July 11, 2007 9:28 AM PDT

Democrats criticize AT&T's exclusive iPhone deal

Editor's note: This story was updated at 1:35 p.m. PDT.

WASHINGTON--AT&T's exclusive right to sell the Apple iPhone drew complaints on Wednesday from Democratic politicians, though it was unclear whether they were planning to do anything about it.

"The problem with the iPhone is that the iPhone with AT&T is kind of like a 'Hotel California' service," Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey said--in a nod to the Eagles hit, of course--during a hearing. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."

Special coverage
iPhone: The wait is over
News.com tracks handset's
long-anticipated arrival.

Even though the hearing before the House of Representatives subcommittee on the Internet was supposed to be about "wireless innovation and consumer protection," the iPhone popped up among Democrats as a subject of criticism--and, among Republicans, as an example of the free market and consumer choice in action.

Neither Apple nor AT&T testified at the hearing.

To be clear, there are no proposed laws, or even talk of proposed laws, that would forcibly divorce Apple from AT&T. The wireless carrier reportedly has an exclusive deal to sell the iPhone in the United States for the next five years.

Markey with iPhone

Rep. Ed Markey brandishes an iPhone while discussing the device at a Wednesday Capitol Hill event.

(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)

Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, the top Republican on the subcommittee, said of the iPhone: "Its early success is an indication that the wireless market is in fact working. That iPhone is the newest mousetrap and now other carriers will be working to top it."

A more likely possibility is for federal regulators to require an open network standard (that would permit all sorts of mobile devices from all kinds of companies to operate) when some of the valuable slice of spectrum known as the 700 MHz band is auctioned off early next year.

"I think it's time that a consumer become the decider of what their phones do, not their cell provider," said Rep. Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat.

Google has been lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to permit just that, and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin seemed to confirm the agency was headed in that direction in an interview published Monday in USA Today.

On Wednesday, Markey applauded that approach. The FCC "should seize this opportunity to create open access opportunity for wireless service," he said, and brought up the agency's 1968 Carterfone decision, which allowed non-AT&T devices to be connected to the telephone network.

Update: Just to be clear, despite their gripes about the AT&T exclusivity and the $175 fee that accompanies ending the mandatory two-year contract early, Markey and some of his Democratic colleagues appeared perfectly smitten with the iPhone itself.

Markey said it "demonstrates the sheer brilliance and wizardry of the new technologies which are available in wireless today" and commented that its Wi-Fi capabilities were a "welcome addition."

The Massachusetts Democrat even gripped the gadget in his right hand while he delivered the iPhone-related portion of his opening statement, although it became evident upon later questioning from his fellow politicos that it wasn't actually his property.

"It's just to hint to my wife as to what I do want for my birthday," quipped the congressman, who turned 61 Wednesday.

Perhaps it belonged to the chairman of the full House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.). (A Markey aide said she wasn't sure.) Dingell--who, at 81, also happens to be the House's most senior, albeit not quite its oldest, member--remarked that he was still BlackBerry-reliant but was also "enjoying my new iPhone."

"Is there any reason why, if technical questions can be addressed, that consumers ought not have the ability to determine the devices they're going to have on the network?" he asked.

Consumers vs. carriers
Most Republicans present said they believed the wireless market is a competition "success story" and thus warrants no additional rules. "When we micromanage, when we regulate, we discourage capital flow," said Rep. John Shimkus (D-Ill.)

By contrast, most Democrats and at least one Republican said the FCC may need to take steps during the upcoming 700 MHz auction that they feel would better promote consumer choice.

Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said they urged the FCC in a recent letter to force the operators of at least some of the soon-to-be-auctioned-off airwaves to allow customers to hook up whatever devices they please and to offer that band at wholesale prices to companies that want to get into the wireless broadband space.

Those ideas drew renewed resistance from the two wireless carrier representatives on the panel--Ed Evans, the head of a start-up called Stelera Wireless, and Verizon Wireless general counsel Steven Zipperstein.

Both executives said there's nothing wrong with allowing the auction winners to institute open access rules if they please, but they argued that forcing such a business model is inappropriate when there's no evidence of consumer discontent.

Of the thousands of phone calls and e-mails that Verizon Wireless's 60 million customers place to the company each day, "we have not heard from our customers very much about the desire to bring other devices onto our network or the desire to enable Wi-Fi," Zipperstein said.

Pressured later by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), Zipperstein denied that Verizon Wireless offers its U.S. customers "fewer" features on their phones than does the European carrier Vodafone, which owns almost half of his firm. "We offer different features," he said.

But Jason Devitt, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who founded the wireless applications start-up Skydeck, argued there's a significant difference in the freedom granted to wireless product developers in the United States vis-a-vis in Europe. He belongs to a coalition that wants the FCC to set aside a chunk of spectrum as an open "sandbox" where innovators could experiment with new wireless technologies without having to secure permission first from carriers.

"If I want to produce a GSM device that will work on Vodafone's network, I don't have to ask Vodafone's permission," which he claimed has led to some 800 devices that could work on that network, he told the politicians. By contrast, "if I want to produce a CDMA device that works on Verizon's network, I have to ask Verizon's permission."

CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.

Recent posts from News Blog
Sprint HTC Touch Diamond outed early
Woman to virtual ex: 'I won't be ignored!'
Swiss secret sauce to power green choppers
iLink to deliver answers to military online communities
Vonage names new CEO
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 74 comments (Showing first 20 comments)
No choice because nobody wanted it
by Vegaman_Dan July 11, 2007 9:50 AM PDT
These concerns the Democratic party is bringing up about the iPhone being locked into AT&T as an exclusive deal might make more sense if Apple had chosen AT&T alone as the sole provider of cell services.

They didn't. They tried all the cell carriers to see who wanted to carry the iPhone.

Only Cingular (at that time) said yes. Everyone else including AT&T turned them down.

That's not an exclusivity deal. That's taking the only offer that was there. Only one company was interested in the iPhone. I'm sure if Verizon or Sprint or whomever wanted it, they would have it now.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
This is insane
by bob donut July 11, 2007 10:11 AM PDT
I can only imagine what it's like to be someone at Apple and have your product become so popular that even politicians start to talk about regulating it--within a week. But there have been other phones that have been exclusive, it's not that new a concept.

Still, I suppose that Steve Jobs has succeeded in his goal. He really has "changed the world"
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Democrats lost again!
by jhawk95 July 11, 2007 10:20 AM PDT
The Democrats just don't get it. They will understand once they see how many people are leaving other carriers to move to ATT to get the iPhone.

I had Sprint for over 10 years. I have three other friends who all left and gladly paid the $200 cancellation fee to get out of their contracts to get the iPhone.

I was more inventive and sold my Sprint smartphone (although it was not very smart) to a friend and he took over my Sprint contract and I did not have to pay them to leave.

Yes, most people do not realize that you can "sell" or transfer your contract to someone else for the duration you have left.

I do agree that it would be great if they enforce open phones and no contracts when carriers want to move to the 700 Mghz Spectrum. That is what they should focus on.
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
The FCC screwed us, and now they complain??
by kylegas July 11, 2007 10:21 AM PDT
Way back when in the US, there was AMPS, TDMA and CDMA. AMPS died, TDMA was terrible, and CDMA was better.

GSM is based on TDMA. AT&T is GSM.

It's the FCC's fault that this occured in the first place, and the remnants of this awful split in technology has haunted carriers, and Apple alike. This is never going to change, since the architectural and technical underpinnings are broken in this country.

This is why Europe/Asia has better cell coverage and features - they picked their wireless technology more intelligently.

The government f'ed us, and the democrats are blaming Apple and AT&T??

I understand their frustration - and am a democrat. But as usual, no one wants to address the bigger issues.
Reply to this comment View reply
Who's fault is that ...
by csg7 July 11, 2007 10:39 AM PDT
Everybody is criticizing ATT as if they forced Apple to go into an exclusive deal. It clearly shows that Apple got greedy and couldn't resist and offer made by ATT or maybe other carriers were not sure about it.
The iPhone hardware also shows they make as much as 55% profit on each unit at such a high price.
Its Apple they should question !
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
Yes Please!
by alphapolitan July 11, 2007 10:47 AM PDT
The iPhone already costs 600 bucks, but with $60 a month, owning one is a ridiculously expensive luxury. Especially since you wouldn't need SMS if the iPhone had an IM app. Also, what if you didn't want to pay for unlimited data and just wanted to use your wifi? Maybe the iPhone would be better off with a different carrier, or at least the consumer's choice of a carrier.
Reply to this comment View reply
Verizon turned it down too.
by Maelstorm July 11, 2007 10:53 AM PDT
First I think it was Sprint, then I know for a fact that Verizon was offered it. They turned it down saying that they didn't want to be bound by the restrictions that Apple wanted...IE: Apple wanted to be in control. Cingular said hell yes they would take it. And a good move too. If you want proof, there's a C|Net story about it.

Sorry, but the Democrats lose on this one. This is a negotiated business contract between two companies, which they have no business in interfering with.
Reply to this comment
Who's business is it anyway?
by rhett121 July 11, 2007 11:10 AM PDT
As best as I can tell, this was an agreement between Apple and
Cingular (now AT&T). They each had to make concessions that
would have incurred significant financial risk. As a result of this
significant financial investment there was an exclusivity contract.

So who the hell are you to say what one company can agree to
with regards to it's investment capital? It's the same with the
Patent, Trademark and Copyright system. If I hold the patent, I
get to say who can play and who can not. Maybe it's time for our
politicians to focus on more important and relevant issues
instead of meddling in private business ventures that don't
concern them.
Reply to this comment View reply
Apple's tying like MSFT's Windows/Explorer?
by wineislife July 11, 2007 11:26 AM PDT
How is Apple's tying of the phone service to the iPhone any different than MSFT's tying of Explorer to Windows? At least with Windows, it was usable without Explorer, and one could at least load and use a different browser. Seems to me like Apple might have an antitrust issue here. The iPhone clearly works without phone service as one can just use WiFi when out of phone range. Also, the hackers have shown it to work without ATT's service. Seems like Apple is just getting greedy in wanting to have a portion of ATT's wireless monopoly over their airwaves. It seems that at a minimum, once one signs up with ATT and then leaves, the rest of the phone's (non-phone) features should remain usable. Good thing the Democrats are calling them on this. Where are the Republicans and their supposed support for competition? I'm sure that Apple will likely be seeing some class action or antitrust suits on this strange business model.
Reply to this comment View all 4 replies
Antitrust issue? Are you kidding?
by crue24 July 11, 2007 12:08 PM PDT
Every phone manufacturer has released phones exclusive to one
carrier for x period of time including Samsung, Treo, Motorola,
etc. Wnat the new RIZR phone? T-Mobile only...is that anti
trust? And Apple was greedy and wanted the exclusive deal?
Doubt that one, they want to sell as many as possible, I'm quite
sure ATT required the exculisivity for the same reason all
carriers pay to have exclusive phones, so they can entice
consumers who are with other carriers to move to them. The
wireless business has been run that way for years.

As for the phone being pricey, their profit margins are too high?
This was a huge gamble for them, of course they priced it high.
It appears that the phone has been a success so volume is high
and prices will eventually come down. Anyone remember that a
few years the razor that is $50 now was $500 WITH A
CONTRACT?!?!?! And that phone did nothing, it was just small.
You pay a premium for the latest and greatest technology,
nothing new. You are paying for R&D, and in Apple's case, for
the fact that they delayed there new operating system to ensure
this thing came out on time.

Get a grip.
Reply to this comment View reply
Lobby FCC & Congress
by Nunya Bidnez July 11, 2007 12:32 PM PDT
To legislate open, unlocked cell phones with no mandatory 1 yr/2
yr term contract. (contract to subsidize cost of phone should be
optional). This will promote true competition in all areas.
Reply to this comment
Seems Silly
by thedreaming July 11, 2007 12:38 PM PDT
Why are they picking on Apple and ATT all of the sudden? What about all the other carriers that have phones which only work on their networks. I would love to use a sidekick but can't because I don't have t-mobile. I would love to use the chocolate phone, but can't. I don't have verizon. I would love to use that super strong phone with the rubber grip but can't. Sprint uses has that locked up tight.

What makes the iphone the phone any different? It's an phone locked into one provider, just like all the other ones...
Reply to this comment
Our Tax Dollars at Work!
by nacamera July 11, 2007 12:44 PM PDT
For those who want more Democrats in office to help "protect"
us from the Big Bad Corporate America, this is what you get. A
Big Bad Waste of Time and OUR Money! If these liberal idiots had
done ANY homework on the matter before they went spouting
off on capital hill today they'd have found out that Apple
shopped this idea idea around to EVERY MAJOR CARRIER in the
country, and AT&T was the ONLY ONE to say "yes" to all their
requirements for the phone. Maybe AT&T should forced to share
all their iPhone infrastructure with all the other carriers now...oh
yeah, that's right, this ISN"T China!
Reply to this comment
Vote for individuals not parties.
by bwvla July 11, 2007 1:20 PM PDT
Ah yes, because most of the IRAQ contracts have been so free and open. Because Halliburton is the ultimate open market competitor.

I think its best that you realize the the republican political party at the national level is no friend of most small business either. They vigorously support anti-competitive practices, protectionism, and corporate welfare for large corporations. None of this is in the interest of small businesses. Not to mention the Bush administration and the last congress has wiped out any notion of republicans having any notion of fiscal responsibility.

I think its time that people start voting for PEOPLE and PRINCIPALS on a case by case basis and not political parties. Block voting for a party does nothing but create artificial divisions, support shadow agendas, and encourage corruption.
Reply to this comment
The only Difference...
by drumby04 July 11, 2007 2:15 PM PDT
...between the contract between Apple and AT&T, as well theirs
with the iPhone customers and those of any other cell phone
manufacturer or wireless carrier is that the iPhone is far superior
to any other product offered in the market. Neither Apple nor
AT&T should be punished for offer us such an amazing product,
especially at the reasonable (yes I'm serious) price that they
have.

Let those who know what they're doing do it best - companies
with REAL experts (aka those that actually work with the
products and services, not just talk about them) rather than
having the government get involved and dilute the possible
capabilities of these companies to offer us unique and
maginficent products to use with their own services.

*hops off soap box*
Reply to this comment View reply
iPhone cure
by Eddie-c July 11, 2007 2:18 PM PDT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/11/iphone_blended/
Reply to this comment
Funny, What about all the other phones?
by batavier July 11, 2007 3:14 PM PDT
Was't the MOT Razor a Cingular exlusive when it just came out?

Memo to Congress: It all has to do with control.
I understad that all the other carriers wanted total control of activation and sales outlets. So they collectively turned down Apple. - Including AT&T.
Reply to this comment View reply
Are some Democrats really this ignorant?
by Walt Connery July 11, 2007 5:06 PM PDT
(...rhetorical question, as comments like these prove the point exceptionally well.)

Case in point:

""I think it's time that a consumer become the decider of what their phones do, not their cell provider," said Rep. Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat."

Well, then perhaps it is very unfair that Apple is the only manufacturer of the iPhone, and perhaps "consumers" should also have the "right" to force Apple to change it into anything they want. Right, like that might actually produce something better. Yea, from now on we'll hold national referendums discussing what "we want" in a cell phone and what "we don't want," and then we can have Congress pass laws to force every single cell-phone manufacturer in existence to build the very same phone by outlawing all of them except one.

More and more it sounds like some people in Washington today literally got there by falling off of a tomato truck. Sheeesh. I wish they'd all hop right on the truck and go back to whatever Ignorant Utopia they came from.

Good grief, Congressmen! If you don't like any aspect of the iPhone you don't have to buy it, do you? Hey, Congressmen, last time I looked the world was awash in cell phones of all kinds of descriptions which manage to fit all kinds of tastes and preferences. Fancy that--and it was all done without any "help" from the Dumbo side of the aisle, if you know what I mean...;)

But really, isn't it silly comments just like this that explain why these people are sitting in Congress instead of working for a technology company? Next thing you know the Dumbos (which exist in quantity on both sides of the aisle) will be hankering to put their hands into the design of the next space shuttle...;) In that event, however, I'd imagine the number of astronauts who'd volunteer to ride the thing that Congress designed would be few and far between...;) Hmmm...maybe we could put about half of Congress in the crew cabin and see how things worked out...?
Reply to this comment
not exactly
by MrGrumpy123 July 11, 2007 5:45 PM PDT
American anti-trust law doesn't limit illegal behaviour to a single
seller pushing multiple tied products. It is also illegal for Seller 1
to force a buyer to buy something from Seller 2 as a condition of
buying Seller 1's product.
The legal analysis is, of course, not that simple. However,
because of the way that all of the iPhone's functions are totally
dependent on buying ATT's services, Apple and ATT have a case
to answer. Of course, Apple's lawyers clearly think otherwise, so
it will be interesting to see if the FTC or some consumer group
takes this to court.
Reply to this comment
Congress needs to go make themselves usefull
by jmhal July 11, 2007 5:50 PM PDT
Well, I'm glade I've been working and paying my taxes so I pay these morons to debate the iPhone and AT&T. I mean holy F***ing hell. Don't these people have anything else to due like figure out a way to secure our borders or here's an idea, run the damn country.
Reply to this comment
 See all 74 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

News Blog topics

Featured blogs

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right
  • News - Business Tech

    IBM's EMEA revenue growth shaping up with same past path

    IBM announces its third quarter revenue growth in Europe, the Middle East and Africa is shaping up to post a similar growth pattern as the first half of the year - a.k.a. a moderate IT spending environment.

  • Gallery

    Photos: Top 10 reviews of the week

    Here are CNET Reviews' 10 favorite items from the past week, including the TiVo HD XL, Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H50, and the Dish Network's newest digital TV converter box.

  • The Open Road

    Disservice to partners may bite Apple

    The Mac maker does many things right, but partner management is not one of them. Delays in App Store updates and general lack of communication is frustrating developers.

  • Coop's Corner

    Chris Shipley 1, Internet lynch mob 0

    Demo's impresario goes public with a tart and smartly written riposte to the shoot-from-the-lip crowd.

  • Video

    Katie Couric reflects on first Webcast

    The political conventions are over and so are CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric's first series of Webcasts. CNET's Kara Tsuboi sat down with Couric on the final night of the Republican National Convention to discuss what she liked about Webcasting, some of her most memorable guests, and whether TV news will still be around by the next round of conventions.

  • News - Digital Media

    Want top search results? Tread carefully

    In the business of promoting Web sites to top search results, some push limits to find what tricks are allowed. But there's evidence the trade is getting more respectable.

  • Video

    YouTube plays party politics

    During the presidential campaigning four years ago, YouTube didn't even exist. Now it's a tool candidates must master to get their message across. CNET's Kara Tsuboi stops by the YouTube upload booths at the Democratic and Republican conventions to find out why Google's video site has such a big presence in Denver and St. Paul, Minn.

  • News - Gaming and Culture

    Say Where brings voice recognition to iPhone apps

    Forthcoming iPhone app from Dial Directions aims to give users a way to get information from sites like Yelp, MapQuest and others by speaking instead of typing.

  • News - Cutting Edge

    Execs predict next Google-like tech

    On eve of company's 10-year anniversary, researchers and business pundits speculate about what technologies might someday have as much impact as Google.

  • Gallery

    Images: The art of 'Spore' prototypes

    Will Wright and his Maxis team worked on dozens of prototypes to test the elements of their soon-to-be-released evolution game. Here's a sampling.

  • Webware

    Google announcement coming later today

    Google is scheduled to make a presentation at 11:45 a.m. PDT on a still unknown topic at the TechCrunch50 event in San Francisco. We'll be there.

  • Green Tech

    TI does energy efficiency on a chip

    Its line of Piccolo microcontrollers can reduce power consumption significantly of home appliances, hybrid cars, LED lighting, and even solar panels.