Comments on: Once a monopoly, always a monopoly?

By: thedavidlewis

thedavidlewis — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:08:58 +0000

Daniel, that is a great point but I am not accusing AT&T of *being* a monopoly in this case. I agree with you. I am accusing AT&T of going back to its roots and *acting like* a monopoly. It feels the same to anyone who wants to use an iPhone (ignoring the $1,000 unlocked iPhone for sale at Buy.com). There is no choice but AT&T for iPhone so it is, in effect, a monopoly. There are other choices for smart/app phones... but do iPhone users want them?

By: Daniel M. Clark

Daniel M. Clark — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:13:12 +0000

As much as I hate AT&T for starting down this road of blaming the customers for their own network failings in some areas, I don't see their exclusivity deal with Apple as a monopolistic thing in any sense. By that standard, Verizon is a monopoly because the Droid is exclusive to them. Handset exclusivity it nothing new, it dates back for as long as there's been cell phone companies. Just because people want the iPhone on Verizon doesn't mean that AT&T is a monopoly or that Apple is doing anything wrong.

By: thedavidlewis

thedavidlewis — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:08:58 +0000

By: Daniel M. Clark

Daniel M. Clark — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:13:12 +0000