4 ms·

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

by 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.

by boryas 17y ago

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.