or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FCC to investigate markets where iPhone is not available
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FCC to investigate markets where iPhone is not available

post #1 of 88
Thread Starter 
While it surveys exclusive contracts like the relationship between AT&T and Apple, the Federal Communications Commission will also look into concerns that customers in rural areas can't access limited products like the iPhone.

The U.S. government regulatory agency will investigate smaller markets where major wireless carriers like AT&T and Sprint, which carry the iPhone and Palm Pre, respectively, do not provide service, according to Bloomberg.

"There are markets in the country where if you wanted an iPhone, if you wanted a Pre, you just couldnt get it -- from anyone," said Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission."So one question is, is that consistent with broad consumer interests?"

The FCC was asked in June by four U.S. Senators to look into exclusive contracts like the one between AT&T and Apple, or the agreement between Sprint and Palm for the Pre. Genachoswki said his main focus as the head of the FCC is to promote competition in the best interest of consumers. The request came from a petition filed by the Rural Cellular Association, a group of smaller tier II and tier III wireless carriers that provide service to parts of the U.S. where tier I brands like AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile do not.

In response to government interest, Verizon recently agreed to unlock some exclusive phones for use on smaller wireless carriers in rural areas.

The Rural Cellular Association has argued that their inability to provide their customers with some of the most popular mobile handsets and smartphones makes it difficult for them to compete, especially in markets where their coverage does overlap with some of the big tier I operators.

In their letter to the FCC, the senators asked the commission to examine five specific issues carefully and act expeditiously should they find that exclusivity agreements unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition in the commercial wireless marketplace. It was signed by senators John Kerry (D, Mass.), Roger Wicker (R, Miss.), Amy Klobuchar (D, Minn.) and Byron Dorgan (D, N.D.)

They requested a determination on whether exclusivity agreements are becoming increasingly prevalent between dominant wireless carriers and handset manufacturers, and whether these agreements are restricting consumer choice, particularly for those living in rural America.

The senators also asked the commission to decide whether the agreements place limitations on a consumers ability to take full advantage of handset technologies, such as the ability to send multimedia messages (MMS) or the ability to "tether" a device to a computer for internet use.
post #2 of 88
oh come on, they do not get it since it does not make sense to wire the entire country with data services, why not go after every business that only has outlets in large city if you want be fair to consumers. hell why no go after getting high speed internet to every home in the country via fiber optics.

Where does it say that ever person in the country has to have equal access to everything even if the choose to live in the middle of no where. they can move it call choice and trade offs
post #3 of 88
Sounds like rural profiling to me. Can't they all just meet at the White house and settle their differences over some beers?
post #4 of 88
Or moonshine.
post #5 of 88
i get why nd, miss and minn would be interested in these rural access issues, but why is my putz of sen kerry from mass in on this? ... oh wait, home of verizon, ooooOOOOOoooohhhhh.

i agree w the maestro there are lots of business practices that aren't in the best interest of the consumer ... in fact, ALL of them are, by design, in the best interest of the business!
post #6 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

oh come on, they do not get it since it does not make sense to wire the entire country with data services, why not go after every business that only has outlets in large city if you want be fair to consumers. hell why no go after getting high speed internet to every home in the country via fiber optics. ...

This is not the same thing. If there are products in a large outlet store and that store has no presence in some ten person town in rural Louisiana, the local Ma and Pop store still has the *ability* to order it if a customer wants said product, generally speaking. That's the point of the complaint. That if AT&T doesn't want to cover some place and the other company does, that he second company should have the right to offer the handset outside of the exclusivity agreement.

Besides exclusivity agreements are always bad for the consumer, and it's not likely that the FCC will change anything anyway. Why make a big deal over something that isn't likely to change and that if it does, it would only be a good thing for consumers anyway?
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #7 of 88
I visited relatives in rural North Dakota last year. The iPhone is not sold in Fargo, and for good reason. Coverage (including EDGE) was spotty at best.
post #8 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimerl View Post

i get why nd, miss and minn would be interested in these rural access issues, but why is my putz of sen kerry from mass in on this? ... oh wait, home of verizon, ooooOOOOOoooohhhhh.

i agree w the maestro there are lots of business practices that aren't in the best interest of the consumer ... in fact, ALL of them are, by design, in the best interest of the business!

As much as I do not care for Kerrys politics, I must commend him on this, he is the only one who talks about T-Comm issues, like the NFLs DTV deal that shuts out all of us who cant get DTV dishes because our apartments face the wrong direction, as a direct result of Kerry's concern, I will be able to get Sunday ticket as an HD Streaming webcast service like MLB.TV starting next season.

Kerry may not take action, but at least he has the balls to ask the questions as opposed th the last white house that beleived in government of by and for corporate executives.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #9 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

oh come on, they do not get it since it does not make sense to wire the entire country with data services, why not go after every business that only has outlets in large city if you want be fair to consumers. hell why no go after getting high speed internet to every home in the country via fiber optics.

They aren't talking about forcing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, et al. to provide service in rural areas. This is about customers in rural areas not having the choice to get iPhones, Pres, etc. even though there are wireless companies in their areas willing to provide them service, simply because one of the large companies has them locked out. Clearly this is not in best interest of consumers, and the idea that there is a "second class" of citizens in this country who ought not be able to enjoy the benefits of living in this country simply because of the accident of their place of residence is entirely elitist and undemocratic.

And, yes, every home in this country ought to have broadband access, although, not necessarily via fiber optics. Lack of access to communications technology, just like lack of access to education, undermines our democracy and when the business practices of large companies go against the public interest, it is the obligation of our government to intervene.
post #10 of 88
Ok, seriously, wtf? You CHOSE to live where you live. If you chose to live in a place that's remote you give up some of the luxuries of living urban. Is the senate going to get together to figure out why BFE Montana doesn't have a 12 screen, DLP, stadium seating, 7.1 surround cineplex as well? Personally I could live without the iPhone more than I could a decent movie theatre...

Honestly, this sense of entitlement that so many people seem to have needs to stop. 99% of what people think are 'rights' anymore are actually privileges (like driving).
post #11 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

...the idea that there is a "second class" of citizens in this country who ought not be able to enjoy the benefits of living in this country simply because of the accident of their place of residence is entirely elitist and undemocratic.

And, yes, every home in this country ought to have broadband access, although, not necessarily via fiber optics. Lack of access to communications technology, just like lack of access to education, undermines our democracy and when the business practices of large companies go against the public interest, it is the obligation of our government to intervene.

WTF? Accident?? If you don't like where you live and it really bothers you that much - MOVE. Do you realize how many people living in BFE (where I'm from actually) think all the people living in urban areas are disadvantaged because they don't have wide open spaces and fresh air? It's a choice - just like with every other choice you make there are pro's and con's and, frankly, there is nothing more democratic than that...
post #12 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

As much as I do not care for Kerrys politics, I must commend him on this, he is the only one who talks about T-Comm issues, like the NFLs DTV deal that shuts out all of us who cant get DTV dishes because our apartments face the wrong direction, as a direct result of Kerry's concern, I will be able to get Sunday ticket as an HD Streaming webcast service like MLB.TV starting next season.

Kerry may not take action, but at least he has the balls to ask the questions as opposed th the last white house that beleived in government of by and for corporate executives.

Oh no, you can't watch NFL games - I'm SOOOOOO glad the Senate is taking the time to make sure that you can stay home and watch it. I mean, it's not like there might be a bar or a friends house or some other place to watch it. (Big Ten fan living in Texas - until I got a house I had to go to the bar to watch Big Ten Network games) Again, it's not as if you don't have another option - you just don't have the perfect option - that's called life. I'd like to have my house right next door to my work so I could walk to work and have everything I ever wanted within walking distance but I CHOSE to have a house a little further outside of town than live in an apartment. It's life, deal with it.
post #13 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Ok, seriously, wtf? You CHOSE to live where you live. If you chose to live in a place that's remote you give up some of the luxuries of living urban. Is the senate going to get together to figure out why BFE Montana doesn't have a 12 screen, DLP, stadium seating, 7.1 surround cineplex as well? Personally I could live without the iPhone more than I could a decent movie theatre...

Honestly, this sense of entitlement that so many people seem to have needs to stop. 99% of what people think are 'rights' anymore are actually privileges (like driving).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

WTF? Accident?? If you don't like where you live and it really bothers you that much - MOVE. Do you realize how many people living in BFE (where I'm from actually) think all the people living in urban areas are disadvantaged because they don't have wide open spaces and fresh air? It's a choice - just like with every other choice you make there are pro's and con's and, frankly, there is nothing more democratic than that...

Seriously. For large numbers of people in this country, their place of residence is to a large degree an accident of birth. And not only may they not be able, for whatever reason, to move so that they can have access to technology, or education, they should not have to. I'm sorry, but your attitude is elitist and in opposition to the best interests of this country's citizens.
post #14 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

This is not the same thing. If there are products in a large outlet store and that store has no presence in some ten person town in rural Louisiana, the local Ma and Pop store still has the *ability* to order it if a customer wants said product, generally speaking. That's the point of the complaint. That if AT&T doesn't want to cover some place and the other company does, that he second company should have the right to offer the handset outside of the exclusivity agreement.

Besides exclusivity agreements are always bad for the consumer, and it's not likely that the FCC will change anything anyway. Why make a big deal over something that isn't likely to change and that if it does, it would only be a good thing for consumers anyway?

I did not say "large outlet stores" i said Large City stores, there are stores which only exist in large cities they they do not have a web present so they only provide product and service to people near them, oh many time if they have counter part in the country, their pricing is better since they do more business than their country counter parts, some time it is the opposite.

Again, no where does it say every one should have an iphone is right, it a choice, you can buy any number of products from other companies that does the exact same thing. Consumers have choice all over the place.
post #15 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They aren't talking about forcing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, et al. to provide service in rural areas. This is about customers in rural areas not having the choice to get iPhones, Pres, etc. even though there are wireless companies in their areas willing to provide them service, simply because one of the large companies has them locked out. Clearly this is not in best interest of consumers, and the idea that there is a "second class" of citizens in this country who ought not be able to enjoy the benefits of living in this country simply because of the accident of their place of residence is entirely elitist and undemocratic.

And, yes, every home in this country ought to have broadband access, although, not necessarily via fiber optics. Lack of access to communications technology, just like lack of access to education, undermines our democracy and when the business practices of large companies go against the public interest, it is the obligation of our government to intervene.

I agree. I live in a rural area, and can't figure out why no senators are working to get me
3G or DSL. We need connectivity. The posters who are slamming you and saying that
those of us who choose to live in rural areas just have to suffer the inconvenience are not
looking at the whole picture. Every area in the US should have these basic things, not just
where the population density makes it super-profitable. I've been to rural areas in Europe
where there is 3G. I've been to small villages in Bulgaria where ordinary people have
affordable high-speed internet in their homes. Why is it there? Because the government
and corporations care to provide service, knowing that it helps keep people connected,
educated, buying things, etc. It's the right thing to do.

If they can do it, why can't "the greatest, richest country in the world" do it?
Journalism is publishing what someone doesn't want us to know; the rest is propaganda.
-Horacio Verbitsky (el perro), journalist (b. 1942)
Reply
Journalism is publishing what someone doesn't want us to know; the rest is propaganda.
-Horacio Verbitsky (el perro), journalist (b. 1942)
Reply
post #16 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Seriously. For large numbers of people in this country, their place of residence is to a large degree an accident of birth. And not only may they not be able, for whatever reason, to move so that they can have access to technology, or education, they should not have to. I'm sorry, but your attitude is elitist and in opposition to the best interests of this country's citizens.

I'm from BFE, I didn't have broadband or any of those nice things. I'm really not sure how exactly that's elitist - it's called being realistic. Does life require high speed internet? Does life require NFL Sunday Ticket? Does life require an iPhone? You're a complete and total idiot if you think the answer to ANY of those questions is yes. I spent 20 years without high speed internet (as a matter of fact it is STILL not available at my parents house), Sunday ticket and I didn't get my first cell phone until I was in college. In fact, the idea that you think that being denied these things makes you a second rate citizen makes you exactly what you claim I am - an elitist. I don't think those people are second rate citizens at all, as I said, I'm one of them. You, however, seem to think they are - so, yeah...

EDIT: So where exactly are you from? Did you grow up in a tiny @ss town like I did without any of those things or do you just feel bad for those poor rural people who don't realize how awesome it is to have an iPhone? (yes, that makes you an elitist...)
post #17 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They aren't talking about forcing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, et al. to provide service in rural areas. This is about customers in rural areas not having the choice to get iPhones, Pres, etc. even though there are wireless companies in their areas willing to provide them service, simply because one of the large companies has them locked out. Clearly this is not in best interest of consumers, and the idea that there is a "second class" of citizens in this country who ought not be able to enjoy the benefits of living in this country simply because of the accident of their place of residence is entirely elitist and undemocratic.

And, yes, every home in this country ought to have broadband access, although, not necessarily via fiber optics. Lack of access to communications technology, just like lack of access to education, undermines our democracy and when the business practices of large companies go against the public interest, it is the obligation of our government to intervene.


Come on I live in the country and I do not have FIOS, why not force Verison to string FIOS to everyone. Personally I have Directv which is better choice in quality, but this is no difference. If I really want FIOS i can move. since not rural carrier can afford to support fiber to the home to deliver FIOS quality or better yet put up the satellites like Directv. Oh wait, I have choice, get crappy cable to get Directv.

So people can buy a blackberry or LG smart phone form their local guys and they got an Iphone competitor.
post #18 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

I'm from BFE, I didn't have broadband or any of those nice things. I'm really not sure how exactly that's elitist - it's called being realistic. Does life require high speed internet? Does life require NFL Sunday Ticket? Does life require an iPhone? You're a complete and total idiot if you think the answer to ANY of those questions is yes. I spent 20 years without high speed internet (as a matter of fact it is STILL not available at my parents house), Sunday ticket and I didn't get my first cell phone until I was in college. In fact, the idea that you think that being denied these things makes you a second rate citizen makes you exactly what you claim I am - an elitist. I don't think those people are second rate citizens at all, as I said, I'm one of them. You, however, seem to think they are - so, yeah...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Come on I live in the country and I do not have FIOS, why not force Verison to string FIOS to everyone. Personally I have Directv which is better choice in quality, but this is no difference. If I really want FIOS i can move. since not rural carrier can afford to support fiber to the home to deliver FIOS quality or better yet put up the satellites like Directv. Oh wait, I have choice, get crappy cable to get Directv.

So people can buy a blackberry or LG smart phone form their local guys and they got an Iphone competitor.

Yes, it's one of the strange paradoxes of America that often those who would most benefit from reform are most opposed to it.
post #19 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Honestly, this sense of entitlement that so many people seem to have needs to stop. 99% of what people think are 'rights' anymore are actually privileges (like driving).

There are essentially two models for rights.

1) You have the right to do anything you want unless prohibited.

2) You have the right to do nothing other than that which is expressly permitted.

Which system would you prefer?


.
post #20 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafe View Post

I agree. I live in a rural area, and can't figure out why no senators are working to get me
3G or DSL. We need connectivity. The posters who are slamming you and saying that
those of us who choose to live in rural areas just have to suffer the inconvenience are not
looking at the whole picture. Every area in the US should have these basic things, not just
where the population density makes it super-profitable. I've been to rural areas in Europe
where there is 3G. I've been to small villages in Bulgaria where ordinary people have
affordable high-speed internet in their homes. Why is it there? Because the government
and corporations care to provide service, knowing that it helps keep people connected,
educated, buying things, etc. It's the right thing to do.

If they can do it, why can't "the greatest, richest country in the world" do it?

Geography is a b!tch. I feel your pain, it sucks to not have it my entire childhood (graduated HS in 2000) and most all of my friends were talking about surfing cable internet at 3Mbps and we didn't even get dial up until AFTER I graduated. Yes, that's right, I had NO internet at my house until 2001 (maybe 2002, I'd have to call my parents and ask). Does that mean I'm a second rate citizen? Umm, no. Frankly, if someone thought I was a second rate citizen because I didn't have high speed internet I'd think they are completely out of touch with reality and are snobby pricks...
post #21 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post

There are essentially two models for rights.

1) You have the right to do anything you want unless prohibited.

2) You have the right to do nothing other than that which is expressly permitted.

Which system would you prefer?


.

All of the things listed are luxuries - the problem I have is with people thinking those luxuries are rights - it completely undermines what right means.
post #22 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yes, it's one of the strange paradoxes of America that often those who would most benefit from reform are most opposed to it.

That's what we're trying to tell you. You seem to think enabling BFE customers to get an iPhone is going to make everything better (or high speed internet). Ever think that maybe, just maybe, people don't base their happiness on technology?

And actually, while we're at it - there are high-speed internet options via satellite so if you really live in BFE you COULD do that (although it's expensive). Speaking of which, I think we should make a government mandate to give everyone 10 Mbps internet for free because it's obviously a quality of life concern (sarcasm obviously)
post #23 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafe View Post

I agree. I live in a rural area, and can't figure out why no senators are working to get me
3G or DSL. We need connectivity. The posters who are slamming you and saying that
those of us who choose to live in rural areas just have to suffer the inconvenience are not
looking at the whole picture. Every area in the US should have these basic things, not just
where the population density makes it super-profitable. I've been to rural areas in Europe
where there is 3G. I've been to small villages in Bulgaria where ordinary people have
affordable high-speed internet in their homes. Why is it there? Because the government
and corporations care to provide service, knowing that it helps keep people connected,
educated, buying things, etc. It's the right thing to do.

If they can do it, why can't "the greatest, richest country in the world" do it?

Excuse me, internet and cell phone is not a basic necessity, people would like to think that but it is not.

The only reason people in the country has phones, electricity and other public utilities was due to the fact it was subsidized and job programs from back in the 30's and 40's. You could argue that having these service is for the common good and the entire country benefited from farmer having power and phones to their farms which made them more productive for the entire country.

You getting 3G or 4G and internet and Cell phone, how does that benefit the rest of us who will have to pay for the huge cost to support a few people.

I do not have 3G I barely get Edge quality near my house, but I live outside the major area and it is my choose and I excepted that and do not expect AT&T, T-mobile or Verizon to spends lots of money support me and my choose.
post #24 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

All of the things listed are luxuries - the problem I have is with people thinking those luxuries are rights - it completely undermines what right means.

There's a large difference between declaring something a right and declaring it to be in the best interests of a free society. This has nothing to do with rights, nor has anyone said that it does. It's about what's in the best interests of America as a whole, not just large telecom companies, and when those interests conflict, either our society loses or certain corporations do. You have to choose. Whose interests are more important to you?
post #25 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There's a large difference between declaring something a right and declaring it to be in the best interests of a free society. This has nothing to do with rights, nor has anyone said that it does. It's about what's in the best interests of America as a whole, not just large telecom companies, and when those interests conflict, either our society loses or certain corporations do. You have to choose. Whose interests are more important to you?

So you think it's in the best interest to make everyone dependent on technology? Personally if I could do it all over again I wish the massive internet addiction hadn't happened at all - we'd be a thinner and healthier nation for it. So if you want to talk about the best interests of a free society we should kill the internet because it's killing people, literally. It's enabling all of us to sit on our fat butts and, well, get fat instead of going outside and doing stuff. I'd argue that technology is probably the single greatest reason the US keeps getting fatter and fatter despite all FDA restrictions on what you can put in food (hint, the local burger joint is much, much, much worse for you than anything you'll find at McDonalds).
post #26 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Excuse me, internet and cell phone is not a basic necessity, people would like to think that but it is not.

The only reason people in the country has phones, electricity and other public utilities was due to the fact it was subsidized and job programs from back in the 30's and 40's. You could argue that having these service is for the common good and the entire country benefited from farmer having power and phones to their farms which made them more productive for the entire country.

You get 3G or 4G and internet and Cell phone, how does that benefit the rest of us who will have to pay for the huge cost to support a few people.

I do not have 3G I barely get Edge quality near my house, but I live outside the major area and it is my choose and I excepted that and do not expect AT&T, T-mobile or Verizon to spends lots of money support me and my choose.

So we've got you who is currently in that situation and me who grew up in that situation and my parents who are still in that situation and they still think they know what is best for us and what we really need to have a productive, happy life - gotta love 'em...
post #27 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They aren't talking about forcing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, et al. to provide service in rural areas. This is about customers in rural areas not having the choice to get iPhones, Pres, etc. even though there are wireless companies in their areas willing to provide them service, simply because one of the large companies has them locked out. Clearly this is not in best interest of consumers, and the idea that there is a "second class" of citizens in this country who ought not be able to enjoy the benefits of living in this country simply because of the accident of their place of residence is entirely elitist and undemocratic.

And, yes, every home in this country ought to have broadband access, although, not necessarily via fiber optics. Lack of access to communications technology, just like lack of access to education, undermines our democracy and when the business practices of large companies go against the public interest, it is the obligation of our government to intervene.

It's not as if not having an iPhone is depriving anyone of having phone, or even cell phone, access. You are making it sound as if the iPhone is the key to the survival of democracy or something.

There are some things that are critical or add substantially to quality of life that the government should ensure everyone has access to. Things such as electricity, clean water, education, and telephone service are a few examples of what many would consider necessities. And while there are things such as health care that many feel should also be included in that category, I really don't see how having access to the latest smart phone is a life necessity that the government needs to step in and regulate. Aren't there more important things for them to be working on? Such as the already mentioned health care or broadband access? How about better intercity public transportation?
post #28 of 88
It's every citizen's Constitutional right to own and pet an iPhone, just like having water and sewer is our God-given right.
post #29 of 88
a lot of these redneck counties block AT&T and VZ from putting up towers because it would ruin the view. now they're whining about not getting 3g
post #30 of 88
Think about it this way, if FCC break these deals then Apple will have a much larger market to go after which makes less competition over all if you look at the ipod success. Apple has 70% of this market thing if they get 70% of the smart phone market in the US, so is that good for consumers or Apple.
post #31 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

... Aren't there more important things for them to be working on? Such as the already mentioned health care or broadband access? How about better intercity public transportation?

In the words of the guy next to me "I'd rather have them running around in circles with that than effing up everything else..."
post #32 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

a lot of these redneck counties block AT&T and VZ from putting up towers because it would ruin the view. now they're whining about not getting 3g

No, no, no. These people aren't complaining. John Kerry is complaining on behalf of them. Ya know, the people he represent who, umm, wait, there aren't any places like that in Massachusetts.

Exactly...

It's a "we know what's best for you because we're better than you" thing - it's really quite pathetic that not a single person in washington realizes they were born on this planet just like the rest of us were and being elected into office doesn't mean you dictate what *YOU* think your constituents need/want you were elected to voice what they *ACTUALLY* need and want... They just wanted to put their names out there and get some pub, welcome to Washington...
post #33 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

So we've got you who is currently in that situation and me who grew up in that situation and my parents who are still in that situation and they still think they know what is best for us and what we really need to have a productive, happy life - gotta love 'em...

Actually I grow in the country and my parents home at the time was on party line (for those too young to understand we shared our phone line with 4 families) and we had to get hold of the operator to make a long distance call, and that was outside the phone companies boundaries. This was in the early 80's too. The real irony of this I moved away to CA and returned in the mid 90's and this phone company went from the dark ages to the internet age over night, I had DSL from them before Verizon offered it in the entire area. This little phone company jumped way ahead of Verizon and At&T who both offered services in the area outside of this little rural phone company. It was funny to hear friend complain they could only get Dial-up from Verizon and I was on DSL in 97.

So today my parents have better services then I do and they still live in the country, They even go FIOS now too.
post #34 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

It's every citizen's Constitutional right to own and pet an iPhone, just like having water and sewer is our God-given right.

That is what a Well and a Hole in the ground is for. they can pet a iphone if they like no one said it has to be connected to anything
post #35 of 88
I pay how many "universal access fees"? What exactly are those going towards?
post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Actually I grow in the country and my parents home at the time was on party line (for those too young to understand we shared our phone line with 4 families) and we had to get hold of the operator to make a long distance call, and that was outside the phone companies boundaries. This was in the early 80's too. The real irony of this I moved away to CA and returned in the mid 90's and this phone company went from the dark ages to the internet age over night, I had DSL from them before Verizon offered it in the entire area. This little phone company jumped way ahead of Verizon and At&T who both offered services in the area outside of this little rural phone company. It was funny to hear friend complain they could only get Dial-up from Verizon and I was on DSL in 97.

So today my parents have better services then I do and they still live in the country, They even go FIOS now too.

Same thing happened with my parents. Just this past year a random upstart company bought a couple towers and started offering highspeed internet via RF (and a receiver placed on the house) before cable or DSL are even available. (still, to this day, no cable or DSL option).
post #37 of 88
While I think it would be nice for people in more rural and/or remote communities to be able to purchase whatever product is available to those people in major communities, I don't think that it's reasonable, necessary, or even constitutional for it to be mandated by law.

There are lots of other examples of things that people in smaller, rural and/or remote communities can't readily get. Examples: Certain brands of or less common types of food, the latest movies, all the latest junk available at big malls and shopping centers, etc. An even more apropos example is the lack of cable TV, cable Internet service and DSL, in many remote and rural locations. Should I pitch a fit to my local congressperson because there are no local stores don't have deals to obtain and sell some widget I want?

If the govt. gets involved in this and starts regulating that the iPhone, Palm Pre, etc. have to be available everywhere, or even from multiple providers in any given area, it would basically force Apple, Palm, et. al. to offer their products through companies that they don't necessarily want to sell to or can't cut a good deal with. In that case, how can it be decided what the terms of the contract would be, between Apple or Palm, and "Joe Wireless"? Joe Wireless may demand a reduced price for the iPhone/Pre, because "they can't afford more". If Apple/Palm/Whoever doesn't agree to those terms, then what?

Even more sticky is compatibility issues. Apple only makes a GSM-based iPhone, and Palm only makes a CDMA-based Pre. What if ye' old law makers mandate that both Apple and Palm (and/or X other phone manufacturer) make their devices available through Joe Wireless? Joe Wireless will only have CDMA or GSM, so is either Palm or Apple going to be forced to re-engineer their hardware to meet the needs of a minority, with no hope of recouping the cost of the process?

Here is another thing to consider: In these small areas, there is typically only one wireless provider offering service. Doesn't that constitute a local monopoly? Would those small wireless carriers like it if the govt. stepped in and mandated that they have some competition, even though they are in small markets?

I don't get it.
post #38 of 88
Not all rural areas are without services. I have Fiber to the Home and my location is remote, nearest neighbor 1/2 mile and nothing else within a mile. Nearest town 35 miles. I just need more cell towers.
post #39 of 88
It's not simply a matter of where you live but where you travel.
If we go only a couple hours away we get no AT&T service. If AT&T made arrangements with local carriers there wouldn't be an issue. Sorry but it's unrealistic to have to buy a phone contract for each carrier as you travel. I'm not talking about traveling around the world or even the country. . . just a couple of hours away!
post #40 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by erikvdo View Post

If the govt. gets involved in this and starts regulating that the iPhone, Palm Pre, etc. have to be available everywhere, or even from multiple providers in any given area, it would basically force Apple, Palm, et. al. to offer their products through companies that they don't necessarily want to sell to or can't cut a good deal with. In that case, how can it be decided what the terms of the contract would be, between Apple or Palm, and "Joe Wireless"? Joe Wireless may demand a reduced price for the iPhone/Pre, because "they can't afford more". If Apple/Palm/Whoever doesn't agree to those terms, then what?

Even more sticky is compatibility issues. Apple only makes a GSM-based iPhone, and Palm only makes a CDMA-based Pre. What if ye' old law makers mandate that both Apple and Palm (and/or X other phone manufacturer) make their devices available through Joe Wireless? Joe Wireless will only have CDMA or GSM, so is either Palm or Apple going to be forced to re-engineer their hardware to meet the needs of a minority, with no hope of recouping the cost of the process?

Sorry, but this is just baseless obfuscation and FUD strewing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FCC to investigate markets where iPhone is not available