[orgopete]

n4hhe said:

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.

I believe the Carterfone precedent allowed you to take your Southwest Bell phone and use it on a Verizon network, thus avoiding the Verizon equipment lease.

I believe Congress is considering whether the same should be true for wireless networks. That is, if you purchased an iPhone either subsidized or not, that you should be able to use it on another compatible network (obviously not Verizon). When the purchase is subsidized by a carrier, then the carrier is permitted to recover the cost of the subsidy.

What makes this interesting and perhaps different from the Carterfone precedent is that while wireless carriers use phones as an enticement to wireless service, the equipment manufacturers (presumably) do not share in the revenue. Apple viewed their phone as having extraordinary value and thus capable of garnering a portion of the monthly service fee. While I am not privy to the Apple-AT&T contract, I do believe Apple does share in the revenue.

Since Apple owns the hardware, I do not see why they may not seek a contract in which they share in the service revenue. (All hardware manufacturers could do this as well, but good luck if they tried it. RIM may be an exception.) That would seem like an approach that Apple would use.

So, I think the issue will come down to whether Apple, in selling its iPhone for use with AT&T has the right to maintain that revenue stream past the end of the contract or contract plus penalty. Clearly, the user will have purchased the hardware. Does the users have the right to use his phone as he wishes?

If I have described the issues properly, you should see that is the principle that other countries handle this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock
That is, basically, carriers are permitted to recover their subsidy from the purchaser, but then the purchaser should be free to use his phone on another network if he wishes.

[himbo]

ronincali3002 said:

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."

Then you are also misunderstanding the situation, but don't worry, you're apparently not alone. The flaw in your analogy is that there is no business agreement in place that prevents people from opening ethnic food restaurants in small towns away from the East Coast. The sales of iPhones, however, are prevented by that very thing.

Is it entitlement to feel like they should be able to get them? Maybe. But a key difference between opening an ethnic cuisine restaurant in a small town and selling iPhones in a small town is that a lot of these places already have cellular providers in place, and they're selling cell phones to people. You're not talking about setting up a limited-appeal restaurant where people may or may not go eat, you're talking about places where people are already buying and using cell phones, and they want access to a popular one. I don't really think it's that outrageous of a desire.

[orgopete]

QCassidy352 said:

The very idea that not having access to the latest phones makes you a "second class citizens" trivializes the experience of those people and groups who have been and continue to be denied basic rights. Get a grip here people.

There's no RIGHT to own a particular model of cell phone. Maybe that kid has to choose between his deer stand and an iphone. There are lots of benefits to living in rural areas, but no, you're not going to have access to everything city-dwellers do. Cry me a river - life is about choices.

I believe the use of the rural example was to show how the principle would work and how it might seem unjust. (That an iPhone owner could not use his phone on his local network, because there is only one network and it isn't AT&T.) While that example should be easy to understand that if you don't have AT&T, your phone won't work and vice versa. However, I believe Congress wishes to address the principle at heart. If a user purchased a GSM compatible iPhone, should he be allowed to use it on his local GSM network?

edit: replaced Congress should with Congress wishes to.

[wiz302pa]

Thank you!

If you move to the country, you get whatever the country provides - both the good and the bad. You are not "entitled" to all city perks.

[absolutegreek89]

Capitalism is based on competition and AT&T's extended
exclusivity contract and also other phone companies with exclusivity contracts
are creating monopolies and monopolies do NOT promote competition. So the
Senators are simply making sure that competition continues in the wireless
industry. As someone who grew up in both
the city and in rural areas I hope that the iPhone is brought to the CDMA
platform or that the government helps companies speed up the process to get
them all on the 4G platform. This will
make life easier for all of us.
I would like to get an iPhone but when I got home for
extended periods of time I don’t have phone service because my family lives in
a rural area that gets service from Verizon and U.S. Cellular which by the way
has excellent service and I’ve never been disappointed with them(U.S. Cellular).

I was planning on getting an iPhone tomorrow but I’m going
to wait and see how this plays out to see if there is any possibility things
will change in the near future. I’d
rather wait than get stuck with crappy service from AT&T.

[msteffer]

I agree.

Exclusivity deals drive down prices. AT&T fronts a large portion of the cost of the iPhone. Without these deals, iPhone prices would definitely go up. Maybe some day we (in the US) will only purchase SIM cards from our providers (a la most of Europe and Asia), and will be able to purchase whatever phone we want and just pop in the SIM card. This will come with more phone options at a higher pricer per phone, but service fees will remain the same. No carrier is going to lower their prices just because they don't sell phones anymore. So in the end, we will actually be paying more. Be careful what you wish for.

[cycomachead]

msteffer said:

I agree.

Exclusivity deals drive down prices. AT&T fronts a large portion of the cost of the iPhone. Without these deals, iPhone prices would definitely go up. Maybe some day we (in the US) will only purchase SIM cards from our providers (a la most of Europe and Asia), and will be able to purchase whatever phone we want and just pop in the SIM card. This will come with more phone options at a higher pricer per phone, but service fees will remain the same. No carrier is going to lower their prices just because they don't sell phones anymore. So in the end, we will actually be paying more. Be careful what you wish for.

Yup. Besides, what seems to be the real source of complaint is the service, or rather the cost-to-service. There's not guarantee that any of this will solve either problem.

[Interrupt19]

Personally I think congress should have mandated a cellular network standard years ago. That way an unlocked phone would work on any carrier's network.

[iJavaJoe]

Septic tanks is a bad analogy and doesn't really apply here. A better way to put this is "why should rural folks have roads and gasoline to run a car"! Of course since you live in a city you can't have a car either since there's no place to park it, hummm.

Remember rural coverage also effects city dwellers since there are Many, MANY times where you go into areas with no coverage.

I live in a city area of about 150K people and ATT doesn't yet offer 3G service yet I have to pay for it, use it or not, if I own an iPhone. Without competition, or government regulation, ATT doesn't need to cover my area of the country with 3G let alone the tree stand were the hunter kid is staying.

[Macalways]

I was wondering what type of hearing would this be if the iPhone was available by every carrier in the country.

The only thing I could think of was how could they get Apple to support all their BBs', Nokias', Motorolas', Ericsons', etc., now that they all went out of business.

[pcharles]

Rubbish! Did you see the WWDC Keynote? AT&T are not ready for either of the iPhones major new technologies, and are unlikely to be for some time. How is that taking a risk? AT&T are a Joke!

If the iPhone were open, and people could simply pop a SIM card of their choice in to the phone, AT&T would need to get their network services up to scratch or lose customers that currently have no where to go.

The biggest complaint people have about the iPhone is that it requires the AT&T network.

[cycomachead]

pcharles said:

Rubbish! Did you see the WWDC Keynote? AT&T are not ready for either of the iPhones major new technologies, and are unlikely to be for some time. How is that taking a risk? AT&T are a Joke!

If the iPhone were open, and people could simply pop a SIM card of their choice in to the phone, AT&T would need to get their network services up to scratch or lose customers that currently have no where to go.

The biggest complaint people have about the iPhone is that it requires the AT&T network.

I'm not trying do defend AT&T here (they're the reason I don't currently have an iPhone.), but where would American consumers go? You won't get 3G or visual voicemail on T-Mobile. Any other small network isn't guaranteed to work either. Most of them even just use services from one of the Big Four. Besides the fact that I don't think many people would pay $699 for T-Mobile.

Exclusivity isn't the problem here! It's the industry. And we're goona have a hard time changing that it we keep singing all these contracts. Which we will keep doing because we don't want to pay through the nose for the phone. And we're not going to not have phones, are?

[Aryehleib770]

What someone should tell Mr Hu Meena is that a person living Ina urban area can't have the iPhone if they don't have AT&T. So it really dosent matter if you live in the city or on a farm. No one can had A iPhone until they get on AT&T's network.

[OriginalMacRat]

cycomachead said:

OK, here's what I don't get about all this. Luckily, they aren't focusing on just the iPhone, but none of this will help iPhone users in America. Ok, if you're in love with T-Mobile it might.

There are 4 major carriers in the US.

Verizon is the only one that doesn't do GSM.