[disposable]

I know the iPhone is exclusive for the time being because of contracts with Apple and AT&T, but for many it is very annoying because not everyone has AT&T. What do you guys think, is it fair that AT&T is making the iPhone exclusively only for them or is it all right? I recently saw something on G4 (yeah go ahead and hate) saying that congress is getting into this issue. Congress is debating whether to unlock all cell phone carriers so that customers can use their cell phones freely with other carriers. What do ya'll think?

[jokell82]

Where's the option for "yeah it sucks but tell the government to stay the hell out?"

[theDreamer]

If congress were to get involved then we would have more problems than not.
Apple actually went to other companies besides AT&T and asked if they wanted in on the iPhone, most passed it up. Most notably was Verzion, why did they pass it up? Because competition with Vcast v. iTunes. Verizon has a solid hold on music, videos with its customers and if the iPhone were to come it would mean competition that they do not want.

Opening up phones would cause more problems in that why push to get exclusives, or get a better phone for your company (AT&T or Verizon, etc.). Companies would lose much of there selling points because they use there phones to get people to come to them, now that is not all, plans and services are a major factor. Yet if one company has X phone and you want it, you go with them. This creates good business and competition among the companies to get better phones, better deals for the customers, and to make their network the best.

[jokell82]

Actually Verizon was the only company they went to first, and more than likely they didn't take the deal because of the revenue sharing Apple wanted. We'll never know for sure, of course, but that is likely way more of a deal breaker than losing a few mp3 sales from their vcast service.

[ghporter]

It's a business arrangement. If you don't want to do business with AT&T that's your choice. But there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives you some "right" to an iPhone.

[mdc]

There should be an option in the poll for not caring.

Ignoring parts of the country where AT&T has no service, no one in this country cannot have an iPhone. Yeah you might have to pay to get out of your contract, but you can transfer your phone number.
AT&T is not stopping anyone from having an iPhone. Worst case, your current cellphone provider is by charging you to cancel with them.
It's not like AT&T is saying that only people whose name starts with the letter B can have one.

If you want an iPhone badly enough anyone can get one.

Would it be nice if it was on every network? Yeah, that would be cool, I'd have $200 more in my bank account. Should everyone cry about it and run to the government? No. Let's keep them out of things like this.

[Oversoul]

Waah waaaaah waaaaaaaah! It's so not fair, Apple and AT&T!!! Gib me iPhone on mai service provider!

This complaint has been around since day 1.

Apple is a corporate entity and they have the right to contract or not with anyone or no one. That said, it's out to find the best deal for itself and its shareholders. Whether it's fair to you is only an incidental consideration and, like an above poster said, you have no right to have an iPhone.

As a consumer, you do have a right to make a choice: stay with your current service provider that does not carry the iPhone, or switch to AT&T for the iPhone. What's stopping you from making that choice? A one- or two-year contract that's still in force? Well, you signed that contract voluntarily and you will be bound by your choice. You can always choose to terminate your contract and pay the fee. No AT&T coverage in your area? Unfortunately there's nothing much you can do about that. Bothered by AT&T customer "service"? You have certain rights as a consumer--use them. Put off by the iPhone voice/data plans? They're actually quite reasonable.

I'm not an AT&T fanboy, but I made my decision to switch from T-Mobile to AT&T for the iPhone and I don't have any regrets. I ended up leaving T-Mobile despite being with them since they were Voicestream, really appreciating their customer service, and paying a $200 termination fee. Porting my number was a breeze and I was up and running in an hour. Like I said, no regrets. The iPhone is fantastic, and AT&T actually offers me much better coverage where I live than T-Mobile ever did.

As for unlocking the iPhone? What good would that do? The iPhone is a GSM phone, so unlocking it really would only allow you to choose between AT&T and T-Mobile here in the U.S. If you want to go prepaid without being tied to an AT&T contract, there's a hack that lets you do this.

[vln2]

After switching to AT&T from T-Mobile I have no signal inside the building at work. I called AT&T and was told in a nice way that the area has good coverage and their advice was to get my company to invest in the repeater/booster antenna for its employees.

I went through the same thing with T-Mobile before and all they had to do was to adjust coverage on their antennas. It took 7 monthly calls asking them to file service requests and one day I had all bars on my T-Mobile phone inside.
I tried the same approach with AT&T and they would not file a service request saying the coverage was good – end of story. I looked at zBoost Signal Booster and perhaps I would cough up $300 but the problem is I work on campus and can be in any one of 10 buildings. One booster will not cover all of them. Another thing is mounting external antenna on the roof and running a coax down to my office. We have very strict hurricane codes in Florida so I think this is going to be a no no.
So, I have my nice iPhone which works fine on WiFi and I can’t get any calls at work. Bummer.

[::maroma::]

This argument is tired. There are pros and cons for being on AT&T. There are pros and cons for being on any other provider. If you don't like the deal, don't buy the phone. Its so simple. Why people choose to argue this is further proof that people just need crap to complain about.

No one needs and iPhone.

[BRussell]

We all believe in net neutrality for the internet - I think we need the same thing for mobile carriers. They ought to provide cell access, and that's it. We ought to be able to buy a phone and use it on any cell network, just like you can hook a computer into the internet anywhere, and it doesn't matter who provides it. Or a landline telephone, for that matter.

The mobile carriers are among the most anti-consumer, anti-competitive businesses in the US today. They shouldn't be able to make their own monopolies on selling music and video over their networks, not to mention ringtones and all the rest.

[::maroma::]

Would those of you who want the iPhone to be open to all carriers pay about $200 extra for the iPhone on a carrier other than AT&T?

[vln2]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Would those of you who want the iPhone to be open to all carriers pay about $200 extra for the iPhone on a carrier other than AT&T?

Hey if it means being able to use iPhone as a phone with good coverage yes I would.
I can adjust spectrum coverage on our CISCO Access Points remotely sitting in my office. I know AT&T should be able to do the same on their antennas. It is just a matter of willingness to do that. So perhaps it would be easier to deal with another, perhaps smaller company more willing to help a customer.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It's a business arrangement. If you don't want to do business with AT&T that's your choice. But there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives you some "right" to an iPhone.

[-Q-]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Would those of you who want the iPhone to be open to all carriers pay about $200 extra for the iPhone on a carrier other than AT&T?

Considering AT&T has not subsidized the cost of the iPhone at all, you'd never pay this price no matter what carrier you'd go with (ignoring CDMA vs. GSM of course).

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

We all believe in net neutrality for the internet - I think we need the same thing for mobile carriers. They ought to provide cell access, and that's it. We ought to be able to buy a phone and use it on any cell network, just like you can hook a computer into the internet anywhere, and it doesn't matter who provides it. Or a landline telephone, for that matter.

The mobile carriers are among the most anti-consumer, anti-competitive businesses in the US today. They shouldn't be able to make their own monopolies on selling music and video over their networks, not to mention ringtones and all the rest.

Problem is, these carriers built their own networks. There isn't just one national network that they all use. So why shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate what devices connect to their own property?

Now there needs to be an overhaul in how cell phone billing works (double charging for ALL calls? ridiculous!). But forcing carriers to allow anyone to connect? No thanks. Let the government work on something that's important. Like, maybe, figuring out that whole Iraq mess?

If you want an open network, promote the adoption of WiMax. That will be better than any of the cell networks now, and will allow both high speed data and phone service (probably through VoIP).

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by -Q- 

Considering AT&T has not subsidized the cost of the iPhone at all, you'd never pay this price no matter what carrier you'd go with (ignoring CDMA vs. GSM of course).

Do we know that for sure?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Do we know that for sure?

With about 99.999% certainty.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Problem is, these carriers built their own networks. There isn't just one national network that they all use. So why shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate what devices connect to their own property?

Now there needs to be an overhaul in how cell phone billing works (double charging for ALL calls? ridiculous!). But forcing carriers to allow anyone to connect? No thanks. Let the government work on something that's important. Like, maybe, figuring out that whole Iraq mess?

If you want an open network, promote the adoption of WiMax. That will be better than any of the cell networks now, and will allow both high speed data and phone service (probably through VoIP).

Internet providers own conduits to the internet too, but we don't allow them to force us to only use certain computers or only access certain websites or charge differently for different types of data that we send and receive.

I agree about WiMax. I hope it destroys the ****ing cell carriers. Unfortunately, they'll certainly be involved in its adoption, which doesn't bode well...

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

With about 99.999% certainty.

Well damn, AT&T is just nuts then.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Internet providers own conduits to the internet too, but we don't allow them to force us to only use certain computers or only access certain websites or charge differently for different types of data that we send and receive.

I agree about WiMax. I hope it destroys the ****ing cell carriers. Unfortunately, they'll certainly be involved in its adoption, which doesn't bode well...

But the internet didn't start that way. Cell phone infrastructure did.

Hey, if you can do it better, so be it. But I don't think government regulation is necessary just because people don't like it.

[vln2]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

If you want an open network, promote the adoption of WiMax. That will be better than any of the cell networks now, and will allow both high speed data and phone service (probably through VoIP).

I live in Sarasota where they wanted to cover the entire county by WiMax. Now it covers downtown but Comcast and Verizon were fighting them to death and the project did not move forward. Another reason is that they are now looking into newer, local technology (developed by Sarasota company) - xMax supposedly lot more efficient then WiMax. This newer technology would incorporate VoIP. They still want to implement it across the county and use it for government, police, libraries, colleges and schools. I guess all their employees would have a free access at home and the rest of the public either free or very low fee. I hope this works.

xG Technology Inc. | Mobile VoIP | Wireless VoIP | xMax Wifi VoIP Phone

Techworld.com - xMax sparks low power wireless revolution

[philm]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It's a business arrangement. If you don't want to do business with AT&T that's your choice. But there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives you some "right" to an iPhone.

I read somewhere that Steve Jobs was negotiating an amendment.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by philm 

I read somewhere that Steve Jobs was negotiating an amendment.

Steve Jobs is not Chuck Norris. Chuck might be able to pull it off, but not Steve. Wrong beard.

[amazing]

It's always funny how people feel they're "entitled" to the best toys--on their terms, at the cheapest price.

The Declaration of Independence does NOT state "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and an iPhone on the carrier of my choice at a cheap price."

Yes, Apple produces drool-worthy products. They're also a business that has been characterized as "about to die" more times than Harry Potter. Ergo, to stay afloat they need to make money. Now that they're making lots of money by making incredibly innovative and popular products, people carp about Apple's decisions in staying a financially successful business.

Apple is a business, not a non-profit public trust.

[Oversoul]

The Declaration of Independence doesn't even have any legal effect. It's essentially a letter to King George giving him the big f--k you.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Oversoul 

The Declaration of Independence doesn't even have any legal effect. It's essentially a letter to King George giving him the big f--k you.

Oversimplify much?

[amazing]

Note to self: make sarcasm more obvious.

[Oversoul]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Oversimplify much?

Heh. Don't get me wrong, it's a great document and draws on the noblest ideals of the Enlightenment. But let's not confuse the Declaration of Independence for something like the Constitution and quote it for your rights as an American.

[ghporter]

We're drifting off topic here. The Declaration of Independence was used as a statement of what might now be called "universal rights." Applied to this thread's topic, the concept of universal rights still does not include the bestest for the cheapest. As amazing so very well stated, it would be really cool if we could all get an iPhone at a really low price on the carrier of our choice. It would also be cool if we could get that carrier to offer all the features we want, provide all th coverage we want, and still only cost $10 a month (unlimited minutes, text messages and data, of course). Since the latter ain't happening for supposedly valid business reasons, can't we all accept that-at least for the foreseeable future-the iPhone will be an AT&T only phone for similarly supposedly valid business reasons?

[amazing]

Well put, Glenn!

What I was trying to say, was that it seems to me that much of the criticism and commentary on the iPhone consists of whining about how Apple should've done it this way or that way, with this carrier or that carrier, with this feature set or that feature set, because (here's the clincher) if Apple did it MY WAY, it would've been best for ME.

Meantime, here's the facts:
1. the iPhone is a luxury item. Luxury items cost, and are available thru select outlets. The business producing the luxury item is in the business of making money, not supplying low-cost items to the masses.
2. the iPhone will eventually be unlocked by hackers. We don't need a poll about unlocking.
3. Apple will supply updates that will lock the iPhone once again, where it will need to be hacked once again. But only if you want the latest features or you want the latest itunes update!
4. The way that Apple is marketing the iPhone may end up being the best of all possible worlds for everyone. Think about it: You buy the iPhone, you don't get a discount from the carrier. You don't sign a contract with ATT until you use itunes to activate it. Right now, the iPhone can be hacked to work with your current ATT SIM, where you don't have to pay the $20 extra for the Edge data plan. I could put my current ATT SIM from my Nokia into an iPhone--if I wanted to pay the initial purchase price. ATT wouldn't know I'm not using my Nokia. I would disable EDGE and use only wifi.
5. Under this scenario, I would lose a lot of the usefulness and versatility of the iPhone, because hunting out open wifi isn't always possible or practical.
6. $20/month unlimited data is very reasonable. For most people, it just means one less latte per week. There've been articles about how cheaper subsidized competitors cost the same or even more when the competitors' more expensive data plans over 2 years are taken into account.
7. The iPhone is very fairly priced when compared to similar products. It's a lot cheaper than many of them (the Nokia N95 comes to mind) while being lightyears ahead of the competition is most of its feature set.

It's also the closest anyone's ever come to the Dick Tracy wrist phone! Just get yourself the velcro armband!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

We're drifting off topic here. The Declaration of Independence was used as a statement of what might now be called "universal rights." Applied to this thread's topic, the concept of universal rights still does not include the bestest for the cheapest. As amazing so very well stated, it would be really cool if we could all get an iPhone at a really low price on the carrier of our choice. It would also be cool if we could get that carrier to offer all the features we want, provide all th coverage we want, and still only cost $10 a month (unlimited minutes, text messages and data, of course). Since the latter ain't happening for supposedly valid business reasons, can't we all accept that-at least for the foreseeable future-the iPhone will be an AT&T only phone for similarly supposedly valid business reasons?

Just to be clear, no one here suggested that the Declaration of Independence included the right to a cheap iPhone. However, that document does not preclude cell network regulations, which is basically what actually was suggested in this thread.

I personally believe we should have cell-net-neutrality. I would lobby my representatives in government for such a free-market, pro-competitive move away from the anti-free-market, anti-competitive situation that exists now.

I'm curious, for those of you who think the situation that exists now with mobile networks is right and good, are you in favor of or opposed to net neutrality as it applies to the internet? Would you be in favor of comcast or AT&T or whatever internet provider you have only allowing you to use Dell computers, or charging you for the number of emails you send or only allowing you to use Napster and charging you double for the songs you download? And how is that different from what exists right now with mobile carriers?

In my view, this issue isn't about "the right to have a cheap iPhone" or any other nonsense. It's about whether we let these cell carriers use the public airwaves to engage in anti-free-market practices.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Oversoul 

Heh. Don't get me wrong, it's a great document and draws on the noblest ideals of the Enlightenment. But let's not confuse the Declaration of Independence for something like the Constitution and quote it for your rights as an American.

I get what you're saying. I was just messin.

[amazing]

Just curious: Did the question of "cell-net-neutrality" come up when the Motorola Razr was introduced for $500, or $400 with a 2-year contract, when (as I recall?) it was available only from ATT?

Seems to me it's been standard cellphone industry practice for oh-so-many years to entice customers with exclusive deals on mobiles...

What I'm trying to get at is whether there's something about the iPhone that necessitates passing laws to change this industry model? Apple, being newly arrived to the mobile market, certainly doesn't have a monopoly such that antitrust laws are required to open the market? What basis is there to say Apple's exclusive deal with ATT is unfair and deserves legal remedy?

Question: Does anybody know what happens when your 2-year contract is up? If the iPhone is not unlocked at that point, then you'd have the right to demand legal remedy. Or if you buy out your contract, pay the penalty, and the iPhone can't be used as a regular phone, then you'd have the right to complain. Can anyone point to docs that spell out what happens is those cases?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Just curious: Did the question of "cell-net-neutrality" come up when the Motorola Razr was introduced for $500, or $400 with a 2-year contract, when (as I recall?) it was available only from ATT?

Seems to me it's been standard cellphone industry practice for oh-so-many years to entice customers with exclusive deals on mobiles...

What I'm trying to get at is whether there's something about the iPhone that necessitates passing laws to change this industry model? Apple, being newly arrived to the mobile market, certainly doesn't have a monopoly such that antitrust laws are required to open the market? What basis is there to say Apple's exclusive deal with ATT is unfair and deserves legal remedy?

People didn't want the RAZR as much as they want the iPhone.

Question: Does anybody know what happens when your 2-year contract is up? If the iPhone is not unlocked at that point, then you'd have the right to demand legal remedy. Or if you buy out your contract, pay the penalty, and the iPhone can't be used as a regular phone, then you'd have the right to complain. Can anyone point to docs that spell out what happens is those cases?

I believe locked phones are locked for good. They don't become unlocked just because your contract ends (or is cut short).

[amazing]

Nope, you can call ATT to unlock your phone, even without coming to the end of your contract. When I came to the end of my 2-year contract, I called ATT to unlock my Nokia and they were quite happy to work with me. They also told I could've called them much earlier, like only a couple months after the start of the contract.

Unfortunately, I'd already tried the online instructions for unlocking my phone, and had exceeded the maximum 5 tries (worthless codes given out online.) Now, if I want my Nokia unlocked, I have to go to a shop that has a USB cable and that does unlocking. Since I'm quite happy with ATT coverage in my area, and I've got a ton of rollover minutes, I'm going month-to-month. I'll probably buy a $6 battery from amazon.com and wait for the next generation of iPhone. Or so I dream...

So, I do know that ATT/Cingular has policies about allowing mobiles to be unlocked. These policies may even be enshrined in law, thereby forcing the wireless companies to allow unlocking (since I can't even remotely imagine them doing it on their own.)

Whether these policies apply to the iPhone is what I'd like to know--and if they're enshrined in law, then I imagine they do. Anybody willing to spend the time calling 611 (no minutes billed) to find out?

[icruise]

You may be able to *ask* to get it unlocked (they sometimes do this so you can travel overseas and use another SIM) but it's not like it happens automatically.

[amazing]

Well, yeah, they're not gonna call you up and proactively offer to unlock it. Let's not accuse them of being big-hearted, they'd be embarrassed about it. But if you call them, I got the idea they have to help you do it. After all, you're still under contract, no skin off their bottom line.

Idea being that at the end of my contract, I could take my unlocked Nokia to another GSM carrier, without having to lock into a 2-year contract since they're not giving me a subsidized phone. Didn't try to do that, don't know how feasible it is, since most people would rather have a brand new, more modern phone, even if it meant signing a 2-year contract.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm curious, for those of you who think the situation that exists now with mobile networks is right and good, ...

Please do not confuse my "this is a business deal between Apple and AT&T" statements as expressing that I think the current situation is "right and good." It is, however, the way it is because cell carriers have, using their investors' money, built their networks. Not at the request of our governments, but in order to make a profit. There is certainly nothing that says everyone is entitled to cell service, let alone cell service with all the fancy bells and whistles.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

In my view, this issue isn't about "the right to have a cheap iPhone" or any other nonsense. It's about whether we let these cell carriers use the public airwaves to engage in anti-free-market practices.

What is anti-free market about a manufacturer offering its products to only one carrier? There are other exclusives around, just not such cool and talked about exclusives. The "free market" is about competitive advantages. AT&T has a whopper right now. They hope that all the bending backwards and letting go of control they've done for Mr. Jobs will wind up earning them truckloads-no, TRAINLOADS of money. Sprint and Verizon are crying in their pablum about it too because if they could have, they would have grabbed the exclusive on the iPhone and done exactly what AT&T is doing.

Further, asking the U.S. Congress to step in would be worse than just doing nothing. They would get around to it after months, if not years, of meetings and hearings, and their "solution" would end up being more expensive and less workable than anything anyone else could conceive. No, our congresscritters are good at setting guidelines and format boundaries, but not at coming up with workable, daily-use rules. (Look at our Social Security system. Look at Welfare. Look at our tax system!)

[vln2]

I guess Google is trying to show its muscle getting a large piece of auctioned airwaves spectrum (700 MHz) and trying to setup open network platform to be used by any mobile device or service. Obviously part of the deal would include consumers using Google's online advertising.
Google Will Bid In 700 MHz Wireless Auction If It's 'Open' -- Google -- InformationWeek

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/te...google.html?hp

[cSurfr]

Why is it that when AT&T gets an exclusive on the Blackberry Curve, no one complains, but the minute they have an exclusive on the iPhone, the stuff hits the fan? Honestly? Get over it, or switch providers.

[amazing]

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

Why is it that when AT&T gets an exclusive on the Blackberry Curve, no one complains, but the minute they have an exclusive on the iPhone, the stuff hits the fan? Honestly? Get over it, or switch providers.

Exactly!

When the iPod came out, it was Mac only. Everybody endorsed that policy heartily, on the theory that it would draw people to convert from Windows to the Mac. Exactly the same thing is happening here, except that a substantial number of would-be-iPhone-users are now on the wrong side of the fence, namely with a carrier other than ATT. And being on the wrong side of the fence, they're heartily incensed to be so excluded.

If you're a Mac user on the wrong side of the fence, you're even more upset. Righteous indignation reigns supreme.

[vln2]

I have nothing against AT&T as long as they improve signal at my work location. I think it is doable.
Here is iPhone Field Test Mode (use at your own risk):
IPhone: iPhone Field Test Mode Lets You Spy On The AT&T Network - Gizmodo
Here are comments to the numbers you will see:
Inside the iPhone field test mode - Blog - WirelessInfo.com - Cell Phone Reviews and Wireless Plan Ratings
I loved how Apple misspelled "Firware version".

I dialed the sequence and after about a minute all menus showed additional submenus. I just wanted to write some numbers and compare them with the numbers at work. If it appears that the numbers at work are weak (which I suspect) and AT&T claims they are great I may have some hard evidence.

One thing I noticed after leaving screen on Network Information: numbers are changing after few minutes and they eventually went all to -1 and at that point AT&T logo disappeared and I saw No Service. I quickly shut the phone down and back on and I had full AT&T service - no harm done.
I guess I will have to use another digital camera to take snapshots of the numbers instead of writing them down – that may take too long.

[chromiums]

Yes, I agree. This is America. The reason people thrive here is competition and free market. If all you cry babies want the iphone, then switch. I'm tire of all these people that expect they deserve an iphone. You are the same people that expect handouts from the government. Speaking of the government, let's keep those yahoos out too. What do they know about the rest of us? They make stupid policies that don't apply to nothing! They can all stay in their ivory towers and continue with their debauchery for all I care!!!!

[lkrupp]

Originally Posted by disposable 

I know the iPhone is exclusive for the time being because of contracts with Apple and AT&T, but for many it is very annoying because not everyone has AT&T. What do you guys think, is it fair that AT&T is making the iPhone exclusively only for them or is it all right? I recently saw something on G4 (yeah go ahead and hate) saying that congress is getting into this issue. Congress is debating whether to unlock all cell phone carriers so that customers can use their cell phones freely with other carriers. What do ya'll think?

Do you really want the government to regulate these agreements between companies? And it's not at&t making the iPhone exclusive, it's at&t AND Apple doing it. If you want the government to regulate things why not just throw in mandating the features you desire too. Let the government tell Apple how to design the iPhone and what features to include so no one will think it's unfair and no one will be left out.

I'm tired of this whole "I think this unfair" bullsh!t. If you want an iPhone that bad then switch carriers. It's that simple. Nothing "unfair" about it. God this whining crybaby, victimhood culture we've created really makes me so angry I could spit nails.