Who Really Owns Your Phone?
By Sen. John Kerry, June 16, 2009
We've got a busy couple of days ahead in the Senate Commerce Committee, but they're exactly the kind of days you've been fighting to see for a long time.
First, we'll have a nomination hearing for Julius Genachowski, who is President Obama's pick to head the FCC, the right guy to help implement the President's technology agenda, including an open Internet. As part of the Recovery Act, Congress directed the FCC to come up with a comprehensive plan for building out broadband to every household, and to do it by February of 2010.
We need to get Julius confirmed so he can get down to doing what the President and so many of us in Congress know he is capable of -- delivering a national broadband plan.
So that's today. And tomorrow, we're looking at the wireless marketplace from the consumer's perspective.
There are now 270 million cell phone subscribers in America, and 18 percent of households rely solely on wireless phones to communicate. That number's growing, and it doesn't take a big leap to understand that the future of telephony in this country is traveling through the airwaves, not buried in the ground.
We need to be focused on ensuring that the wireless marketplace remains competitive, and that consumers have access to innovative technologies whether they live in a densely populated city or a sparsely populated small town.
Today, we've got a wireless marketplace where four companies account for more than 85 percent of all subscribers. These large carriers strike deals with the companies creating the newest and most innovative phones, leaving smaller regional wireless carriers without access to the latest technologies to attract consumers.
In fact, nine of the most popular ten phones are locked in a deal with one of these big wireless carriers, and are only available through one network.
What does that mean for consumers? It means if you want to buy an iPhone, you've got to subscribe to AT&T. If you want a Blackberry Storm, you've got to be a Verizon customer. And if you live in rural America, you're probably using whatever phones are not locked up in an exclusive contract rather than the newest technology.
Here's the issue I think we need to wrestle with: wireless service providers are largely deciding what phone you can use. We don't see that happening in similar markets.
Your broadband provider doesn't decide what kind of computer you can connect to at the end of your DSL or cable wire. And forty years ago, the FCC ruled in the historic Carterfone decision that AT&T couldn't pick and choose which phones can and can't connect to its network.
Is the status quo the right model for maximizing innovation, competition and consumer choice? Or do we need a change?
On Monday, I sent a letter with three of my Commerce Committee colleagues asking Acting FCC Chairman Copps to examine this issue. And on Wednesday afternoon, we'll hear the arguments on both sides in our hearing.
But I want to hear what you think, so leave your comments below. I know this is a knowledgeable community about these issues, and I’m sure you will play a big role in forging a path to better wireless policy in our country.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.
Sen. John Kerry
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) serves on the Senate Commerce Committee and is chair of the Senate's Communications, Technology and the Internet subcommittee.
Read Sen.'s full bio »
Comments
This is a breakthrough now
This is a breakthrough now that the president is on our side! Hope this will get fence sitters to cross over.
Liam - Master cleanse consultant
Yes, the whole issue has got
Yes, the whole issue has got some new light on it and hopefully this time we will see a more determining conclusion. The issues has been under question for quite some time.
pa businesses for sale and Sydney Removalists
I agree with Tucsin. The
I agree with Tucsin. The issue has been under question like this for quite some time now, and I think its high time to resolve this issue and come to a conclusion.
Voip Modem | Document Management System
Exclusive iPhone Service Contract with AT&T
Senator Kerry,
I wanted to share my appreciation for your attention to this matter and share my own thoughts and concerns on the exclusive relationship between AT&T and Apple specifically regarding the iPhone.
It appears to me that AT&T has an effectively managed to legally obtain a monopoly in one segment of the smartphone arena. To my knowledge the iPhone is the only devise that currently has over 50,000 applications, at least a 2-to-1 ratio compared to the closest competitor. Many of these applications make everyday life easier and more convenient.
In addition to the shear number of apps available, and more importantly, is the exorbitant amount that iPhone user's end up paying based on available AT&T wireless monthly plans. My personal plan has a minimal number of minutes (450 anytime), average text messaging (1500) and unlimited data. Although I use my very little data on my phone I'm concerned that anything less would make leave me vulnerable to outrageous charges for any overages.
My other concern and biggest disappointment is the lack or inability for AT&T to provide excellent customer service. My monthly bill which always exceeds $100.00 seems to get me very little care and/or consideration. Sadly, the majority of my friends and colleagues, who all seem to be completely happy with the iPhone product, feel the same way about the carriers’ service.
Thanks again for your attention to this matter and you have my full support!
Bad for Consumers, the Environment and Innovation!
Why should a Consumer's multi-hundred dollar investment [in a mobile handset] be rendered worthless if they should choose to switch wireless carriers (even after any commitment expires!). I suppose the concept is ... I can buy it with my money, but it really isn't mine!
On an Environmental Level, ... thousands of good phones are ending up in landfills (along with their batteries!), solely due to this ridiculous and outdated exemption that has been given to mobile carriers, to a law that solved this problem for house phones many years ago.
And let's not forget this policy's effect on Stifling Innovation, as mentioned by others here.
It's time to correct this short sighted policy for the sake of consumers, the environment and innovation ... What more needs to be said! ... IT"S TIME TO FREE OUR MOBILE PHONES!
Constitutional Issue?
I actually believe that this may be a freedom of speech issue, because locking users into a single-carrier monopoly of any kind is fertile ground for abuse. Add to this the complicit nature of the major telecommunications companies to erode free speech (the idea of recording every conversation in the country, for example, leads to self-censorship--and if we censor ourselves, of what utility can free speech possibly be?), along with the Constitutional issue of privacy, and this is just a recipe we can't possibly want.
The major issues here are related to free speech and privacy at a legal level, but there is also a governing interest involved: if locked into a single carrier, how can we ensure that this carrier has the motivation to treat citizens in a way which is consistent with the ethics of business and the rule of law? Past experience with the major carriers should show us that their interests are self-serving, and serve neither governmental nor societal interests. While we shouldn't deny them the opportunity to profit, we should open the market and open this kind of opportunity for everyone, as competing business models are really the only check and balance possible for business with a national scope.
Allowing choice also gives consumers the option to place pressure on companies for changes that are needed--an important consumer protection. By essentially disallowing the selection of carriers on any single product, the choice is to either use the product or find something else. Where some of us require the additional functionality to complete our work, this means that our jobs would require that we do business with a company whose ethics we question on a daily basis. This adds to the already-high stress levels of our labor market, and citizens need a break. The companies' interests are solely based around their own profit, and are not truly focused on consumer interests.
The protection of consumers is needed. Government must learn that a higher profit for business does not equate to better result for its constituents. Where companies continually erode the rights of citizens, we must question the ability of these companies to truly serve the population, and this means limiting the kinds of agreements to monopolize technology which exist today. It means allowing telecommunications products to be open to multiple carriers, and not locking them into a single company. Competition keeps companies honest. Seeking to limit that competition is against everyone's interests, including those who do such seeking.
I hope this is clear enough, Senator Kerry. While I have the utmost faith and respect that you will do what you believe to be right, this issue has a far-reaching impact beyond the immediate choice of whom consumers can do business. I hope that this has been made clear.
Thank you, and I sincerely wish you every ounce of luck I can muster.
Cell Phones
We need freedom and the ability to purchase whatever phone we want and then select the carrier we want based on service. Europe figured this out years ago as they can chose the phone and carrier seperately,
This cell point is no different from picking out what computer I want and then chosing what internet provieder I like. The current system is costing consumers way to much. I am a 56 male who by nature has 5 cell phones/PDA's on my account covering our parents and our children.
I could not write this any
I could not write this any better my self. I agree I agree I agree. You should be able to use any phone with any carrier. Apple would have made more money if they allowed their phone on any carrier. Guess what if you take the bait of newest phone away they have to improve on cost and customer service. Also all phones should have wii fii. The internet is knowledge should be free institution.
Cell Phones
We need freedom and the ability to purchase whatever phone we want and then select the carrier we want based on service. Europe figured this out years ago as they can chose the phone and carrier seperately,
This cell point is no different from picking out what computer I want and then chosing what internet provieder I like. The current system is costing consumers way to much. I am a 56 male who by nature has 5 cell phones/PDA's on my account covering our parents and our children.
I want best technology and carrier choice, nothing less.
I have an extensive family on Verizon. I want an iPhone and nothing less. So I will keep my flip phone and give my carrier of choice 60.00/mo. as opposed to the cost of full-on connectivity. The day I can use an iPhone on Verizon is the day Verizon gets more money monthly from me. Meanwhile, ATT will never get a penny from me until they offer something better than Verizon, and I won't switch a carrier simply for a phone.
Consumers are demanding free choice, so eventually it will happen. If Congress legislates it now, the monopolistic carriers will participate more fairly in the market, and the value of the technology to the public will drive their profits. Consumer choice is the obvious eventual outcome, the only question is when.
If ATT can't rely on a captive iPhone market, it will then need to compete on service, and Verizon will need to respond. Exclusivity on phones is like trade barriers and protectionism, not capitalism. Governments role is to regulate practices to balance market share and competition. This is an issue I encourage Congress to act on.
Free access - no restrictions - no priviledged service agreement
The loser is here is me - and you. Don't let Apple/AT&T
monopolize anything. This reminds me of Monsanto's
genetic tech control of seed. Keep it simple. Keep it all
OPEN and accessible to the little guys - you and me.
GSM voice 9.6kbit/s == 8.57 SMS msgs/second !!
9600/8 = 1200 bytes, 1200/(140 bytes/SMS) = 8.57 SMS/sec
8.57 x (60 sec/min) = 514.29 SMS/minute.
So, if you are paying prepaid 10 cents/minute for voice like me,
that 10 cents is paying for about 500+ SMS messages' worth
of voice transmission bits.
Even if you allow for 3 internal accounting/billing messages for
every one SMS transmission provided to the customer, that is
over 100 SMS messages you should be getting for your dime,
or two dimes, if you are paying heavily for voice with small-increment
prepayments.
So say 100 SMS messages for 20 cents, when they actually like
to give you one (1) SMS message for 20 cents! Feh!
Where will honest competition come from if the FCC and congress
permit tacit cartels, as if by feudal grants of privileged entitlements
to extract tribute?
That goes for banking, insurance, and health care as well, BTW, Sen. Kerry.
If the government really could provide something universally needed
at cost, then it amounts to a feudal grant of profit guarantee not to do it.
The spectrum belongs to the people, don't forget. It should be a public infrastructure.
AT&T, iphone
Iphone is advertising $99 for their latest model. Try going to the AT&T site to order one. All I could find were offers for $299 and $399. Finally, I found one for $199. This is exactly why we can't let phone companies monopolize the equipment.
H.G. - Fresno, CA
Thank you Sen. Kerry. Way to go!
iPhone and AT&T: Match Made in Hell
The iPhone is a glorious device that shot mobile computing decades into the future the moment it was released in 2007. Apple has continued to maintain and upgrade this product, including launching a new, technologically advanced iPhone on this very day. AT&T's network, to which the iPhone is bound by an exclusivity agreement, is stuck in the dark ages, with AT&T charging exorbitant fees for inferior service. There are a few key issues inherent in this relationship that I think need to be addressed.
First, live streaming and tv signal placeshifting should be allowed over AT&T's wireless network with NO EXCEPTIONS. The arbitrary nature of these decisions is reflective in discrepancy in treatment of the Slingplayer app and the MLB Live app. This seems to be nothing more than AT&T operating in an anti-competitive manner. Look no further than AT&T's UVerse web site. AT&T wants to sell you it's tv service, that is severely limited and overpriced. They do not offer live MLB games though, so the MLB live app will not affect their bottom line (although the logic behind that decision is flawed at best). This is the same rationale used to cripple the Skype app, and application that will take valuable voice minutes off of AT&T's network (you would think any decrease in usage would be a relief for the company that regularly blames the sub-par capacity of their network for many imposed service limitations).
Second, there are rumors that AT&T is going to charge an additional $55/month iPhone customers who want to "tether" their iPhone to their personal computer in order to use the iPhone's network connection to access the internet. Any additional price at all is completely unjustified considering the fact that almost all iPhone owners are already subscribers to AT&T's unlimited state plan (which costs $30/month). Not only that, but new iPhone's launched across the U.S. today are capable of this feature but for the fact that AT&T is refusing to "flip the switch" on the network until they can figure out their ridiculous pricing structure.
Third, as much as it pains an Apple fan to say it, Apple's handling of the app store approval process has been horrendous. The approval process is widely known for the arbitrary and unfair decisions it leads to and the lack of information that is relayed to developers once a decision is made. The rejection of many apps borders on outright censorship. For instance, certain e-book readers have been rejected due to content that they can access. Content, it should be noted, that iPhone users can access anyway through their included Mobile Safari web browser. The process needs to be more transparent and thoughtful so that the appearance of impropriety can be rebutted.
There is much more to say about AT&T's and Apple's poor handling of the iPhone. I think the points listed above are a good start for your inquiry.
Phone monopolies?
How about addressing union monopolies. Why not make unions abide by the same anti-trust legislation as major corporations?
Oligopolies are just as bad as monopolies
As someone who works on the other side of the fence (phone manufacturing) I can tell you that we'd like nothing better than for the mobile operators to get out of the phone business. I've never seen a group so dedicated to nickel and diming their end users under the guise of "services". You buy your TV from a retailer who deals with the manufacturer when you return it. Phones would be no different.
Mobile operators are constantly trying to lock down features which provide new ways for users to actually leverage the unlimited data plans they pay for. "Cellphone as modem? How do I charge extra for that? Nevermind, turn that off. IPv6? What's that? Turn it off. Mesh networking? Sounds competitive. Turn that off."
I believe Google considered buying a mobile operator just to break up their fiercely protected oligopoly. In the end they simply bid on spectrum to put some fear in em.
I'd be even very impressed if our government came in and did what's best for the market and the consumer. Operators provide a great bitpipe. They should be rewarded for setting up the infrastructure and growing the cellphone industry. It's tough to blaze that trail. But they need to sponge profits without completely squashing change and innovation. I don't think we need to heavily regulate operators. Probably just the threat of regulation at this time would be enough to break their stranglehold on hardware and software use of their networks.
iPhone Exclusivity
Another thing I forgot to mention concerning the relationship with cellphone manufacturers and wireless providers is that consumers/customers have the benefit of dealing directly with the wireless provider should there be an equipment issue while under warranty. With AT&T Mobility we will send out a replacement device at no charge and the customer thens sends the defective phone to us and we will deal directly with the manufacturer. In the open market scenario where a consumer buys the device from the manufacturer and uses it on whichever network they choose if there is a device issue they would have to send the phone back to the manufacturer and wait until it is either repaired or replaced at the manufacturers discetion and they would be without a device during this time and paying for a service with no phone to use.
iPhone Exclusivity
I agree with what Senator Kerry has stated. I work for AT&T Mobility and I have long agreed that the wireless companies ought to get out of the equipment business and focus solely on their networks. Consumers should have the option of purchasing a wireless phone from a manufacturer and using it on whatever network they choose. You can buy a TV and use it on any cable provider or satellite service. You can use a computer on any internet service provider. You can connect any landline phone to any landline service provider. Why is it different with the wireless industry? Of course, getting the manufacturers to market and sell their own devices means additional costs for them that could go into R&D so there is some benefit for the manufacturers to sell directly to the wireless companies instead of the general public. It is an interesting topic but I agree if the wireless companies just focused on network coverage and customer service and got out of the equipment business all would improve coverage and service.
Wireless Phones
I'm sick and tired of being tied to a particular service and/or cell phone. Just as someone else mentioned, on the hard line phone service you can use ANY phone, in ANY jack, ANY where and it always works!
Time to make these commuication companies provide service FOR the people in the PEOPLE's airwaves.
I'm all for capitalism and misnomered 'free enterprise', BUT if corporations are using the public airwaves, they need to be regulated; case closed.
Thanks, Sen. Kerry, for your efforts and keep up the pressure. Don't let the corporations bamboozle you with whining and crying about interference in the marketplace by the government.
Power to the people!
Stay out of it
A) For those who don't understand why they aren't allowed to use whatever service provider they want with whatever handset they want, I don't understand you. There are countless examples of these relationships in businesses across the spectrum. Whether it's Martha Stewart and K-Mart, Miley Cyrus and Wal-Mart, the Halo video game series and Xbox, or Apple and ATT, they are all established for the same reason: Competitive advantage. As one of the oldest concepts in business, we should not be shocked to see it today, regardless of its form or application. You may throw a blanket argument back such as "Well, it's not FAIR in any of those cases either!" I would counter: Really? If I want new sheets from the White Collection, I know I have to go to K-Mart, and I do not feel it necessary for any politician to stand up for my 'rights' as a consumer becuase I normally shop at Target. Explain to me how the Iphone situation is any different?
B) To the individual who believes these business relationships hinder growth and innovation, you could not be more inaccurate, although I would thoroughly enjoy hearing your argument. If I'm a boss at Sprint or Verizon back when the Iphone was first announced along with its exclusive ATT agreement, I'm immediately on the phone with RIMM, Samsung, Palm, etc. Those companies now realize that they have their own opportunity to sign a large exclusivity agreement, and they are going to innovate like mad in an effort to not only meet Apple's standards, but beat them (I won't touch that argument here).
C) The reason the Iphone is now $99 is because of the Apple/ATT agreement. ATT knows they will take a hit by subsidizing the cost of the phone up front, but they also know that customers will WILLINGLY sign a two-year contract, guaranteeing a certain revenue stream in the future. My question to the dissenters out there: When would you like to pay, up front or over time? Let's do a little math on a Thursday morning. Most of the reports I've seen price the device around $600 without contract. Let's also assume that ATT is able to charge an extra $20 monthly because of the exclusivity (You can get a 450 minute 39.99 plan, plus $30 mandatory Iphone data plan, and unlimited texting for another $20, which puts you at $90 monthly. Sprint offers a 450 minute unlimited data and text plan for $70, which is how I'm coming to my 'Iphone premium' of $20. Ultimately, over two years you will pay $480 more than the Sprint customer (24 months X $20, pretty simple). However, you only had to pay $100 for the phone since you signed a contract, rather than the $600 retail price, a savings of $500. I'll even round up the $480 to $500 for comparison purposes. Anyone with basic financial knowledge and understands the time value of money realizes that $500 in my pocket today is better than $500 over two years.
All that said, of course everyone wants unlimited choice of provider and device, some of us just aren't willing to sacrifice American capitalism and the basic mechanics of business to accomplish it.
Stay out of it
What if K-Mart and Martha Stewart got together and produced a bed that wasn't full or queen or king or twin and barred all other sheet manufacturers from making sheets to fit their non-standard sized beds? What if Kohler decided to build new subdivisions in your town, changing the plumbing standard for those houses and started selling toilets and sinks to fit this standard and wouldn't allow the owners of these houses to buy toilets and sinks from anyone but them. New standards are negotiated by consortiums and governments for the benefit of everyone. Some level of agreement or regulation is needed to prevent unfair practices in business for the benefit of all citizens. If this is socialism, then we've been socialists for many decades. A more modern example of this type of negotiation is how the database industry defines what SQL (Structured Query Language) is so that different databases can be queried with a language that at least has a base that is similar or the same. Finding standards for digital enterprise is difficult but this is what is happening today and it is no different than previous standards put in place for how electricity will be distributed, what standard plumbing is, and the fact that we measure by yards or meters rather than some base 4 someone came up with to try to monopolize a market. Many of these standards came about in a more reasonable time of business and commerce when the common good wasn't thought synonymous to socialism. I don't know if you remember how painful it was talking about metrics being added as a new standard for the US but manufacturers and auto repairmen were ultimately able to purchase metric tools to be able to work on the foreign cars being purchased with metric bolts. If US car manufacturers had wanted to start manufacturing cars based on this standard they could. So lets get down to the business of defining what the base is and create the necessary level playing field for any entrepreneur who wants to get out there and compete in the field for your phone or internet service but not dictating which phone you buy or which service provider you use your phone on. It's not a subversion of capitalism. It's a maintaining of it. If Apple's iPhone can stand the test of time used with AT&T or Verison or Sprint then it survives. If Sprint or Verison or mystartup service can provide excellent service to you iPhone users then I survive. That's capitalism. If you're saying that intercompany unfair agreements are saving you money, that's a different topic all together.
It's a little different
K-Mart doesn't specify which brand of bed I can put those White Collection sheets on once I purchase them. I can choose which brand of sheets I want based on price, quality, etc so sheets are made accordingly. With phones, I can't chose which brand of phone, which features, etc until I chose which carrier (store) to buy it from. The big difference is that a phone is a service, sheets are not. You buy them once and you can use them however you see fit. You buy a phone and you have to sign an exclusive agreement to use the service. It doesn't happen in any other service industry so why are the phone providers any different? I should be able to buy any phone anywhere and then call up any service provider I choose and pay whatever service fee they apply.
But it doesn't work
The problem is that the iPhone doesn't fully function, the way Apple designed it to function, with the limits imposed by AT&T. Since AT&T is limiting my use of a device that I spent my hard earned money to buy, I should be free to purchase service from a carrier that will allow my iPhone, or whatever device that I choose to purchase, to the full limits of the capability of the device.
You are essentially arguing that big corporations should have the right to limit the choices of consumers and the functionality of the items that they want to use. I disagree. You call it free enterprise, I call it limiting freedom
really, how so?
How is AT&T limiting the phone so that it does not function as Apple designed it? I see claims like this from time to time without any explantion or basis. I would like to know what my iPhone does not do because of the ATT contract that Apple designed it to do.
Stay In It
We're talking about small local business's not having access to current technology not sheets or burgers. The comparison would be more like Burger King has a contract to sell all Angus beef period.
You just don't understand...
Your comparison of Burger King having a contract to sell all Angus beef is like saying AT&T has the contract to sell all cell phones.
Please don't compare consumer electronics to food, that's sad.
There are too many people thinking like you in the United States, forgetting what capitalism is, thinking the government can fix problems through tax dollars and more laws and regulation. They are people just like you, and guess what, most of the time they make more mistakes.
The truly educated small business's, the ones with the great ideas, will find investors to build a phone to beat the iphone's, the blackberry's, etc.
It sure seems like socialism is on the way...
sheets
your sheets analogy is flawed. the analogy in this case is that you have the mattress and your sheet provider won't let you have anything over a queen size in black. even though you know it will fit. if you want black sheets the sheet provider charges you extra.
Good Point.
Great Point.
Cell Phones
And while you are at it maybe you can make sure that McDonalds can sell the Burger King Whopper and Burger King can sell the Big Mac. Maybe Ford should sell the Cadillac and GM can sell Thunderbirds. Give us all a break would ya !
seems that people keep making
seems that people keep making analogies to items instead of services. it's the services that are locked down.
what if CNN struck a deal with Sony where no Sony TV would play other news stations because they were getting money from CNN.
That comparison makes no
That comparison makes no sense. AT&T did not create the Iphone like McD's created the Big Mac. They are independent companies signing deals with specific carriers.
Frankly, to those of you who claim these deals are fair in the name of capitalism; don't you think it would encourage competition if people were allowed to take their phones to any carrier? Level the playing field: see what type of services and features AT&T can offer customers when they can take their Iphone to any other network. Being able to say, "You can have the privilege of having an iphone" no longer cuts it. They should have to compete with networks on who can offer the consumer the fastest internet, best data plans, best customer service etc. This would force AT&T to step up to the plate and support ALL the upgrades to keep their customers. Because if they are not keeping their competitive edge when it comes to what they offer, some other carrier will and AT&T's customer base will dwindle.
choice of carrier
I want a choice of carrier with my cell phone. If i buy a cell phone I shuld be able to use it on any provider.
Wireless Regulations
Senator Kerry,
Thank you for taking on this issue and lending it the respect it deserves.
I agree with earlier comments in saying that we should follow the previous model set up to govern landline systems.
Communication is so very important, and reliability and choice of equipment should be protected. To sacrifice this to allow another bargaining chip in the big business of wireless would be a disservice to citizens of this country.
Please work toward a system which allows consumer choice in wireless service as well as handsets.
Thank you
Open = good for consumers, bad for Telcoms
The Telcoms will argue that they need to control the handsets to protect the security of their networks, ensure quality or some such crap. But controlling the phone is really just a way to coerce new customers into signing up for an inferior network (if the Telcoms had to compete on reliability/quality of the network alone, we all know who'd win). In addition, Telcoms don't want to become a utility stuck in a speed/price war, so they will fight this tooth and nail. What they should do (but won't), is embrace open-software platforms like Android and work on providing innovative cloud-computing services, regardless of the device. Sadly, that would be too much work--it's easier just to sue the government when it tries to pass a law like this.
Open
You hit the nail on the head.
When did "free enterprise" become support for monopolies, oligopolies and oligopsonies and "socialism" become any efforts needed to bring real free enterprise back in balance by creating a standard that all players can use?
2 biggest issues
Contracts:
Any change to phone or service locks you in for an additional two years. That should be illegal. While "free market" advocates would say consumers should "vote with their dollars" by switching carriers when the service stinks, the contracts and extensions prevent this - or make it extremely onerous to do so.
Phones locked to a network:
"We the people" own the airwaves -- the phone companies just rent them. Any phone should work on any network. To change networks, it should just require the insertion of a different SIM card.
Changes to these two policies would really put competition into the marketplace, where there is none now.
Sen. Kerry please fix telecommunications in the US
There can be little doubt that so called 'exclusivity' agreements hinder innovation and competition and hurt consumers. Through these narrowly focused arrangements, millions of Americans get an unfair and burdensome deal with few, if any, options for recourse. Whether it is existing ATT customers having to pay higher prices to upgrade their iPhone to the latest model, or someone who is stuck in the middle of a 2 year contract who has no affordable or convenient way to switch their hardware or service, or especially for Americans without ready availability of services and devices in their area, and on it goes...
These practices hurt communities and the the U.S. economy by now allowing for the wide adoption of new technologies and features while also creating unnecessary barriers to vitals layers of communication and other information infrastructure. With the ever increasing importance of and reliance on mobile devices for business, family, and personal needs it is now become indispensable to regulate and legislate the "gatekeepers" of the industry. This is the only way to guarantee honesty, transparency, fairness, and consumer friendly practices.
I agree-- exclusivity has got to go
I must admit I felt burned when I recently learned that, as an ATT iPhone user just a few months into my contract, I would have to pay $499 to upgrade to the latest model (rather than the $299 new customers will pay) ...but I also can grasp the concept of a carrier subsidizing the unit cost up front.
What I find truly irksome is the fact that I can't just go
into an Apple store, pay full price for a new phone, and select my favorite carrier, such as Credo. WE own the spectrum, and freedom of choice should be built into the system!
Do it ... Senator Kerry! A "wireless freedom" bill!
Keep the internet free and neutral!
To do that, wireless devices, too, should be free and neutral ... that is, any wireless device should have access to all networks, so that hardware and network innovation, not some paranoid notion of "corralling customers" and shackling them to just one network and set of allowed capabilities, would become the main forces influencing the evolution and use of wireless devices.
Do it ... Senator Kerry! A "wireless freedom" bill!
Thank you
Thank you Senator Kerry for helping deal with this problem.
Phone services
Frankly I have never understood why the cell phone carriers have been allowed to insist on exclusive rights to certain phone models and insist that only certain phone models can be used on their networks. We stopped the landline telephone companies from making those rules decades ago. There was no good reason for them then and there is no reason for the wireless carriers to be allowed that control now. In fact the US is one of only a few countries that do allow this restriction of consumer freedom. Granted carriers generally do subsidise the cost of phones for the return of tying you into a contract with them, but there is no good reason for them to restrict the phones that can be used on their systems, if the consumer is willing to pay for the phone. Of course the phone would have to be compatible with the carriers technology but there are only two or three of those and many phones made for each. Carriers should be competing on the basis of their service capabilities and phone makers should be competing on the basis of their phones capabilities, assuring that the consumer gets the best they each can do.
Who Owns Our Freedom?
Its somewhat funny to me that the US Govt seems to be concerned about "competition" on one hand, but is pushing Govt run Healthcare on the other. Senator Kerry if you are so concerned with consumer choice and competition, then why don't you stand up against socialized medicine, which is exactly what the white house is proposing no matter how they package it up and no matter what they call it...it's socialized medicine.
So "man-up" Senator, if you really care about the American people, your kids and your grandchildren...then stand up and speak out about nationalized Healthcare.
You know the facts and statistics. You know nationalized Healthcare has NEVER worked in ANY country, it ALWAYS reduces the quality of Healthcare, it ALWAYS reduces insurance competition for the consumer. You KNOW that mathematically there are simply not enough Doctors to cover everybody, which WILL result in medical rationing. You KNOW that if socialized medicine passes, the amount of Doctors will decrease, because the Govt will drive them away. You KNOW all of this, but probably won't stand up and speak out...why? Simple, because nationalized Healthcare equals MORE Govt control of our lives. That is the purpose of socialized medicine; unfortunately its NOT about improving medicine, it's about increasing control...And then you "speak out" against AT&T.
AT&T spent billions of dollars they earned in the marketplace to purchase exclusive rights, which end this year. That's called the free-market. I know its hard to understand when you are used to spending other people's money, i.e. the American tax payer's dollars for "stimulus"...but let me ask you, How does big Govt and out of control spending help "Competition" that you seem to be so concerned with? If you really care, step up and represent your country, don't destroy it...Let me guess what your solution would be to the "Big 4" wireless carriers...is it more Govt intervention? Maybe we need another Czar???
Regards,
Frustrated Independent American
Then don't buy the frickin' phone, whiner
Get the hell out of businesses already, liberals! It's a contract, and it's exclusive, just like you want healthcare. If you don't agree with the plan, then buy something else. The fact that Apple invested a ton of their money and brainpower to develop this means that they get to decide how to sell it. Enough babysitting, Kerry...why don't YOU go out and find a real job, and actually produce something more than your own hot air? Whiner.
All the information services are moving backwards
Since the digital revolution has come we are back at the way Cable tv was in the early days, 25 years ago. Now some of our DVRs etc that we bought are next to useless. Telephone technology has ended up the same way. We are answering our phones several times a day only to hear nothing on the other end. A little side effect of dropped calls. I also answer the phone several times a week only to get a recording trying to get me to do something. Back when telephones were new they worked better than this. They may have been rotary dials, with no recording messages, and the only choice was black, but when you answered a ring, there was someone on the other end.
Yes! I applaud your efforts.
I was so naive back in 2000 when I bought my first cell phone. I bought the phone because I liked how it looked even though it cost me $200. Yet that wasn't the worst of it. It locked me into an expensive plan. When I decided my plan just wasn't worth continuing year after year, I lost the use of that phone and it became just another piece of electronics headed for the scrap pile.
This inability to get whatever service one wants has got to stop. Allowing companies this kind of control is insane. For one thing, it's creating an enormous pile of electronic waste as people dump one phone after another every time they terminate a different service plan.
I applaud your efforts and know you must succeed because it makes so much sense!
Why cell phones don't work on other carriers
You must understand that each one of the carriers has its own wireless "technology" for transmitting data. This is like getting mad at a mechanic for not being able to fit a Ford engine in a Chevy.
And for those of you who think Govt intervention into the free market is a good thing, I would like to ask you, what does the Govt run that works well? The Post Office is bankrupt, but UPS and FedEx make billions per year. The Govt destroyed the housing market with unwanted intervention, the states with the "biggest" Govt's are all bankrupt, yet the states with the smallest Govts are thriving - Even in today's economy...Now why is that???
Bravo Senator! My feedback...
I have immense respect for the courage and tenacity with which you stand up to corporate interests that no longer have any sense of nationalistic obligation. If they did, we would be manufacturing the phones here in America, creating jobs, and inspiring US consumers to pay a little more for something made at home.
In raising your voice for the average American who hungers for fair representation, I offer the following suggestions to your question:
1) These early termination fees should be completely scrapped. In what other industry is this connivance tolerated? None. The service should earn our business and loyalty, rather than "capture" us under duress of a penalty. For an example of a business model that is far more equitable, please visit Cricket Wireless at: http://www.mycricket.com/
The consumer is not tied into a contract, pays anywhere from $0 to $250 for a phone upfront, enjoys some of the most competitive rates...end of story. FYI: I have no relationship with Cricket Wireless. I am simply offering a real-life demonstration that proves a new paradigm can work well. :^)
2) Secondly, there are all these additional surcharges that the services add on to a bill. If I understand correctly, the justification is that they have to pay out to the government and thus the fee should be passed on to the consumer. What a customer pays should be a flat amount. The carrier can be sneaky and roll it into the monthly fee but then the flat monthly should remain unchanged rather than subject to fluctuations in what the government charges the wireless provider.
3) Early on, wireless companies put together a kind of sweetheart deal. They agreed that they would not offer to pay the early termination penalty for a customer if they left a competitor for them. So it's clear that even they are aware of the power this penalty technique wields.
Thanks again, John, and God Bless. You make our nation proud. Peace,
- Joher Coleman
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0403825/
My Phone...My Choice!
Thank you, Senator Kerry. I purchased a "factory unlocked" cell phone, just so I could decide what type of cell phone service served my needs. Of course, the same phone cost me substantially more than if I acquired it together with a 2-year plan with a high cancellation fee. Just as there is no "free lunch," there are no "free phones." I find it ironic that when the government acts to permit freedom of choice, it's called "interference"; when a few companies get together to control choice, it's called "free market."
Senator Kerry--Cell Phone Questions
After reading all of the previous comments, I see one common denominator which always raises its ugly head when you talk "service" sales: the desire of the provider to gain a monopoly for better profits. Most of the comments can be distilled down to this question, "should a company be allowed to create a monopoly or not?" In most cases, when this question has run headlong into regulation, the answer is no--so deals are cut behind closed doors and never, ever admitted to in public. While I am still looking for Senator Kerry's hidden agenda in taking on this issue, it is one that the answer must, for preservation of the customers rights, be an emphatic NO! Ever since AT&T went into business, one of their main agendas has been to foster a monopoly for their own gain. They have run into road block after road block but still they keep trying. The other providers are no different.
But this issue does not just affect the cell phone industry. Having run a branded gasoline service station for a time, I know from experience that the gasoline industry is rampant with "cute little deals" fixing the price of gasoline in given areas. So if Senator Kerry wants to stay on the side of the consumer, he needs to carry his fight into other industries when he has "won" this one. Again, stop the monopolies, set a standard that any phone will work with any service. Getting rid of the monopolies should also take care of the "poison contracts". If some little providers can get their foot in the door and offer "no contract" service, the contract issue should take care of itself.
I will say a tentative "Bravo" until I see how this plays out.