Filed under: Odds and ends, iPhone
FCC makes it official: Cellular carriers policies getting a closer look
Maybe the submissions by Apple, Google and AT&T helped, or maybe they hurt, but the FCC is going to take a closer look at the U.S. cellphone industry and if competition is helping consumers. [Link to FCC announcement in PDF format]Today the Commission said:
As communications technologies and services become more essential, and the communications market more complex, information is key to consumer protection and empowerment. The Commission seeks comment from communications service providers, academic researchers, consumer groups and third-party analysts on how best to ensure consumers have the information they need to make informed decisions in the communications marketplace.
The FCC has been particularly interested in the Google Voice app for the iPhone, which Apple has said is still undergoing scrutiny. The FCC has questioned AT&T about whether or not it advised Apple to not approve the app. AT&T has denied it had any say.
AT&T has admitted it is wary of apps like Slingbox Mobile, and that app was rejected by Apple, then allowed back in for sale, but without access to the 3G network.
It's pretty clear that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski thinks there is more to be done to get consumers the best deal, and he's putting the cellular carriers on notice that they will be closely looked at.
Readers: Are you happy with cellular service as it stands today? Do our friends in Europe get a better deal?
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Vijay said 7:36PM on 8-27-2009
T-Mobile FTW!
Reply
Jordan said 9:02PM on 8-27-2009
ummmmm no
Vijay said 9:07PM on 8-27-2009
ummmmm yes.
$35 for an unlimited T-Mobile plan will always win over AT&T's $60+ bare-minimum plan
clint Johnson said 7:44PM on 8-27-2009
No way. Exclusivity deals need to go. AT&T should be allowed to die for it's mediocre network. They've been dragging their asses because the iPhone has been propping them up, even though they wouldn't be half as far along as they are now if Apple hadn't been dragging them along kicking and screaming. They also shouldn't be allowed to lock you into a horrible contract when they provide such crappy service. It's a modern day cartel.
Reply
Cycomachead said 8:40PM on 8-27-2009
So, lets say the FCC finds exclusive deals illegal, and Apple, Motorola, HTC, LG, Samsung, Sanyo, Palm, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, and everyone else is in trouble, fined or whatnot.
This IN NO WAY GUARANTEES A VERIZON iPHONE!
It might not even guarantee a T-Mobile iPhone. Well, let's say phones must be unlocked in America or have an unlocked version. The AT&T subsidy would still exist and you would be paying $499 for a 3G or $599 or $699 for a 3GS unsubsidized. The FCC has absolutely no power over a Verizon iPhone. Verizon may have the iPhone in the future, but that will be on Apple's own doing.
Well, if we talk REALLY long term, and if both ATT and VzW migrate to LTE for 4G, we see a 4G LTE iPhone, and the FCC rules on this some way, then there may be a VzW iPhone w/o Apple's doing.
Cycomachead said 8:43PM on 8-27-2009
note I wasn't replying to your post specifically, I didn't realize the reply button was clicked. It's mainly towards the general nature or Verizon over AT&T that people want.
Dale said 9:16PM on 8-27-2009
AT&T does not lock you into a horrible contract. YOU do when YOU sign it.
clint Johnson said 12:51AM on 8-28-2009
I'm not talking about subsidizing phones at all. They do that all over the world. It's vital to making these high cost phones available to the masses. I'm only talking about exclusivity. AT&T and Verizon and anybody else with a brain is moving to LTE. When that happens, ALL phones need to be available to everybody. And not on different frequencies like the AT&T/T-mobile 3G b.s. Companies should be vying for your business by offering the best service, period. It shouldn't be about the best phone, because Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/T-mobile don't make phones, they only provide the network. They should be competing on the service they provide, not the phones they have. This would make service better overall. And YES AT&T DO lock you into a crappy contract. So do Verizon and everybody else. You shouldn't have to sign a contract and be stuck with crappy service because of it. They shouldn't be able to keep your business because you're in a contract. They should keep your business because they have the best service. The company with the best rates/features should win.
Al said 8:12PM on 8-27-2009
I have to say that after switching to AT&T specifically for the iPhone, I am truly dissatisfied with the service. I prefer T-mobile actually. I love the iPhone hardware and software, but between the dropped calls and the overpriced text messaging and rates, I have to say I have had it. I can't wait for Apple to branch out to other networks.
Reply
Lumi said 8:15PM on 8-27-2009
Vijay here might SAY T-Mobile for the win... But the situation here in the Netherlands with them is pretty much the same.
I think Apple isn't just under the pressure of AT&T, but ALL the cellular providers. Letting VoIP use the 3G network is like cannibalizing your own market, so obviously ANY cell provider would be wary of this.
That being said, I think the FCC should work together with other Telecommunication commissions in finding a solution; for example the OPTA of the Netherlands.
I get that their networks possibly can't handle the pressure, but if that's the case, then you should find another way to deal with it. You can always resort to your bandwidth limiting using the "Fair use policy" terms.
Reply
Anon said 8:28PM on 8-27-2009
I say go in and make the situation better if you can. Supposedly the Europeans get better service than we in the US do, and if that's a fact we should be equal or better. South Korea, too. Maybe VOIP should be the new standard and all we have to pay for is data plans? I'm sure that sounds ludicrous from a bottom line stand point, but if the technology is there....
High speed mobile communication makes the US more competitive. If that's being stymied by collusion and back room deals, then it needs to be more future oriented. They need a technological goal beyond profit alone (especially AT&T).
Reply
dagamer43 said 8:35PM on 8-27-2009
At the very least, if you pay full price for the phone, it should be unlocked. None of this "we're tying the phone to a network forever and ever" type shit.
I'm ok with a carrier subsidizing a phone for a network, but it shouldn't be the only route.
Reply
Sparks said 8:51PM on 8-27-2009
I definitely got a better deal in the UK one very specific way: how I got billed.
On my UK phone, if I received a call or a text message, *I was not billed for this* because this was an incoming communication. My text messages or minutes were only affected if /I/ made a call or sent a text, not if I /received/ one.
When my friend's prepaid cellular ran out of money, for instance, and she couldn't refill it right away? Although she was unable to call me I was still able to call her, and she could answer just fine. As /I/ was calling, /I/ was the one billed; the fact that her prepaid phone was out of money did not make a difference.
Here, of course, I would have been unable to call her, because in the US the minutes or text-message credits must be deducted from both the caller/sender and the recipient. Since getting back from the UK, the US carriers' policy of double-charging like that has started to bother me more and more.
Reply
Richard said 10:55PM on 8-27-2009
I just came back from 7 weeks in Europe and two things about mobile usage stuck in my mind:
1. Getting a "helpful" text from AT&T telling me that data would be charged at $19.97 per megabyte while roaming. Calls would have been $1.29 a minute. If I had not have been able to unlock my phone, I would have bought one rather than pay such excessive fees.
2. Watching my Dutch friend stand on the Champs Elysees making a *video* call to his gf without having to worry about such insane roaming fees.
I unlocked my iPhone while in the UK (used pay as you go on the Three network, if anyone else is interested, they give SIMs out free), and chewed through about $60 of call usage in those 7 weeks. Interestingly, although I was frequently using Google Maps, Skype and email, I only managed to use up about 100Mb of data. Every time you top-up a Three pay as you go card, you get 150Mb free - the cheapest top-up is just $16. That amount of data usage would have cost me $1,997 on AT&T roaming charges. Each 10 quid top-up also gave 300 free text messages, or 500 if you buy a 15 quid one.
In the US we get ripped off for text messages more than anything else, IMHO. Abroad we get ripped off PERIOD.
A User said 9:07PM on 8-27-2009
US carriers are money sucking bats. Those so call competition didn't give the consumer any benefit. There is no other saying or options here. If you pay attention, there are many developed countries offer much better deal than US.
One say the monthly service is so high because of the phone subsidized. Do the math and you'll see paying the phone on full price with lower (reasonable) monthly fee would be cheaper for a long run. And a lot of time, we don't really need to upgrade the phone. In that case, the consumer are just paying extra for no reason. Oh, there is a reason, give the money to the carriers. So, do those who pay full price of their phones.
The service is poor, the money fee is high, everything little things cost extra, subsidized is joke. All these are the game they are playing on the customers.
Reply
David said 9:45PM on 8-27-2009
Looks like the FCC is looking for input from anyone under the sun except the consumer! I mean why talk to the consumer when you can talk to those who have a vested interest in not empowering the consumer and the yes men who advise them.
Reply
puhsitch said 11:27PM on 8-27-2009
Well, I would hope that "consumer groups" would include some consumers...
Madison said 10:34PM on 8-27-2009
Government Intervention: If you think your problems are bad, just wait until you see our solutions!
But it would be nice if the FCC would make carriers actually deliver what they promise. An unlimited data plan is just that... Not Limited; in speed, bandwidth, or use.
They should be required to call it an" internet browsing and email only" plan, because that's all they really want you to use it for. They prove that in their TOS agreements and "Fair Use" policies that they hide behind when they use their big business influences to strong arm their policies onto their subscribers by policing the devices and services they allow to use their network.
I call Shenanigans FTW!
Reply
clint Johnson said 1:01AM on 8-28-2009
I agree for the most part. Government intervention = bad. However, these telco/phone companies have been bending the consumer over for years. We don't need any more gov't intervention, but applying existing competition and fair use laws would go a long way.
Doug said 11:52PM on 8-27-2009
I hope something happens with text messaging rates. They are ridiculous. Especially considering there is less data transferred for one text message than there is in one second of voice communication. How outraged would we be if carriers started charging $0.20 for every second we're on a call? That would work out to $12.00 per minute. It's insanity they're gouging us so much!
Reply