[MutantPie]

I'm sure something similar was stated about the oil industry in the early 1900's. Read your history, learn about the monoply Standard Oil.

Mutant_Pie

[hayesk]

I'd like to see the carriers operate like Internet providers. That is, they offer you a connection and network dependent features, and leave it to the customer to purchase their own client device.
The carriers should stay out of subsidizing phones, removing phone features, and just charge you based on what it costs to provide the service plus a reasonable profit.

[jmincey]

I love how people want the government to stay out of it when a corporation itself is a LEGAL entity and receives its very charter for existence from the government. And when corporate management brings their companies to ruin through incompetence and corruption, aren't they quick to run to big daddy government for a bailout?
This idea that government is all bad and corporations can do no wrong serves no one. I support this Senate inquiry. Back-room deals and lock-in are NOT In the consumer's interest and do not foster consumer choice.
Jeff Mincey

[QCassidy352]

It's absolutely friggin' ridiculous that the government would insert itself into this issue. There's no cell phone monopoly in the US - not even close. This is called a free market in action.

And this is borderline incoherent:
"Handset exclusivity arrangements threaten the ability of Tier II and Tier III wireless carriers and new entrants to compete effectively with nationwide carriers, thereby jeopardizing their ability to continue providing service in remote areas not adequately served by the nationwide carriers."

If you live in an area not serviced by a nationwide carrier then you're going with a regional carrier regardless of what handsets they offer because no phone, no matter how cool, makes up for not having service.

and while we're at it:
"Turning rural consumers into second class customers by blocking their access to smartphones and other innovative handsets is not consistent with the purposes and policies of the Act"

Really? Are rural consumers turned in to second class citizens by having to drive further to reach restaurants and retail stores?

Sorry, but choosing to live in a rural area has many benefits, like cost of living and peace and quiet, but it has some drawbacks too, and this is one of them. Saying that a lack of cell phone options turns people in to "second class citizens" trivializes the fact that some Americans really have been (and one might argue, continue to be) treated as second class citizens.

[pekedey]

luckie_reubs said:

(what's the word for multiple monopolies?)

It's called a conglomeration, I think.

Anyway, I hope this actually goes somewhere, unlike the dead-in-the-water text messaging investigation. It would sure be nice to see the government actually fight for the people for once, instead of loafing around and getting checks from the big businesses to keep the proletariat in line.

[macFanDave]

context said:

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

You should have brought out your copy of the Constitution before you revealed to the world that you are an ignorant idiot. Luckily, you have zinfella and Scott76 making fools of themselves, so you are not the only target of point-and-laugh.

Article I, Section 8, No. 3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Yes, regulating interstate trade is an enumerated power of Congress. This is exactly the role of the government! The Republicans who ruled from '94 to '06 believed in trickle-down economics meaning big business could abuse their customers at will and the Congress would do nothing and even help them. Of course, Bush's executive branch wasn't particularly interested in enforcing any law that might upset his supporters.

I hope Congress and the Obama Administration get serious about enforcing anti-trust law because we consumers are getting screwed right, left and center. Cell phones are just one of the most egregious cases!

[doglesby]

henryhbk said:

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.

Oh yeah, so how do I get value when I'm charged to receive some jackass's spam? It's the double charging that should be investigated (and the operators should just stop, I turned off text messaging for that reason; my provider lost the 20 cents from people who wanted to text me in addition to the 20 cents they stole out of my pocket for every message). If the messages I receive are so valuable, wouldn't I respond (and incur the charge for sending said response)? As text spamming grows, this practice of double-charging has to stop.

[doglesby]

There's a huge possibility of unintended consequences here. Sure competition is great, but the patent system (much reviled among Macworld posters) is designed to encourage innovation through limited monopolies. Without exclusivity, Apple doesn't get as much money from AT&T. Without that money, we may not be seeing 3.0 tomorrow (at least not for free).
Seems to me the problem is that phones aren't available to rural carriers who don't actually compete because they serve different regions. Apple/Blackberry/whoever should be allowed to take their phones to providers who serve areas their exclusive carriers don't cover. Or those rural carriers need some business arrangement with the nationwide carriers. This issue can be resolved without a ham-fisted move like banning exclusive deals.

[WayneJ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you buy an iPhone from someplace like ebay and use a SIM from your local carrier?

[wdunn]

"Keep the damn government out of it!!!!"

Agreed...typical of the gov't to go through these mindless issues when we have real fiscal issues to address.

Additionally, if someone doesn't want to lock into a cell provider, then don't...isn't your choice? Free Market!

[jti1]

I think that the statement by verizon is right. Why should all companies get the benefits of the research that one company puts in? Last time I checked this is a capitalist society where we have free enterprise. And in a free enterprise system only the strongest companies will survive.

[TowerTone]

I know what you guys mean.
I wanted a Hemi in my Yugo.
Life sucks.

[doglesby]

jti1 said:

I think that the statement by verizon is right. Why should all companies get the benefits of the research that one company puts in? Last time I checked this is a capitalist society where we have free enterprise. And in a free enterprise system only the strongest companies will survive.

You realize this really has nothing to do with competition right? The small carriers who serve rural regions exclusively can't carry the phones people want. Consequently people can't buy an iPhone or Storm or Pre. This is not a threat to the carriers, they effectively have a monopoly. It simply keeps the good phones out of the hands of their customers. If AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint had any damn sense, they'd work something out with these carriers to let them sell the high-end phones in exchange for better coverage or outright cash.

[JakeT]

I don't really get why companies like Apple go with exclusive deals. I would think that they could sell more phones by working with multiple phone companies. That's what phone makers usually do. Although, I don't think I would want to work with Verizon since they would turn of the phone apps and sell their own for extra. The GPS on the Blackberry doesn't work with Google maps on Verizon.