Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1.    #1  
    I thought this could be of interest to all of you! Take care, Jay

    June 16, 2009
    Sen. Kerry Wants Wants His iPhone Unlocked
    The iPhone has sure brought a lot of whiners out of the woodwork. Today Sen. John Kerry joined them by publishing a blog post on the Save The Internet blog arguing against exclusivity of certain phones on some wireless networks. Yesterday, Kerry sent a letter to the FCC in preparation for hearings scheduled tomorrow that called for investigation into exclusivity arrangements such as AT&T’s lock on the iPhone or Sprint’s six-month exclusive on the Pre, asking if those arrangements hurt consumers.
    Last edited by palandri; 06/17/2009 at 08:08 AM. Reason: Can't quote whole article
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  2. #2  
    Okay? I hope certain phones stay exclusive to their carriers. That's what is so popular about them, even if their networks aren't as great. People flock to the exclusive phones. It just wouldn't be the same if the iphone was on every carrier.
  3. #3  
    I don't see any reason that unlocking these devices would have to harm consumers. Having all phones unlocked and easily transferrable to other networks would give carriers like Sprint a fighting chance. AT&T is sitting on piles of cash that's kept them exclusive with the iPhone forever. Many of us (def. myself included) have not purchased an iPhone due to the higher than normal data costs for the same service. Now imagine that exclusivity gone, with any carrier free to take on the device. If T-Mobile's pricing is competitive we'd likely see a pricing war for these plans. Even now, the distinct iPhone data pricing just stands out as unreasonable.

    Here's another thing that I can't help but think about. The rumors of a Verizon iPhone have been growing in recent months and I imagine that from Apple's POV they're seeing the saturation point of iPhone customers available to them on the AT&T network. Between the lack of MMS support, the smaller market share and a network that's considered inferior, I'm thinking they no longer are interested in exclusivity deals. It's just a guess though.

    Last thing. I think many are thinking this is a drastic game changer that hurts carriers but from what I'm reading this is similar to what's done in most countries around the world. You can still buy your subsidized phone on a plan however you're also free to buy whatever phone you like on your currently existing plan. Allowing you to activate on any carrier is a huge way of keeping plan pricing competitive and when users weigh the two options and have had a chance to compare, I'm thinking they'll see the benefits of going with unlocked devices.

    I'm curious to see how this works with GSM / CDMA but my guess is we'd simply see manufacturers free to develop a device if they see fit.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by storino03 View Post
    Okay? I hope certain phones stay exclusive to their carriers. That's what is so popular about them, even if their networks aren't as great. People flock to the exclusive phones. It just wouldn't be the same if the iphone was on every carrier.
    I'd love to have Sprints pricing on an iPhone...$60/month for minutes, unlimited data, and unlimited texts? That sure beats the $90 AT&T wants for an equivalent plan!

    Increasing competition won't hurt consumers, it'll bring prices down. I remember back when I first got a cell phone in 2001 on T-Mo, incoming texts were free and outgoing were 5c. Now either way is 20c/each without a text plan? Seems backwards to me, as somebody who sends under 200/month anyway.
  5. rmxdave's Avatar
    87 Posts
    Global Posts
    88 Global Posts
    This is lame. One business makes a deal with another business to have an exclusive offering on a certain phone and then people want the government to step in so they can get their iPhones and their Palm Pres on whatever carrier they like? How is this hurting consumers? You aren't forced to buy anything.

    That's like saying "I like the food at Olive Garden, but it's too expensive. Uncle Sam, please make them serve it at McDonald's."

    Like Om says in the article, the iPhone is a premium device. It is a luxury item. It is not essential for all Americans to have access to.

    Sen. Kerry should quit wasting time and focus on real problems.
  6. #6  
    So Kerry is going to force all carriers to support visual voicemail? He is going to tell these carriers that they have to pay apple $3 a month for every iPhone subscriber, or tell Apple that they cannot collect this money? He's going to tell joe consumer that they have to pay $599 for an unsubsidized phone? That's a bit overstretched.

    I'd like the ability for phones to work on other carriers. I'd be on tmobile right now with a Pre or iPhone. It is the only service that works 100% in my home. However, I think it should be up to the phone maker and carriers. You know, Competition?

    I'm sorry, but I think Mr. Kerry should just google Yellowsn0w / Ultrasn0w. Anyway, I bet WE are paying for his iPhone AND plan. Why does he need an iPhone?!
  7. #7  
    Whats next saying exclusive games for the Xbox only or for the PS3 only is illegal.
  8. #8  
    I think those that we elect should concentrate on doing what they're elected to do, before they try to run private businesses.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I think those that we elect should concentrate on doing what they're elected to do, before they try to run private businesses.
    Too late
  10. #10  
    This is not where the government needs to be. It's pitifully stupid. Most of the time, when the government gets involved in things ... things don't work so well.

    If this indeed happens, one of four things will occur:

    1. The price of handsets will come down, but the price of plans will go up,
    2. The price of plans will come down, but the price of handsets will go up,
    3. The price of both will go down,
    4. The price of both will go up.

    I think most of us would agree that the likelihood of #3 happening is pretty close to zero.

    Since handset subsidies are offset by plan requirements, #'s 1 & 2 probably have a 40% chance, I think.

    Most likely, #4 will be what will happen. In fact, it already has.

    Take the i*****3GS ... it already has a higher plan price (versus Sprint, let's say) and if you want to upgrade to the latest and greatest, well, very little price break for you on the new handset.

    Companies are in business to make money ... government often hampers this from happening. But the missing link here is that the g-men just don't understand ... companies align themselves to increase profitabilty (note: I did not say make an unreasonable profit).

    You can't say, "I'm going to go to my Ford dealer and tell him I want to buy a new Cadillac."

    Oh wait, I want to go to the Mac store and ask to buy a Gateway ... I should be able to do that, right?

    Why can't I get an Intel processor in my Mac? Shouldn't the g-men step in and make sure I can do that as well?

    Oh, oh, oh ... I want to call my State Farm agent and tell him I want to buy GEICO ... why can't I do that?

    Based on the idiotic reasoning Sen. Kerry has ... we should be able to do this.

    It's time we say, no interference where it doesn't belong. The system works and the end result is the consumer has a choice ... and has accountabilities for their decisions. I am so sick and tired of all this "I'm entitled to so-and-so ..." it makes me sick.

    Understand your choices and realize there are consequences to your choice. Make your choice and then live with it, Senator. The system isn't broke.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  11. #11  
    I've got to say that I'm surprised by the responses here. Since when is having choice a bad thing?
    Imagine if the iPhone was available on Sprint. I bet AT&T would get their act together real quick regarding things like MMS. Competition would help bring plan prices down too I would think. Why would losing exclusivity change how a carrier subsidizes a phone. That makes no sense. If anything a company like Apple could sell even more iPhones and drive the price down further. I would have bought an iPhone 2 years ago if Sprint sold it.

    tjd414, I completely disagree with you. You claim that the current system gives the consumer choice. It does quite the opposite. Maybe I want an iPhone, but I don't like AT&T's plans. Or maybe I want a Pre, but don't have Sprint coverage.

    I don't think they have these sorts of problems in Europe. I thought the United States would have moved passed this years ago. Still waiting...

    Exlusivity deals are my single biggest gripe with the current system here in the U.S.
  12. #12  
    what right does the goventment have to decide what 2 companies agree on?
    On the road to 5,000 posts
    Life is what happens between Firmware releases.
  13. #13  
    Thats capitalism, what your suggesting is socialism.

    Macdonalds has a deal with Coke, Burger King with pepsi. Xbox with this videogame maker , PS3 with another. The Football package is an exclusive of Direct TV etc. As long as there is not a monopoly ( 1 phone company) then its the correct way under capitalism.
    Last edited by VaccPalm; 06/17/2009 at 12:20 PM.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by kosh56 View Post
    I've got to say that I'm surprised by the responses here. Since when is having choice a bad thing?
    Choice is a good thing. That's why the government should stay out of this. Companies should be able to choose how they do business. Then the consumer can choose whether or not they accept those choices.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by kosh56 View Post
    Since when is having choice a bad thing?
    When that choice comes at the point of a gun.

    Government is force, that's it. It's not terribly intelligent, it's not omniscient, it has no special powers, it produces nothing. The definition of government is that entity that maintains a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic region, and America's Founders understood that its only legitimate purpose is to secure our individual rights--to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And because the initiation of force is always wrong, government's role is to retaliate against its initiation (by criminals and foreign agents) and to arbitrate disputes.

    You won't find unlocked cell phones mentioned anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, folks, for a reason*. And outside of some terrible misreadings, you won't find any authority to regulate things like this in the Constitution. And that was on purpose. If government gets involved in our private lives, which includes our private business (whether we're talking about ourselves as consumers or ourselves as producers), then make no mistake about it--all government can do is initiate the use of force.

    We have no right to Sprint's services or Palm's smartphones. We only have the right to enter into voluntary agreements with them, or not. If we don't like the terms of Sprint's contracts, then we just don't agree to them. It's simple. Sprint isn't using force against us, nor is Palm. This is a purely voluntary decision on both of our parts regarding our own lives and property.

    Calling for government to step into this relationship and initiate the use of force is to call for government to destroy our rights. Granted, this is complicated by the fact that government also regulates things like the airwaves and grants exclusive use, and even more so grants literal monopolies to organizations like cable companies. But, the answer isn't more regulation, which of course begets ever more regulations in response, but to get government out of the business of initiating force and back to its original role of protecting our legitimate rights.

    * Yes, I know cell phones didn't exist back then, which is certainly one reason why they weren't mentioned.
    Last edited by wynand32; 06/17/2009 at 01:26 PM.
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic

Posting Permissions