[SaraBear]

Everyone who thinks the government should step in and erase exclusivity deals should take some time and ask yourselves a question--why do device manufactures enter into such deals? Is it because they don't want to sell products? Are they just stupid for ignoring so many potential customers? Or, is there an economic reason that makes sense? And what advantage does the consumer have from such deals?

I'll promise you this--if exclusivity gets killed you can say goodbye to ever again getting a new device at a subsidized price. The only items getting the fat discounts would be those that are 2 or 3 years old and ancient in technological terms. The reason AT&T can offer dirt cheap iPhones is because it will get new customers and lock in old ones; ditto Verizon with the Storm. No exclusivity and the starting prices on these phones will be $600 or more when they are new, regardless of your contract status.

There is a loss-leader philosophy involved. The reason Walmart can sell their house brand of food and other supplies so cheap is because all they want to do is get you into the store so you will buy something else while you are there. Do you think the government should step in and force Walmart to sell their Great Value brand at Safeway and Food Lion? If not, why not?

The other key aspect, as has been pointed out, is technology advances will suffer. If the iPhone was available everywhere, what incentive would Verizon or T-Mo have to invest in the development of new technologies? As it is now, Verizon will work hand-in-hand with RIM or other makers to come up with an "anti-iPhone" to compete. If they already had iPhones on their network, they would leave these companies to their own development, cutting investment dramatically and slowing down the rate of technological advancement to a crawl. Plus, the profit margin on new phones would shrink, hurting incentive and further impeding growth from within tech companies, themselves.

If the government gets involved here, yeah, you will get the phone you want on the carrier you want. But you will pay a crapload more for it, and the rate of advancement in technology will be a fraction of what it is now. In the end, the customer will lose.

[Nycxice]

Uhhm...competition drives prices down.. So say the iphone was offered on VZW and ATT..there would be some sort of competetion to draw the most consumers...

The post above this made no sense..

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Bargsbeer]

Everyone who thinks the government should step in and erase exclusivity deals should take some time and ask yourselves a question--why do device manufactures enter into such deals? Is it because they don't want to sell products? Are they just stupid for ignoring so many potential customers? Or, is there an economic reason that makes sense? And what advantage does the consumer have from such deals?

I'll promise you this--if exclusivity gets killed you can say goodbye to ever again getting a new device at a subsidized price. The only items getting the fat discounts would be those that are 2 or 3 years old and ancient in technological terms. The reason AT&T can offer dirt cheap iPhones is because it will get new customers and lock in old ones; ditto Verizon with the Storm. No exclusivity and the starting prices on these phones will be $600 or more when they are new, regardless of your contract status.

There is a loss-leader philosophy involved. The reason Walmart can sell their house brand of food and other supplies so cheap is because all they want to do is get you into the store so you will buy something else while you are there. Do you think the government should step in and force Walmart to sell their Great Value brand at Safeway and Food Lion? If not, why not?

The other key aspect, as has been pointed out, is technology advances will suffer. If the iPhone was available everywhere, what incentive would Verizon or T-Mo have to invest in the development of new technologies? As it is now, Verizon will work hand-in-hand with RIM or other makers to come up with an "anti-iPhone" to compete. If they already had iPhones on their network, they would leave these companies to their own development, cutting investment dramatically and slowing down the rate of technological advancement to a crawl. Plus, the profit margin on new phones would shrink, hurting incentive and further impeding growth from within tech companies, themselves.

If the government gets involved here, yeah, you will get the phone you want on the carrier you want. But you will pay a crapload more for it, and the rate of advancement in technology will be a fraction of what it is now. In the end, the customer will lose.

People are already paying $600 for the iPhone,Storm and other smartphones their just not paying it up front.When you calculate the cost of the iPhone $199-$299 then the cost of the plan over 2 years the new cheaper iPhone actually costs more than the original iPhone. I agree with Nycxice It is competition that drives the price. It's a slippery slope for me,Because I really don't want the government making these decisions for me.

[lockerc18]

Furthermore, I see nothing in our law or Constitution that you cannot freely form business contracts. The government has NO right to meddle in private business or mess with contracts.

Actually, there is some foundation here. The FCC does regulate the bands that cell phones operate on, so there is a basis for the federal government to regulate other aspects of the usage of those bands, particularly from a consumer protection standpoint. I think it's a safe bet that this will be argued in court, though.

[catfish44]

Prices will go up because without a contract no way to insure that the carrier will make any $$$$$$$$$$

[larrygump]

Or it can operate with an opposite effect curtailing advancement in technology. Some manufacturers may decide not to release devices if they have to make them for all of the carriers seeing as there is CDMA, GSM ATT, and GSM Tmo (using AWS bands). Then there's WIMAX and LTE, and all the variants of hybrid devices with these new data/old voice bands- it gets VERY messy. This could honestly HURT the customer in the long run if you force manufacturers to make all 3 models when they dont want to.

Furthermore, I see nothing in our law or Constitution that you cannot freely form business contracts. The government has NO right to meddle in private business or mess with contracts. Trust me this will end up in court if something is decided against the manufacturers because they will be essentially told by the government how to run their business, which is outside the government's power and authority.

Yeah it sucks certain phones are only on certain carriers, but thats life. The carriers choose the phones they want on their network, and the carrier/manufacturer has EVERY legal right to form a business contract with each other including an exclusive time period deal.

That's just great....I guess you don't remember how we got into this recession that is costing alot of our friends and neighbors their homes and savings?

DEREGULATION!!!!

The government absolutely has the right to prevent predatory business practices....especially when that market is limited to only a handful of companies....remember life and liberty....liberty meaning freedom of choice....freedom from predatory oppressive corporate business practice.....

Business also has the right to be protected from deceptive consumers so it's a give and take....
I'll address the lawsuit issue first though.......Let them take it to court....and then they will wind up like the credit card companies ...being forced to be ethical in their business model/practice through legislatio, and I guarantee any appellate court or the SCOTUS will uphold it in light of our current market and in light of protecting the consumer/giving them greater freedom...limiting anti-trust and monopoly's

Theres no way you can convince me that we dont have the technology or RF spectrum to support multi carrier devices...period.....

These "carriers" say there subsidizing our devices when in reality they buy them at a bulk price which many times is lower than your new contract price...or upgrade price.....then they charge rates for minute bundles with a 500% mark up.....which is fine....Wireless carriers are in business to make a profit....but there has to be a fair equitable market...meaning REGULATED NON PREDATORY BUSINESS

[amojeba]

People are already paying $600 for the iPhone,Storm and other smartphones their just not paying it up front.When you calculate the cost of the iPhone $199-$299 then the cost of the plan over 2 years the new cheaper iPhone actually costs more than the original iPhone. I agree with Nycxice It is competition that drives the price. It's a slippery slope for me,Because I really don't want the government making these decisions for me.

Do you think most people will pay this upfront though? I sure as **** won't shell out the money upfront, and I guarantee 70% of the people out there won't either.

SaraBear's comment makes total sense. Very well put.

Yes, there would be more "competition" persay, but it would be more along the lines of Iphone costing between $590 and $595 between 2 carriers, not $190-$195 type of competition.
The prices will get all jacked up, and the the competition sets in at those jacked up prices.

Think about it guys.

[larrygump]

Do you think most people will pay this upfront though? I sure as **** won't shell out the money upfront, and I guarantee 70% of the people out there won't either.

SaraBear's comment makes total sense. Very well put.

Yes, there would be more "competition" persay, but it would be more along the lines of Iphone costing between $590 and $595 between 2 carriers, not $190-$195 type of competition.
The prices will get all jacked up, and the the competition sets in at those jacked up prices.

Think about it guys.

How will it stop subsidizing?.....the price to build the phone remains unchanged...branding is the only matter being debated.....technology on one compatible network crossing to another....sarabear makes the loss leader strategy assessment......I dont agree ....carriers dont use device exclusivity to "bring customers in and sell them other items"...they negotiate device exclusivity to try to "corner" the market....leaving the consumer with little choice but to purchase from that carrier to meet there needs or wants....a monopoly
Again I would repeat others comments that competition should be based on coverage....plan price....and customer service....not device availability...

I dont think anyone can argue that more choices are always better for the consumer......so either some of the folks here are devout corporate carrier worshipers or are blinded by partisan rhetoric.....how could you NOT support MORE choice for us the consumer......

[legendofdon]

How will it stop subsidizing?.....the price to build the phone remains unchanged...branding is the only matter being debated.....technology on one compatible network crossing to another....sarabear makes the loss leader strategy assessment......I dont agree ....carriers dont use device exclusivity to "bring customers in and sell them other items"...they negotiate device exclusivity to try to "corner" the market....leaving the consumer with little choice but to purchase from that carrier to meet there needs or wants....a monopoly
Again I would repeat others comments that competition should be based on coverage....plan price....and customer service....not device availability...

I dont think anyone can argue that more choices are always better for the consumer......so either some of the folks here are devout corporate carrier worshipers or are blinded by partisan rhetoric.....how could you NOT support MORE choice for us the consumer......

A carrier having an exclusive agreement on a phone does NOT make them a monopoly. ATT is the only carrier offering the iPhone, but that does not make them a monopoly because there are other carriers you can get a touchscreen smartphone on. Saying exclusive handsets make monopolies is like saying McDonald's is a monopoly because it's the only fast food joint that sells a Big Mac. Should the government step in and force McDonald's to provide Big Macs to Burger King? If you agree with the government ending handset exclusivity, then by extension you agree with this.

In the case of the iPhone, Apple doesn't want to do business with VZW, TMO or Sprint for whatever reasons. How can you make the argument that the government should be allowed to force Apple to do business with people that it doesn't want to? The government shouldn't be allowed to do that, because that's called socialism.

[_StephenBB81]

Uhhm...competition drives prices down.. So say the iphone was offered on VZW and ATT..there would be some sort of competetion to draw the most consumers...

The post above this made no sense..

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

The Post above you made a lot of sense, still off the mark a little maybe, but it did make sense. YES competition drives prices down, BUT if the prices for the products start higher then the end result is the same. With an Exclusivity deal I am sure monies are changing hands, Manufacture offers Exlucivity to Carrier, in return Carrier agrees to commit to X volumes and Y number of dollars on advertising, which for the Manufacturer allows them to budget materials and man power to produce the products committed to by the Carrier, and passes on marketing costs to the carrier, the carrier in turn gets to have a product no one else does and hopes to use that to bring people from other carriers, or further lock in existing customers.

These contracts are used to Save money for the manufacturer, the money might only be "paper money" being that it is budgeting and projecting funds rather then just saying it costs less, but these deals to result in lower costs for the device by the manufacturer.

On another front, Manufacture A signed a Deal with Carrier 1, Carrier 2 goes to Manufacturer B and says I need something to compete, and they Pool R&D dollars to build a product to compete against the Manufacturer A product.

Actually another point comes to mind,
Apple Forced AT&T to upgrade their networks to make there voicemail system work, if Apple was offering the iphone to everyone, why would they spend that kind of money on something that was not yet proven, and because Apple forced that out of AT&T other carriers started doing it and offering it on other devices.


Exclusivity contracts are GOOD for business, and for the consumer as a group, if you only look at the little picture then you'd say well I want phone ABC on network 123 cause I like network 123 and phone ABC excites, me but I also want it cheap.

doesn't work that way.

[larrygump]

A carrier having an exclusive agreement on a phone does NOT make them a monopoly. ATT is the only carrier offering the iPhone, but that does not make them a monopoly because there are other carriers you can get a touchscreen smartphone on. Saying exclusive handsets make monopolies is like saying McDonald's is a monopoly because it's the only fast food joint that sells a Big Mac. Should the government step in and force McDonald's to provide Big Macs to Burger King? If you agree with the government ending handset exclusivity, then by extension you agree with this.

In the case of the iPhone, Apple doesn't want to do business with VZW, TMO or Sprint for whatever reasons. How can you make the argument that the government should be allowed to force Apple to do business with people that it doesn't want to? The government shouldn't be allowed to do that, because that's called socialism.

First of all it is NOT socialism.....please dont throw that term around and expect to invoke fear in everyone.....please at least wiki socialism before you lable.......since clearly capitalism run amok and unchecked has resulted in the situation at hand.
Secondly, Here's the issue I think we need to wrestle with: wireless service providers are largely deciding what phone you can use. We don't see that happening in similar markets.

Your broadband provider doesn't decide what kind of computer you can connect to at the end of your DSL or cable wire. And forty years ago, the FCC ruled the Carterfone decision that AT&T couldn't pick and choose which phones can and can't connect to its network.

Answer me this sir,
Why should a Consumer's multi-hundred dollar investment [in a mobile handset] be rendered worthless if they should choose to switch wireless carriers (even after any commitment expires!). I suppose the concept is ... I can buy it with my money, but it really isn't mine!

On an Environmental Level, ... thousands of good phones are ending up in landfills (along with their batteries!), solely due to this ridiculous and outdated exemption that has been given to mobile carriers, to a law that solved this problem for house phones many years ago.

The protection of consumers is needed. Government must learn that a higher profit for business does not equate to better result for its constituents. Where companies continually erode the rights of citizens, we must question the ability of these companies to truly serve the population, and this means limiting the kinds of agreements to monopolize technology which exist today. It means allowing telecommunications products to be open to multiple carriers, and not locking them into a single company. Competition keeps companies honest. Seeking to limit that competition is against everyone's interests, including those who do such seeking.

[larrygump]

doesn't work that way.

Thats exactly how it should and will work once legislation and the judiciary passes it.....why do i suspect your a republican or along that line of pro corporate thinking...because they sold you the kool aide and your drinking it......I guess you believe in trickle down economics to.....wake up .......most of us are centrists.....this country wasnt founded on big business it was founded on the little guy...you need a constitutional refresher

[ERDude]

On an Environmental Level, ... thousands of good phones are ending up in landfills (along with their batteries!), solely due to this ridiculous and outdated exemption that has been given to mobile carriers, to a law that solved this problem for house phones many years ago.

Finally someone who makes sense. If it weren't for the law that solved the problems of home phones many moons ago you would still be required to spend hundreds of dollar purchasing or renting a phone from your current landline provider.

Instead you can now walk into any store and pick up any phone you want for as little as 10 bucks. The fears being expressed here about costs going up are the same fears the telcos tried to instill those many moons ago and guess what it has not come true.

[_StephenBB81]

Thats exactly how it should and will work once legislation and the judiciary passes it.....why do i suspect your a republican or along that line of pro corporate thinking...because they sold you the kool aide and your drinking it......I guess you believe in trickle down economics to.....wake up .......most of us are centrists.....this country wasnt founded on big business it was founded on the little guy...you need a constitutional refresher

No clue what a Republican is, I'm not from the US.


IF you remove the exclusivity agreements you drive up cost, I agree it would be great to get phone XYZ on any company I want, but for the manufacture of phone XYZ, they now will have smaller orders more often, which costs a company more, so in turn they will increase the cost of the phone to the carriers to make up for the increased cost of production by not having contracted agreements to quantities, and as a Carrier why would I contractually agree to a large quantity when I could get under cut and be stuck with these products.

There is an idealized view of how things work, but that isn't the real world.

There are LOTS of ways money trades hands to pay for R&D costs, and to pay for distribution channels, and budgets need to be made, resources need to be acquired.

Exclusivity contracts help with this process, the Carriers are willing to pay more of the costs to have the exclusivity if they don't have it, the Manufacturer must pay, and often they will pay more then the Carrier would have.

Go take some business classes, or research about distribution chains before you go spouting political stances.

[larrygump]

Finally someone who makes sense. If it weren't for the law that solved the problems of home phones many moons ago you would still be required to spend hundreds of dollar purchasing or renting a phone from your current landline provider.

Instead you can now walk into any store and pick up any phone you want for as little as 10 bucks. The fears being expressed here about costs going up are the same fears the telcos tried to instill those many moons ago and guess what it has not come true.

Thank You God....I'm not getting ambushed......I don't get it.....Some people on here almost sound like Wireless Execs.....so worried for there individual Wireless carrier.......all I wanna see is whatever is best for the consumer.....the country....and balanced to support a healthy diverse businessplace.....

These exclusive deals limit consumer choice and stifle innovation.
Heres another example I wanna give......What about rural residents who can�t get cellular service from the wireless carriers holding exclusive rights to popular smart phones like the iPhone. They are left watching the commercials for them. If smaller, more local wireless carriers were allowed to service them, these phones could be available to rural America.