Should FCC quash the Apple-AT&T exclusivity?

[TheForce]

This is intended to be a debate like thread.

There seems to be a brewing argument over this in that the iphone is using licensed airwaves that are considered owned by the people of the US, not Apple nor AT&T, two private companies who are both funded by public investors (publicly traded stock).

While the iphone, technologically speaking is only capable of GSM service, that would exclude Verizon and Sprint/Nextel, The restriction that Apple and AT&T have on this is that by contract, they are restricting T-Mobile, the other major GSM cell service.

My opinion- While I don't think the FCC would have a case to require Apple to make a CDMA version of the phone, I also believe the exclusivity of the AT&T agreement could be found to be illegal. This would mean that T-Mobile at minimum should be allowed to offer iphone service. Then, maybe, if the exclusive arrangement is busted up, Apple would be quicker to get the ball rolling on a CDMA version for the other services.


If the iphone was paid for by full retail price, no subsidy from AT&T, then it should be legal to get service from any provider. If you bought with an AT&T subsidy, then the exclusive service from the subsidy provider would be binding, IMO. That's only fair.

 

[navychop]

Changing the rules of the game after the fact is unfair. Pricing and investments were based on one set of rules. Changing them could certainly be a burden on both companies.

If you want to change the rules, fine. For future products. Not in mid race.

 

[mperdue]

Since when is any manufacturer of any product required to allow anyone to sell their product? I think any company that makes a product has a right to make their own distribution deals. What's next, making Ford sell through Chevy dealers so they can finally have good products too?

Mario

 

[beast37799]

i for one cant for iphone to be on verizion . apple will eventually decide to open the phone to all just because its more profitable to allow any cell provider to sell there phone

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

It depends. AT&T sells me internet service, therefore I should be able to use whatever internet application I want to on the internet service I pay for.

AT&T has already made apple block apps like the Slingplayer and Skype and force them not to use their network. To me that is a clear violation of Net Neutrality and the FCC should be involved.

However who made Apple remove the Google voice app from their store? It was approved and was available and then pulled. Was it a request by AT&T or did Apple do this on their own?

The FCC has no ground if Apple pulled it on thir own, but if AT&T had anything to do with it then I do believe that the FCC has ground to step in.

 

[grydlok]

Nope, it's only an issue because people want the iPhone off of AT&T.

 

[socalpanman]

No brainer, ATT and Apple get to do whatever they agree to do. It's their respective products and their respective rules. You buy in or you don't. No one has the right to require them to do any differently. Only the market, you - us by voting with our dollars can force a change. Anything else, government intervention and the like, is the antithesis of what is "American" or even consumer friendly.

BTW it's intellectual garbage to really believe the airwaves belong to the people. It's just government propaganda to extort money from everyone. But it did give us Satellite radio as the market workaround. People wanting the freedom to peacefully do what they want.

 

[TheForce]

Don't forget to keep in mind that Apple and AT&T can do whatever they want unless they are using public licensed airwaves as part of the private agreement. THEN, it is taking advantage of what belongs to all people in the country to favor the profitability of a few.

To be open and honest about this, I, personally own a bunch of AT&T stock, as well as Apple from time to time, so in effect, the exclusivity does affect my personal profitability. However, I also respect that this agreement makes a part of it what rightfully belongs to everyone (note that I still believe we are the US of A and have a constitution that spells this out) which would include t-mobile business and customers. I'm not saying the FCC can demand Apple make a CDMA phone, what I'm saying is if their phone, a GSM phone can be made to work as is on t-mobile GSM service the way it now exists, then Apple and AT&T have no right to prevent this. Verizon only enters the picture if Apple made a CDMA version and then would prevent Verizon customers from using it and only allow Sprint, as an example.

 

[sampatterson]

Govt needs to stay out of business - consumer can decide by not buying the product.

 

[socalpanman]

Don't forget to keep in mind that Apple and AT&T can do whatever they want unless they are using public licensed airwaves as part of the private agreement. THEN, it is taking advantage of what belongs to all people in the country to favor the profitability of a few.

This is the government double speak which must be left out of an honest debate on this subject.

It is only the government employees and not WE the People that derive any financial benefit from these "licenses."

We the People do own stock in ATT and Apple. These are truly publicly owned entities.

 

[mperdue]

Govt needs to stay out of business - consumer can decide by not buying the product.

:up:up

 

[TheForce]

This is the government double speak which must be left out of an honest debate on this subject.

Absurd! That is the whole point of the discussion. FCC is presently examining the legality of two companies entering into a monopolistic agreement that involves public licensed airwaves. The argument is that it is not legal for a private entity to regulate the administration of their FCC license.


To state that broadcast and communications radio license only benefits the government employees is quite misinformed. I'm not a government employee and I derive a benefit from the public license of the airwaves so that in it's simplest form completely blows your theory of benefiting government employees out of the water. .

sampaterson- I get where you are coming from but if we did end all public license of the airwaves and permit squatters rights only to public airwaves then full discriminatory practices would be allowed, not to mention chaos of usage and interference, etc.. Frankly, I think you believe that as long as it suits your position then it's what should be, If it suits the general public then you don't care. I'm trying to see this as a philosophical angle where government needs to stay out of private business when it does NOT have as part of it's agreements public property. All, I'm saying is IF two businesses enter an agreement that includes public licenses, then the FCC needs to insure that segments of the public isn't discriminated against. That would be the t-mobile subscribers and any other GSM service provider in this case. Whether t-mobile is capable or willing to provide competitive service is not part of the debate since we don't know what they would be willing to do if given the opportunity.

 

[grydlok]

IDK why people think Verizon going to be so much better than AT&T. LTE will be deployed for mobile computing by Verizon starting next year. So unless Apple plans on building a iPhone with a dual chipset for CDMA/LTE it will be the same.

 

[TheForce]

While I'd like to see a dual chipset iphone ( GSM/CDMA), I think it would be far more practical to build a CDMA iphone as a separate device. CDMA and GSM has advantages and disadvantages.
CDMA is more robust in its ability to work more reliably in areas where the population density rapidly increases such as at events. GSM is lower cost to implement per phone.

Here is an article, somewhat dated, but it goes into more detail on the approach you stated using LTE. Once a pure LTE phone is in use the voice would be VOIP but as the article stated, the Verizon version should best be done as an LTE / CDMA(wEVDO) capability. This will not be cheap to do, IMO.

 

[mike123abc]

I do not think it is something for the FCC to be worried about. Yes they are public airwaves, but there is more than one competitor in every market. Also, no one is complaining about not being able to make phone calls, the intended use of the airwaves.

The FCC in this could be thought of them coming and saying it is not fair that only FOX has American Idol on it. After all it is very popular and many people watch FOX during that time period because AI has an exclusive arrangement with FOX. The other networks should be able to air AI at the same time with their own commercials. FOX is after all using public airwaves.

An exclusive agreement with a handset provider does not in any way stop the other providers in the area from providing phone service. Microsoft, RIM, Google, etc. would all love to have carriers push their phones to compete with the iPhone.

 

[TheForce]

Mike - It has to do with the idea that a private company is regulating an FCC license in their civil contracts. Like you putting up a speed limit sign or even a toll gate in front of your house on your public street. Competition is not the concern, but as stated, private business regulating the airwaves. It is something they are always concerned about but often look the other way, until a Senator, or in this case 8 Senate requests are made for them to do their job.

As for your TV example, it is more like this- Say Samsung made a TV that restricted the Networks you could get, only allowing certain ones and excluding others. The FCC requires that TV's receive all channels. This would be similar. FYI- TV shows are not licensed by the FCC, only TV stations that broadcast the shows.

BTW- the FCC is not just looking at Apple - AT&T exclusive arrangement, but all FCC licensed phones that the mfg has restricted distribution, favoring a particular carrier. I suspect that by this time next year the idea that a particular phone will only be allowed to be serviced by a particular carrier will be over.


IMO, this would be a good thing for Apple. Given the success of their iphone, to escape the AT&T clutches of exclusivity would immediately resolve two problems for Apple. 1. to have an immediate outlet for more iphone sales. 2. allow the additional iphones to run on more networks, resolving the continuing AT&T bandwidth problems.
Last year, Verizon has said that they anticipate an immediate sales of about 20 million units if a CDMA version were available. This would come from their own promotion where about 25% of their customer base would want to switch to the iphone.

 

[stogie5150]

Last year, Verizon has said that they anticipate an immediate sales of about 20 million units if a CDMA version were available. This would come from their own promotion where about 25% of their customer base would want to switch to the iphone.

QFT. I made 10 years with VZW this year, and I'd have an iphone in a second if they made a CDMA version.

AT&T is TERRIBLE here, so an iphone is a non-starter when the service sucks.

 

[mike123abc]

Mike - It has to do with the idea that a private company is regulating an FCC license in their civil contracts. Like you putting up a speed limit sign or even a toll gate in front of your house on your public street. Competition is not the concern, but as stated, private business regulating the airwaves. It is something they are always concerned about but often look the other way, until a Senator, or in this case 8 Senate requests are made for them to do their job.

The cell companies bought the spectrum from the US. It is still regulated, but they are not public. You cannot open your own cell company and use their frequencies, or get a license to use them, you would have to buy your own frequencies when/if they come up for sale again either from the government or an existing owner. You as a consumer cannot even buy a device to legally receive these frequencies outside of an agreement with the cell company. They are not public.

It is like Dish and DIRECTV. DIRECTV has an exclusive NFL ST.

Again the other cell companies are not percluded from doing business because they do not have the iPhone. Going back to the TV business again it is like a local independent station competing against a network TV station. The network station probably has an unfair advantage, but it is not illegal.

 

[grydlok]

As for your TV example, it is more like this- Say Samsung made a TV that restricted the Networks you could get, only allowing certain ones and excluding others. The FCC requires that TV's receive all channels. This would be similar. FYI- TV shows are not licensed by the FCC, only TV stations that broadcast the shows..

If your only choice was a Samsung then I can see a problem. Now if you go into this knowing in advance than you are the fool.

 

[navychop]

"The FCC requires that TV's receive all channels."

Not exactly. All public channels. Remember [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USDTV"]USDTV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Usdtvlogo.png" class="image"><img alt="Usdtvlogo.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Usdtvlogo.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/d/da/Usdtvlogo.png[/ame] Scrambling the signal for pay purposes is established as permissible. Same effect - limiting access to part of the spectrum to certain people.