dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com — This is an interesting question raised by the folks over at BoingBoing, and prompted by a letter from four senators to the head of the FCC. They ask whether it's fair to consumers that phone manufacturers can enter into exclusive contracts with certain cellular providers.
Jun 18, 2009 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountJun 18, 2009
Judging by the comments on the articles page, seems there's a bunch of apple fanbois who read this article and couldn't possibly believe that was doing something wrong, so they had to disagree with it.But my opinion is that cell phone service providers should have to compete on service, not on offering the newest exclusive cell phone that just came out. If you can't compete except through exclusive carrier agreements, then you don't know how to compete anymore.Here's an example. T-mobile has been rated with better support then at&t. But because at&t has the exclusivity of the iphone, customers who want it don't have a choice and must put up with the bad customer support of at&t.
pacolugiJun 19, 2009
no comrades, it is not fair. The feds should take over the iPhone and it should be free.
7ajiJun 20, 2009
Better questions are: "Should Verizon be allowed to be the Storm's exclusive carrier?" "Should Sprint be allowed to be the Pre's exclusive carrier?" etc... This business model is everywhere; video games, new music Album's, even TV shows. Get over it and switch if you want an iPhone.
notafanboy87Jun 20, 2009
I love how exclusivity was NEVER a big deal until the iPhone came out. Apple made a great phone, inspired by the genius of japanese smartphones, custom-tailored to the wants and needs of American consumers. A phone with professional features that a basic consumer can learn to use easily. It syncs with Macs and PCs using Free software that the overwhelming majority of people ALREADY use for their music. Nobody can compete with this, except on features. Even then, the features are horribly implemented using an interface designed by nerds, NOT artists. It'll take a long time for a company like Verizon to get their head out of their ass and create something useful to customers, not useful for them.
raaaaaaJun 21, 2009
I like many others would jump and get a iphone if it was on Verizon!!!!!!do I look forward to 2010 yes because apple is not happy with at&t and would love to have another carrier, but with that said will the iphone be the same on Verizon networks, I doubt that. Verizon cripples everything.....they lay there hands on. that is why it did not work from the beginning but with the success of the iphone maybe Verizon will have a piece of humble pie and bite the bullit..
nerysJun 25, 2009
Is the Wii RENTED or PURCHASED.if its rented NO its not your property. if its purchased YOUR DAMNED RIGHT I should be able to put any firmware I want on there. IT IS YOUR PROPERTY. the nature of PROPERTY means you can DO WITH IT AS YOU PLEASE.
nerysJun 25, 2009
Your missing the point Krisrm.I am advocating that SOME government interference is REQUIRED in these kinds of markets strictly to protect the consumer since IT IS NOT a free market environment so the NATURAL free market environment tendencies which are usually GOOD for consumers DO NOT EXIST in this example.We are talking about AT&T krisrm why in the world would the discussion regarding the AIRWAVES that dictate how AT&T operate confuse you?its the whole POINT man.want to see a free market environment? Restaurants. thats a pretty good example. Auto Parts stores. PET stores. Construction work etc.. etc..Most of these things have relatively easy points of entry (IE lots of competition) or are geographically limiting with expensive infrastructure which prevents easy monopolization country wide.DIAL UP internet. when the phone companies could NOT dictate who I could or could not call.Before broadband the competition was FIERCE. I mean we had $10 a month internet and some FREE internet dial ups with add support.because the PLAYING FIELD was level (fundamental to a true free market environment) there was a ton of competition. that was a consumer friendly market.Broadband is not. its very expensive so most people literally have only one choice.DSL allowed more choice but since VERIZON controlled the lines they could CHARGE third party providers a fee larger than the very fee they charged there own customers for the service.Imagine if verizon charged $39.99 for DSL and I as a third party wanted to sell you DSL so verizon charges me $40 per line.Do you not see the problem there? even at ZERO profit and ignoring my COSTS I can not beat verizons price.that is NOT a free market.Cell Phones are similar. there are basically only 4 choices. they bought up all the bandwidth which is an extremely limited resource and ARTIFICIALLY limited at that by frequency license sales which means because of its artificially limited nature (partially by necessity) means they are insanely expensive. IE limited competition.Now sometimes this can not be helped. it takes a lot of money to build a wireless network. but because of its limited free market nature some PROTECTIONS need to be built in to prevent the raping of the citizens.
nerysJun 25, 2009
No property equals NO RIGHTS. Do you think YOU OWNING your own body (which you don't entirely BTW) is theft? you think your BODY should be community property?ALL rights derive from property. even our most cherished rights. Free speech is derived from the fact that OUR SPEECH IS OUR OWN and so is our FREEDOM. its our property.