By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews
Exclusive cell phone sales and distribution contracts, such as the one between AT&T and Apple Inc. for all models of iPhone, are solely responsible for the quickening pace of innovation in the American handset market, or solely responsible for its imminent demise -- solely. That's the black-and-white nature of the arguments raised before the Senate Commerce Committee last Wednesday, as executives from the nation's second largest carrier and two smaller ones joined industry advocates in debating whether locking out carriers' access to popular phones is good for competition and good for the consumer.
"Today, when you sit down at a computer and you access a broadband connection, you're not told by your broadband provider that you have to have a Dell or an HP or an Apple in order to access the network," stated Sen. John Kerry (D - Mass.), the former presidential candidate who chaired a portion of Wednesday's hearing. "And when you purchase a wireless phone in Asia or Europe, you typically don't buy it through a wireless carrier. You purchase it separately from the manufacturer or from an outlet."
Regardless of the fact that many broadband subscribers rent their cable modems through their carrier, this state of affairs -- where every device is available to everyone everywhere -- seems to Sen. Kerry like an ideal state of affairs. But on the other side of the bench was Paul Roth, President of AT&T Retail Sales and Services, who is one of the principal architects and defenders of his company's contract with Apple (the exact terms of which senators last week were unsuccessful at prying loose). Roth's principal argument was difficult to rebut: If you level the playing field nationwide, you end up driving handset prices up and the incentive to make better handsets down.
"Exclusive device deals lead to lower prices. Consumers pay well under what AT&T pays Apple for the iPhone. It's a standard US industry practice for the device [to be] sold below its cost, in return for a two-year agreement where the subsidy that made the initial price possible is recovered over the term of the agreement," Roth testified. "In the past two years that the iPhone has been exclusive to AT&T, the price of the iPhone has gone from $399 to $199, and just last week to $99, all while exclusive to AT&T. And with the iPhone at $99, prices of other devices, including other exclusive devices, have dropped and will continue to drop in response to that."
Along with innovation comes the risk of lack of success -- a risk that handset manufacturers in this economy are unwilling to assume completely on their own, Roth pointed out. So AT&T and the other competitors in the "Big Four" -- Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile -- offer exclusivity deals to manufacturers, he said, knowing it will drive them to produce handsets with features that competitors' models may lack.
Roth also went so far as to argue this: If AT&T and other carriers did not seek exclusivity by demanding features such as touchscreens, with the sole exception being Apple (which all agreed to have initiated the iPhone deal), manufacturers would not have offered or even created these features on their own.
As Roth went on, "We often ask for innovative features or design which requires a manufacturer to create an entirely new product, and our requirements are often the catalyst for innovation. To build really new and innovative devices creates risks for manufacturers, and the manufacturers are seeking a partner to share that risk with them. They ask us to commit both technical and financial resources, and make volume commitments, all without the assurance that the device will be a success. AT&T competes with foreign carriers like Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone for the attention of these manufacturers, to bring innovative devices first to consumers in the United States. It's not an accident that the iPhone...launched first in the United States. We took a risk with Apple on the iPhone, that it would be a big success for consumers. And consumers were the ones who benefitted from that."
But beside Roth on the witness table were executives from two other carriers serving mainly rural areas, including US Cellular President and CEO Jack Rooney. Claiming that the Big Four carriers were doing no less than hijacking the industry, Rooney argued, "Exclusive arrangements are especially damaging to rural citizens because oftentimes the biggest carriers don't offer any service at all, and so the product is unavailable to that consumer. When rural consumers buy an exclusive phone from one of the bigger carriers, they frequently must accept an inferior network as a tradeoff -- a tradeoff no consumer should be compelled to make.
"There is harm in urban areas as well. Consumers who desire an iPhone or a BlackBerry Storm smartphone cannot use it on our network, even if they prefer our service," Rooney continued. "We do not understand how the public can possibly be served by such a practice. If you take away nothing else from this meeting, I want you to understand a central goal of policy makers should be to enable consumers to buy the handset they want, and choose the service that best suits their needs."
Roth later countered by arguing that AT&T also serves rural areas as well, blanketing 90% of the nation, and soon 95% after it acquires some Alltel assets from VZW. But Rooney agreed that the US market was vast, which should be catalyst enough, he said, for handset manufacturers to pursue this market without exclusivity as an incentive.
"I've heard that exclusive arrangements drive innovation. This is counter-intuitive. Every manufacturer desires to sell its product to the widest possible audience," testified Rooney. "If handset exclusivity did not exist, would any manufacturer refuse to invest in great devices knowing that there was currently a handset market of nearly 300 [million] users in the United States? Any handset maker that invents a great device receives intellectual property protection, and that confers a tremendous financial incentive to build a winning product."
Supporting Rooney's claims was Penn State Professor of Telecommunications and Law Robert M. Frieden, who pointed out that one of today's common tenets of exclusivity agreements consists of arrangements between a carrier and manufacturer to limit functionality, as evidenced by the growing list of functions you cannot do on an iPhone.
"Near-exclusive reliance by wireless carriers and their agents on a single business model, which combines wireless service and handsets used to access the service, strongly influences what kinds of services the handset can perform, and what kind of software the subscriber can download," said Prof. Frieden. "This combination of handset and service also creates incentive for carriers to secure exclusive distribution rights for choice devices such as the Apple iPhone. It motivates carriers to favor ways to recoup their handset subsidies rather than to concentrate on offering unconditional access to the features within the handset, or services available by downloading software and content to the handset."
Frieden cited the FCC's 1968 Carterfone decision, which enabled customers for the first time to purchase telephones other than those produced by Western Electric -- at the time, AT&T's sole manufacturer. The principle of that decision, the professor said, was that utilities that provide a service should have no monopoly on the device that produces that service.
"Television broadcasters have no right to restrict consumers from watching cable and DVDs. Likewise, no personal computer manufacturer or software vendor can regulate what consumers see on their monitors, and what services they can access. Applying the Carterfone policy to wireless would stimulate innovation in handset design, promote competition, and motivate carriers to make their networks more accessible," stated Frieden.
The argument against Frieden is that the wireless industry, unlike the wireline phone industry in 1968, does not need the FCC's intervention in order to create competition. That argument was presented by Progress & Freedom Foundation Senior Fellow Barbara Esbin, with a tone that at times indicated she seemed annoyed at Frieden's and Rooney's arguments, and at times that she just had a headache and would like to have gone home.
"Consumers will remain protected from demonstrable anti-competitive activity or unfair and deceptive practices in this sector by our antitrust and consumer protection authorities. The FCC has repeatedly found the wireless marketplace to be effectively competitive -- not perfectly competitive, but effectively competitive," Esbin testified. "Carriers are willing to pay for exclusive arrangements because offering subscribers a hot new handset is a way to differentiate their services. The FCC has acknowledged that product differentiation is a natural competitive response by carriers to customer churn. Churn itself is a sign of competition, and the exclusive arrangements are simply a feature in an intensely competitive market. And handset manufacturers benefit from the exclusives by being able to develop the initial version of a device for one type of network, ensuring both speed to market and some control over the user experience. Guaranteed minimum order from the manufacturer, another common feature, can remove some of the risks associated with a new product offering, thus permitting riskier and more innovative designs."
Next: Could exclusivity bleed into the computer realm?
We're already seeing the initial wave of exclusivity arrangements between carriers and PC manufacturers in the netbook arena, with the arrival of the AT&T-subsidized Acer Aspire One at $99.99 last December, and Verizon Wireless-subsidized HP netbooks last month. This raised the ire of Cellular South President and CEO Hu Meena, who's worried that netbooks will become just one more category of device his customers -- mainly in rural areas in Mississippi -- will be locked out of.
"Will Congress sit by and allow the largest carriers to lock the most attractive netbooks into exclusivity agreements before this segment of the market fully emerges?" Meena asked the Sen. Commerce Committee members last Wednesday. "Left unchecked in this segment of the PC market, the largest wireless carriers will gain control and begin to restrict PC innovation and distribution, just as they have wireless handsets. Furthermore, the claim that exclusivity agreements drive innovation is completely unfounded in this segment of the market. Companies like Dell, Acer, and others were advancing the netbook market well before the largest carriers got involved. How, then, can the largest carriers claim a divine right to exclusivity on netbooks?"
Advancing Meena's argument, Sen. Kerry asked AT&T's Roth why a handset or netbook manufacturer wouldn't be compelled to simply produce the best device it could, given the tremendous size of the US market. Roth pointed to a case in point -- one which continues to leave a bad taste in his mouth.
"The first attempt at a music-centric device is this device...the Motorola ROKR," said Roth, holding one up the way an agricultural biologist holds up a cow chip. "It was our first attempt -- Motorola, Apple, and AT&T went together in 2005 to create a device that we thought would cater to the music-centric, it was the predecessor of the iPhone. Colossal failure. I still have them in inventory. Motorola bore the brunt of that, so did AT&T. It was a huge risk for both companies. Large inventory commitments were made...on a device that we thought would be successful. And it wasn't. That type of risk is what manufacturers are looking for carriers to say, if you want to specify a device, if you want to bring innovation that's not part of their product roadmap, then you need to share the risk with us."
But why shouldn't a customer of Rooney's US Cellular, for instance, have the right to purchase an iPhone for whatever price US Cellular might make it available, Kerry proceeded. Roth responded that the real reason was because US Cellular -- along with Cellular South, which was also represented -- made the wrong choice of network protocols: CDMA as opposed to GSM, which he described as the global standard and the one that AT&T, and any other network that cares about customers, supports. Comparing CDMA to GSM, Roth argued, was like comparing VHS to Beta, in that order.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R - Miss.) then picked up that argument, asking Cellular South's Meena, why shouldn't a carrier like AT&T be entitled to recoup its investment in cellular technology with an agreement that helps ensure the value of that technology? Meena responded by pointing out that AT&T's real investment wasn't in the iPhone so much as the network behind it, turning Roth's argument (that AT&T chose the right network protocol) on its head.
"Their primary investment in the iPhone was in the network. We put in a 3G network without any guarantee from Apple or any other manufacturer that we would have access to a latest technology device. I don't know why they have to be guaranteed success when we're not guaranteed success," said Meena. "We're willing to go out there, put our capital to work, put in 3G speeds throughout the state of Mississippi and other places, and be able to compete in the marketplace."
AT&T's Roth wasn't one to let that argument pass, and in so doing, perhaps lose the point that a carrier should be permitted to purchase guarantees and invest in success. He emphasized his point not only that carriers drive innovation, but that they themselves are the innovators -- the ones coming up with the ideas (again, Apple notwithstanding) that produce the functions that customers crave.
"The manufacturer doesn't come flying over from Korea or Canada, opening up a suitcase and saying, 'Which one of these do you want to buy and monopolize in the US?' That's not the way it happens," said Roth. "You can buy what they want to sell...or you can sit down with them and say, 'I want a touchscreen device when no one has a touchscreen device,' or, 'I want a two-way slider device that allows someone to text, and I want this chipset in it, and I want it in this color, and I want it at this price.' Exclusivity starts with the carrier, not the manufacturer, saying, 'I want you to produce something that's not on your product roadmap.' And the manufacturer says, 'There's significant risk in doing that. You need to share that risk with me. Volume commitments.' You can't make a volume commitment if it's suddenly going to be available to everybody and it's wildly successful. You won't achieve your volume commitments back to the manufacturer."
But Cellular South's Meena argued that because Korean manufacturers such as LG and Samsung come to America to deal with AT&T, he and his fellow rural competitors formed a purchasing association to go to Korea.
"We have been to Korea, we have tried to meet with manufacturers in Korea about purchasing the latest and greatest devices. And it's hard to get a straight answer when we talk with them about those devices," remarked Meena. "It seems like they would be able to make the decision as to whether they could sell their product to us, but they're checking back with somebody. And we think we know who it is."
And US Cellular's Mooney supported Meena's argument by pointing out that it's the volume commitments Roth makes that put carriers such as his out of the game, enabling them to sell 9 of the world's top 14 selling handsets under exclusive arrangements that lock him out. The collective power of the buying consortium, he said, cannot equal so much as one of the Big Four carriers' volume commitments.
"It's a volume game. So if you want to consolidate, you gotta have enough volume to justify the consolidation. And it's just not there," remarked Mooney. "I mean, these guys, they've gobbled up all the spectrum, they've gobbled up the control and manufacturing side of the business. You're building an oligopoly there, and it's already happened.
"I think there's a mythical aura to the idea that there's competition. It's not technical competition," he continued, "when you get a hold of somebody else's technology and don't allow it to be disseminated to anybody else. That says, 'I'm technically good, and the rest of you are technically bad,' or, 'I have a better deal with Apple than you can ever get.'"
Last Thursday, in response to this congressional testimony, FCC Acting Chairman Michael Copps announced he has ordered his agency's Enforcement Bureau to open proceedings as to whether wireless exclusivity agreements are helpful or harmful to consumers.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
I admit I'm of two minds on the issue. On the one hand, Apple shareholders have the right to know how the company they essentially own plans to manage itself both today and in the future. They deserve enough information to make informed decisions about whether they wish to retain their ownership stake and how they wish to remain involved, as shareholders, in the evolution of the company. It's a fundamental pillar of our economic system that publicly traded companies provide enough transparency to keep shareholders informed -- not to mention senior leaders honest.
For all the wild success Steve Jobs has achieved in business, he remains a husband and a father facing down a serious, potentially life-ending illness. The image of a robust, confident, billionaire captain of industry clad in his iconic black turtleneck and jeans as he delivers yet another blockbuster message to the world does little to mask the frightening reality of his current state. Sick or not, every CEO eventually leaves the post. And life goes on.
If you have a completely new search engine -- in other words, one that's not a renamed version of Windows Live Search -- you need to give it a niche that somehow emphasizes the quality of its results compared to those from Google. Wolfram Alpha's niche of choice is the intelligence of its results, in an effort to wring the educational power out of the verbal sponge that is the Internet. So that slot's taken for now.
Perhaps you've noticed that the world is becoming more global? It seems that everywhere you go these days, you're reminded that America is no longer necessarily the center of the universe. This morning's WN|WN takes you through Taiwan where Acer may become the world's #2 PC supplier, through mainland China where our emissaries would like a word with the government about filtering, through Iran where a lady named Neda has instantly become the symbol of a revolution thanks to technology (though we may have to revoke our thanks from Nokia), and back to a little out-of-the-way part of the planet called Bozeman, Montana.
