I don't agree with this. When my company makes a phone I should be able to choose how to sell it. If I want to partner with a provider I should be able to.

Lay off with the regulations.

@dave_coder: If I buy your phone, I should be able to choose how I want to use it, who with, unlock it, jailbreak it, step on it, or whatever.

Lay off with the contractual obligations...

How about regulating text messaging rates? There's no artificial limit on how many people can produce cell phones, but there sure as hell are limits we place on how many people can provide service.

@Xerloq: Couldn't have said it better myself. If I buy a tomato, I'm allowed to make juice, marinara sauce, or put it on a sandwich.

@Xerloq: Presumably, if you have a good product, this will actually mean that you sell more phones.

@dave_coder: Why would you want to put limits on your customer base? Locking phones to a single carrier doesn't directly help the manufacturer, it only helps the carrier. The only reason they do it at all is because the carriers pay for the exclusivity.

@dave_coder:

Cell phone exclusivity is like a car company selling you a car and telling you that you can only use that car with BP gas or only travel within the confines of the state that you purchased it in, and in the event that you try and use it under your own terms you must pay an exorbitant amount more for your car.

I am just waiting for the iphone to get out of the clutches of AT&T, whenever that will happen.

@Xerloq:

No one's forcing you to buy the phone with such limitations. If you don't like the limitations, buy a different phone. Unlocked phones are available all over the place.

@Xerloq: If you don't like the contractual obligations required to by our phone, don't buy it.

Lay off with the demands on the product that we have and you want...

I still remember the days back when this was a free country and businesses were free to decide how they would distribute and sell an otherwise legal product.

If a manufacturer is forced by the government to sell things through a distribution channel that doesn't want to adhere to standards for support, service, or who pays their bills on time, why even bother being in business.

Isn't Congress charged with making laws. The FCC and the DoJ have no business regulating legal commerce in circumstances such as these.

@dave_coder: If your selling me a tangible item, after I buy it what I do with it is my business, not yours.

The current cell phone system is a scam worse than the cable companies. Go look at what people get in other countries, we are being suckered.

@RobertBaron: Craptastic argument. The point is that customer choice fosters competition, which benefits everyone. Exclusivity reduces choice.

They also need to force the carriers (Verizon) to provide some sort of converter chip so you can use non CDMA phones on their network if you want. Or better yet force all phones to be carrier portable.

I want to buy outright a smart phone but right now our best option is Verizon. But if I buy one I am then stuck with Verizon or throw the phone in the trash.

@rugman11:

Lay off of the cartelling things up that negates the ability to choose based on contractual obligations.

Also lay off the dictation of usage post-sale...this is almost as bad as DRM...

@Xerloq: Should add to that that no one is being forced to buy a phone at all. But when your options become so limited when buying a phone, you are, in effect, forced to buy certain phones or certain carriers.

Ever walked into an AT&T store with an unlocked GSM phone to buy a sim and a plan. Few will do it because it's not "their phone."

Ever tried to buy an iPhone to use with your TMobile account? Apple and AT&T want to make you a criminal with the DMCA for trying to do so.

@bohemian: Last time I checked, jailbreaking a phone wasn't illegal. However, using services not associated with the hardware (such as upgrading the firmware) requires you to sign a licensing agreement that says you won't mess with the hardware.

Nobody is stopping you from using the phone however you like, but if you want to use the software associated with it you have to follow the rules, just like with any other software agreement.

One of the main reasons, especially with newer phones, that these exclusivity deals occure is becasue the carriers need to make changes on their network to support the devices, and staff training to support the devices when they fail.

Take the iPhone for example. ATT was one the only provider who was willing to meet apples price and make the required network changes to support visual voicemail and some of the other network features that arent available when you jailbreak/unlock the phone to use elseware.

Apple does a fantastic job of selling an experience, they control their hardware, and the software that runs on their hardware. This gives them the ability to control the user experience and make sure it is a good one (most of the time) cell phone designers want the same. They want their phones to work well and to be supported well. They dont want me picking up a phone meant to be used on the ATT network, unlocking it, going to tmobile, then it breaking and me getting pissed when i call for support and no one helps me.

This isnt a government issue.

@R3PUBLIC0N: the government has no right to limit the cost of a product. Price will always reach an equalibrium in the market, especially for non essentials like text messaging.

@bohemian: That's pretty much how it's done in Europe, but you forget how expensive cell phones actually cost. A "free" phone actually runs about $200 before carrier subsidies. The $99 IPhone is acutally $300 bucks. If there's no way to tie a phone to a carrier, there will be no incentive for carriers to offer phone subsidies, which will cause the cost of the phones to skyrocket.

I simply cannot wait until the LTE network becomes mainstream. Even if the FCC requires some measure of carrier portability or limits exclusivity, there is still the little matter of which radio the manufacturers build into the phones. I dont believe the FCC will require makers to include, at any expense, both GSM and CDMA radios in all phones, so we will not truly have broad portability and compatibility until both GSM and CDMA are obsolete.

@drdom:
Congress is charged with protecting its citizens and putting a stop to things that citizens can't put a stop to by themselves. All that a completely "free market" benefits is greed. Corporations don't have the best interest of the consumer in mind and the people must be protected. If that falls under the purview of enacting anti-trust or pro-consumer regulations, then the corporation will just have to grow a little slower than the owners would like.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Yes, let's take the iPhone. Everyone agrees that AT&T's service sucks; in most cities, they don't have anywhere near enough 3G capacity to support everyone's iPhones.

I would gladly take my business to another network if I had the option. I would lose visual voicemail, but I would get MMS and probably push notifications, which AT&T is also currently failing to support.

Apple didn't partner with AT&T for the experience. They partnered with AT&T because AT&T offered them lots of money, and the consumer is the one who got screwed. It's long past time to break this corporate collusion.

I agree that this is not a government issue.

I too would like to be able to have the Iphone without crappy ATT service or the Google G1 (or G2) phone without even worse Tmobile service, but most people don't seem to understand most networks are very different and phones would not physically be compatible anyways.

Verizon phones, such as the one I have, don't work on basically any other network. (They bought most of their competitors)

GSM is more open (ATT and TMobile) and the phones are able to work with a bit of modifying anyways

Bottom line is all manufacturers will make the phones for each carrier that agrees to carry them, eventually.

No matter what the FCC decides, its not going to change much in the near future.

@Xerloq: but the thing is you do have plenty of choices and you also don't have the birth given right to own whatever the hottest new phone on the market is. There are plenty of phones available that are unlocked. So it appears people accept the current business model and vote with their wallets. If more people started buying unlocked, unexclusive phones, you'd see a change in the model.

But what this legislation is really all about, is people on t-mobile, sprint and verizon whining that they want an iphone and they can't have one. Well boo-hoo. You chose your carrier. You accepted whatever agreements are in place when you purchased it. Deal with it.

In addition, most of the phones people people want these days that are exclusive, would cost hundreds of dollars more without the exclusivity subsidies. In this situation, us, consumer can't have our cake and eat it too.

@elganador: I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying the government has no business telling anyone who they can or can not partner with to do business.

@rugman11: I would rather see an option for a de-linking of the phone cost and the rate. I think it ends up costing us more this way.

The subsidies get built into the rate and a must be realized in around 1 1/2 years. Now if I buy a phone outright my rate is as high as if I have a subsidized phone. The rates must be like 10-20 a month extra- just to pay for the "free" phone. So keeping a phone more than 2 years in the real world might end up saving money, in this world there is no method to save by buying a phone less often. I further question what the phone prices would actually be if the phones weren't subsidized. I bet those prices would be cheaper too.

It would be like getting a TV for free and then having to pay $30 extra a month for cable. And always having to even after the TV was paid for. I guess I would get a new TV every few years though.

@drdom: I remember back when there was only one oil company (Standard Oil), and they could decide how to distribute and sell their legal product, bankrupt farmers and railroads, and drive their competitors out of business, and no one could tell them otherwise. That was in the 1890s, before the Antitrust Act.

Since then, we've learned that competition at all levels -- in the case of mobile phones, that means networks, handsets, and software -- is good for consumers and good for the economy.

Anyone who understands the meaning of freedom will take freedom for 200 million people over the freedom for 10 monopolist corporations to collude without limits.

@drdom: I still remember the days back when this was a free country and phone rates were regulated by the government as well as utility rates. Airlines had to file a tariff and abide by the rates quoted in the tariff. Lack of regulation is not all gumdrops and sugar cookies, and when businesses act in a predatory fashion, someone has to rein them in and in the US that's the government.

BTW, before the AT&T antitrust suit, you couldn't buy a phone and attach it to the network. You had to rent your phone from AT&T, use their long distance service, etc. Well, you get the picture.

@H3ion: Oh, also by the way, the breakup of AT&T and the competitive landscape has been changed and not for the better. There is no more BellSouth, BellAtlantic, Nynex, etc. All that's left is AT&T (which used to be Southwestern Bell), Verizon and Quest of the ILECs.

@rugman11: Consider what would happen if, say, Sony were to partner with HBO so you could only get HBO programming on a Sony television set. How long do you think it would take the government to act?

I would much rather have a system like britain or japan:

You buy your phone outright (no subsidies on phones like there in america), and you take it to the carrier of your choosing.

Since the phones are open to every carrier, every phone directly competes. You don't get crap like AT&T not allowing other smart phones because it would hurt Apple's sales. You don't get crap like having to go to a horrible wireless carrier (say, sprint in my area) to get the phone you like.

Since the carriers do not have the luxury of exclusive "must have" phones (the AT&T iPhone, and the Razr on Sprint before that), they are left with having to compete with things like quality of service, minutes, texting, data plans, coverage, and price.

This seems like a win/win to me. There is a higher up front cost on the phone, but you are no longer paying off the phone cost over the life of a contract, so your monthly expenses are far cheaper.

@bkdlays: Perhaps I simply don't understand the European system. I use a Motorola phone. I used to have Nextel service before they were acquired by Sprint. The phone switches carriers as necessary depending on where I am at the moment but always seems to work just fine. I haven't tried my Verizon world phone yet but expect to this fall. It is also a Motorola product. Granted, these are phones and not smart phones but data and voice shouldn't be handled all that differently on the carrier's end.

I think we need to start some kind of non-profit group that makes up a mock industry with some really complex and sexy-sounding problems for Congress to go solve so they can stop bothering the rest of us.

If we can just get the constituencies in on the con, we're golden!

@rugman11:
You actually can buy an iPhone without a contract and without subsidization, but it's still tied to AT&T.

Cell phones are able to be offered at subsidized prices because you agree to a contract that will make money for the carrier in the long term.

As long as that can still be done, it won't matter to the carrier what you do with your phone after the contract period.

@theodicey: Actually, other networks were NOT willing to give apple the control they wanted or make the changes they wanted, thats why ATT got the deal (many were will to pay the price for the exclusivity, just not give up control or invest in infastructure)

And you legally CAN unlock your phone and move away from ATT, but to get the phone to begin with you need to sign a contract with ATT, thats the sellers choice, and they have the right to decide how they want to sell their product. once its your product you can go to whatever network you want.

Apple also has a right to tell you that they will void your warranty for the phone if you decide to do something they say they are not going to support (like going to another network).

I like the iPhone a lot, but hate ATT. Guess what? I wont buy an iPhone. Its that simple and every consumer has that right.

@Xerloq: "Ever walked into an AT&T store with an unlocked GSM phone to buy a sim and a plan. Few will do it because it's not "their phone."

Actually its quite easy. I used my Razor on AT&T, T-Mobile, T-Mobile prepaid (totally seperate system as far as T-Mobile is concerned) and Orange in the UK. You go in and sign up like any other time and just pop the new sim in your phone.

Locked phones are annoying, but if you do not like it then don't buy it or pay the premium and buy the international unlocked version. We don't need the government to babysit us on this.

@WiglyWorm: Here in ameria, people wont pay the 600 for a nice new phone, they want it for $99 or free. You already have the option to buy unlocked phones from tons of sources, and can buy phones from providers outright most of the time without a contract (the iPhone is an exception)

@WiglyWorm: Yeah, the decisions would be much less convoluted, and everything would be competitive on its own merits.

@H3ion: You've got your analogy reversed. Your analogy would be the same as if AT&T service were only available on the IPhone and on no other handset. The proper analogy would be if Sony televisions only got over-the-air broadcasts and couldn't connect to cable. In that case people would simply buy other TVs, as they are more than welcome to buy other phones. Don't have AT&T? Get a Pre or a G1 or a Blackberry. There is plenty of competition in the handset market, just because you can't get the exact phone you want with the exact carrier you want.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: It seems like Apple has thrashed that line of thinking completely. If you offer a product that has the features, and if you market it well, you can sell a $400 phone quite easily.

@rugman11: Actually, Jailbreaking a phone IS illegal. Re: DCMA. You are breaking encryption on a copyrighted piece of software. It is illegal.

@R3PUBLIC0N: Thats being looked at by congress right now. The exclusivity deal investigation is by the FCC.

@rugman11: Actually, I'm pretty happy as long as the phone makes and receives calls so I really don't pay much attention to the Apple/AT&T connection, but as long as I'm not asking for a subsidy (that is, I'm buying the phone at retail), why shouldn't I be able to use it on any network? I guess an easy analogy would be trying to use a Cox cable box on a Comcast cable network, but I've never tried that and don't know if it would work.

@bohemian: Gen 4 cell networks that everyone is moving to (LTE) will mean every phone will be portable.

Boo! The Feds need to stay out of this crap and concentrate on the bigger problems with the economy.

OH GOD WHY CAN'T A I BUY A FORD CAMRY!!!!?

It's about as stupid as that. Or hell why don't you just buy the phone unlocked at the full unsubsidized price off the net from the plethora of vendors that are easily found with a google search.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Not to mention, having lived there, that not all phones in Japan cost 600$. In fact, I used to get quite nice ones for 100 / 200$.

@H3ion: The Euros use mainly Euro Bi-Band GSM. Tmobile and ATT here use American Bi-Band GSM, with different alternative bands. A Tri-band or Quad-band phone works on most or all GSM networks (Respectfully). As long as the technology is the same (GSM) and the bands the carrier supports match what the phone can deal with, you are golden. That is why the iPhone can work on ATT and Tmobile, but not verizon. Additionally, it is why the Euro version of the Pre can work in the US on ATT or Tmobile, because it is a GSM phone.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter:

I like the iPhone a lot, but hate ATT. Guess what? I wont buy an iPhone. Its that simple and every consumer has that right.

Kind of ironic that you are arguing for companies to have the right to that set up?

Wouldn't it be best for the consumer to buy the iPhone and take it to whichever carrier is good in your area?

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: They will in a free market. The cellular market in the US is nothing but, and has been built on the top of decades of telecom market abuses.