On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:33:07 -0500, DanS wrote in :
The Federal Government does have an interest in preventing unlawful market tying, which has been held to be per se unlawful, and in preventing unlawful market exclusion, which is only lawful if legitimate.
The real question is whether the FCC has the authority to police competition, which is normally the province of the Department of Justice.
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:22:08 -0400, "Bill Kearney" wrote in :
You may need better equipment and/or a better carrier.
But not all rules are an essential role of government, which is sorta the point of the exercise. I would, for instance, suggest that the FCC promulgated regulations that might have delayed the innovation that is the iPhone, etc.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:29:32 -0700, SMS wrote in :
That's just a 2nd-hand rumor that should be taken with a grain of salt, but wouldn't be terribly surprising.
p.s. Frame URLs in , not "".
Yet the intervention is still there. Outlining that anti-competitiveness is usually more political interference than government enforcing the rules. Yet another reason to avoid involvement whenever possible.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:29:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :
The difference is that AT&T would undoubtedly charge for any such service, instead of offering it free.
The real issue is that Google threatens customer control. Short-term revenue is a non-issue by comparison.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:54:39 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote in :
As yet there is no intervention or interference, just an inquiry.
That's like saying a government option won't help the health care crisis despite the fact that Medicare is both more efficient and more effective than private health insurance plans.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:52:43 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote in :
Based on what real evidence? The iPhone appeared here, not in some other country.
The quantitative indicator that a market is an oligopoly is a four-firm concentration ratio exceeding 60% of the market. That certainly describes mobile market in the US, and most other places.
Competition really isn't relevant to the definition (unless you're making up your own). Sometimes the firms participating in an oligopoly compete vigorously on price, sometimes they compete vigorously on other product differentiators, and sometimes they don't compete at all. Since the US wireless market is among the priciest in the developed world, however, it seems to me that the quantitative evidence that the US mobile market is vigorously price competitive is a bit thin.
Dennis Ferguson
Like this ?.......
"On October 1, 2008, a federal judge in California upheld a class action claiming that Apple and ATT Mobility's five-year exclusive voice and data service provider agreement for the iPhone violates the anti-monopoly provisions of the antitrust laws. The court also ruled that Apple may have violated federal and California criminal computer fraud and abuse statutes by releasing version 1.1.1 of its iPhone operating software when Apple knew that doing so would damage or destroy some iPhones that had been 'unlocked' to enable use of a carrier other than ATT."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total BS.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:41:55 -0500, Dennis Ferguson wrote in :
There is no rigid quantitative definition nor per se percentage, and most commonly accepted oligopolies are well above 60% (e.g., beer, movies, music). That said, there are considerably more than four competitors in the US market, which includes regional carriers and MVNOs in addition to the four major national carriers.
There is actually strong evidence of vigorous price competition, not only between the major carriers, but also notably the MVNOs.
Whatever happened with this class action? I could see Apple wanting to not really defend this and being able to tell AT&T, "oh, we're sorry but we have to do versions of the iPhone for T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint."
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required