|
Posted by on June 29, 2008, 10:47 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articl...
>
> GLOBE EDITORIAL
>
> iPhone's false bargain
>
> The Boston Globe
> June 22, 2008
>
> JUDGING FROM the pre-release publicity, the $199 iPhone is a marvel
> of the age, but it's also a lure for people to sign with the AT&T
> mobile network. Despite its many charms, the iPhone continues the
> uncompetitive practice in which cellphone companies maintain tight
> controls over which phones can be used on their networks.
>
> AT&T and Verizon, the two largest providers, say that they favor
> openness, but their business plans are based on control of the
> telephones as well as their wireless networks. That's not the case on
> their old-fashioned wired service, where a customer can connect any
> phone, fax, or answering machine. The new iPhone is a bargain only
> because AT&T subsidizes the prices in the expectation that it will
> recoup the money from a long-term service contract, minimum two years.
>
> The cellphone companies say they sell phones below costs to attract
> regular customers, and perhaps this marketing technique was justified
> when they needed a reliable revenue stream as they built out their
> networks. But mobile phones have become almost as ubiquitous as their
> wired counterparts.
>
> After failing to make a deal with Verizon on the first-generation
> iPhone, Apple turned to AT&T, where it got kid-glove treatment
> because of the success of the iPod music player. Apple received a
> monthly fee for every phone that AT&T sold. Apple, however, decided
> to give up the fee to help AT&T bring the cost of the new phone down
> to $199. Is Apple being kind-hearted? Of course not. It seeks to
> dominate the market for high-end cellphones and all the applications
> they are capable of performing.
>
> AT&T and Verizon have become the dominant cellphone companies in the
> United States, and while Apple may muscle its way to an increasing
> share of cellular revenue, this battle of titans won't help the
> consumer. The big companies will divvy up the money and keep monthly
> wireless rates high. Since the signals move across the public
> airwaves, it's time the public had a greater say in how they operate.
>
> The wired telephone monopoly only unlocked its network in the 1970s
> because of a federal antitrust suit. There's no need for such
> draconian action here. But promises of cellular openness are belied
> by the Apple deal.
>
> The Federal Communications Commission should insist that the wireless
> telephone companies allow their customers to shop freely for their
> phones and let manufacturers compete for their business. Then perhaps
> the iPhone will be available, at a realistic price, to any consumer
> who wants one, and not just those willing to sign on AT&T's dotted
> line.
>
> © Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
The Globe carried a follow-up "letter to the editor" from the industry
group "CTIA - The Wireless Association" ( http://www.ctia.org )
stating the industry's side:
------------------------------------------------------
THE BOSTON SUNDAY GLOBE
June 29, 2008
Letters-to-the-Editor
The fruits of wireless competition
YOUR JUNE 22 editorial "iPhone's false bargain" raises worries that
"big companies will . . . keep monthly wireless rates high." In fact,
Americans enjoy some of the lowest wireless rates in the world. This
is because the American wireless industry is a model of competition,
and provides choice and affordability.
In the past 20 years, wireless has evolved from a corner-office luxury
to a cultural mainstay for more than 250 million subscribers. Users
can choose among more than 600 handsets from more than 30
manufacturers.
Moreover, the cost of wireless voice service - by far the most popular
use, available with and without a contract - is among the least
expensive in the developed world.
The contract model has promoted wireless adoption and helped Americans
access innovative services, while more than 40 million consumers have
been able to choose contract-free service. In addition, wireless
companies' open-network policies allow customers to use compatible
devices whether bought from the carrier or not.
As the marketplace evolves, products and services are being
introduced. Each seeks to undercut the others, or provide a unique
experience for the user. This competition is the hallmark of the
wireless industry.
STEVE LARGENT
President and CEO
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Washington
------------------------------------------------------
It's an interesting business and the wireless carriers have learned
something from the IXC "Long Distance wars" of the past decade:
whatever you do, don't let your service become an undifferentiated
commodity where all you can do is compete on price and race your
competitors to the bottom. By offering exclusive hardware locked to
their respective networks, the wireless carriers have found a way to
avoid the carnage experienced by the LD companies.
There is a certain irony here, because if you look at the advertising
platform of the major carriers, they stress their network (ATT: "More
bars in more places"; Verizon: "It's the network." etc.) but their
stores and web sites stress the specific phones on offer and provide
little or no information about which phones perform better on their
networks.
Meanwhile, the manufacturers of handsets may be competing on features
and appearance, but they remain captive to the wireless providers as
their major channel of distribution. (Imagine a manufacturer trying
to sell its phone to the consumer at a profit when phones from its
competitors are being offered for 1-cent by the wireless providers as
sign-up incentives -- especially when the providers will not give the
customer any lower rate, even if the customer buys his own phone.)
Just some random thoughts.
Regards,
Will
The Old Bear
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map