Irrational Thinking: Exclusive Handset Deals Are Good for Consumers, Good for Competition, Says AT&T
Sometimes you wonder about drug testing people who come up with amazing lapses of logic like this:
Paul Roth from AT&T said in sworn congressional testimony that removing exclusive deals “would serve only to harm consumers.” He also claimed “devices would devolve into the lowest common technical denominator.”
The issue? Exclusive deals for cell phones. AT&T exclusively provides the iPhone in the United States. Other carriers, usually AT&T or Verizon, have exclusive deals to sell the latest and greatest equipment on their networks only, limiting consumers who want those phones to the carrier that sells it.
Unfortunately, since not every carrier has the best signal coverage in every part of the country, a consumer that wants an iPhone, for example, would be throwing money away buying one only to learn AT&T has lousy or non-existent service in his neighborhood. If Verizon offered rock solid service, you’d be stuck because the iPhone will not work on Verizon’s network.
Roth’s claim is ridiculous on its face, because most consumers will not buy a phone that will not work where they want to use it. Many others on another carrier will not switch providers just to obtain a phone, even if it is an iPhone. AT&T may not do as well in a completely open marketplace where any phone is available from any carrier, because they extract top dollar pricing from iPhone users, who are stuck with a monthly cell phone bill running $70 plus.
