Verizon Offers Compromise In Exclusivity Debate 106
For about a month now, Congress and the FCC have been investigating the exclusivity deals between mobile carriers and phone makers which require that certain handsets only operate on certain networks (for example, the iPhone on AT&T). Now, Verizon has volunteered a compromise to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, which would allow smaller carriers access to the restricted phones after a six-month delay, while continuing to block the major carriers. "From now on, when Verizon strikes a deal with a manufacturer for exclusive access to a handset, it will allow the phone be sold after six months to any carrier with fewer than 500,000 customers." In a letter to Boucher, Verizon said, "Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design. We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers. When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device. Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device." Many remain unimpressed by Verizon's generosity.
Re:NO COMPROMISE ON THIS (Score:3, Informative)
I can tell you the first phones that appeared after the ATT breakup were pieces of crap. They were cool novelties, but the quality sucked. About the only benefit to the average person was that geeks could plug in a modem.
If the user would pay for it, a multi protocol phones could be the norm. This could be mandated, but congress would likely not do it as it would increase the price of all phones, although it would ultimately benefit the user.
What the exclusivity deals do is lock in the user. The price difference between carriers is not so significant, and typically does reflect quality. Cricket is cheap but does not have coverage. Verizon is expensive but has coverage. The exclusivity deals are just another step to insure recurring fees. First it was a one year contract, then a two year contract, now it is a piece of equipment. I personally would prefer a one year contract and lock in with a piece of equipment. My greatest complaint against the iPhone is that, unlike other phones, it requires two year contract, or a pay as you go contract.
Obviously Verizon is not scared of the iPhone. ATT needs it, which is why they let apple do what apple wanted to do. At this time I don't see anyone else allowing the same access to the network, except maybe t-mobile. I would prefer to see congress mandate minimum service levels, 1 year contract unless the phone is free, and then let the carriers compete on phones. There is no best phone, and there is no shortage of phones. One chooses the compromise between carrier and phone.
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Informative)
Consider the iPhone. Apple went to Verizon and said "Hey, we have this phone. But we need you to add support for visual voicemail. Also, you're going to act as a dumb pipe only (did we mention the reasonably priced unlimited data plan?). We'll handle the ringtones, music, wallpaper and anything else like that. One more thing: you'll give us a cut of the monthly revenue."
That was too much innovation for Verizon, so AT&T got the exclusive deal.
Re:NO COMPROMISE ON THIS (Score:1, Informative)
Where is all this crazy coming from.
The issue with analogue services was the requirement of renting a phone. The next huge issue was removing the long distance carrier lock in and then phone number portability. The latter didn't seem much like a necessity.
In no way does any of this translate to "I want to use an iPhone on X network." Let us be rather clear in that this is precisely the issue that everyone is complaining about. It is no way the same involuntary lock in that my parents had to fight with. I can visit any store or online retailing and find a compatible phone TODAY.
On to the next item of insanity...
I'm not really sure what the point of talking about competing standards happened to be. The reality we live in is that we can and often do have competing standards. Manufacturers can and do support single and multi bands. This will of course increase the cost of the handset. Cheaper phone = less features.
Wait... it gets better...
The used handset market is alive and well! I buy all of my phones used and I own them. On a personal aside, I like to be able to vote with my feet and if that means not signing a two year contract for a discount on a phone then so be it. I might actually buy the Touch Pro 2 from overseas and use it with my current carrier.
The best statement so far....
Finally, I'm not sure where the rationalization comes from that iPhones on other carriers will force services to be cheaper. No carrier currently has any feature that is truly unique. (beyond that silly click to talk junk) Market demand and supply are the forces which control pricing. In a world where millions will pay 20 cents a text message it will be difficult to enforce competitive pricing. This is the fault of the consumer for telling the vendor they will accept it.
Seriously... you crammed so many worthless arguments into one page I have to keep going!
As far as cheap phones go. (to add further insult to injury). I just stopped into a local CVS yesterday and considered nabbing a cheap pay per minute phone. For $10 (or $40 for the nicer one) I can have a GSM phone to move my SIM chip when my current phone fails. (It's in rough shape).
Re:Hmm (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Actually, just this... (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, they work very closely to ensure that all phones they vend have any cool features stripped out in order to promote even tangentially related paid services through Verizon. The phone can print via Bluetooth? Remove that so we can better sell data plans for upload to your home PC via the internet. The phone has a user facing camera to allow for videoconferencing? Yeah, that might hurt our services, so you'd better nix that too. Built in WiFi? We can't charge $1.99/mB for WiFi, are you crazy?
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)