Analyst: Apple Will Stick With AT&T Exclusivity Though firm's supporting evidence seems paper thin... iSuppli, the firm that causes a stir every time they deconstruct the actual build cost of the latest iPhone, believes that AT&T and Apple will renew their exclusive iPhone distribution agreement, despite AT&T's long list of recent problems. According to a new report, the firm believes Apple will stick with AT&T because of the "relatively wide usage and growth expected for the HSPA air standard used by the carrier for 3G data." AT&T serves 28.6 million HSPA customers, which which is about 21% of all HSPA subscriptions worldwide. AT&T's been under fire for dropped calls, belated MMS and tethering functionality, inconsistent 3G coverage and connection quality and high prices. No matter, says iSuppli. "The FCC investigation notwithstanding, Apple has no reason to move away from its highly successful exclusive deal with AT&T, which has already generated strong growth in iPhone sales and is expected to fuel a continued expansion in the coming years," iSuppli says. While the iPhone has helped AT&T retain a low churn rate while ramping up subscriber additions, it's been made fairly clear that AT&T wasn't prepared for the influx of data-hungry users, and is now rushing to make up ground. The problems have caused internal debate between the two companies, with Apple rumored to be particularly annoyed with AT&T's limited backhaul capacity. So why would Apple want to retain their exclusive arrangement? AT&T plans to dump a huge bag of money in Apple's lap. Other than that, iSuppli's supporting argument for such a decision is thin at best. Apple's certainly taking a PR hit by associating itself with an under-performing network, and it's not like they wouldn't generate equally robust iPhone sales if they offered the device on additional networks. iSuppli doesn't seem to have any supporting data for their assumption other than the fact that HSPA is a popular technology, which seems rather irrelevant in the face of LTE's rise. Apple could use dual-mode iPhone chipsets that integrate LTE, a standard that all major carriers (sans Sprint) are moving to anyway. iSuppli does fuel, vaguely, the rumors that Apple is cooking up a tablet and/or an "iPhone Lite" that will be powered by LTE. "There is no available information that would indicate that Apple is prohibited from pursuing a relationship with Verizon for non-iPhone products, such as another Apple phone model, tablet, Mobile Internet Device (MID), netbook or an enhanced version of the company's iTouch," observes the firm. Apple could take their big bag of AT&T money and wait for LTE to become seriously deployed before nixing their exclusivity agreement. But such a move would tell Apple's customers that they value cash over the user experience -- something that runs contrary to Apple's PR meme. Keep in mind Verizon says they'll launch 30 LTE markets next year, and what better PR companion for that launch than a dual-mode LTE/EVDO iPhone?
|
 | | Oh well Who knows? I am no longer in a contract with VZ and it feels good. | |
|  | | | Re: Oh well Verizon places too many restrictions on their phones and data plans. The iPhone isn't going anywhere...
--
.:|:. Go Wheatley or Go Home! | |
| | | Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA
1 edit | Re: Oh well said by aztecnology:Verizon places too many restrictions on their phones and data plans. The iPhone isn't going anywhere... So much irony in that statement... | |
| | | | MRCUR
join:2007-03-09
Columbia, PA | Re: Oh well Ahahahaha, completely agree. Apple is to the iPhone as VZW is to their phones. | |
|
|  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | The iPhone will be opened to other carriers, AT&T will still continue to carry it, the only thing that will change is that Apple will sell a CDMA/LTE and GSM or even a CDMA/LTE/GSM version. It's not hard to build a device that can be used anywhere, and Verizon has several phones with GSM radios for business people who need a phone that works overseas.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
|
| | not supprised apple has too good of a deal with att they make a lot of money off that contract that no one else would sign, oh well I guess that seals there fate kinda like a one hit wonder 80's band the industry will move on and someone else will find the next killer app | |
|  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | Who cares? If ATT outbids Verizon for the development of the Iphone then oh well. Thats the way she goes.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. | |
| | |  Wow I really hope they dont
| |
| |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: Wow I really hope they dont said by Martindziad:Cause lets be honest, ATT is going down down down and this is their life line. Eventually they will have to cut their workforce because they are so huge, this will happen when they will start loosing contract and customers due to crappy service like this. But they *haven't* been losing contracts and customers. The iPhone has kept them afloat because people will apparently endure ATT for the jesusphone.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Wow I really hope they dont said by tiger72:said by Martindziad:Cause lets be honest, ATT is going down down down and this is their life line. Eventually they will have to cut their workforce because they are so huge, this will happen when they will start loosing contract and customers due to crappy service like this. But they *haven't* been losing contracts and customers. The iPhone has kept them afloat because people will apparently endure ATT for the jesusphone. You are exactly right. I want to cancel my 3 AT&T lines, pay the ETF fees and move, but my GF does not want to lose her iPhone. She doesn't care about the horrible service we receive, she just like those little free downloadable games. While she has a compelling argument in regards to the ETF fees, once they are gone, so are we. | |
| | | |  EdG
@eastlink.ca | Re: Wow I really hope they dont Buy her an iPod Touch - dump the iphone. No more charges, and she's happy as a..... | |
| | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Wow I really hope they dont said by EdG :
Buy her an iPod Touch - dump the iphone. No more charges, and she's happy as a.....
That's a damn good idea actually ... | |
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Wow I really hope they dont The new iTouches were released Wednesday that have the performance of the 3GS. $299 for 32GB. | |
| | | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Wow I really hope they dont said by iansltx:The new iTouches were released Wednesday that have the performance of the 3GS. $299 for 32GB. God Apple stuff is way too expensive. I'll probably wait for a refurb of the old model to show up on the Apple Store. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | Re: Wow I really hope they dont I've bought almost all my Apple products as refurbs. I have a problem paying $149 for an iPod Touch when I only paid $99 for my iPhone though ... 
Technically, there's nothing stopping me from just not using cell data on one of our iPhones right? | |
| | | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: Wow I really hope they dont Nothing stopping you, as long as you switch carriers.
AT&T automagically adds a data plan to any SIM that touches an iPhone, or so I'm told.
Also, your iPhone was subsidized. The iTouch isn't. Considering the (unsubsidized) price of the 32GB iTouch is the same as that of the subsidized 32GB iPhone, I don't see a problem here. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wow I really hope they dont Not to pick on you guys specifically, but it always annoys me when I read: subsidy.
There's no such thing as a carrier subsidy.
A subsidy implies you're getting something for free. No wireless carrier is doing that. What they're providing you is financing.
When you get a loan to buy a car or a mortgage to buy a home, that's financing. The lender isn't giving you something for free. Quite the contrary, you're paying them back and then some (a lot in fact).
Proper lending is (sort of) regulated, there's legislation and regulations dealing with all that. The terms need to be spelled out. They required to provide you with critical info like: principle (amt borrowed), interest rate, total interest payments over life of loan, etc.
But unlike traditional loans, wireless contracts aren't like that. There's opacity and subterfuge as far as the eye can see. The wireless carriers want it like that so they can bundle the financing costs with the cost of service, and you don't know the difference.
If people understood that $20-30 of their monthly fees paid for their phone, and the effective interest on it is really 10-30%, they'd see it for what it really is:
A scam. | |
| | | | | | | | | |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Wow I really hope they dont The reason "subsidy" is used is because, for all practical purposes, the phone is heavily discounted, or free, since the cost of service is no different for a phone purchased outright.
I could have spent $600 for my Blackberry, but I would still end up paying $99 for the Sprint plan that best suited my usage. The only thing I could save on is the early termination fees. And the major carriers have been doing everything they can to try and make it as difficult as possible to take your equipment from one service provider to another.
Until I am offered a significantly discounted service plan with the features I want by bringing my own phone to the game, the cost of the phones are mostly considered to be subsidized. It's just the way the system works over here. Things are much different in other places around the world, but ours is an economic culture that relies heavily on credit and financing. What other people carry as much debt?
Right or wrong, welcome to the US. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | This also works in favor of the carrier because you don't know how much of your contract is for service and how much is for the the handset.
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wow I really hope they dont said by jmn1207:The reason "subsidy" is used is because, for all practical purposes, the phone is heavily discounted, or free, since the cost of service is no different for a phone purchased outright. Until I am offered a significantly discounted service plan with the features I want by bringing my own phone to the game, the cost of the phones are mostly considered to be subsidized. said by clickie:This also works in favor of the carrier because you don't know how much of your contract is for service and how much is for the the handset. That's the whole problem.
There's no incentive for buying your own phone outright in the U.S. Wireless carriers bundle the cost of service together with the cost of the phone. This hides the true costs.
To add insult to injury, people think they're getting a good deal under this system. A "subsidy," despite it being completely illusionary.
I don't think this will change unless the government requires the cost of financing to detailed/itemized separating from the cost of service. We require the cost of most other types of loans to be detailed, this isn't any different. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | MRCUR
join:2007-03-09
Columbia, PA | Carriers subsidize phones plain and simple. That's what it's always been called and what it's always going to be called. I would rather pay $200 for my iPhone and be locked in with AT&T for another two years than pay $600 - heck, my monthly prices don't change anyway (which is exactly your point it seems). | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Subsidy doesn't imply that you're getting something for free.
It means the cost is subsidized by other means, which can include free, but it doesn't.
Every carrier offers subsidies on every phone they carry.
The difference you pay for the phone is subsidized by the 1 or 2 years you agree to be a contracted customer of the carrier.
This is the only way to make the phones affordable to the majority of people.
If you want an unsubsidized phone, they are available. So no one is getting screwed that isn't choosing to get screwed because of their finances. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wow I really hope they dont said by nukscull :
Subsidy doesn't imply that you're getting something for free.
It means the cost is subsidized by other means, which can include free, but it doesn't.
So when you buy a car, and the dealer provides you with a car loan from the automaker's financial division (i.e. vendor financing), the dealer is giving you a "subsidy?"
If you guys believe that, it explains our nation's financial illiteracy.
The difference you pay for the phone is subsidized by the 1 or 2 years you agree to be a contracted customer of the carrier.
Once again, that's a loan. A contract in which you're provided something up front, and then a series of payments are obligated, is a loan.
I'd like to emphasize, I'm not against the concept of financing at all. It provides capital, so people and businesses can make purchases that few could afford to make all up-front.
I'm against shady lending though, which is what wireless carriers are essentially doing. They're hiding the terms of the loan they're making, they're hiding the effective interest rate, hell they're even hiding the fact that a loan was even provided. They're playing a game of hiding the ball.
The cost of the financing and the cost of service should be broken out separately, and detailed. Only then can people make informed decisions.
If you want an unsubsidized phone, they are available. So no one is getting screwed that isn't choosing to get screwed because of their finances
So you pay lower fee for service when you bring your own phone purchased outright?
No.
There's no incentive to do that, because you'd be getting screwed. By paying a service fee that included financing for a loan you didn't receive.
What I'd like is simply disclosure and transparency of the loan made and the service provided, just like we'd expect from any other type of loan. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | What? The carrier subsidy makes it no more expensive than other smartphones. | |
|
| | | | |  Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | I can just see the huge ass grin on your face now, lmao. | |
| | | | | | | | jailbreak her iPhone and move to TM. | |
|
| | | | | | I have a iPhone with no contract(bought off ebay) and am using Verizon's MiFi for my everywhere Internet connection. I use wifi too as I'm on the $40 MiFi monthly plan. I don't have a cell plan and use the Fring application to accept calls via Skype. Though I'm not a phone talker and I prefer/use text based communications the most (SMS, Instant message, Twitter & Facebook). Not an ideal for most, but serves my needs at only $40 a month! | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Wow I really hope they dont said by paul7986:I have a iPhone with no contract(bought off ebay) and am using Verizon's MiFi for my everywhere Internet connection. I use wifi too as I'm on the $40 MiFi monthly plan. I don't have a cell plan and use the Fring application to accept calls via Skype. Though I'm not a phone talker and I prefer/use text based communications the most (SMS, Instant message, Twitter & Facebook). Not an ideal for most, but serves my needs at only $40 a month! I'm having trouble understanding why you're paying Verizon 40 smackeroos a month to use YOUR internet connection to augment their network. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Wow I really hope they dont So that they can use the phone when they leave their house. | |
|
| | | | | said by Matt3:said by tiger72:said by Martindziad:Cause lets be honest, ATT is going down down down and this is their life line. Eventually they will have to cut their workforce because they are so huge, this will happen when they will start loosing contract and customers due to crappy service like this. But they *haven't* been losing contracts and customers. The iPhone has kept them afloat because people will apparently endure ATT for the jesusphone. You are exactly right. I want to cancel my 3 AT&T lines, pay the ETF fees and move, but my GF does not want to lose her iPhone. She doesn't care about the horrible service we receive, she just like those little free downloadable games. While she has a compelling argument in regards to the ETF fees, once they are gone, so are we. Is a market place really the reason why the iPhone people like it so much (without being mindful, of course, of all the possible *good* games that were denied because some Apple tech was having a bad day)?
If so, you should really show her an android phone.
You can install third party applications AND applications from the market place - it's a win-win.
Or the WM platform, where Microsoft is working to release their own version of a "marketplace", but you can install third-party programs to your hearts content (or your phone's memory fills up). | |
|
| | | | Right- they were lowering Churn since before the iPhone and have kept churn low. | |
| | | | | Exactly. AT&T is a giant bag of suck when it comes to pricing, customer service and network reliability (not that the others are much better; I'm not a groupie for any phone company, but at least people would be able to TRY somebody else), and everybody knows it.
The iPhone deal is the only thing the Death Star has going for it; AT&T would lose subscribers by the millions if there were another (authorized) option for iPhone service. They can't afford to lose it, so they'll send trucks full of money up to Steve Jobs' house until he says "Okay, that's enough" and signs the extension. | |
|
| r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | Verizon is just as bad and I find they have less coverage.
My fiancee has Verizon and I have ATT and Verizon sucks for coverage and we have been all over the US.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. | |
| | |
See 24 replies to this post | |
| | | said by Martindziad:Cause lets be honest, ATT is going down down down and this is their life line. Eventually they will have to cut their workforce because they are so huge, this will happen when they will start loosing contract and customers due to crappy service like this. Thats not true. AT&T is not all bad. They do a lot of stupid things, but there network is not as bad everywhere as people make out to be. In south florida, and when I was in detroit in June, there were no dropped calls, download speeds were always fast. Never had less then 4 bars when I was using my iPhone. My dad was in Hawaii in July and didn't have any network problems.
If AT&T models every other city on how they did in the ones that work well, then almost all the complains would go away. | |
| | | | | Re: Wow I really hope they dont well there is a reason why the detroit area is solid , every one is out of work and barely any can afford the cell service of at&t. | |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Apple will be smart to make the iPhone available to all US carriers now. They have grown as much as they are going to by just sticking with AT&T. | |
|
| | Eh... Apple has pulled a Janus before...the most famous stab was Intel switch from PPC.
What is to stop Apple from jumping ship, or even adding other carriers, much like Moto/Sam/LG/RIM makes phones for multiple carriers?
--
Splat | |
| | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Eh... said by cableties:Apple has pulled a Janus before...the most famous stab was Intel switch from PPC. What is to stop Apple from jumping ship, or even adding other carriers, much like Moto/Sam/LG/RIM makes phones for multiple carriers? Nothing, Apple wants the carriers to bid for their product and the highest bidder won.
If Apple thought they could make more money making phones for Verizon and ATT at the same time they would. Unfortunately their data shows if they do an exclusivity deal with the highest bidder they make more money.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. | |
| | | | | Re: Eh... said by r81984:Nothing, Apple wants the carriers to bid for their product and the highest bidder won. If Apple thought they could make more money making phones for Verizon and ATT at the same time they would. Unfortunately their data shows if they do an exclusivity deal with the highest bidder they make more money. Actually the story with the iPhone is that Apple initially approached Verizon who turned them away.
Doesn't matter to me that the iPhone won't be on VZW. I'm not a kool-aid drinker and I'm glad that data hogging iPhones will stay on AT&T. | |
| | | | MRCUR
join:2007-03-09
Columbia, PA | Re: Eh... I really think it came down to the control Apple wanted. Look at how much AT&T had to give up with the iPhone: OS updates, support, apps, voicemail, etc. Look at how VZW locks down their phones and tries to make everything VZW branded and it's clear they wouldn't be okay with the iPhone. | |
|
| | Analysts and Apple Analysts are quite consistently wrong about Apple. They only manage to hit when they make such wide-ranging predictions that just about every potential action is covered by one or another. Thus, iSuppli's opinion here is worthless. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
EdG
@eastlink.ca | . The iphone has peaked, and if Apple stays with AT&T then their days may be numbered as well. | |
|  HpowerRoflmao
join:2000-06-08
Glendale, CA | Money always talks AT&T surely makes money. All the worries from Apple are solved by piles of money. Oh what a wonderful world we live in. /sarcasm
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually. | |
| | | just as bad Verizon is just as bad. Also They can be more expensive then att. IT all depends on what area you are in. Some areas att has better coverage and some verizon.
I think the iphone would be dumbed down if it was on verizons network. Verizon is known for doing this to phones. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
approval from:
hottboiinnc 
| Apple will Stay with AT&T until LTE is Widespread Apple almost has no choice but to stick with AT&T, until LTE is a widely deployed technology. Apple takes advantage of scale manufacturing, and since GSM is the standard worldwide, their only other option in the U.S. is T-Mobile.
Verizon will have some LTE deployed when the current exclusivity deal runs out; but it will be limited here, and LTE will be limited globally. | |
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Apple will Stay with AT&T until LTE is Widespread Yes - I agree 100%. Until Apple has an LTE based chipset to deploy (HSPA/LTE, CDMA/LTE) then Apple will just keep on with GSM/HSPA chipsets. Why? Because of the global GSM/HSPA customer base. GSM globally is hitting 4 billion subscribers globally and growing at 500 million/year, while CDMA2000 (1x/EVDO) is at 500 million and not really growing at all.
Apple would be wise to keep on the GSM/HSPA/LTE path. I might suspect that VZW may be able to obtain an iPhone just for use on LTE only when it becomes available, if CDMA 1x/EVDO/LTE chipsets/manufacturing is beyond what Apple wants to pay for. | |
| | | | I suspect this is correct.
As I mentioned in a thread sometime ago, LTE data cards won't be available until mid 2010. And LTE-enabled handsets won't be available until 2011 at the earliest, 2012 more likely.
So Apple will probably stick with AT&T, for all its problems, until 2011/2012 or thereabouts, and then have an LTE-based iPhone that supports more carriers. Hopefully they use a chipset/antenna that supports all major technologies and bands. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Howard Beale :
Apple almost has no choice but to stick with AT&T, until LTE is a widely deployed technology. Apple takes advantage of scale manufacturing, and since GSM is the standard worldwide, their only other option in the U.S. is T-Mobile.
And with TM iPhone would have much less customers due to poor coverage. TM has 33 million, ATT has 80 million, cell customers. TM claims 238 million covered in 2006. 282 million for ATT »www.dbrs.com/issuer/6374/at-t-mo···y-ii-llc . The 282 million probably doesn't include ATT Centennial or ATT Alltel customers. Unless TM USA goes on a massive building spree, it won't match ATT anytime soon. Plus an iPhone for TM USA would be a custom build anyways because of TM USA's AWS/1700 3G. | |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | So what's next? About the only prediction I haven't heard regarding who the iPhone will go to next is that it's coming to Sprint... 
Let's face it: unless someone here is an Apple insider who's willing to share knowledge with us, nobody has the slightest clue about what's going to happen next. The amazing thing is how much this generates various opinions: one person saying they don't want "data hogging" iPhones on their network, many others (including myself, at times) saying they don't like AT&T's network.
There's only one prediction that I think we can all make at this point: Apple will take the iPhone and make agreements with the carrier/carriers whom they feel will financially benefit them most in the long term. When it comes down to it, that's the only logical course of action for them. They won't go to Verizon because their customers want them to; they won't stay with AT&T because AT&T execs beg and plead. They will do whatever they do because they will be following a strategy that will make them the most money. They're a business, after all. Money is the bottom line for them.
--
Obama lies. His public option forces people into paying more for less coverage, and provides government paid abortion and euthanization while denying treatment and coverage to many others. Read the fine print, it's worse than an cell phone contract. | |
| | | | Re: So what's next? said by NOVA_Guy:About the only prediction I haven't heard regarding who the iPhone will go to next is that it's coming to Sprint... Let's face it: unless someone here is an Apple insider who's willing to share knowledge with us, nobody has the slightest clue about what's going to happen next. The amazing thing is how much this generates various opinions: one person saying they don't want "data hogging" iPhones on their network, many others (including myself, at times) saying they don't like AT&T's network. There's only one prediction that I think we can all make at this point: Apple will take the iPhone and make agreements with the carrier/carriers whom they feel will financially benefit them most in the long term. When it comes down to it, that's the only logical course of action for them. They won't go to Verizon because their customers want them to; they won't stay with AT&T because AT&T execs beg and plead. They will do whatever they do because they will be following a strategy that will make them the most money. They're a business, after all. Money is the bottom line for them. Actually, you'd think that Apple would take the iPhone and make agreements with the carrier/carriers whom they feel will financially benefit them most in the current or next quarter. That's how it seems to be done these days.... Do worry about long term, only worry about the current or next quarter or so... | |
|
 acadielPress fire to beginPremium
join:2002-06-22
61705
kudos:1 | The whole point.... ... is that nobody is for sure. That's why it's a confidential agreement between AT&T and Apple. Pundits can guess all they want, but until whatever happens ... happens ... then nobody will know for sure, will we?
--
| |
|  rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Not on Verizon Well if the article below is accurate who in their right mind would want to have a Verizon I Phone. I was holding out for Verizon as I am out of contract but after reading this I am seriously looking to move on to another company. I am just fed up with this sort of gouging. Verizon totally sucks and anyone who buys a smart phone from them is crazy. Their new pricing plan makes it a surf the web on your cell phone in a dire emergency. »Verizon's New Wireless Pricing Is An Insult
I doubt Apple goes to Verizon and hopefully a ton of customers drop them for getting screwed. . Everyone I know with an I Phone spends a ton of time surfing. The bill would be a nightmare. Screw you Verizon. Technology like this should be an aid to modern life, to have the ability to log on when not at home in case you need information at hand. Verizon now makes it a privilege for those who can afford it. What a shame. The FCC should look into this. Mobile web access needs to be heavily regulated so people can improve and enhance the quality of their lives. It shouldn't be controlled by greedy corporations looking to screw people. | |
| | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: Not on Verizon I don't know that I agree with the "heavily regulated" part of your comment. Mobile web access is important to me, and I will agree that it's changed my lifestyle-- but it isn't an essential part of my life in the same way that electricity and running water are. The government should not control pricing nor set pricing policy in these areas.
That being said, I do believe that there is some sort of collusion going on between some of these companies-- AT&T and Verizon, in particular. It seems too coincidental that each has a similar pricing plan, and that each changes prices and included features within a short time of the other doing it. Some would call this good competition; I choose to look at it with a more skeptical perspective.
There are things that, IMHO, the government should do however. Some of these fit under existing laws.
Truth in advertising: Since when does the word unlimited translate into a usage cap of 5GB per month? Unlimited means without limits. If AT&T and Verizon want to cap usage on "unlimited" mobile Internet plans at 5GB per month, then they should be forced to advertise these plans as a "high usage metered" plan with a 5GB cap, or something similar. The word "unlimited" applied the way they are doing it confuses many customers; indeed, I believe that is exactly their intent.
Eliminate bundling practices: Some people want to buy an "enhanced multimedia device" and have no intention of using it to surf the web. They don't, and they won't. Requiring them to pay for even one byte of data when they don't want it should not be allowed. We all know that Verizon is doing this simply to bump up people's plans by $10 or more per month. If they need/want this extra amount, then they should price their monthly service plans and/or handsets accordingly to reflect this additional charge. This would eliminate things like the $30/month data plan charge that AT&T places onto each iPhone, for those who want the phone but have no intention of using its data capabilities.
Eliminate contract requirements for those who bring their own devices to use. Supposedly contracts are used to allow wireless companies to recover the costs of providing discounted handsets to customers. If there is no device provided to the customer, then there is no cost to recover. (Subsequently, customers who opt for month-to-month service may be subject to more frequent price variations since they are not locked into a contract.)
Provide discounted service to those who bring their own handset. Theoretically part of the amount charged for wireless service is to recover the cost of providing a subsidized handset. People who bring their own devices (or those who buy handsets at non-subsidized prices) should receive a service discount equal to the amount that the wireless provider calculates to be the "recovery cost" of the subsidy.
Standardize billing documents between carriers. Each bill from each carrier should have about the same types of line items. If there are bogus fees that a carrier is trying to make appear as taxes (or "recovery charges", or the like), then that carrier should be heavily fined until these charges are labeled as additional carrier-imposed fees. Help people understand their bills and compare apples to apples when doing so.
There are probably a few more ideas I could come up with; these are all I could think of off the top of my head.
--
Obama lies. His public option forces people into paying more for less coverage, and provides government paid abortion and euthanization while denying treatment and coverage to many others. Read the fine print, it's worse than an cell phone contract. | |
| | | | | Re: Not on Verizon Those are all good ideas, and would make the industry more honest and competitive.
And your right, the government (via the FCC, FTC, etc.) largely has the power to force some of these changes already.
How they get away with some of these things, for so long, is beyond me. Outright lies in advertising (Unlimited! = 5 GB cap), bogus below-the-line-fees (not in advertised price), forcing a text plan (or pay $0.25 each way, including receiving), and forced bundling in general.
I posted earlier in the thread about carrier "subsidies," which is really financing, not a subsidy. They bundle the cost of service with the cost of financing, and don't break out the cost financing. So people don't know the real cost of the phone, the effective interest being paid, or the service. There's no incentive to buy your own phone, when you pay full price for service.
This won't change unless the government forces carriers to separately list the cost of financing and service, and to break out the details of financing (effective interest rate). Just like the government requires all loans to provide all the details of the financing involved. | |
|
Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
| Fine with me. I don't get any drop calls, my internet speeds are fine, I have no billing problems. Everyone I know has no problems with there iPhone's also. I hope AT&T keeps the iPhone deal, I don't want to switch carriers if only the newest iPhone will be on it. | |
| | MRCUR
join:2007-03-09
Columbia, PA | Re: Fine with me. I pretty much agree. I have no big qualms with AT&T other than their lack of MMS (which I understand the technical aspects and reasons for delaying the launch), tethering, and generally unreliable 3G. They've always been helpful when I've had billing issues, and technical issues too. Their in-store reps are generally knowledgeable and helpful, unlike what I've found with VZW people.
Unfortunately where I live data coverage from all the carriers is spotty. My iPhone jumps between 3G and EDGE all the time, and 3G speeds are pretty dismal. 3G voice isn't really possible either... | |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Unlocked phones are the answer I think Apple could have a "good" deal with AT&T with advantageous pricing. But Apple should also sell unlocked (as in: NEVER locked) phones itself for anyone to buy for any network.
This would allow customers of T-mobile and MetroPCS (and any other GSM provider in north america) to purchase the Iphone (at a higher price) and thus raise Apple's sales.
It would also allow AT&T subscribers who need an unlocked phone to get one (if you travel and you refuse to pay those exhorbitant roaming charges, you want an unlocked phone so you can buy prepaid sims at your destination). | |
| | | Seperate models... Having 2 products is complicated enough, however you could do PTT on a specific model and ruggedize it... I think visual voicemail should be a requirement to carry the iPhone also, it is a wonderful feature that I find incredibly useful. You could also do color specific models, red for vz, yellow for sprint, magenta for tmobile, black for att, white for everyone else. Color could include front button and speaker area or just the back shell.
I think having different tech versions of a solid product that works for each carrier is not a good idea right now, but may be wise in the future.
- A
--
LETS GO METS! | |
| | | I dont think so I don't think Apple will renew its contract with AT&T unless it is paid a lot of Money.
To support the reasoning:
The ipod touch updates sucked, basically no real change from prior models. The next gen ipod could essentially be an iphone...why sell 2 things when you can make one, maybe Apple is headed that way and knows it hence the sucky ipod lineup.
Apple is in a dominant position, its hardware costs have come down and no doubt they can make money selling the hardware iphone that can run on all networks, heck the FCC may just mandate this.
If I was the FCC I would push for legislation that forces all phones to work on all networks, and make all phone features able to be turned off e.g. data, voice, txt, mms, etc so that consumers arent screwed. | |
| | | sticking with att good luck with that | |
|
| |
|
|
