Verizon Limits Handset Exclusivity To 6 Months
Verizon announced it will limit handset exclusivity deals to 6 months, a bow to pleas by small wireless carriers, and in advance of possible Department of Justice action on its inquiries on the one-carrier deals for the iPhone, Pre and LG Voyager. In its announcement, Verizon noted 24 rural carriers had asked it to limit these anti-competitive deals. Yes, apparently there are that many small carriers still left.
Verizon Says It Will Limit New Handset Deals [Reuters] (Photo)
Post a comment
Comments:
Raises the question, not begs the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy that is essentially circular reasoning; it doesn't mean anything close to what most people think it means. Sorry, pet peeve.
*cue cheesy music*
The more you know...
@taking_this_easy: Must agree. After their 911 alert tone feature almost got some lady killed, they should have learned not to make things easier for their clerks by installing the OS on every phone. My Motorola E815 used the moto OS, and it was awesome. The only downside was every number on a contact had it's own contact, so someone with a work,home, and cell number had three contacts on the list. It had built in autocomplete when you were typing a text message, not that stupid t9 garbage. /rant
@BoardShortin'_GitEmSteveDave:
Why is T9 garbage? I've found it to work well if you use real English words when you text
Can we lean on AT&T to get them to adopt similar practices as well?
Nice 80's prom pic, btw.
@Coop: That'd be the same AT&T that decided their existing phone unlock policies were too liberal when it came to the iPhone, so they won't even unlock 2-year-old unsubsidized original iPhones?
So what they're saying is that if you're small enough not to constitute competition, we'll allow you to compete with us? I have no problem with long-term contracts because of the phone price subsidy, but why should a manufacturer not be able to have its products available to all providers. It's like saying that only people who buy Sony televisions can get NBC.
@H3ion: Well, it's more like saying that if you want a particular model of Sony XBR, you can only connect it to Time Warner Cable. Just as stupid, though.
@GearheadGeek: Stupid? Maybe. But within the manufacturer's rights? I don't see why not. Can't get TWC? Buy a different model.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: So did Moto's. But it would autocomplete words for you in it's dictionary as you typed. So it worked the same as regular texting, just quicker.
@taking_this_easy: And don't forget their blocking ringtones. The moto had a microSD card, and I could transfer songs onto it, and into my phone. As soon as the rest of their phones came out w/SD slots, they dis-allowed you from saving a clip on a card to the phone as a ringtone. I had to start sending myself messages with files to get around that.
@taking_this_easy: That would be nice. Nothing like buying a phone but being unable to use most of it.
I am to the point I want to buy phones that are not hobbled and just get the basic connectivity from the provider. I am done with 2 year contract and crappy phones.
Umm...Sprint doesn't cripple their phones. Instead, customer service gets it.
@Coop:
Vizzini: Inconceivable.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.
@H3ion:
The manufacturers could make their products available to other carriers... but they like the easy revenue that comes with exclusive contracts.
VZ's probably doing this b/c it's actually in their interest. They've got the best network, so if there are no exclusive phone deals, they probably win.
@bloggerX: ya, but CDMA phones cannot be as easily switched as GSM phones...
CDMA: you have to unlock the phone(if different carrier), and hope your current provider agrees to activate the ESN
GSM: unlockd phone(if different carrier), switch SIM cards, you are GOOD
anything happens to your current phone(lost, stolen, damaged, water spills), for GSM, get an unlocked phone(friend, amazon/online)... for CDMA, you have to go through the trouble of calling Sprint/Verizon to change ESN or clone ESN
@taking_this_easy: Why do we even have CDMA/TDMA carriers? Why can't they just use GSM like the rest of the world?
@AreYouConfusedYet?HowAboutNow?: Verizon/Sprint(or their older counterparts) started with CDMA way back, with mergers and bankrupcies and other crap, we have VZW and Sprint now...
probably too expensive for them to switch to GSM...
look at the US government, can't even switch to the metric system even though we're the biggest and last two countries not to use the metric system at all
@taking_this_easy: I always wondered about the cdma thing too..
Also why are cell phones and plans so CHEAP in foreign countries?
The lack of metric system in this country really bothers me. I was recently in Thailand and everyone I was with was not from the US. It kind of made me feel stupid to be so clueless about all things metric when I realized EVERYONE else understands it but Americans.
Not to mention, its SO much easier to use. I've decided to voluntarily switch myself.
Yeah verizon sucks. They completely cripple their phones. No OBEX bluetooth and can't easily put ringtones. You have to send them via a pic message. Plus all have vz phones have the shitty red bars and the same UI. Pathetic.
@veronykah: Speaking of Thailand, they have a CDMA carrier too (called Hutch or CAT depending on where you were). You might not have been able to tell the difference because they expanded the CDMA standard to accommodate a SIM-like card called R-UIM, so they behave much like GSM phones (In fact, most Asian CDMA carriers do this- it's just (N/S)American and Korean carriers that refuse to include it). And their CDMA phones aren't crippled- that's an American thing. Unfortunately, this means that lots of good CDMA phones don't make it over to America even unofficially because of the card/non-card chasm (in Asia, American phones can be activated by having the carrier alter the card's identifier to match the phone's ESN or by altering the phone's ESN to match the card's identifier- when the carrier allows it; it opens up a gaping security hole).
@chapoec: I wouldn't mind so much if they allowed other phones onto their network or started using the R-UIM system that so many Asian CDMA carriers use so I can bring over a nice one to use. But nooooo...
@bloggerX: Maybe so, but Sprint's thing is that they will not, under any circumstances, activate ANY PHONE that does not say Sprint on it. They have a whitelist of ESN's (not just model numbers, exact serial numbers of all "Sprint" phones, so if your phone is not the Sprint version of the phone, they won't (cannot--their system won't even allow it if you had a sympathetic rep) activate it.
So if you have a verizon phone and want to move it to sprint, tough noogies. Even though usually vzw phones have a subsidy unlock code of 000000 and are thus unlocked, sprint won't activate it.
Anyways this was a couple years ago that i learned this, but i haven't heard otherwise.
Verizon's theoretically better since you can get semi-non-shite CDMA phones uncrippled from the manufacturer if you look real hard and pay $500 or so, and activate them on verizon. A couple years back they promised to let you activate any phone or device you wanted to.
Too bad Verizon's still greedy bastards and all their "plans" are basically scams, holding a $3/MB gun to your head to get you to buy their shite data plan.
/had verizon for 6 years and switched
//have never regretted the decision
@ChristopherDavis: unlocking has almost nothing to do with exclusivity deals.
Exclusivity deal == Manufacturer is contractually bound not to sell any "Model XYZ" phones to any carrier but "Carrier X" for a certain time period. Carrier unlock policies in the GSM world (which is the only place it matters) still apply, so if you've been a customer for 90 days or so they'll still unlock your phone. So you could put the "Carrier X Exclusive Model XYZ" on "Carrier Q" just by swapping the sims.
Unlocked phone == You can use YOUR PARTICULAR PHONE THAT YOU BOUGHT on another carrier.
For some reason the iphone is the ONE PHONE that is subject to a regime of "no unlocks ever." This really really annoys me because it distracts people into conflating these two issues.
Anyways, I will decree THE WAY IT SHOULD BE:
Phones paid for without "carrier subsidy" -- Should be forced to be sold unlocked.
Phones subsidized by carrier -- Should be legally required to be unlocked at the end of the contract term.
Exclusivity deals -- are fine with me, although i think the handset manufacturer is retarded to limit their market that way. But if the mfg is getting a big enough kickback then whatevs. If i don't like that carrier, i'd buy the phone unsubsidized and use it elsewhere.
@NeverLetMeDown: Do you have anything to back that up? I mean other than Verizon's TV ads?
I'm not a Verizon customer anymore and i didn't notice a dropoff in coverage. Every area has a different "good carrier" and "bad carrier." For example, in one rural area where I go, Verizon coverage is inferior to Sprint! AT&T is a little worse in that area than Verizon. In the city where I live, AT&T gets full 5 bars and 3G and Verizon gets 1 bar of 2.5G data.
There is no best network.
Next, I think stores shouldn't be able to have sales, because that might make consumers want to go to that store in lieu of other stores that sell similar items.
This does NOT beg the question "who even knew...&c." It POSES the question. Begging the question means responding as though the question had been answered in the affirmative.
Please, sir, you're a journalist and should know better.
'If a woodchuck could chuck wood, a woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood' begs the question 'how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.'
@Cant_stop_the_rock:
If I had read your response before correcting Ben, I would not have also corrected Ben. Ben is a professional and I'm sure will appreciate the help should he ever join a forensics team.
@veronykah: it's not too hard to understand metric... all base ten...
cell phone plans in other countries: depends... america still has to 'take care' of rural areas... less subscriber per cell tower = more expensive...
and secondly, a lot of cell plans overseas are billed on outcoming only... seeing that you can't control who's calling you, they only bill you on calls you make... when you compare the rest of the cell plans: american providers are ripping you off...
@West Coast Secessionist: that is probably the most important reason why cdma sucks IMO... no matter how cheap Sprint SERO plans are, nope...
the new 4G devices... WiMax(CDMA style)... no SIM cards... can't figure out if 4G devices can be unlocked or not... but i guess amercian networks won't be switching over totally to 3G or 4G, sigh... more crippled/locked crap
@taking_this_easy: Sprint only billed on outgoing calls in the beginning too. Guess they figured out they could charge you both ways and make more money!
I don't know how a rural area is determined in say, Thailand, but everywhere I traveled from Bangkok to small islands in the south had cell service. I think that's a cop out on the US cell phone providers.
As far as metric, the measurement part is easy it was the temperature and mileage parts were where I felt completely clueless. Its hard to try to adopt a new way of thinking essentially. My brain still wants to think of metric in terms of the customary system, considering the two have nothing to do with each other, it makes it difficult.
@AreYouConfusedYet?HowAboutNow?:
CDMA is a superior technology to GSM, it allows a more efficient use of spectrum compared to other technologies. Also, CDMA is capable of higher wireless data speeds. @
href="#c14291669">taking_this_easy:
American cell plans bill for both incoming and outgoing calls because in other countries, cell phones typically have distinctive numbers so the person calling them knows they are calling a cell phone and can be charged higher rates for doing so. In the US, since cell phones have numbers indistinguishable from those of landlines, the person making a call to a cell phone has no way of knowing beforehand if he is making a call to a cell phone and thus can't be charged extra for making a call to a cell number. Thus, American carriers decided to transfer the extra costs of connecting a cell call to the owner of the cell phone.
@taking_this_easy: I'll throw this one out to the wisdom of Consumerist posters. And, yup, I've tried looking but couldn't find anything.
Anyone have a software package (free) that lets you transfer Verizon content to/from your desktop? Mac and PC (I want the former, have friends that use the latter). Pix, vids, ringtones, etc.
I have a simple phone and am so annoyed by the Verizon tax that I refuse to use it.
Thanks!
@AreYouConfusedYet?HowAboutNow?:
There's a lot of the 'rest of the world' that uses the CDMA2000 standard for wireless phones. It's a myth that GSM is some sort of international standard.
BitPim, my friend
@AreYouConfusedYet?HowAboutNow?:
As far as I know all the TDMA carriers in the US have migrated away.
CDMA is a superior technology, but GSM fans need not sweat. standard 2G GSM uses TDMA as the underlying tech, and 3G uses... CDMA!! Granted its not compatible with the CDMA2000 spec used by Verizon, Sprint, and the regional carriers.
Let me rephrase that:
"they've successfully branded themselves as having the est network."
To refer to the incoming/outgoing discussions out there, US Cellular doesn't charge for incoming calls, only outgoing. The same goes for text messages and any media messages you get.
Of course, outside of the Chicago/Milwaukee/St. Louis area, they're largely regional and confined to some very small markets. And they charge $5 less a month for the Blackberry plans.
Highly recommend US Cellular if you can get them. I'm always scared Verizon is going to buy them as they're the last significant CDMA operator out there that isn't now theirs.
how about Verizon not crippling their phone's features?
you'll never find me on a cdma carrier