5 ms·

Not true. AT&T does not own the spectrum they use, it is a publicly owned natural resource, licensed to them under specific rules, and can be revoked by the FC

Not true. AT&T does not own the spectrum they use, it is a publicly owned natural resource, licensed to them under specific rules, and can be revoked by the FCC for failing to comply with the regulations. The government is not getting involved because people want to have their cake and eat it to, (although that is a pretty good default assumption), but because there appears to be collusion involving regulated resources.

tc 17y ago
You are being over-broad with the scary word collusion. Collusion would be AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc. agreeing to keep voice revenues for the industry high by crippling mobile data. Nothing in a carrier's agreement with a handset vendor could possibly qualify for collusion. As for violating regulations, please find for me the regulation that they have violated. It seems to me that their present sin consists of doing something unpopular.
- boryas 17y ago
  This is a valid point, but I'm not convinced that it's OK for companies to act/co-operate in a way that is this detrimental to their customers just because they aren't supposed to be competitors. Based on the questions asked, the FCC seems to be trying to find out if this exclusivity agreement is harming consumers or not, which seems like a decent goal. If this inquiry leads to some transparency from Apple/AT&T, so much the better, right?
  - rottencupcakes 17y ago
    No! You can't think like that. Apple and AT&T should have every right to be as opaque as they want. If you don't support their policies and pricing, switch to another carrier and buy another phone. In a completely non-monopolistic scenario, which this is, the government should have no concern whether a company's action's harm customers or not, since the customer has complete choice in whether to buy the service or not. This is precisely a situation in which the customer wants to have his cake and eat it too. Regulated resources are by definition a case when the customer wants to have his cake and eat it too.
    - sachinag 17y ago
      Oh, for fuck's sake. The FCC said why they wanted this information. They wanted this information as part of its examination of net neutrality and exclusive phones. The FCC doesn't even look at collusion and antitrust - the FTC does. The idea that there's some monolithic "government" is juvenile at best.
      - BrentRitterbeck 17y ago
        The idea that there's some monolithic "government" is juvenile at best. Thank you. It should, however, be noted that as Goldman Sachs rehires, the government will get bigger. Oh wait, I forgot that I'm not Matt Taibbi, so scratch that last sentence.
      - mistermann 17y ago
        "he idea that there's some monolithic "government" is juvenile at best." Are you serious? Do you pay attention to what goes on at all?
      - andreyf 17y ago
        (warning: meta) We need more short, insightful comments starting with "oh, for fuck's sake" around here. Thanks :)
    - CamperBob 17y ago
      Apple and AT&T should have every right to be as opaque as they want. Um, no, not with government-administered public airwaves, they don't.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - rottencupcakes 17y ago
        I said they should have. Not that they do, with our socialistic government setup the way it is.
- jwhitlark 17y ago
  Collusion is defined as "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose" at m-w.com. I would think this qualifies, and I used this word instead of the more inflammatory conspiracy, which would also be technically accurate. I was not using it to be scary, I was simply trying to describe the circumstances as they appear at the moment. The FCC is investigating to see if any regulations had been violated; proof and a finding of guilt or innocence will come later, but it seems to me there is probable cause to investigate at this point.
DocSavage 17y ago
This situation is ironic. Developers must submit to their Apple/AT&T overlords if they want to play in the Apple sandbox. Now Apple/AT&T are discovering their sandbox is within a larger federally-regulated sandbox, and they too are subject to overlords. Payback's a bitch. I don't have a lot of sympathy after reading about the forced refunds for previously approved apps.
dkokelley 17y ago
The spectrum is a natural resource, but what about the devices? It will be interesting to see the extent to which the FCC can regulate devices offered on a carrier. I'm hoping some sort of number portability / anti-compete clause lets them push GV through and force some openness on Apple's end in regards to app approval. Unfortunately, the iPhone is NOT a publicly owned natural resource, but maybe phone numbers are.
- jhancock 17y ago
  And your iPhone, once you've paid for it, is not Apple's anymore. Its yours. Congress has passed legislative caveats around the DMCA for cell phones. Meaning you can unlock them. Well at least I haven't seen Apple or anyone else yet sue someone or call the FBI for someone doing so. So I guess they don't want to test the waters around whatever legislation actually was passed (of course, I don't read hundreds of pages of legislation, so I'm speaking off stuff I"ve read about it). The purpose of such legislation is part of enabling consumers to not be bound to a carrier. I don't know what else exists, but its clear Congress has made some progress on letting cell manufactures know that carrier freedom is on the landscape.

tc 17y ago

You are being over-broad with the scary word collusion. Collusion would be AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc. agreeing to keep voice revenues for the industry high by crippling mobile data. Nothing in a carrier's agreement with a handset vendor could possibly qualify for collusion. As for violating regulations, please find for me the regulation that they have violated. It seems to me that their present sin consists of doing something unpopular.

boryas 17y ago
This is a valid point, but I'm not convinced that it's OK for companies to act/co-operate in a way that is this detrimental to their customers just because they aren't supposed to be competitors. Based on the questions asked, the FCC seems to be trying to find out if this exclusivity agreement is harming consumers or not, which seems like a decent goal. If this inquiry leads to some transparency from Apple/AT&T, so much the better, right?
- rottencupcakes 17y ago
  No! You can't think like that. Apple and AT&T should have every right to be as opaque as they want. If you don't support their policies and pricing, switch to another carrier and buy another phone. In a completely non-monopolistic scenario, which this is, the government should have no concern whether a company's action's harm customers or not, since the customer has complete choice in whether to buy the service or not. This is precisely a situation in which the customer wants to have his cake and eat it too. Regulated resources are by definition a case when the customer wants to have his cake and eat it too.
  - sachinag 17y ago
    Oh, for fuck's sake. The FCC said why they wanted this information. They wanted this information as part of its examination of net neutrality and exclusive phones. The FCC doesn't even look at collusion and antitrust - the FTC does. The idea that there's some monolithic "government" is juvenile at best.
    - BrentRitterbeck 17y ago
      The idea that there's some monolithic "government" is juvenile at best. Thank you. It should, however, be noted that as Goldman Sachs rehires, the government will get bigger. Oh wait, I forgot that I'm not Matt Taibbi, so scratch that last sentence.
    - mistermann 17y ago
      "he idea that there's some monolithic "government" is juvenile at best." Are you serious? Do you pay attention to what goes on at all?
    - andreyf 17y ago
      (warning: meta) We need more short, insightful comments starting with "oh, for fuck's sake" around here. Thanks :)
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    Apple and AT&T should have every right to be as opaque as they want. Um, no, not with government-administered public airwaves, they don't.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - rottencupcakes 17y ago
      I said they should have. Not that they do, with our socialistic government setup the way it is.
jwhitlark 17y ago
Collusion is defined as "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose" at m-w.com. I would think this qualifies, and I used this word instead of the more inflammatory conspiracy, which would also be technically accurate. I was not using it to be scary, I was simply trying to describe the circumstances as they appear at the moment. The FCC is investigating to see if any regulations had been violated; proof and a finding of guilt or innocence will come later, but it seems to me there is probable cause to investigate at this point.

DocSavage 17y ago

This situation is ironic. Developers must submit to their Apple/AT&T overlords if they want to play in the Apple sandbox. Now Apple/AT&T are discovering their sandbox is within a larger federally-regulated sandbox, and they too are subject to overlords. Payback's a bitch. I don't have a lot of sympathy after reading about the forced refunds for previously approved apps.

dkokelley 17y ago

The spectrum is a natural resource, but what about the devices? It will be interesting to see the extent to which the FCC can regulate devices offered on a carrier. I'm hoping some sort of number portability / anti-compete clause lets them push GV through and force some openness on Apple's end in regards to app approval. Unfortunately, the iPhone is NOT a publicly owned natural resource, but maybe phone numbers are.

jhancock 17y ago
And your iPhone, once you've paid for it, is not Apple's anymore. Its yours. Congress has passed legislative caveats around the DMCA for cell phones. Meaning you can unlock them. Well at least I haven't seen Apple or anyone else yet sue someone or call the FBI for someone doing so. So I guess they don't want to test the waters around whatever legislation actually was passed (of course, I don't read hundreds of pages of legislation, so I'm speaking off stuff I"ve read about it). The purpose of such legislation is part of enabling consumers to not be bound to a carrier. I don't know what else exists, but its clear Congress has made some progress on letting cell manufactures know that carrier freedom is on the landscape.