[Macworld]

Post your comments for Senators to examine exclusive handset deals, like AT&T and iPhone here

[nimbusthegreat]

"In the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets, because other providers would have immediate access to the handsets without having made any investment in research and design," Verizon wrote in its comments to the RCA request."
uh, correct me if i'm wrong but in the case of the iphone at least, didn't apple do all the research and promotions? i don't think a single wireless carrier has innovated on a handset design in the history of ever.

[luckie_reubs]

This is good to read about on a few levels. One level specifically is hopefully we'll see someone finally man up to the cell phone companies. They all wield way too much power (what's the word for multiple monopolies?), and it would be great to have more choice at a reasonable price. I'm all for paying to have better service, but we as customers don't need to fleeced on services like text messages that cost almost nothing to send and receive.

[zinfella]

Keep the damn government out of it!!!!

[henryhbk]

That's what is known as "Value Pricing" rather than "Cost Pricing". This is straight from the supply/demand curve. Also remember that while it is little additional cost for them (it's the header packet of a cell call anyway), it took tens of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure to be able to do this.

If you have some way of absolutely reliably getting a small text message from yourself to your kids regardless of where they are, within a second or 2, even if they are halfway around the world, feel free to create that; that's worth a lot to a lot of people.

Why do people pay for lawn-mowing services? I mow my own lawn for about $1 worth of gas (plus amortization of the purchase of my mower), however many folks will pay $50 to have someone else do it. Why? value pricing! They perceive the value of their time as higher than the $50 (I like doing yard work as relaxation, so I don't see the value).

There are many things that cell companies do that is evil and restrictive, but this isn't one of them per se.

[bonesb]

Owning an iPhone and a Storm, I'm hoping there isn't a lot of bluster about the Senate looking into this.
Verizon turned down the iPhone, supposedly, therefore there's little reason to create a CDMA variant for the US. No apologies to SPCS here. GSM/CDMA was the logical choice as it is for, what, 90% of the world. T-Mo in the US? Again, no apologies.
Verizon/Vodaphone commissioned the Storm with RIM, anyone can buy an unlocked version with GSM/CDMA, like with 90% of the world. The Storm's overrated - mine's hitting the street (literally) sometime soon.

[pcharles]

I wish an iPhone existed for Tracfone. We cannot get 3G here in Zip 49931 and I hardly ever use the phone anyway because I have landlines in the office and at home, and do not want people bothering me between the two.
I like the idea of owning a camera, GPS, and compass, but they are missing from the iPod Touch. So, right now I use a Tracfone ($100/year and I still do not use all the minutes), a Nano 4G, and a Palm TX running TomTom 6!
I think Apple sells enough iPhones they could make a none exclusive work.

[byronkim]

Definitely some drawbacks to the deal (namely that I have to stay with the carrier with which I've by far the worst experience) but I'd argue that there are some changes to the market as a result of the deal that I think may have been difficult to achieve otherwise...more content/less design meddling from the carrier, unlimited data at a 'reasonable' cost, visual voicemail,...
Carriers have had too much control (and IMHO made some terrible decisions with that power) and this deal may have loosened thing up a bit...

[context]

I do not remember this among the enumerated duties of congress in the constitution.

[Troyallen]

I don't get it. Doesn't every cellular service have it's own models and brands?

[Scott76]

Don't these folks have anything better to do? What congress knows about technology would fill a thimble. They need to just stay away and let the market fend for itself.

[MutantPie]

@luckie_reubs
Trust (an illegal and usually secret industry anti-compete compact) might be a word to label what you are describing. But a company-to-company exclusivity partnership is probably something else.
Teddy Roosevelt was the Trust Buster. Perhaps the current congress and Law Professor/President Obama will take up the cause for REAL capitalism again.
Apple expressly prevents the use of the iPhone with a carrier other than AT&T, yet the device is capable (if Apple chooses) of being serviced by other carriers. The anti-competitive practice is being done by Apple.
The senators need to write a law forbidding exclusivity of service providers for any service that uses the public airways, thoroughfares, or is a regulated utility or transportation system. This could end the cable, iPhone, electrical and other mini-monopolies of this sort.
Mutant_Pie

[MutantPie]

@context
When the US Constitution was written, radio waves weren't yet discovered, nor used in commerce. Yet congresses role in legislating (commerce and public resources like the electromagnetic spectrum) was enumerated. Your argument is specious.
Mutant_Pie

[baldy]

@[~124901]

"Oligopoly" is the word you very succinctly were searching for :) Great point.