The I-Phone and the Nanny State
Tags: free markets, Liberal Fascism.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Nanny-statist Senator Jean Francois Kerry, North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, Mississippi’s Roger Wicker, and yes, Minnesota’s own Senator Amy Klobuchar think that AT&T’s exclusive contract to sell the new I-Phone is somehow unnfaaair! Somehow these lame-brained senators think that free-enterprise (did I say free?) should be run like a kindergarten classroom, by making sure everyone gets equal toys. Competition, according to these mental midgets, is a baaad thiiing… because competition means someone might not do as well as somebody else, and someone might walk away feeling baaad. And for some unknown, godforsaken reason, competition is somehow bad for consumers.
So, in the interests of faaairness, and with a lack of other things of import on which to focus, these nanny-statist buffoons will take it upon themselves to convene a hearing on why it is sooo unfaaiiir that some wireless services should have so much while others have so very little, and to better understand why this is so.
Here’s a clue, Senators: It’s called CONTRACT LAW. It’s called COMPETITION. Sprint saw the smoke signals that AT&T had an exclusivity deal with the I-Phone, and snatched up and pre-empted the new I-Phone release with what I believe is a superior phone, the Palm Pre. And not for the $599 price tag of the new I-Phone, but for a mere $200 semolians.
Being a Palm person myself with an AT&T contract, was I happy about it? Hell no. But that’s the way the ball bounces. I know that after a while, the exclusivity on models runs out, and phones are then more widely available with a variety of carriers.
I don’t need some government nannystaters to wipe away my tears, thank you.
The point is, competition is the force that ultimately provides the drive to enhance the quality and value of goods and services; while lack thereof fosters mediocrity, poor service and just not giving a damn.
Which is, when it comes down to it, what liberalism is all about.
(h/t Chris Baker)
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Leo Pusateri is an educator and military dad from St. Cloud, Minnesota. Leo also blogs at Psycmeisters' Ice Palace, Murtha Must Go! and True North. Follow Leo on Twitter.
39 Responses to “The I-Phone and the Nanny State”
Caucus of Corruption
There does seem to be an example of “Tying”,which is a violation anti-trust law, here.
In short, Tying is an action taken to sell inferior, less-wanted products by forcing consumers to purchase them in conjunction with other, more appealing products. The major movie studios got hit with this charges when they forced movie theaters to buy cruddy movies if they wanted to buy the blockbusters that people would actually want to see, essentially forcing theaters to lose money on many of the films they bought.
I don’t know the specifics of communication law, but I also don’t think that, if people buy a phone with their own money, they should be forced to use any one data network.
If you can crack your iPhone and use it on another network, more power to you.
(full disclosure–I think that Apple sells inferior products at higher prices because of consumers’ drive towards conspicuous consumption–then again, I’m a PC/Linux/Microsoft guy)
Just a thought: What do you think of open-source software licenses?
So opening up iPhone carrier contracts to competition is somehow anti-competition? You do realize that the biggest complaint about the iPhone is the subpar network you are required to use it on, right? And that with no competition, AT&T is not exactly moving with swiftness to improve its service?
See also rana’s point about tying.
You’re grasping at straws more than usual today, Leo.
Nothing is “free.” When you get a “free” (or reduced cost) phone from a carrier, it comes with the obligation to buy their services, which is a for a period of time under which they can be assured a level of profit to be able to justify the cost of the “free phone.” Point is, you really didn’t pay for the phone up front. Of course, you will, in the end, and then some; but when you first receive the phone, it’s far from being paid off. Meanwhile, the freedom to switch after service contracts are up continues to provide an incentive for the carrier to expand and improve its service.
But back to the subject, making AT&T share its IPhone gig stifles the free market and competition.
AT&T signed a CONTRACT with Apple to have exclusive rights to the I-Phone. Other carriers missed the boat. That’s competition. Other carriers, however, are free to sign their own deals with other makers and/or other models–this creates a demand for better phones from the manufacturers, who are no doubt making lots of $ through exclusivity (otherwise they wouldn’t partake in it).
Jean Francois Kerrie, Amy Klobuchar, et al., are just like the Obama administration, playing with the free market and contractual obligations like it was their own personal Frankenstonian toy to be experimented with, when they don’t have clue one as to what they’re dealing with, how the industries work, nor how the market works. Kind of like me taking a crack at brain surgery, just for the hell of it.
The end result is invariably that the “cure” turns out much worse than the disease, and it is once again proof positive that the true road to hell is paved with the ‘good intentions’ of liberals.
Ranafuerte, I don’t know enough about the “open source software” licenses to form an educated opinion at this time.
making AT&T share its IPhone gig stifles the free market and competition.
You seriously don’t see how oxymoronic that statement is?
I get it that you hate John Kerry (still, which is kind of sad, but whatever) and need to get your hate off somehow, but the angle you’re taking here–that opening things up to competition is anti-competition–is self-defeating. There is perhaps an argument to be made about honoring contracts, but that’s not the argument you’re making.
That is exactly the argument I’m making. It’s a contract that they made, within the free market system. Government is again attempting to stifle that which occurs naturally and is part of the larger system. They know not what they do. They screw things up. End of story.
BTW My differences with Jean Francois Kerrie lie long before his run for president. His false “winter soldier” testimony during the Viet Nam era sealed his fate in my book.
Leo : even contracts between private parties must obey the law. Otherwise, hitmen “contracts” would be legal. Here, it is the anti-trust law that is being broken.
They know not what they do.
And you apparently know not what this issue really is, and it’s certainly an odd one for you to hang your “I hate Democrats” hat on. The contracts are of dubious legality and, in a greater sin against free market capitalism, hinder innovation, competition, and consumer choice. The idea here is that you, the consumer, should be able to choose your handset and your carrier instead of having manufacturers and carriers collude to make that choice for you, and somehow, you extrapolate from this that opening up consumer choice is a blow against free market competition. It would be good for you to do some reading on this issue instead of going off what some talk-radio know-not spewed.
frmrmarine : it’s a hobby of mine
That is not collusion, well to a mental midge,t huffy riding loser burger flipper- whiner it may be.
I’m sorry I used a big word like “collusion” and it frightened you, fmr.
Apparently you do, or you would not answer, nor ask me questions
laughing? Funny, looks more like frothing at the mouth, from where I stand.
YEAH RIGHT what a retard, loser!
Wow, it frightened you more than I thought, but then again, you do have ongoing struggles with language, grammar, and the like, so I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. Well, you just let me know when the nightmares stop, and we’ll try to pick this up again, OK?
marine:
Do you have a PC ?
If you do, what OS do you have on it????
HMMMMMM maybe like UMMM Microsoft ?
OH the humanity!!!!
OH the “collusion”
—————————–
I CHOSE to use Linux on my Dell. So is there a point you are trying to make??
marine:
YEAH RIGHT what a retard, loser!
————————
Are you kidding me? You are a freaking child.
marine:
why the F**K are you worried about it in france??????
what a retard!
——————————–
Why are you so hung up when someone lives in another country. You sound like an idiot.
oh wait… I forgot who I was talking to.
OH and BTW, in France, the law ruked that a PC-buyer was within his rights to ask for payback of windows if he chooses to go linux
ruled not ruked
“Maybe there are some of us here that do not want your opinion on everything daily.”
If you don’t like the product, don’t buy it. Or in this case, if you do’t like the comments here, don’t read them. That’s the logic you use on this very thread, is it not?
marine:
CO
Why are you so hung up when someone lives in another country.
Why are you so hung up on what happens in our internal affairs?
Why are so hung up that, you have to TROLL here daily with smarmy, stupid leftard statements about our laws, government and religion?
——————–
Do you even read??? I said that. I’m from Boston right here in the USA.
Now wipe that spittle of your chin and go kick a puppy.
M.gazer.
Still with the sex fantasies about me? That clarifies quite a bit, actually.
My question was why you did not follow your own logic, frmrmarine.
Should not have expected you to, though.
yeah
Well, then I must yet again reiterate that I don’t swing that way, so your fantasies about me will have to go unrealized. You shouldn’t worry about getting “meat gazed,” either–if I wanted to look at something tiny and shriveled, I’d pour salt on a slug.
And if you want to come to one of the french blogs I follow, frmrmarine, you are most welcome :
http://www.maitre-eolas.fr
Perhaps I’m just not sufficiently hip, but what’s so cool about the new iPhone in the first place?
Perhaps I’m just not sufficiently hip, but what’s so cool about the new iPhone in the first place?
Not much, I don’t think, but then again, I don’t own (or want) an iPhone in the first place. But really, it’s more about the new iPhone OS than the new handset, for which the biggest upgrade was processor speed.
What’s funny is that the new OS has capabilities for things like MMS and tethering, but those functions will not actually work because AT&T’s network–the one you are required to use the iPhone on–won’t support them.
orlando: Not much, I don’t think, but then again, I don’t own (or want) an iPhone in the first place.
In that case, it doesn’t sound like anti-trust laws apply. And while I am not personally a big fan of true vertical integration (i.e., where entities along the supply chain are owned by, or dominated by, the same companies (because it very well can lead to “trusts”), it’s only when that vertical integration becomes the only (or nearly so) game in town that it becomes dangerous. And it doesn’t sound like the present situation is anywhere close.
I’m with you on this, Orlando. I automatically rebel against anything Apple because of their tight control on code and apps. I have AT&T and recently tried a Nokia with Symbian. It was fine, but the small number of apps and the Exchange interface turned me off. I’m sticking with Windows Mobile (new Samsung Jack). BTW, AT&T supports MMS and tethering. I believe MMS is available on iPhone 3.0 now minus video, but tethering is not available yet.
Well, the primary reason I don’t want an iPhone is that I don’t care about apps. I use my phone for two things: Making/receiving phone calls, and sending/receiving texts. I don’t use it to go online, I don’t use it for emailing, I don’t use it as a productivity appliance, none of that. So an iPhone would be, for me, pretty useless.
It’s precisely that control that allows for the superior user experience on the iPhone platform – that Apple controls everything from the chipset to the user interface means a lot on a platform which (unlike a PC) is highly performance optimised.
When it comes to other Apple hardware, say, my Macbook, I have no trouble compiling and running most open-source unix/linux software.
Apple is simply not going to allow applications on the iPhone that consume bandwidth and/or processor cycles excessively. If they did, then everyone would be blaming them for the resultant performance issues.
Apple is simply not going to allow applications on the iPhone that consume bandwidth and/or processor cycles excessively.
Or that they can’t get a slice of what you pay for the app.
Yeah, and that too :)
MMS on iPhone is not available quite yet, but, will be soon. Tethering should be available by end of year, probably sooner.
Just want to point out, the iPhone is the most heavily subsidized device made. Typically, most devices are sold at a loss of $100-$150, that’s why you sign a contract. There is little margin in the cost of rate plans, which is why it is a big numbers game, and carriers want to sell more and more features and accessories. The cost of an 8gb is $549 (and, yes, I do know this for a fact. If you are missing just one during an inventory, you are boned for the rating). Previously, were sold for $199. Heck of a discount, eh?
I must say, I am totally hooked. We’ve been selling them for years, but, couple months ago, me and my crew won the use of them in a contest, and I love it. Internet is my favorite thing, so, it works well for me, and I have tried most devices. Still keep my BBerry Curve for email, though.
Carriers have exclusive stuff. Best Buy carries exclusives. So does Blockbuster. Direct TV has the exclusive contract to carry the NFL package (contract is up next year.) And the technology is different. ATT uses sim cards. Sprint and Verizon used different tech. Can’t get a Pre and use it on Verizon.
Unfortunately, Palm has been years behind the curve, and has backed itself almost out of the wireless market. Boring devices, no 3G till the Pre, and just hasn’t kept up with the times. They have zip coming out for Verizon, ATT, and T-Mobile.
Personally, I have really enjoyed the Samsung Blackjacks. I had the I, II, and now I have the Jack. They finally integrate wi-fi into the Jack and the GPS chip is available for other apps, not just Telenav. Finally, they replaced the waterdown browser with a full HTML browser. It’s a lot cheaper than the iPhone and I can expand the memory to 32GB when they come out with the microSD cards. I don’t need or want a touch screen, so I really can’t think of anything the iPhone can do that the Jack can’t do and the phone with a 16GB card was about $160.
Granted, if AT&T was a Gov Office, then the politicians mentions here have a very valid point. I have a feeling that after so many years working for the Gov have taken away the ability for these public servents to know the difference from the Gov Sector and the Private Sector.
And sadly, being politicians, they seem to have forgot that they service the Nation…
I had the Blackjack 1 and 2, thought they were great phones. Would have switched to Jack if we hadn’t gotten the iPhones. My boss has a Jack, loves it.
One thing Jack does better is navigation. But, I do that one my Curve :)
Just to make a nitpcky point: the Junior Senator from Massachussets is in fact named John Forbes kerry, not John Francois Kerry. I suppose Leo was making some sort of political point, since Francois is French for “French” and John F. Kerry speaks French, and both he and the French were opposed to Gulf War II. But Gulf War II and the iPhone have little or no connection to each other— although I suppose the terrorists would rather be able to use iPhones which are not tied to a single network. (And in fact the terrorists already CAN use their iPhones with other networks, as long as they are willing to hack their phones, thus breaking their contracts with AT&T and invalidating their warranties.)
Actually Francois is the old french word for french. Shakespeare-era frenc word. The current french word for french is “français”. Francois is a first name.
The Geography Twits are carrying the water on this one, too. What good little footsoldiers you are, going after any conservative post at all with the zeal of the truly mindless.
If any of you had ever enunciated a philosophy which was FOR anything, I might think a little differently about you. But you are just mindlessly AGAINST anything posted here.
c’mon, geography dudes, give us a reason FOR the nanny state telling private companies what they can and cannot do, and why this is the job of the government. Your nihilistic little temper tantrums are oh so tiresome.
Fortunately there was some actual content from some other sources.