ATT vs Government

Now, I recently received an email on behalf of the same group that is all for net neutrality recently illustrated in the Kristina Allen article. When I originally read this email, I completely ignored it and deleted it. Soon after, another email followed stating there was a growing movement of ATT and Apple users expressing their concerns over the locked contract limiting the phone to ATT’s network. Net neutrality and a phone exclusivity contract are two completely different things. Net neutrality is about forbidding monopolistic Internet companies from destroying innovation by charging varying prices for multiple tiers of networks. ATT and Apple entered a free market contract limiting them for X amount of years. The only aspect I disagree with is limiting the phone to contact customers and charging a mandatory data plan exclusively for the phone. This isn’t about charging iPhone users $120/mo for phone services and a Razer user $40/mo, a pricing scheme net neutrality hopes to prevent. As an avid iPhone 3G user, I am charged consecutively $90 per month, with only $30 of the bill, the same amount for any data plan being contributed to the mandatory data portion of the plan.

The craziest part is that Apple originally went to Verizon peddling their wares and the big V turned them down. So they went to the next biggest carrier. That’s perfectly legit in a free market and what’s also legit is locking in to an exclusive contract limiting the sales of the DEVICE to ATT and only ATT. Now, to get geek on you, ATT and Verizon both operate on different networks. ATT operates on the GSM network (which T-Mobile does, and an unlocked iPhone can work there) while Verizon works on the CDMA network. Apple would have to manufacture two sets of phones, possibly a third to work with Sprint’s aging TDMA (last I remember) network.

What Apple did was lock into a contract with ATT to have the phone on their network, while also maintaining FULL control over the device. This contract states both items need to be met in order for the contract to be fulfilled. What’s full control? On most networks the carrier dictates what is included on the phone, usually known as bloat, and this slows the phone down. What Apple wanted was the ability to control what was put on their hardware, perfectly legal. I don’t know why people are up in arms about ATT and Apple laying in bed together because it would have been the same story on Verizon.

I feel the ATT and Apple relationship has STRENGTHENED the wireless market in a time where there are so few choices. The advent of the iPhone made carriers and device manufacturers think more about the end-user instead of their bottom line. The iPhone was designed to fill a gap left by years of ignoring what consumers wanted. Without this partnership, we wouldn’t have competing phones such as the Android based devices or the Palm Pre. The wireless game hasn’t changed. If you want to get the cool new phone, you’ll have to switch carriers. It’s been this way for years and the only thing stopping you is an Early Termination Fee (ETF) which is simply to recoup the costs of a discount on a phone at the beginning of your contract.

I’m glad to see that more than likely there will be no Antitrust action taken again ATT for their exclusive contract with Apple. I feel people who wish for such things are fools. Because you don’t have an iPhone doesn’t mean you level of cell phone coverage and or “coolness” factor with your current phone are diminished. I believe this is more about jealousy than anything else. Arguing this is like fighting for Net Neutrality is simply grasping at straws to find something to relate to this case. In the end the iPhone has helped develop more than if it hadn’t been released at all.