Azazello1313 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Dear Az, If you own a cell phone, the giant telecom companies are likely holding you hostage right now. They know they can charge you what they want, give you spotty service, and even prevent you from getting the latest technology, because almost all the most popular wireless handsets on the market today are shackled by "exclusivity deals" — meaning if you buy a particular phone, you can only get service from one company. Want an iPhone? You're stuck with AT&T. Own a Blackberry Storm? You have to deal with Verizon. These exclusive contracts mean your pricey phone is virtually worthless if you try to change companies. And forget about shopping around for a better deal. Throw off the chains of the telecom giants. Tell Congress to free your phone now! A few years ago the telecom companies tried to keep you from taking your phone number with you when changing providers. They knew if you had that freedom, you'd walk away from bad or pricey service. But with your help we mounted a campaign to the Federal Communications Commission and Congress to let you keep your number, and the companies were forced to give in. We want to give your cell phone that same freedom. The FCC just agreed to review these exclusivity deals, and the Department of Justice is reportedly looking into it as well. It's time Congress gets involved and makes sure that when we shop for wireless phones and service, it's in a truly competitive, free and open marketplace. But the telecom giants are lobbying against this freedom, and we need consumers like you to put the pressure on once again. E-mail Congress for the freedom to shop for the best deal on your phone AND your phone company. In Asia, 80 percent of wireless phones are sold outside of a wireless carrier contract. But in the United States, you're either stuck with one company, or your phone is effectively worthless. That's not a free market, that's just un-American. Sincerely, Jim Guest P.S. Know anyone else caught between the phone they want and the company they have? Forward this message so they can weigh in, too! ==================================================================== === This e-mail was sent to you by ConsumerReports.org. To ensure our e-mails are delivered directly to your inbox, please add Jim_Guest@email.consumerreports.org to your address book! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I'd like to see that happen. Would be great to have your choice of any phone on any carrier. Each carrier could subsidize the price of any phone with the typical 2 year contract thing, or you pay through the nose for the phone and have no contract, free to switch at any time. I'm sure AT&T for instance wants nothing to do with this with their iPhone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 yeah, seems like the best model would be, pay for your phone upfront, and pay the actual cost of the damn thing and then deal with lower monthly rates. rather than the current model where you get a phone for cheap/free and pay for it over a two year period of inflated rates. but even if they largely kept that model, but the phones themselves were portable, it would be an improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Not something fedgov should mess with in the marketplace, IMO. I subscribe to HBO. I don't get to see the movies on skinemax or starz. I don't get to choose to watch the NFC games on ABC, I have to watch Fox. An exclusivity contract is not a monopoly and should not be "broken up". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Not something fedgov should mess with in the marketplace, IMO. I subscribe to HBO. I don't get to see the movies on skinemax or starz. I don't get to choose to watch the NFC games on ABC, I have to watch Fox. An exclusivity contract is not a monopoly and should not be "broken up". you analogy is wrong--a correct analogy would be that you bought a television set and it will only let you watch HBO but it won't let you change the channel to watch cinemax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Buy unlocked phone -craigslist/ebay go with whoever you want-no contract thought everyone knew - keep government out they will just come up with a fee to use an unlocked phone LEAVE IT ALONE PEOPLE just like the healthcare! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Never ceases to amaze me how the so-called free market devotees of business unceasingly do everything they can to make the market as un-free as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Never ceases to amaze me how the so-called free market devotees of business unceasingly do everything they can to make the market as un-free as possible. That's because to them free markets mean both free of government intervention AND free of competition, which is perfectly understandable given their interests. Its all about a balancing act of the proper amount of government intervention for the public good and private success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 you analogy is wrong--a correct analogy would be that you bought a television set and it will only let you watch HBO but it won't let you change the channel to watch cinemax OK, if I accept that (not saying I don't, just haven't thought about it) then do you agree with me on the exclusivity contracts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Never ceases to amaze me how the so-called free market devotees of business unceasingly do everything they can to make the market as un-free as possible. You don't seem to understand "free" in totality. So you should be free to use whatever phone on whatever network, but a business shouldn't be free to enter into an exclusivity contract and increase the scarcity of it's phones? But hey, you're just out for you. I get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 OK, if I accept that (not saying I don't, just haven't thought about it) then do you agree with me on the exclusivity contracts? I'd guess that somewhere in here, the government has the right to intercede on the behalf of consumers because the airwaves are public domain licensed out to private entities. If the fedgov says that in order to maintain said license each carrier must allow all cell phones to operate on all networks, than I don't see how they could argue otherwise. (I'm not arguing right or wrong here, just how the fedgov can place themselves in the middle of the situation.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) You don't seem to understand "free" in totality. So you should be free to use whatever phone on whatever network, but a business shouldn't be free to enter into an exclusivity contract and increase the scarcity of it's phones? But hey, you're just out for you. I get it. So your idea of free enterprise is entirely business orientated? No consumer concerns at all? Edit: I think it's YOU that fails to understand free properly. Edited September 24, 2009 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 You don't seem to understand "free" in totality. So you should be free to use whatever phone on whatever network, but a business shouldn't be free to enter into an exclusivity contract and increase the scarcity of it's phones? But hey, you're just out for you. I get it. Now you're calling Ursa a libertarian? I thought that was YOUR schtick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 So can I just buy a Plane ticket for $400 and get on any plane anytime I want and go anywhere I want? When I buy a ticket on United I am only allowed to fly on United. The have exclusivity for business reasons. There are phones that can be used on different providers so if the customer wants that option then that is the customers choice. Keep the f'd up govt out of everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Never ceases to amaze me how the so-called free market devotees of business unceasingly do everything they can to make the market as un-free as possible. shouldn't surprise you in the least, because nobody hates free markets more than a businessman trying to protect his own market share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 shouldn't surprise you in the least, because nobody hates free markets more than a businessman trying to protect his own market share. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 So your idea of free enterprise is entirely business orientated? No consumer concerns at all? Edit: I think it's YOU that fails to understand free properly. How hard is this to understand? Apple invents the iphone. Do they not own the rights to their property? To their invention? Can they not sell it to whomever they wish? As an example, let's say some little scientist invents some gadget that makes electricity by simply pulling the static electricity from the air. No environmental impact. The gadget costs $100 to make and has a life of 30 years and each one can power 7 average houses? This guy wants $20 Billion to license it. But Fedgov, because they control the airwaves, says they will give him $1 million or they'll take it for free. Is that OK too? Or is it just because this is (gasp) BIG BUSINESS that you're OK with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 The gadget costs $100 to make and has a life of 30 years and each one can power 7 average houses? Does the gadget power any house or just the ones built by Verizon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 How hard is this to understand? Apple invents the iphone. Can they not sell it to whomever they wish? No, they can't. They can only sell it to AT&T customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 If the fed gov can make it so I can use my super cool iphone without being hamstrung by the crappy freaking coverage I get with AT&T, I'm all for it! Save me Obama! I want my four bars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 And it's like I keep saying. Most people don't want freedom and liberty. They just want to argue over which chains they wear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 And it's like I keep saying. Most people don't want freedom and liberty. They just want to argue over which chains they wear. I believe this is where I'm supposed to say, "you're so complicated" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 They just want to argue over which chains they wear. Verizon or AT&T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 And it's like I keep saying. Most people don't want freedom and liberty. They just want to argue over which chains they wear. don't really know what you're saying here. but there is a very "libertarian" case to be made for regulation that prohibits collusion, monopoly, price-fixing, and so forth -- and that's sort of the light in which I see these kinds of schemes by the telcos. are you opposed to all antitrust regulation? or laws which require truth in advertising? there's a quote from that godfather of capitalism, adam smith, that seems somewhat appropriate here: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 don't really know what you're saying here. but there is a very "libertarian" case to be made for regulation that prohibits collusion, monopoly, price-fixing, and so forth -- and that's sort of the light in which I see these kinds of schemes by the telcos. are you opposed to all antitrust regulation? or laws which require truth in advertising? there's a quote from that godfather of capitalism, adam smith, that seems somewhat appropriate here: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." What I'm saying is that the inventor of a certain phone should have full say over to whom that phone is sold. This is not collusion or price fixing, because Sprint, Verizon et al could have bought the iphone. Apple gets a better price, and AT&T gets a unique product to market. This isn't monopoly, for that reason. If this is a monopoly then It would be illegal for K-mart to have exclusive rights to Martha Stewart or Target to that guy they use (name escapes me). What I'm saying is everyone will say "freedom is good" but when it comes down to the other guy's freedoms being something you don't like, you don't want it to happen. (The you used is not directed at Az only, but people in general.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.