AT&T hit back at Sen. Herb Kohl Wednesday, denying that the wireless industry is anti-competitive and again insisting that its exclusivity arrangement with Apple for the iPhone has paved the way for other innovative smartphones, not served as a hindrance.
"The popularity of the iPhone and its innovative features and applications … has provoked an unprecedented competitive reaction," James Cicconi, senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, wrote in a letter to Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat.
Kohl, chairman of the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, wrote in a Monday letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and Christine Varney, assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, asking the two to investigate exclusive handset arrangements, as well as industry competitiveness and several other issues.
"Exclusive handsets have provided U.S. consumers the most advanced devices in the world at distinctly affordable rates," Cicconi said. "By allowing a carrier and a manufacturer to share the enormous risks and costs of bringing an inventive but unproven new device to market, exclusive arrangements both quicken the pace of technological advancement and incentivize the carrier to offer even greater handset subsidies to its customers."
AT&T made the same points last month when it appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee to discuss the state of the wireless industry.
Cicconi suggested that without an exclusive deal, the iPhone would have been more expensive and probably would have appeared in Europe, Japan, or China before it debuted in the United States.
"Prohibiting exclusive handset arrangements, then, would not engender competition, it would degrade it," he concluded.
The Rural Cellular Association (RCA) last year asked the FCC to examine these deals and their effect on competition, and new FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has promised to examine their complaint.
Cicconi also dismissed the idea that the industry is not competitive, pointing to the "nine independent carriers serving more than 4 million retail customers." He agreed that the FCC should make more spectrum available, but "respectfully disagree that spectrum rations or caps, like those suggested in your letter, are the appropriate tool to do so."
Source
"The popularity of the iPhone and its innovative features and applications … has provoked an unprecedented competitive reaction," James Cicconi, senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, wrote in a letter to Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat.
Kohl, chairman of the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, wrote in a Monday letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and Christine Varney, assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, asking the two to investigate exclusive handset arrangements, as well as industry competitiveness and several other issues.
"Exclusive handsets have provided U.S. consumers the most advanced devices in the world at distinctly affordable rates," Cicconi said. "By allowing a carrier and a manufacturer to share the enormous risks and costs of bringing an inventive but unproven new device to market, exclusive arrangements both quicken the pace of technological advancement and incentivize the carrier to offer even greater handset subsidies to its customers."
AT&T made the same points last month when it appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee to discuss the state of the wireless industry.
Cicconi suggested that without an exclusive deal, the iPhone would have been more expensive and probably would have appeared in Europe, Japan, or China before it debuted in the United States.
"Prohibiting exclusive handset arrangements, then, would not engender competition, it would degrade it," he concluded.
The Rural Cellular Association (RCA) last year asked the FCC to examine these deals and their effect on competition, and new FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has promised to examine their complaint.
Cicconi also dismissed the idea that the industry is not competitive, pointing to the "nine independent carriers serving more than 4 million retail customers." He agreed that the FCC should make more spectrum available, but "respectfully disagree that spectrum rations or caps, like those suggested in your letter, are the appropriate tool to do so."
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment