FCC to Review Exclusive Cellphone Deals

[Tilted]

FCC to Review Exclusive Deals That Lock Up Hot Cellphones - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- Exclusive deals that allow wireless phone companies to lock up the hottest cellphones for their customers are coming under review by the Federal Communications Commission.

Julius Genachowski, the Obama administration's nominee to head the FCC, said he would order a review of complaints about exclusive phone deals, according to his written response to questions submitted by Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), after a confirmation hearing earlier this week.

Interim FCC Chairman Michael Copps said Thursday he has already instructed FCC staff to begin looking at wireless handset exclusivity arrangements.

Mr. Kerry and other senators asked the FCC this week to look into whether exclusive deals are harming consumers and held a hearing on competition in the wireless market.

Lawmakers have stopped short of proposing legislation to rein in wireless carriers. But they have been paying more attention to carriers' practices, including text-message rates and fees they charge consumers to break long-term phone contracts.

Last year, a trade association representing rural wireless carriers asked the FCC to ban exclusive handset agreements, such as AT&T Inc.'s multiyear deal to offer Apple Inc.'s iPhone or Sprint Nextel Corp.'s deal to offer Palm Inc.'s new Pre smart phone.

Smaller carriers argue such deals put them at a disadvantage because they aren't able to offer new phone models that many customers want. Consumer groups have also complained about the deals, saying they hurt competition and prevent residents of rural areas from getting access to the latest technologies.

As much as I would love to see all phone models available through my cellular provider, it just isn't the place of government to dictate these decisions to businesses. No one has an inherent right to have an IPhone available through Verizon's service. Manufacturers have the right to produce products that are only distributed through, or in cooperation with, certain distributors or service providers (you can go in Lowe's and find a bunch of products that are exlcusive, that you can't find in Home Depot, and vice versa - the same thing goes with many service related products not being available through certain service providers). And, some products and services aren't available in some parts of the country because the businesses providing them, for whatever reason, have decided not to make them so. You don't have an inherent right to have a McDonalds within 10 miles of you, just because other people have one close to them.

 

[vraiblonde]

it just isn't the place of government to dictate these decisions to businesses.

I'm sorry - what was that?

 

[Larry Gude]

As much as I would love to see all phone models available through my cellular provider, it just isn't the place of government to dictate these decisions to businesses. No one has an inherent right to have an IPhone available through Verizon's service. Manufacturers have the right to produce products that are only distributed through, or in cooperation with, certain distributors or service providers (you can go in Lowe's and find a bunch of products that are exlcusive, that you can't find in Home Depot, and vice versa - the same thing goes with many service related products not being available through certain service providers). And, some products and services aren't available in some parts of the country because the businesses providing them, for whatever reason, have decided not to make them so. You don't have an inherent right to have a McDonalds within 10 miles of you, just because other people have one close to them.

How would you like it if your TV only worked on certain cable systems? How about if your certain car brand could only use certain roads?

Big business does not compete with the little guys. They wipe them out. They do this with the help of government. Look at insurance. Anyone marketing to you, running ads, come buy our health insurance? Everyone who is in, is in and are then protected by government from competition. Look at cars.

Look at Standard Oil. You want total, 100% free markets? Or sensible rules that allow us many smaller kings rather than a handful of leviathans? I'm a numerous king type.

Lowes doesn't sell power tools that only work on their system or paint that only works on their drywall. What I am talking about are companies that use natural resources, the airwaves, the roads, etc. Those companies get exclusive rights to certain things VIA government.

You should be able to buy any phone you like and then sign up for any service you like. Or maybe not?

Just some thoughts.

 

[Tilted]

I'm sorry - what was that?

It was a tired, antiquated notion that used to hold sway in America. I dredged it up from a long time ago - sorry.

You're young - you may not be able to remember such things.

 

[Tilted]

How would you like it if your TV only worked on certain cable systems? How about if your certain car brand could only use certain roads?

You are asking if I would like it - which is altogether different than whether or not I think the government has the right to prohibit it. I might not like it, but I would think it was their right to do. There are a lot of circumstances that I don't like, and which negatively impact my life. But, in most of those cases, I don't feel entitled to dictate how things have to be. Whether or not it was smart to make such limited use TVs, or make such limited use cars, would get decided by the marketplace. No one has the right to have whatever kind of product they want available to them (of course, companies aren't allowed to make business decisions for the purpose of discriminating against specific protected legal classes - but that is not what we are talking about here). Besides, there is plenty of competition in these markets that offer viable alternatives - maybe not exactly the product someone wants - but we don't have the right to have the exact product that we want offered. If someone chooses to go to a specific cable company and buy a TV from them knowing that it will only work on that cable system, then that is their choice.

I had a girlfriend break up with me once - that's what she felt was in her best interest. I didn't like it, and, at the time I didn't think it would be a good thing for me, but I didn't feel like government should have dictated that she had to come back to me. It was her right to leave the relationship if she wanted, just as it was my right to leave other relationships. The very limited point of that is, sometimes we don't like things, but that doesn't mean that they should be illegal or that someone has acted in a manner that violates our basic rights.

What I am talking about are companies that use ... the airwaves .... Those companies get exclusive rights to certain things VIA government.

That is the only legitimate grounds on which I think the conversation can get opened. However, we grant such exclusive rights in return for consideration (the public benefit gained by having certain services available or actual financial payment). If we don't think it appropriate (i.e. in the best interest of society) to grant such rights, then we shouldn't do so. Having done so though, I think this level of micro-management is unwarranted. But, the specific circumstances that you pointed out do, in theory, create a legitimate grounds on which to assert that the government might appropriately control such decisions. I still don't think the arguments supporting such a position carry the day in this particular instance.

 

[Larry Gude]

You are asking if I would like it - which is altogether different than whether or not I think the government has the right to prohibit it.

My point is that government is already involved via the airwaves licensing. We're just talking about how much.

 

[Larry Gude]

That is the only legitimate grounds on which I think the conversation can get opened. However, we grant such exclusive rights in return for consideration (the public benefit gained by having certain services available or actual financial payment). If we don't think it appropriate (i.e. in the best interest of society) to grant such rights, then we shouldn't do so. Having done so though, I think this level of micro-management is unwarranted. But, the specific circumstances that you pointed out do, in theory, create a legitimate grounds on which to assert that the government might appropriately control such decisions. I still don't think the arguments supporting such a position carry the day in this particular instance.

Oh, so, you're with the terrorists, eh? You are obviously not an American or you'd instantly recognize your God given right to have ANY phone you like on ANY service you like ANY time, ANY place, ANYWHERE!!!!! USA! USA! USA!

 

[Beta84]

The question it seems Kerry asked was "do these deals harm consumers?" Well no #### they harm consumers! We have a Lowe's near us, but if the product is only sold at Home Depot, we're either out of luck or pay more gas to go get it! If we want an iPhone, we need to get crappy AT&T service which sucks out here.

But should the government tamper with stuff like this? NO!

 

[Tilted]

My point is that government is already involved via the airwaves licensing. We're just talking about how much.

Yeah, I knew what your larger point was. And, it was a legitimate point. I was just trying to answer/address the particular question that you asked. I try to answer or respond to the specific questions/assertions that people make in their arguments, even if they are a little off point from the specific issue at hand. Of course, every now and then, people's points run so far afield of the question at hand, that they have no real relevance (even though they sound relevant) to what is being debated - in which case, I tend to just stop responding to those points.

 

[Tilted]

The question it seems Kerry asked was "do these deals harm consumers?" Well no #### they harm consumers! We have a Lowe's near us, but if the product is only sold at Home Depot, we're either out of luck or pay more gas to go get it! If we want an iPhone, we need to get crappy AT&T service which sucks out here.

But should the government tamper with stuff like this? NO!

You free market, capitalist swine are all the same. 'Government shouldn't do this, government shouldn't do that.' If you were really a free market person, you wouldn't feel like it was your business to tell the government whether or not it should control the free markets - think about that for a minute.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah, I knew what your larger point was. And, it was a legitimate point. I was just trying to answer/address the particular question that you asked. I try to answer or respond to the specific questions/assertions that people make in their arguments, even if they are a little off point from the specific issue at hand. Of course, every now and then, people's points run so far afield of the question at hand, that they have no real relevance (even though they sound relevant) to what is being debated - in which case, I tend to just stop responding to those points.

Hey, speaking of far afield, next time down, we gotta play some golf.

 

[vraiblonde]

You free market, capitalist swine are all the same. 'Government shouldn't do this, government shouldn't do that.' If you were really a free market person, you wouldn't feel like it was your business to tell the government whether or not it should control the free markets - think about that for a minute.

That was pretty good

 

[capsfan78]

This could also be looked at as a monopoly. Which is the responsibility of the government to protect the consumer against.

Just ask Microsoft.

 

[Tilted]

Hey, speaking of far afield, next time down, we gotta play some golf.

Yeah, we'll have to do that sometime. I might be a little intimidated though - I saw your other thread where you said you shot in the low 80s your first time out this season. Then, I checked the rating and slope for the course and thought, 'Damn! That's pretty impressive.'

 

[Beta84]

You free market, capitalist swine are all the same. 'Government shouldn't do this, government shouldn't do that.' If you were really a free market person, you wouldn't feel like it was your business to tell the government whether or not it should control the free markets - think about that for a minute.

my whole world has been turned upside down!

 

[Tilted]

This could also be looked at as a monopoly. Which is the responsibility of the government to protect the consumer against.

Just ask Microsoft.

In theory, the issue of an inappropriate monopoly might be relevant, but it isn't in this case. In this situation, it would only be a monopoly on a very specific product (e.g. the iPhone, or the Palm Pre) - and the marketplace has a lot of other competition that serves the same basic purposes (either in one device or in multiple devices) that those specific products serve.

The truth is, most manufacturers have a monopoly on most every specific product that they produce - other manufacturers generally don't produce the exact same product. Pepsi Co has a monopoly on Pepsi one, Coca Cola has a monopoly on Coke Zero. We typically allow those kinds of monopolies, because there are other products that exist which serve the same basic, essential function. Even Sirius and XM were eventually allowed to merge. They aren't consider to have an inappropriate monopoly, despite the fact that they are the only ones who offer 'satellite' radio. That's because there are plenty of other services and products which compete with theirs in regard to its basic function, even though that competition operates differently (e.g. terrestrial radio, mp3 players, internet radio feeds).

All the phone makers have a 'monopoly' on their specific models, but they are allowed to. Some of the models are better or more full-functioned than others, but there is plenty of competition between the models, some of which is accessible to each of the wireless carriers.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah, we'll have to do that sometime. I might be a little intimidated though - I saw your other thread where you said you shot in the low 80s your first time out this season. Then, I checked the rating and slope for the course and thought, 'Damn! That's pretty impressive.'

Damn right it was! That's why I made a big deal about it; shoulda never happened.

Fear not. Ask Pete or otter. They seen my normal game.

Here's the thing about that round, and only another golfer could appreciate this; I ate at my local diner a few days before and they had new place mats; golf tips ones, the old style ones with all the shot problems and the old school tip to fix it. Simple. Straightforward. We've all seen them a million times. One stuck; Swing 'out' more.

My swing is very upright and I've always hit it dead straight, high as hell, when I'm on and a banana or dead pull is my 'miss'. And I can never hit a consistent draw because I'm too steep. Well, this tip stuck, for whatever reason. I mean, I've read it a million times, so have all of us. :shrug: And I just 'let' it go, all day and only lost it on a handful of swings, two being drives on one hole where I lost two t shots right. Triple.

So, 'swing out' meant the pull was on the left side of the fairway and the banana became a push that would end up on the right side but in play. Everything else was pretty much on line and...effortless. We'll see what happens next time out!

The triple and two where I rushed from the top and worm'd it. Coulda been a 78-79 soooo easy!!!

Dirty secret about Musket Ridge; Easiest putting golf course in the history of the game. That and it's my 'home' course.

 

[czygvtwkr]

The only thing a company will have to do to avoid this is to use a "new" modulation technique that only they provide simple as that.