FCC To Probe Exclusive Mobile Deals

On Tuesday, we discussed news that four US Senators would be looking into the exclusivity deals between carriers and cell phone makers. Apparently, they didn't like what they heard. Reader Ian Lamont writes with an update: "The Federal Communications Commission is planning on launching an investigation into exclusive handset deals between mobile carriers and handset makers. In a speech on Thursday, acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps said the agency 'should determine whether some of these arrangements adversely restrict consumer choice or harm the development of innovative devices, and it should take appropriate action if it finds harm.' It's not hard to imagine who might be targeted — at a separate Senate Committee on Commerce hearing on Thursday, much of the discussion centered on AT&T's exclusive deal to carry the iPhone. AT&T claimed 'consumers benefit from exclusive deals in three ways: innovation, lower cost and more choice,' but carriers and senators from states with large rural populations disagreed, saying that their customers had no choice when it came to the iPhone — it's not available because AT&Ts network doesn't reach these areas. One panelist also brought up the Carterfone precedent (PDF), which concerned an 'electrical acoustic coupling device' that a man named Tom Carter developed in the 1950s to let field workers make phone calls using a radio transceiver connected to AT&T's phone network. AT&T, which was then a monopoly, claimed no foreign devices could be connected to its network, but lost when it challenged the Carterfone in court. The result spurred innovation such as the fax machine."

Comments

Re:It's Not Your Prerogative

[sonicmerlin]

Except for the nasty gay reference (why...?) that was well-written.

Re:Ok, so you could also get it on T-Mobile

[Mr2001]

Why would you want an iPhone on T-Mobile when you can already get an Android handset?

Re:You're retarded

[geekboy642]

There are 50 million uninsured. Health care costs are 15.2% of GDP, that's like a hidden 15 cent tax on every dollar you make. Insurance companies--who are already too large to successfully sue--send their CEOs home with millions of dollars, yet deny the coverage of cancer victims for the pettiest of reasons. And just *try* getting insurance when you have any kind of pre-existing condition. HMOs award their employees huge bonuses for denying medical care to sick people. The free market has utterly failed.

Malpractice is the greatest example of "Succeed, and receive a good salary. Fail, and we'll ruin your life." that exists in the world. Did you know that a malpractice lawsuit can result in the doctor becoming homeless and in massive debt, with his future earnings taken by the "victim" as long as he lives? The doctor doesn't even have to make an honest mistake. Sometimes people can't be saved by medicine; their family uses the tragic death as though they just won the lottery. There is no provision for an honest mistake to be fairly compensated, letting the doctor keep working and benefiting society. If malpractice went away forever, where's the harm? If a doctor does something malicious or careless, press charges in a legal court. If your wife dies because an incompetent sewed a towel inside her, that sounds like second-degree manslaughter to me, but you don't deserve to hit the jackpot over that tragedy.

Meanwhile my sister in law with Down's syndrome is completely covered by Medicare. All of her expensive surgeries were payed for by my family's tax dollars. And I know doctors complain about how Medicare pays those bills, mostly because the rates only pay a reasonable price for medical care, not the insanely inflated prices the other insurance companies have to pay. And as far as the DMV goes, I can't remember the last time I stood in a long line there, or experienced the kind of evil comedians joke about.