Rural wireless carriers file FCC petition opposing handset exclusivity

If you thought you were annoyed when one of the big wireless carriers locked up a phone you were after, you have no idea how frustrated small and rural wireless carriers are -- they've just filed a petition with FCC seeking to ban the practice. The 80 companies in the Rural Cellular Association serve small markets not well-covered by the big guys, like parts of New Mexico, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, and they say that carrier exclusivity deals not affect their bottom line, but also deprive consumers of desirable phones like the iPhone and upcoming Blackberry Bold. They've actually got a pretty good point: lots of rural customers can't purchase and use an iPhone without technically breaking the AT&T service agreement. We'll see how this one goes -- although we'd love nothing more than to use any phone we wanted on any carrier, there are plenty of reasons it won't happen, and exclusivity is the easiest way for carriers to differentiate themselves to consumers.

[Todd @ May 22nd 2008 1:36PM]

3G iPhones for everyone! Android for all!

[Blah @ May 22nd 2008 1:47PM]

A flying unicorn in every home!

[CT A @ May 22nd 2008 2:03PM]

World peace and such as!

[Chad @ May 22nd 2008 1:42PM]

I'm going with my wife to North Dakota this summer for a family reunion. I've never been there, or anywhere near there, but I assume it will be a little like stepping back in time about 20 years or so.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that folk in North Dakota (and similar areas) could really care less about the iPhone or anything like it.

Although it would be sweet to be able to use any phone on any service.

[swillman @ May 22nd 2008 2:19PM]

I disagree with you .. 100%. We are held back due to population, not that we don't want new stuff. We are actually very clued into the world and have the same technology as the populated areas, it's jsut that you guys don't care about us so you assume we suck.

[jackcutts @ May 22nd 2008 2:29PM]

This has my vote for being one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read anywhere. I am not from North Dakota, either.

[Teetdogs @ May 22nd 2008 3:02PM]

Dont be so ignorant, I live in Montana, right next door to ND and we are actually very technolgicly advanced. We dont live in the freakin stone age, you would be very supprised how much we rely on communication technology with how rural it is (and I personally like it that way) driving from one end on Montana to the other is about a 13 hour drive and is pretty impractical so communication tech is very very important to us. In closing, dont be an ass!!!!

[Caleb @ May 22nd 2008 3:10PM]

In fact some high tech trends were adopted first by people in rural areas. Think about this, who do you think would be the first person to buy a satalite TV service? Someone who lives in an area where they already can get 10 channels via broadcast TV or someone who can't get a signal for a 100 miles in any direction?

We had handheld 2 way radios with a 50 mile range in comon use way before the cell phone was invented and in some areas they are still in use because the phone companys refuse to put in towers because the population is to low. The town I lived in untill the last year had a population of less then 2k people. They cant get TV via cable even now nor DSL as the local phone excange can't support it. But that didn't stop them from getting broadband via sattlite from DircTV and previously Hughs etc. A supprizingly large number of people did this even before they were able to get any cell phone service here. I have DSL now because I live in a larger city of 15k but it cost's me $85 a month.

[Chad @ May 23rd 2008 10:04AM]

Read the bold people:

"I'VE NEVER BEEN THERE, or anywhere near there, but I assume IT WILL BE A LITTLE LIKE stepping back in time about 20 years or so... I COULD BE WRONG, but I'm thinking that folk in North Dakota (and similar areas) could really care less about the iPhone or anything like it."

I'm sorry if I offended anyone personally. Let me try not to do it again. But here's what I'm talking about:

I grew up in a rural area. A town of about 800 people. When cable was getting rolled out back in the 80's, we were at least 5-8 years longer getting it than towns closer to cities. But we didn't expect to get it any sooner. We knew we wouldn't because of where we lived. And we could have really cared less. Sure, it would have been nice to get it 5 years sooner, but that's the price we paid for where we lived. If we really wanted it that bad, we could have moved. Moving just so you can get technology? That wasn't for us.

That's what I'm talking about. Sure, rural dwellers may say, "Hey, I want that!", but are they going get up and move to get it? Probably not. So why care about it? If you really want it that bad, you might as well save yourself the frustration and move somewhere else. Anything that requires a complex network (ie. cell networks, cable, etc.) is going to take YEARS longer in rural areas and we all know that. Should we accept it? No. And that's why I agree with what this petition is trying to do. In the future I'll try to make myself clearer.

To swillman: Does that make more sense?

To jackcutts: So in the grand scheme of things, you think that most people in the rural areas of this country can't wait to get their hands on an iPhone? Like I said, I grew up in a rural area. I'm now I'm telling you MOST people from in rural areas don't care about stuff like that. The ones who did moved to a more populated area. Ignorance exists in many forms.

To Teetdogs: Look, I know that it's important. I'm not an idiot. I'm all for this petition actually doing some good. All I'm saying is that if communication is that important to you, you should have realized a long time ago that with where you live, some technology is going to come much slower to your area. It's totally unfair, but that's the way it is. In my experience, most people in rural areas know this and accept it. I'm not saying it's okay they just accept it and that's why I agree with what this petition is trying to do.

To Caleb: "...They cant get TV via cable even now..." Thank you for reiterating my point. 1988 anyone? The network isn't there and might not even be there in another 20 years. It's interesting that you say the town you "used" to live in. Did you move for technology?

[Hayst @ May 22nd 2008 1:43PM]

question: if you're living in a rural farming town, what do you need an iphone or a blackberry for..??? cows don't have email...

[Ray @ May 22nd 2008 1:48PM]

they want to look at "farm equipment" online

[Ray @ May 22nd 2008 2:03PM]

....after thinking about it for a good 5 minutes, looking at actual farm equipment may do the trick for them

[Miguel @ May 22nd 2008 2:20PM]

Subsistence farming is a thing of the past. If you still work and live on a farm, you're running a business--a business with low margins, high overhead that pays for your family to live. Maybe you'll get an iPhone or BlackBerry for the same reason all the yuppies in the cities do--to do business with the distributor for the milk those cows produce. Or, God forbid, you may want a phone that can play mp3's while you're out in the field and have no music.

This "farmers are hicks" bias is stupid. They're people, who happen to enjoy some creature comforts.

[NHAnimator @ May 22nd 2008 2:24PM]

If you live in a rural farming town, you probably already have all the blackberries you want.

[Justin @ May 22nd 2008 2:55PM]

To state this first, I am not a farmer or anything of the sort, but this comment seems extremely derogatory towards people who farm. Who says that they are just dumb hicks? That's like saying all black people are killers and rapists, or that every Mexican citizen in America is illegal. It's just wrong.

Just because you live somewhere that doesn't have good coverage by major cellular providers doesn't mean that you must live in the middle of the boondocks. It just means that you live somewhere with bad coverage

[Hayst @ May 22nd 2008 3:52PM]

wait, so you mean all people living in rural areas aren't like the chicken farmer depicted in Napoleon Dynamite..?!!? arrrghhh, i've been so horribly misinformed..!!!

i therefore rescind my what-i-thought-was-obviously-sarcastic-yet-apparently-not-to-some-people post...

[Miguel @ May 22nd 2008 5:37PM]

@Hayst

I got that "cows don't have e-mail" was a joke. I even chuckled at it myself. But the preceding question about why a rural farmer would NEED an iPhone belies the stupidity behind the joke: you didn't ask why a farmer would want one, because the answer to that is obvious (it's cool), but why he would need one, because the answer to that is a bit harder to come by when you have the stereotypical farmer in your mind. The stereotype is what made the joke in the first place, and it's an ignorant stereotype. Ray just added to it with his commentary on "farm equipment".

[Nick Ritch @ May 22nd 2008 1:44PM]

How come the complaints started with the iPhone? There have been exclusive phones for years.

[CPBH @ May 22nd 2008 1:46PM]

Rutland VT seems to have normal Verizon and AT&T service... I had no issues getting full featured access...

Poultney, VT is a different story, absolutely no VZ for miles around (which meant no VZNav :^( )... but there was still strong GSM via AT&T, and not like Pig&TractorTelecom or something

[kurt.tappe @ May 22nd 2008 2:44PM]

That's because Rutland, VT has a major ski area (Killington) nearby. Those Yuppies from NYC et al need their cell service or they won't come. Any touristy area is much more likely to have cell service. I bet there's good cell coverage near Mt. Rushmore, Yellowstone, and other such areas of the western U.S. that have no other coverage if you get so much as 5 miles away. It's selective. The cell companies cherry pick where to put their towers so they can claim to have the best coverage.

[BigDaddyM @ May 22nd 2008 1:47PM]

"exclusivity is the easiest way for carriers to differentiate themselves to consumers."

That is about it right there and there is no legal precedent that says you deserved a Blackberry or iPhone... It is a luxury item. If you want the super phone, then go to AT&T. Part of the super phone price is the plan so it is not only about the phone.

If they do break the exclusivity, then Apple will triple the price of the iPhone and say the original price was subsidized for AT&T anyway...
M

[Tyson @ May 22nd 2008 1:53PM]

People have the right to buy a phone with out buying a service other wise it is a violation of the Sherman act and the Clayton act section 3 both of which forbid trying. If a company is selling two products that one is conditioned on the purchase of the other and the have sufficient market power (ATT is the largest carrier i believe) and if effects interstate commerce it is illegal.

[Sean @ May 22nd 2008 1:58PM]

"then go to AT&T"

That's the problem... you can't. Technically, AT&T does not serve the state of Vermont (for instance). You can't legally buy and have a working iPhone in VT. You could buy one in say New York... get a New York number and just use it as a part of the national service plan where another celluar network's will pick up the signal (i.e roaming).

It's basically the smaller networks have no negotiating power and rural Americans (even thoguh I live in a city of 32,000) get screwed out of opportunities. It's same for broadband, but that's a different discussion.

[Tyson @ May 22nd 2008 1:47PM]

and then the Iphone exclusivity goes away for good, ATT gets pissed declares breach of K, stops revenue sharing with Apple and the stock drops 10% over night because they loss a train of revenue and are only getting money on the front end and not for continues use of their product.

What a sad site that would all be

[kakapo @ May 22nd 2008 1:47PM]

Here in Australia - we are kind of rural - 21 million people on a continent the size of the USA. We are kind of spread out. All us city dwellers help fund the transmission services for telephone, wireless (mobile phone services) the internet and television because the people out bush and in the outback cannot afford to pay the bill themselves. Kind of like helping your neighbours.

We can use our SIM cards in ANY phone. There are a few unlocked phones or phones exclusive to a carrier but they are the cheapos that are 'free" if you sign up on some outrageous contract. That is how the carriers tie you in here - subsidised phones and eternally long contracts. BUT you do no have to go that way.

Also - you do not pay for incoming calls or SMSs. BUT we do pay an arm and a leg for data - cheech!

[drocpsu @ May 22nd 2008 3:22PM]

The same is actually true here in the US as well. Everyone pays universal service taxes on their cell/land line/internet bills in order to subsidize communications services in rural areas. This is really only used for provisioning infrastructure to those areas though, not to enable independent cell phone companies from competing with the big guys. On top of that, given the split networks here in the US (GSM & CDMA), it's not as easy as just popping your SIM card in another phone. It sucks for consumers, and I agree that people in those areas should be able to get good phones on their networks as well. Heck, I have Verizon and I get annoyed at the number of phones I cannot get because they're GSM-only. I can't imagine what it would be like to have even less selection. But in those areas, it's not like they have the option of just changing carriers. They're stuck with what they have.

[shanoboy @ May 22nd 2008 1:48PM]

"exclusivity is the easiest way for carriers to differentiate themselves to consumers"

That's the problem with the carriers. Lets not compete with better service or price, lets compete by locking up the best technology for our network.

I hope this petition goes somewhere.

[greg @ May 22nd 2008 2:02PM]

hmmm...in that case we should probably stop apple from locking the ipod to itunes service. Thats basically the same as a phone company locking a phone to their service.

[Kizorblade @ May 22nd 2008 2:15PM]

Err, I'm pretty sure you can use other programs with your iPod

[Kizorblade @ May 22nd 2008 2:16PM]

Love you google:

http://www.floola.com/modules/wiwimod/

[dBs @ May 22nd 2008 3:35PM]

I was going to post this very thing, I even have that exact same quote in CTRL+C right now. Needless to say, my thoughts exactly.

[darkstar @ May 22nd 2008 1:50PM]

the practice shoulda been banned years ago!!!
its kinda funny that usa is so forward thinking while somethings are still wayyyy backward.

[phanbouy @ May 22nd 2008 1:53PM]

we're forward thinking?

[Frankenstein Black @ May 22nd 2008 1:50PM]

WAAAH! “I picked up a rural cellular license for a song back in the 80’s, raked in billions of dollars in roaming revenue from roamers on my network and my trust fund babies are mad because they can’t have iPhone on the family’s native home system”. Two words, STOP WHINING!

[Hayst @ May 22nd 2008 2:10PM]

“I picked up a rural cellular license for a song back in the 80’s, raked in billions of dollars in roaming revenue from roamers on my network and my trust fund babies are mad because they can’t have iPhone on the family’s native home system”.

i'm pretty sure that song won something at the latest Country Music Awards

[Neal @ May 22nd 2008 1:55PM]

I love how ALL of Mississippi is "rural"

[Big Wizz @ May 22nd 2008 2:01PM]

You know how the toothbrush was invented in Mississippi?

'Cause if was invented anywhere else, it would've been called a teethbrush!

[phanbouy @ May 22nd 2008 2:10PM]

wats a toofbrush?

[Steve @ May 22nd 2008 2:11PM]

While it would seem like a bad idea to open up all phones to all carrier (the whole thing about them trying to differentiate from other carriers by showing off exclusive phones) the bottom line would be a huge benefit to consumers. Without carrier exclusivity the next thing companies would use to separate themselves would be benefit packages (bundles, if you will) and price drops. If this bill is passed we could be looking at huge price drops in wireless service (at least among the major carriers of the US) because everyone knows that people will flock to the cheapest service available. While this sounds all fine and dandy however, carriers would be losing money from the price drops. But then again, as landlines are beginning to get phased out, cell phones are growing in popularity and, with price drops, people who could not afford cellphones before would be able to, which means a greater mobile phone penetration rate (currently about 85% - one of the lowest in the industrialized world, from wikipedia).

[jeremy @ May 22nd 2008 2:15PM]

Did anybody else notice a large blue portion of their map is the Gulf of Mexico? Who the hell needs service there?

[Kizorblade @ May 22nd 2008 2:18PM]

The 5 or so people who live out there. Duuuh.

[Steve @ May 22nd 2008 2:18PM]

people that live on boats?

[Argot @ May 22nd 2008 2:20PM]

People on oil platforms and those who are floating towards Florida from Cuba?

[kempcross @ May 22nd 2008 2:30PM]

On all the oil rigs?

[John @ May 22nd 2008 11:55PM]

There are lots of people on cruise ships out there...

[Za @ May 23rd 2008 7:21PM]

Yes - good call. Seems like it would be expensive to service any cell towers out there..."Hey, yeah...we got a call that one of our towers is out...you might need a dinghy to get out there..."

[Steve @ May 22nd 2008 2:18PM]

it's great that you're first and all, but if you don't have anything pertinent to the topic to say, please don't just comment to say that you were first. actually comment on it, even if it's just "I agree" or "this is stupid" or whatever. THEN you can say "btw FIRST! iEye FTW!" or something like that.
When your talking to your friends and someone mentions something you don't jump up and shout "First!" before anybody else can respond, right? well, same idea here. Just saying.
(ps, I agree with the smaller carriers, opening up cell phones and ending exclusivity could be a huge boon to the small carriers AND consumers at the same time - see my comment below).

[Ryan Waddell @ May 22nd 2008 2:23PM]

This would be sweet, though it'll mean jacked up phone prices. But hell, if people are willing to pay triple (or more!) the price for an unlocked phone with no contract, why not give it to em?

[Jeff Snugglebutton @ May 22nd 2008 2:28PM]

It's for all the new cubans on rafts that just got cellphones

[Chesbro @ May 22nd 2008 2:44PM]

Hey, at least you get a choice. We frozen igloo dwellers get stuck with Rogers or Fido if we want GSM, and have to pick between Telus and Bell (and their spawn) if we want reasonable(?) rates.