Comments on: Ending Handset Exclusivity Won't Mean a Phone That Can Roam

By: Why Your Nexus One Won’t Work on AT&T 3G – GigaOM

Why Your Nexus One Won’t Work on AT&T 3G – GigaOM — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:51:22 +0000

[...] but so far in the U.S. the only 3G network you can access it on is that of T-Mobile. There are two issues at play here: the underlying technology a cell-phone network runs on, such as HSPA for 3G or EDGE for 2G, and [...]

By: The Google Phone Won’t Open Up the Wireless Industry – GigaOM

The Google Phone Won’t Open Up the Wireless Industry – GigaOM — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:12:46 +0000

[...] a phone that can roam: Right now, cell phones are using different wireless technologies and are tuned to various spectrum [...]

By: Why the End of AT&T’s iPhone Exclusivity Would Be Good for Apple

Why the End of AT&T’s iPhone Exclusivity Would Be Good for Apple — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:07:19 +0000

[...] be the No. 2 smartphone OS by 2012. Both AT&T and Apple also have to be aware of the fact that the FCC continues to investigate exclusivity deals between carriers and handset makers, and has pledged to take action if they’re found to cause [...]

By: What to Expect From the New Net Neutrality Rules

What to Expect From the New Net Neutrality Rules — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:07:28 +0000

[...] networks, won’t affect some of the high-profile consumer issues such as metered broadband or handset exclusivity. So if this doesn’t mean the iPhone will be available on Verizon, or that Time Warner Cable [...]

By: DOJ Wants to Probe Telcos? It Should Take a Number

DOJ Wants to Probe Telcos? It Should Take a Number — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:39:19 +0000

[...] as The Wall Street Journal suggests it does, then it should get in line behind the new FCC, Congress and possibly the Federal Trade Commission. It also should focus on the much less sexy aspect of [...]

By: iFun Lover

iFun Lover — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:58:54 +0000

Just because handset exclusivity goes out the door doesn’t mean cheap prices for phones would too, you know. Think about the purpose mail-in rebates serve. I understand how companies stiff you with two year contracts and draw in much more money from you this way, but let me put it in perspective:

Presently: (AT&T) $299 for iPhone 32GB with two year contract (cheapest plan with Unlimited Text = at least $90 x 24 months = 2,160 dollars total.

Apple iPhone 32GB costs 700 without contract.

Possible Future: (AT&T) iPhone 32GB available for 500 dollars with 6 month contract, then after two months you receive 200 back through rebate. That means that if you were to cancel after the rebate, you would technically be paying the 700 for the iPhone because of the two months of the rate plan plus the cancellation fee. But if you complete the six months then you would still be getting the iPhone for 300. Sounds fair, I think.

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:41:53 +0000

There is nothing wrong with exclusivity. If you don’t want to sign with AT&T, there are plenty of competing handsets you can choose among for other carriers. No one has to have a iPhone.

By: Yacko

Yacko — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:36:22 +0000

“Without exclusivity and long-term contracts carriers will no longer subsidize phones. So get used to paying $300+ for a phone… try $500 for the beloved iPhone.”

Ah, but at least that would be a real price and not an extortion price. The carriers like the current business model. It is a credit model. The low price is a down payment and the monthly payments are an installment plan. You thought the monthly bill was to pay for service? How to explain the exorbitant rates for capped data and text messages? Look at it this way – if $20 covers basic data and text, like the lowest rate level of dsl and cable, then the rest is pure reward for lending you the phone. It depends on the specifics of carrier and phone, but you can look at the overcharge as simply a 10% per month interest rate. Not as good as the mafia, and perhaps not even as good as a Rent-A-Center deal, but it does beat the kinds of rates credit card companies would love to slap on you. It’s a great business to be in. And the carriers want to extend it to other devices. I believe the current summer of the subsidized netbook is just a start, a first stab in that direction. How about a wireless refrigerator that talks to the cloud? Or maybe eventually a car that drives itself and needs constant wireless communication for every function? It could happen.

By: Stuart Friedman

Stuart Friedman — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:37:53 +0000

I was in Dubai with two US software consultants who could not believe “how expensive” the phones were. It took me the better part of an hour to convince them that comparing their locked contracted phones with the open phones wasn’t fair and that once they added in their termination fees and the lost features do to crippling, that they had the worse deal.

By: bigsnake49

bigsnake49 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:21:22 +0000

I have no problem with short term (3 months) exclusive contracts. Apple would be stupid not to make a CDMA phone. It’s not just Verizon and Sprint in the US. Reliance in India, China Unicom in China, KDDI in Japan, SKT in Korea, and that’s just naaming the big ones. Ans since Verizon announced they will be keeping CDMA 1x voice going until 2018-2020, there is no danger of it going away after couple of years.

By: Stacey Higginbotham

Stacey Higginbotham — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:12:39 +0000

I’m not saying that it can’t be done, just that it requires more chips inside the phone. That costs money and draws power.

By: Korion Morris

Korion Morris — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:35:46 +0000

If exclusivity is dropped that doesn’t necessarily mean that the option to sign a contract and have your device subsidized will change. If anything, the carriers will be forced to be more competitive in their subsidized pricing because each other carrier will have access to the same products.

There also isn’t much of an issue having a phone that can work on both CDMA & GSM networks. My old Blackberry 8830 (world edition) was capable of working on CDMA in the US and using whatever GSM sim card that I felt like using through out the rest of the world, so it’s defiantly doable.

By: Robert Welbourn

Robert Welbourn — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:29:46 +0000

Stacey, that’s a bogus argument. I already have a phone that works on Verizon Wireless’s CDMA network *and* on GSM networks — the Blackberry 8830 World Phone. (Annoyingly, Verizon locks it so that you can only use a Vodafone SIM when roaming abroad.) Sure, the US GSM networks use different frequencies, but there’s no inherent technical reason why multi-band phones couldn’t be made more available.

John: LTE will only initially support data, so the roaming issue for voice does not go away.

By: jagibson

jagibson — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:20:13 +0000

I don’t think exclusivity hurts the consumer as much as the subsidies offered by the carriers giving the false impression of free/or cheap phones being readily available when the reality is that manufacturers don’t have to really compete on price in the US because the operators are the primary means to push phones.

By: JC

JC — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:15:38 +0000

Without exclusivity and long-term contracts carriers will no longer subsidize phones. So get used to paying $300+ for a phone… try $500 for the beloved iPhone.

LTE likely wont make the issue of roaming completely moot because most carriers are still planning on running voice traffic on their 2.5G networks while running the data over LTE, at least for the foreseeable future.

By: John

John — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:15:32 +0000

Exclusivity has to end. Period. It sucks for everybody. And won’t the issue of roaming be moot when LTE rolls out?