[buzglyd]

Gotta love that it's Kerry quoted here. Here is a guy who's life accomplishments consist of sucking the bank accounts of rich women.
Nice gig if you can get but his sum total of real business knowledge is a big fat 0.

[jmincey]

Ah yes, according to AT&T, consumers benefit when they have fewer options and less flexibility. Contending that lock-in promotes innovation is like contending that giving the entire OS market to Microsoft would encourage breakthroughs in OS technology.
Jeff Mincey

[JakeT]

It is the job of the government to provide a certain amount of rules and regulations so that we have competition and the option to purchase something. Without government regulations, people in rural areas wouldn't even have land lines.
I would prefer to pay the full price of a phone up front and have lower monthly charges. However a lot of people aren't that way. They'll opt for a "free" phone and then pay high monthly charges. In the competition for land line phones, cheap wins out and you can't find a land line phone that's nearly as nice as a cell phone. The cost of cell phones are paid for partly by the hidden payments in the monthly phone bill.

[techguru]

If this is the case then shouldn't it also follow that AT&T and others be allowed to set up service and coverage areas to we have the consumer choice to choose from all of the cell systems available. Where I live your choice is AT&T or US Cellular in certain areas less than 50 miles away US Cellular is the only option because they entered into the exclusive contract with the telephone provider to provide Cell Service for x years.
If Congress wants to open this can of worms they better look at expanding all opportunities for high speed interent, cell services, phone offerings, etc. Not just iPhone to people who can't get AT&T. This is much bigger than they are thinking.

[n4hhe]

A very wise man once told me, "If its documented then its a feature, not a bug. Live with it. Play it to your advantage if you can."
So one doesn't have cell service in the countryside? Is not as if one didn't know that in advance. Didn't have cable TV either? Its documented so its a feature of living in the country, is not a bug. Betcha don't have a Walmart next door either, so is that a feature or a bug?
The Carterfone precedent is being twisted around exactly the opposite of what it really stands for. AT&T nor any other carrier is preventing one from attaching any compatible cell phone (iPhone or other) to their network. Is Apple who is declining to sell the iPhone without a network carrier subscription. Once terms of the service agreement have been met then one is free to take the iPhone elsewhere. Or pay the escape fee to get out early.

[ryongue]

I agree with ibeetle. I should be able to purchase the phone I want and the cellular service I want. I believe that freedom would spur greater competition, resulting in lower prices and higher innovation.

[cycomachead]

jimmylittle said:

i think the point the Senators have is that phone manufacturers should develop phones for all platforms, CDMA and GSM, but because of carrier deals (in this example AT&T and iPhone), Apple has no need to manufacture a CDMA version. If phones were not exclusive, Apple would be forced by the market (capitalism) to produce a GSM version and a CDMA version, allowing the iPhone to work on AT&T, TMobile, Sprint, Verizon, Boost, Virgin, Alltel, Cricket, or whatever carrier you choose.

Can also be applied to Sprint/Pre, Verizon/BBBold, or any other carrier/phone combo.

Should they? Maybe. Would it be nice? Of course. Is it legal to force a company to make a product? heck no!!

Market demand has no legal implications or force whatsoever! Even if 300 million people said they would buy a Verizon iPhone, that doesn't mean Apple HAS to make one. Grant that it would be smart for apple to make on if that were the case, but that doesn't mean they have to. The phone has to work with the network technology and no company can be forced to change that stuff. T-Mobile uses different 3G bands, you couldn't force a 3rd or 4th or 5th iPhone model or a new T-Mobile.

BTW, AT&T has the Bold. Verizon has the Storm. and many more. There are so many exclusive phones right now!

Are a Verizon iPhone and an AT&T iPhone even the same? I mean, the internal hardware is completely different except for the screen and case. The firmware is different. They have different FCC ID's. If the iPhone 3G was on AT&T (and not the 3G S) then would the 3G S be a different product? What if there was an iPhone and an ApplePhone or whatever that had different names, but were the same? Different design, same hardware? No one really knows. I'm sure some of that all depends upon the details of the contract between Apple and AT&T.


Side Note: Do we even know that Apple isn't happy with AT&T? Ok, given the current press, that sounds obvious, but think about it. Could Apple be spinning some of the blame towards AT&T. Possibly, though clearly, AT&T creates their own plans and features. Maybe Apple figures they want the exclusivity. It doesn't matter how many iPhones are sold, it matters how much money is brought in. (We're a capitalist society!)

[cycomachead]

Here's my issue with this:

Fine, lets say we ban exclusive contracts between phone makers and carriers. None of that says Apple cannot have any contract with AT&T. So you still go to AT&T and get the phone for $199. You don't want AT&T, you're in luck. Apple sells 3 other models that is compatible with every carrier. Ouch, they all cost $999! (And yes I typed that correctly.) Apple and AT&T still have a contract, it allows there to be other carriers. Apple and Verizon can't agree so the phone is $999. The government can't for both of them to agree. Apple and sprint are sorta getting along so you can have the phone for $499.

That wouldn't happen. But it could. It IS no matter what you say: non exclusive. It was never discussed to ban subsidies. Trust me, you don't want that! (You ban cell phone subsidies, you ban other subsidies, right?)

You still have contracts. You still have every other problem you've had with a cell phone company. If they really want to reform something, reform the contract process. You can't claim anti-trust if you sign the contract. But some of the things the companies do seem to border on anti-trust.

[himbo]

wiz302pa said:

why shouldn't the rural folks be able to have the same privileges as people who happen to be in the an ATT (bad as it it) area
----------------------------------------------------------------
By your logic, people living in the city should have septic tanks?

I don't know how you can possibly structure this analogy as being an accurate example of his logic.

[leicaman]

[quote name='himbo']
>

wiz302pa said:

> why shouldn't the rural folks be able to have the same privileges as people who happen to be in the an ATT (bad as it it) area
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> By your logic, people living in the city should have septic tanks?
I don't know how you can possibly structure this analogy as being an accurate example of his logic.

Yeah, well most of the logic in the right-wing screeds here are in the toilet anyway. Nothing like a little shouting to keep the facts from coming through.

[wiz302pa]

You missed the point (again). You logic is garbage.

[himbo]

wiz302pa said:

You missed the point (again). You logic is garbage.

No, your analogy is garbage. You take a statement saying that people in rural areas should have access to the same privileges as people in urban areas, turn it into a statement saying that people in urban areas should have the same inconveniences as people in rural areas, and then try to equate the two as being of the same logical structure. They aren't. If you want to argue that equality in privileges automatically requires equality in inconveniences, that's a point of logic you need to make on your own, because it's not contained in either the post you quoted or in your own example.

[ronincali3002]

Quote

{quote:title=Macworld wrote:}That means that customers in rural areas, who want the same things as customers in urban centers and who may not have AT&T coverage, can?t use the iPhone, said Hu Meena, president and CEO of Cellular South.{quote}

That sounds to me just as absurd as this sounds to me: "I want the government to require East Coast Jewish, West Indian, and Italian immigrant/business owners to open restaurants in my neighborhood in Southern California, because I don't have easy access to all the varied and (in my perception), wonderful foods to which I used to have access while living on the East Coast."

HOW HAS THIS GENERATION BECOME SO ENTITLED?

[johndrake]

Wait a minute, can't the country kid buy an iPhone without a contract, then just sign up with his local carrier of choice?
Granted it's more expensive but what the hey, he gets to have both the iPhone and his tree stand!
Someone else here has pointed out that living in the country, away from the city is a choice and it certainly has many advantages, if you want the advantages that come with living in or nearer to a city then move. Just remember you'll also have to endure the all the different forms of pollution: too many people, too many cars, too much noise, too much asphalt, having to lock your doors and windows, home and car, worrying about who might be stalking you or your family, did you put enough money in the meter, and the beat goes on.
Having said all of that, I live in a city, small 45,000 people give or take. But it has been our choice to do so, we enjoy all the positive things that this area provides, and we deal with the "issues" I listed above. We're 1-2 hour from Balt/DC, 4 hrs from NY or Pittsburgh and all the sports, museums, galleries and theater they have to offer, but we're also less than 3 hrs from the Poconos or the Delaware and Maryland beaches 5 or so hours from the Finger Lakes or the Smokey Mountains so we made a conscious choice to live here and accept both the good and the not so good that came with that decision.
I just purchased an iPhone 3G waited for it, had Nextel/Sprint and I was locked into that deal, had GTerizon land line, as soon as Vonage became available I ditched GTerizon. Couldn't get DSL for a long time GTerizon kept telling me I was to far from the central office, went with the local cable op, haven't looked back since.
Maybe the Kid can get an apartment in the town/city to get AT&T and visit Mom and Dad so he can get back to his tree-stand!