Sam OliverThe 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 couldn’t 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 consumer’s 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.
-m.jpg)
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Amber Neely
Daniel Eran Dilger
87 Comments
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
Sounds like rural profiling to me. Can't they all just meet at the White house and settle their differences over some beers?
Or moonshine.
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!
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?