Congress is perfectly within it rights to look at the Apple/AT&T tie-up.
Article I, Section 8, clause 3.
Congress has the enumerated power to regulate interstate trade. In fact, Congress has been shirking its duty when all manner of consumer abuses have gone on for years.
It is undebatable that Congress has the right and duty to regulate interstate commerce. What we can debate is what Congress can and ought to do regarding the exclusivity between Apple and AT&T.
Personally, I think a brief exclusivity should be permissible, but long-term tie-ups should be forbidden. AT&T has had enough time as the exclusive dealer of iPhones and now they should have to compete with other carriers on its merits.
They may not, but at least some of their staff do. Never underestimate the influence of congressional staff.
Yes, I'll agree on that one. The congressman and women really don't know squat about any kind of advanced technology unless they came from the industry (have any of them??) so they ask for input from their staff who give their own POVs on the subject. It's crazy to think but most of everything that gets passed or failed isn't coming from the person you voted for but from the people they chose to get their info from - what a long long way we've come since 1776... Mr. Jefferson is probably rolling over in his grave...
The issue is that it's still not an essential service - Apple makes over 30% profit on everything they sell and this is much, much higher than their competition but nobody is going to take them to court for excessive profiteering because you are choosing the buy their product (oil's in trouble because you really don't have much of a choice even if their margins are less than 10%).
Not sure what you are getting at... This is an att issue and not apple. All carriers overcharge for texts, its price fixing.
The other problem is that if i choose not to buy into a text plan and people, spammers etc start sending me texts, i get charged. there is no way to turn the function off...
If picking your cell phone is so important, and you can't the phone you want....move!
People! Think they are entitled to EVERYHTING!!!
That's not the point of what they are contesting. It's tying a phone to a Cellular Provider as and exclusive.
In othe words the iPhone would be available on Verizon and the Pre would be available on AT&T so people don't have to switch vendors to get the phone they want.
Better Yet, try watching CNN or CNBC to hear the story and the debate behind what they want.
A brief lesson on how Congress works: Corporation desiring more favorable laws or regulations complains to their congressional representatives. Congressional representatives write letters to regulators, promise to hold hearings. Corporations on other side of argument complain about the complaints to their congressional representatives, fighting changes in laws and regulations. Most of the time, the larger and more powerful corporations win, and nothing changes.
Moral of the story: Some will weep gallons of tears into barrels of beers at the drop of a hat.
Not sure what you are getting at... This is an att issue and not apple. All carriers overcharge for texts, its price fixing.
The other problem is that if i choose not to buy into a text plan and people, spammers etc start sending me texts, i get charged. there is no way to turn the function off...
There is an opt out of text messaging option when you sign up for service (at least w/ AT&T). Carriers don't charge the same for texting and many don't charge a thing (Boost Mobile, Metro PCS, etc) so it throws a bit of a wrench into the price fixing argument. Also, you'd have to prove that all the companies got together and said "ok, let's overcharge the snot out of people to text."
I'd surmise the reason that text rates are so high is because, as is often the case for me, I use text instead of making a phone call so those are, essentially "alternate" mins they are charging you for. At least that will probably be their argument - if texting was next to nothing people would stop talking on the phone so much (again, that has certainly been the case for me).
... Better Yet, try watching CNN or CNBC to hear the story and the debate behind what they want.
Actually, I wouldn't EVER watch the news in it's current form - it's nothing but sensationalism (on all networks). Your best bet is to visit a multitude of sites to get the real picture. I'd recommend at least 1 left leaning site (CNN for example) and one right leaning site (Fox News) and then you might actually get the whole picture. Without both sides you're really just insulting your brain IMO.
The very purpose of government is to force life to be as fair as it can be.
While I agree with some of your "theory", your "purpose of government" statement is whacked.
The market will dictate what is needed by whom and when. Maybe not in the time frame you desire.
Maybe you need to be forced by the government to drive to the next town to sell your Koolaid to the three people who want it - cause they don't have the ability to buy your product without getting off their lazy asses and driving to your stand... now I think that's fair!
Completely left out of this article, and the even more important note brought up by this commity, was the fact of text message gouging. The want an enquirery on why service providers charge 20 cents per text when the service only costs them 1/3 of 1 cent to provide it...
In the "current political landscape", take nothing for granted.
Let me go off-topic for a minute to show just how upside-down things are: Just a few weeks ago, pensioners who thought they were making safe investments with a car company (because their investment was backed by secured assets) got hosed over.
For young-uns out there that don't know what a "secured asset" is, let me give you an example. You want to buy your first car, or maybe your first home, but you don't have all the money right now? Simple - get a loan. The reason that people are willing to loan you money for something like that is that a) if all goes well and you pay it all off, they make a profit on the loan interest, and b) worst comes to worst and you can't pay off the loan, they have rights that will enable them to get their money back.
In this example they'd probably direct that the item be sold (and you get whatever excess money is made from the sale). In other situations, they might use their rights instead to force management changes at a company. In any event, they have rights - a "bundle of rights" - that were negotiated up front as terms of the loan.
That's what a "secured asset" is. This is the kind of thing that made the economy tick - people putting their money to work for them. They put their money at risk, but not TOO much risk. If the money was at too much risk, the money would be stuffed away in a mattress instead. You wouldn't be buying your first car, your first home, and companies wouldn't be making capital investments. It's those investments, by the way, that give shmucks like you, me, and the schmoe down the street a job.
All that is out the window now. We, as a nation, are on crack.
Yep, and if you monkey with this relationship, the risk return calculation goes right out the window. And what do you get? Loans turned down to more marginal applicants or higher rates for those accepted. (both corporate and retail)
I don't think Apple has any great love of AT&T. Apple wanted to sell a single iPhone model with worldwide compatibility. By being by far the largest GSM carrier in the US, AT&T got the iPhone almost by default. If Verizon was GSM, Verizon would have got it. To get it while being CDMA Verizon would have had to make it worth Apple's while to change their single-technology plan and they couldn't do that.
That seems most likely to me, too. The talks with Verizon were just part of the negotiations to put Cingular on the ropes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seahawk Fan 2
That's not the point of what they are contesting. It's tying a phone to a Cellular Provider as and exclusive.
In othe words the iPhone would be available on Verizon and the Pre would be available on AT&T so people don't have to switch vendors to get the phone they want.
When you move out of your parents house you'll have a better understanding of what you read on the Internet. Better Yet, try watching CNN or CNBC to hear the story and the debate behind what they want.
Speaking of having a better understanding of what you read on the internet…. stopping excluvise deals between mobile network operators and handset vendors will not make the iPhone work on Verizon and will not the Pre work on AT&T. They are discussing exclusivity contracts, not the forcing of mobile handset vendors to make different hardware versions.
It?s about time. I crunched the numbers a long time ago it just seem right. Not that a company can?t charge a premium for a service, but since all the carriers have raised their prices on text messaging it seems a little like an oligopoly was in effect.
The first link is all fluff as described by the first sentence "Social contract describes a broad class of theories..." (emphasis on the word "theories") and the second link says all the power starts with the Constitution and flows downward - don't really think that undermines anything he said...
What in the hell is "The social contract"?!? The only contract I live under as a citizen of the United States is the U.S. Constitution.
"Social contract"... guffaw! The only good commie is a dead commie - may you all go die off soon.
Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.
Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me
Comments
Article I, Section 8, clause 3.
Congress has the enumerated power to regulate interstate trade. In fact, Congress has been shirking its duty when all manner of consumer abuses have gone on for years.
It is undebatable that Congress has the right and duty to regulate interstate commerce. What we can debate is what Congress can and ought to do regarding the exclusivity between Apple and AT&T.
Personally, I think a brief exclusivity should be permissible, but long-term tie-ups should be forbidden. AT&T has had enough time as the exclusive dealer of iPhones and now they should have to compete with other carriers on its merits.
They may not, but at least some of their staff do. Never underestimate the influence of congressional staff.
Yes, I'll agree on that one. The congressman and women really don't know squat about any kind of advanced technology unless they came from the industry (have any of them??) so they ask for input from their staff who give their own POVs on the subject. It's crazy to think but most of everything that gets passed or failed isn't coming from the person you voted for but from the people they chose to get their info from - what a long long way we've come since 1776... Mr. Jefferson is probably rolling over in his grave...
The very purpose of government is to force life to be as fair as it can be
Bed-wetter. The very purpose of government is to protect FREEDOM, NOT 'FAIRNESS'!!!
You're right. I'm tendering my resignation now and divorcing my wife. I must have an iPhone!
Damn, is that all it takes??
Stop by and pick me up on the way to the store.
The issue is that it's still not an essential service - Apple makes over 30% profit on everything they sell and this is much, much higher than their competition but nobody is going to take them to court for excessive profiteering because you are choosing the buy their product (oil's in trouble because you really don't have much of a choice even if their margins are less than 10%).
Not sure what you are getting at... This is an att issue and not apple. All carriers overcharge for texts, its price fixing.
The other problem is that if i choose not to buy into a text plan and people, spammers etc start sending me texts, i get charged. there is no way to turn the function off...
Life is not always fair.
BTW you do have a choice.
Where to live
Where to work
If picking your cell phone is so important, and you can't the phone you want....move!
People! Think they are entitled to EVERYHTING!!!
That's not the point of what they are contesting. It's tying a phone to a Cellular Provider as and exclusive.
In othe words the iPhone would be available on Verizon and the Pre would be available on AT&T so people don't have to switch vendors to get the phone they want.
Better Yet, try watching CNN or CNBC to hear the story and the debate behind what they want.
The very purpose of government is to protect FREEDOM, NOT 'FAIRNESS'!!!
In the context of the social contract, freedom does not exist in the absence of fairness.
Moral of the story: Some will weep gallons of tears into barrels of beers at the drop of a hat.
Not sure what you are getting at... This is an att issue and not apple. All carriers overcharge for texts, its price fixing.
The other problem is that if i choose not to buy into a text plan and people, spammers etc start sending me texts, i get charged. there is no way to turn the function off...
There is an opt out of text messaging option when you sign up for service (at least w/ AT&T). Carriers don't charge the same for texting and many don't charge a thing (Boost Mobile, Metro PCS, etc) so it throws a bit of a wrench into the price fixing argument. Also, you'd have to prove that all the companies got together and said "ok, let's overcharge the snot out of people to text."
I'd surmise the reason that text rates are so high is because, as is often the case for me, I use text instead of making a phone call so those are, essentially "alternate" mins they are charging you for. At least that will probably be their argument - if texting was next to nothing people would stop talking on the phone so much (again, that has certainly been the case for me).
In the context of the social contract, freedom does not exist in the absence of fairness.
well, I would add freedom and fairness are two very different things. (Bartender! Another round please!)
... Better Yet, try watching CNN or CNBC to hear the story and the debate behind what they want.
Actually, I wouldn't EVER watch the news in it's current form - it's nothing but sensationalism (on all networks). Your best bet is to visit a multitude of sites to get the real picture. I'd recommend at least 1 left leaning site (CNN for example) and one right leaning site (Fox News) and then you might actually get the whole picture. Without both sides you're really just insulting your brain IMO.
The very purpose of government is to force life to be as fair as it can be.
While I agree with some of your "theory", your "purpose of government" statement is whacked.
The market will dictate what is needed by whom and when. Maybe not in the time frame you desire.
Maybe you need to be forced by the government to drive to the next town to sell your Koolaid to the three people who want it - cause they don't have the ability to buy your product without getting off their lazy asses and driving to your stand... now I think that's fair!
Completely left out of this article, and the even more important note brought up by this commity, was the fact of text message gouging. The want an enquirery on why service providers charge 20 cents per text when the service only costs them 1/3 of 1 cent to provide it...
Out effin' ragious!
well lookie here....
http://www.electronista.com/articles...n.deny.fixing/
In the "current political landscape", take nothing for granted.
Let me go off-topic for a minute to show just how upside-down things are: Just a few weeks ago, pensioners who thought they were making safe investments with a car company (because their investment was backed by secured assets) got hosed over.
For young-uns out there that don't know what a "secured asset" is, let me give you an example. You want to buy your first car, or maybe your first home, but you don't have all the money right now? Simple - get a loan. The reason that people are willing to loan you money for something like that is that a) if all goes well and you pay it all off, they make a profit on the loan interest, and b) worst comes to worst and you can't pay off the loan, they have rights that will enable them to get their money back.
In this example they'd probably direct that the item be sold (and you get whatever excess money is made from the sale). In other situations, they might use their rights instead to force management changes at a company. In any event, they have rights - a "bundle of rights" - that were negotiated up front as terms of the loan.
That's what a "secured asset" is. This is the kind of thing that made the economy tick - people putting their money to work for them. They put their money at risk, but not TOO much risk. If the money was at too much risk, the money would be stuffed away in a mattress instead. You wouldn't be buying your first car, your first home, and companies wouldn't be making capital investments. It's those investments, by the way, that give shmucks like you, me, and the schmoe down the street a job.
All that is out the window now. We, as a nation, are on crack.
Yep, and if you monkey with this relationship, the risk return calculation goes right out the window. And what do you get? Loans turned down to more marginal applicants or higher rates for those accepted. (both corporate and retail)
I don't think Apple has any great love of AT&T. Apple wanted to sell a single iPhone model with worldwide compatibility. By being by far the largest GSM carrier in the US, AT&T got the iPhone almost by default. If Verizon was GSM, Verizon would have got it. To get it while being CDMA Verizon would have had to make it worth Apple's while to change their single-technology plan and they couldn't do that.
That seems most likely to me, too. The talks with Verizon were just part of the negotiations to put Cingular on the ropes.
That's not the point of what they are contesting. It's tying a phone to a Cellular Provider as and exclusive.
In othe words the iPhone would be available on Verizon and the Pre would be available on AT&T so people don't have to switch vendors to get the phone they want.
When you move out of your parents house you'll have a better understanding of what you read on the Internet. Better Yet, try watching CNN or CNBC to hear the story and the debate behind what they want.
Speaking of having a better understanding of what you read on the internet…. stopping excluvise deals between mobile network operators and handset vendors will not make the iPhone work on Verizon and will not the Pre work on AT&T. They are discussing exclusivity contracts, not the forcing of mobile handset vendors to make different hardware versions.
In the context of the social contract, freedom does not exist in the absence of fairness.
What in the hell is "The social contract"?!? The only contract I live under as a citizen of the United States is the U.S. Constitution.
"Social contract"... guffaw! The only good commie is a dead commie - may you all go die off soon.
well lookie here....
http://www.electronista.com/articles...n.deny.fixing/
It?s about time. I crunched the numbers a long time ago it just seem right. Not that a company can?t charge a premium for a service, but since all the carriers have raised their prices on text messaging it seems a little like an oligopoly was in effect.
What in the hell is "The social contract"?!? The only contract I live under as a citizen of the United States is the U.S. Constitution.
"Social contract"... guffaw! The only good commie is a dead commie - may you all go die off soon.
You are mistaken. You can start educating yourself here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
and here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States
You are mistaken. You can start educating yourself here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
and here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States
The first link is all fluff as described by the first sentence "Social contract describes a broad class of theories..." (emphasis on the word "theories") and the second link says all the power starts with the Constitution and flows downward - don't really think that undermines anything he said...
What in the hell is "The social contract"?!? The only contract I live under as a citizen of the United States is the U.S. Constitution.
"Social contract"... guffaw! The only good commie is a dead commie - may you all go die off soon.
Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.
Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me