DOJ Looks Into Exclusive Mobile Carrier Deals

I think this is a royal waste of time because they'll just screw it up. All Apple will have to do is offer it to some obscure regional carrier and then they can claim that it's no longer exclusive.

Good idea, and I hope the networks will have to think twice before intentionally handicapping a device just because they can do it knowing that no other network has that device (ATT tethering on iPhone, anyone? ). But will need a unified standard before one could switch networks at will while keeping the handset they like. I'm afraid though that the big money/corporations will get a compromise deal which will serve them well and will screw the customer, as always...

I think there should be a separation of cell service and cell phones. Much like for land lines where land line service and phones are not exclusively tied.

networks are (or should be ) just that: networks that provide the airspace and the bandwidth; one should be able to switch at will while keeping his preferred handset. That means the devices will have to be compatible with different standards (more expensive) or follow the rest of the world in using a unified standard for cellular. Networks don't manufacture the handsets and definitely should be prevented from intentionally handicapping a device just because they're the only ones that carry it...see tethering on iPhone, for instance... not to mention the stupid practice of locking a handset to a network; just plain anti-consumer. I'm afraid that the big money/corporations will get a compromise deal that serves them well and screws the customer, as always...

I think once the government mandated that cell-phone users be allowed to switch their number between companies, much of the anti-trust issues went away. Sure, it would be nice to run that cool new phone with your existing carrier, and not lose those years of being a loyal customer (and possibly getting goods deals in return).

On the same note, why can't I get GM On-Star in my Hyundai if its such a worthwhile and possibly life-saving service? Lets face it, there are so many exclusive services out there, focusing solely on cell-phone companies won't get much done in the long run.

people don't see what apple is doing with the phone and MACs. I don't know why people think this phone is so great. For that reason I say, if you jump to a carrier for just one phone you deserve everything that happens to you. Apple suck so much money out people in every way. AT&T is just their stupid carrier they exploit.

This has been in place in the rest of the world for some time now. America is always behind on protecting consumer rights it seems. we have a bad wireless network, slower and more expensive ISP contracts, cell phones that are locked to certain networks. It is like the rest of the world has to advance then we just do it because that's easier than continuing to resist. I just switched to Verizon from Sprint this weekend (because I wanted better coverage in my area, not a specific phone) and picked a BlackBerry Storm as my phone. I can say that I have been very happy with it and was even happier to find it has the new standardized (in EU) micro-usb plug. The wireless headset I got with it had the same plug, that is progress, just took the EU making the first step for us to feel it. This country needs to stop letting large copmanies be so greedy, they can still make alot of money while still giving customers a choice. If not, then it's the companies fault for offering an inferior service. Natural selection will take its course.

I would love to see all phones initially sold unlocked. However to make it work the providers will need to reduce the monthly rates. Right now the monthly rate includes a subsidy for all the new phones that are handed out. I want to see a monthly rate that reflects the real cost of the network. If I can't afford to pay for a phone up front then I should have the option to 'finance' it and have a separate line item on my monthly bill that will show my payment for the phone. This way when I am finished paying for my phone the bill goes down. If I buy my phone outright then my bill would be lower from the outset.

Of course I would also like network providers to advertise the real cost of their service. Nothing feels worse than getting a decent monthly price and then getting your first bill with the extra 911, network access, local tax, sales tax and other charges. Be honest with me - tell me what the final number on my bill will be if I stay within my plan. Unfortunately that is a battle for another day. I want to see the phones unlocked first.

I know this sounds crazy to Americans, but here is how we do it in Denmark.

Most phones are available both with and without contracts. If you choose to accept a contract, to get the phone at a lower price, that contract can't bind you for more than 6 months. Most phones are sold unlocked. Those who get a phone, that is locked to a network, can contact the carrier, after the 6 months are up, and demand the carriers help in unlocking it. Finally the minimum price of ownership(the 6 months) has to be printed on all offers and commercials for a phone.

Apart from the few exclusive phones, most are offered by several carriers, the competition keeps prices on new phones reasonable and with the demanded minimum cost of ownership it's easy to compare offers. When the 6 months are up all carriers can be used, which ensures competition on that market too.

This is just another prime example of the government interfering in the free market. socialism.

@chripuck actually most of Europe have excellent cell service.

Costs of calling between countries are also fair, due to the fact that the EU monitors the market, most recently this resulted in EU setting the maximum cost of sending an SMS within the EU to 0.11€(~0.15 USD). And no, we don't pay to receive the message.
Source http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=5359

Your concrete example a German user calling in France will, cost 0.48 €(~0.67 USD) a minute, hardly an arm and a leg. That by the way is also a max price fixed by the EU.
Source http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=3396

About exclusive phones it's funny you brought up Germany and France. In Germany T-Mobile was forced, by the courts, to offer an unlocked iPhone and in France they already have the laws forbidding the exclusive bundling of cellphones to carriers.

The iPhone is one of the few cases this wasn't a good idea, probably because of Apples special deals with carriers, as the 2007 introduction prices for unlocked phones was 999€ in Germany and 749€ in France. There were however also offers with a contract that was available at a lower cost.

Apart from the iPhone most phones are carried by several carriers, and sold without carriers from electronic stores and supermarkets, meaning we got competition. We seldom pay more for the phone and a contract(with included talk) than the phone on it's own(without a contract).

I still can't believe people in the US can't see they're in a market favoring the carriers instead of favoring the consumers, like the one in Europe. If our way is Socialism I'm sure most Americans wopuldn't mind a little socialism in their lives.

Justjc you are perfectly reinforcing what I said - not to steal your thunder.

And keep rubbing it in...sob sob...

Exclusivity between carriers and device manufacturers is anti-competitive and should be regulated. Competition is healthy for the economy.

Chripuck, I am not asking them to reduce what they charge for the running of their network - only to separate out and display what they charge for their network. Somewhere in each of the wireless carriers is an accountant who knows what portion of their gross revenue goes to new phone subsidies, what portion is profit and what portions cover other costs.

Right now if you get a new phone and elect to keep it when your contract runs out you still pay the same monthly bill as if you got a new phone for free. In this instance, yes, I would hurt the phone company because I would ask that the phone subsidy portion of the bill be removed when the phone is paid for. If change results in lower profits you can bet the carriers would raise the rates they charge for the network.

Note also that I did mention financing a phone if you did not buy it outright. That provides an opportunity for the carrier to charge interest (no doubt this is already built into our monthly rates). So if you put down $50 on a $500 phone the remaining $450 plus interest would be collected over the duration of your 1 or 2 year contract. Net result for the person who gets a new phone with every contract? Nothing except the transparency of knowing exactly what they paid for service and exactly what they paid for the phone.

I am no accountant, but I am hoping that between the interest and markup charged on new phones that the idea would be close to revenue neutral. You can bet that if it leaves them even a penny short the carriers would find a way to extract that money from the consumer.