Over the past few months, the government’s interest in the practice of handset exclusivity has intensified. On the heels of Congressional hearings in July, Verizon Wireless agreed to dial back its exclusive deals with cell phone manufacturers to accommodate smaller carriers. This week the FCC, which has already begun a review of handset agreements, has made the issue a focus of its regular monthly meeting. But no matter what the setting or circumstances, whenever U.S. lawmakers and regulators discuss competition in the wireless industry, the elephant in the room these days is almost always the iPhone.

Since Apple first gave AT&T exclusive rights to carry its groundbreaking device in the United States, concerns about unfair competitive advantages have become a hot-button issue. Apprehensions increased as AT&T sought to extend the deal beyond the 2009 deadline, and reached a fever pitch when Apple rejected a Google Voice application earlier this summer.

Nonetheless, many both inside and outside the industry question the need for more government intervention.

Indeed, before the iPhone came along, far fewer consumers (or lawmakers and regulators for that matter) cared a great deal about handset exclusivity, because most cell phones were utilitarian at best. According to Nielsen’s Mobile Insights report, which surveys 300,000 wireless users every year about their opinions and behaviors, in Q3 2006 – a full year before the iPhone launched – “device” was only the seventh most important factor in choosing a wireless carrier. The percentage of respondents on device has since increased from 2.9% to 6.4% in Q1 2009, yet the category remains in seventh place.

There is no doubt AT&T has benefited from the arrangement. New subscribers between the first quarters of 2008 and 2009 who signed up for “a phone not offered by my carrier” (i.e., the iPhone) jumped from 11% to 23%, and the company has reported that 40% of its iPhone customers switched from other services.
Still, the mobile industry is home to many operators who sell a wide variety of handsets. Currently, there are more than 100 different phones offered by the nation’s “Big 4″ service providers in their retail store, plus hundreds more from the large carrier’s websites and the more than 100 smaller carriers that are operating in the United States.

Even if every handset were required to be accessible across all four networks, only the largest of manufacturers could invest in the infrastructure necessary to produce identical products with different technologies. Neither legislation nor regulation could nor should be expected to change that situation.

It can be argued that exclusivity actually enhances innovation and creates more choice. If, for example, Apple’s iPhone or Motorola’s RAZR were initially available on all U.S. carriers, there would have been minimal incentive for handset manufacturers to create rival products. Though competition would exist, the options would be considerably less diverse.

What is more, the iPhone’s significant technological lead over virtually every other smart phone would probably have virtually destroyed the market for the other handset manufacturers. T-Mobile, like several other carriers, would have had less reason to invest in the development Android-based devices. Palm would not have been able to build the Pre and sell as many as it did in the first few weeks without the support of Sprint. In fact, Palm would have likely died without the Centro, which was custom built for Sprint under an exclusive pact that has since expired.

Beyond the iPhone’s distinct technological advantages, AT&T’s infrastructure would almost certainly limit competition as well. Early on Apple had decided to build its phone on a GSM technology path, the most popular standard for mobile phones in the world. But in the United States there are but two GSM networks – AT&T and T-Mobile. Were the iPhone originally available on both, consumers would pick their carrier based largely on price and coverage. Since pricing can be easily matched, T-Mobile’s nascent footprint would have a hard time going up against AT&T’s more built-out network.

In time – perhaps as early as next year – Apple will likely drop its AT&T exclusivity and build an iPhone in the U.S. that can be used across other wireless technologies. That is about to happen in Europe, where the company is reportedly moving away from exclusive deals because it can now derive greater profitability by not having restricted relationships with only single providers. At that point, new and current iPhone users will migrate to carriers that makes that the most sense for them – still driven by the factors other than “device.”

A version of this article also appeared at FierceWireless.com.

Roger Entner, SVP, Head of Research and Insights, Telecom Practice
As widely expected, Apple announced the new iPhone 3GS at its Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. This latest iPhone offers incremental improvements over the iPhone 3G at the existing $199/$299 price points. The bigger news that few, if any, expected was that the older iPhone 3G was going to continue to be sold, but at the new $99 price point.  It is self-evident that this price cut will drive sales. According to Nielsen’s Mobile Insights survey, which asks 25,000 Americans every month about their wireless attitudes and behaviors, the second most important factor-noted by 20% of respondents-as to why people did not pick the iPhone was its price.

What has been largely overlooked is the impact of the iPhone 3G price cut on the industry as a whole.  It is hard to overestimate the impact that a $99 iPhone has on the wireless carriers and handset manufacturers in the US. The new $99 price point for the iPhone 3G completely changes the value proposition of every handset at every carrier in the US. Some observers have commented that the $99 price point “kneecaps the Palm Pre,” but the kneecapping does not stop there. The dozen or more Google Android handsets that are being launched in the second half of the year will have prices that either make them look non-competitive or extremely margin-challenged. Actually, any device over $49 looks outright overpriced, and the feature phones in general have become a commodity. As a result, the relative value proposition and price matrix of every carrier’s handset portfolio has to be remapped. This has massive repercussions for the entire handset business model. Handset subsidies have to go up while the price to consumers has to go down to maintain a relative value proposition. Carriers will share the pain of lower handset prices with device manufactures whose margins will be further compressed, adding to the pressure they feel with the slowdown in the global economy. Carriers also have to think about if they can or want to shift the up-front cost of owning a device to the monthly recurring charge. It remains to be seen how much price elasticity exists in an economy that is still struggling and will shed jobs for a long time. AT&T could scorch the earth for its competitors by introducing a lower cost data plan that brings the minimum monthly cost of carrying an iPhone below $70, addressing the number one reason people passed on the iPhone. The competitive reaction to such a move would demand would be as value destructive as Verizon Wireless’ introduction of the $99 unlimited plan, which was simply matched by the competition without a meaningful realignment of market share — it would be another example of how industry players have acted diametric to Pareto-optimality.

The implied point of view and resulting strategy is that voice has been commoditized and has become table stakes. Defendable differentiation will come from devices and data. Now that might be true in the longer run, and especially as long as one has the iPhone exclusively. While the exclusive Apple relationship is a pillar of strength for AT&T and a large factor in its continued and future success, AT&T has to be painfully aware that its fortunes are tied to that exclusivity. More than 80% of AT&T’s net adds in Q1 2009 came from the iPhone. While the other carriers have to plan on how to compete in the next few quarters, AT&T has to figure out what success will look like after the Apple exclusivity runs out and it has to live in the world it delivered.

• As of April 2009, Nielsen estimates that there are 6.4 million active iPhone users in the U.S., up from 2.1 million a year prior. The most impactful iPhone announcement this week may be the price reduction of $99 for the 8 GB version: cost has been one factor (in addition to AT&T exclusivity) that’s kept the overall iPhone audience modestly sized.
• 37% watch video on their phone (6x as likely as the typical subscriber)
• The iPhone audience is age-diverse: a device this powerful isn’t just for kids. There are roughly as many iPhone users 55 and older as there are 13-24.

• iPhone users look good to mobile marketers. Forty-percent have household incomes of $100K or more – twice the ratio among all subscribers (19%). That income may also be helpful for current iPhone owners who want to upgrade: in-contract iPhone owners may have to pay an additional $200 to upgrade before their contract expires.

• It’s not just for looks. 98% of iPhone users use the data features of their phone, services that should improve with the enhanced speed promised by the iPhone 3G S.

• 88% use the Internet (making them 4x as likely as the typical subscriber)

• 75% download apps (5x as likely as the typical subscriber)

• 72% used location based services (7x as likely as the typical subscriber)

Apple’s announcement came on the heels of the release of the latest so-called “iPhone killer” the Palm Pre smartphone. However, iPhone buzz continues to dominate the blogosphere.

Leading up to the Jan. 8 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, buzz from online boards, forums and blogs increased nearly tenfold from post-2008 holiday levels, according to Nielsen Online.

Key products created much of the excitement, including super-thin, bendable TV screens (using organic light-emitting diode, or OLED technology), new digital cameras and camcorders, smarter-than-ever-smartphones such as the Palm Pre, and tinier, more powerful computers, some of which are being called “netbooks.” Also big: the concept of “convergence,” which means that many electronics devices are now interchangeably converging their functions: computers that download TV content and music and play it throughout the house, cameras that use GPS to tag photos automatically, and phones that serve as music players. Sure, electronics manufacturers are feeling the pinch, but they’re also hoping to benefit from consumers who turn to more home-based entertainment (big-screen TVs, gaming consoles, etc.) to keep their own budgets under control.

Follow more trends at Nielsen Online’s blog, Connecting the Dots.