I don't know much about the Asian cell phone system although I'd be very surprised if it's very good outside major metropolitan areas.

I'm by no means an expert but at least in the case of China, they've blanketed the entire country with cell towers. I've heard an NPR reporter say that when he had a broken down vehicle in the middle of nowhere Gansu province, he pulled out his cell phone and got full strength signals, so was able to call the next town down the road and call for a repair crew. China and other developing countries are skipping the entire "landline" part of telecommunications infrastructure and going directly to 3G mobile service. It's true that in many parts of the world they have better mobile service because they don't have to maintain the legacy landline system.

Has congress really reached such a low ebb in my mind? Why, yes. Yes, they have.

I wasn't talking at all about coverage - and anyways, the major metro areas of the East Coast are pretty much a good analogue for Western Europe - roughly comparable density. This red herring is usually brought up when talking about transportation (as if everybody outside the northeast commonly spends our days driving across Montana instead of to/from work). One of these days, I'll make a comparable map of both - but eyeballing serves just as well for most people.

The cell-phone situation in Europe and Asia seems far superior to ours.

I don't know much about the Asian cell phone system although I'd be very surprised if it's very good outside major metropolitan areas.

It's true that Western Europe has superb coverage. Then again, the logistics there are much, much easier given population density. Putting together an effective network in a continental sized country with large areas that are sparsely populated is much harder.

It's true, though, that fiat has its advantages for things like this. I live in a densely populated area and there are still dead spots owing to public resistance every time someone wants to put up a cell tower, even one totally hidden from view. Whether that's a feature or a bug depends, I suppose, on your view of democracy.

I'm a believer in markets, not because I think they produce the optimal state of affairs in the near time -- they seldom do -- but because I think governmental attempts to fix things almost always create suboptimal conditions.

Sure, but let's not pretend that this is one of those instances. The cell-phone situation in Europe and Asia seems far superior to ours. Pretending that this isn't true (rather than admitting that it's an exception to the rule that markets usually provide better outcomes than fiat regulation) makes people not believe the rule in general, which is far more damaging in the long-run than giving up one small point here.

But let's not pretend that it's just automatically the best scenario because it happens to be the current state of affairs here.

I'm a believer in markets, not because I think they produce the optimal state of affairs in the near time -- they seldom do -- but because I think governmental attempts to fix things almost always create suboptimal conditions. Plus, there's the whole "freedom" thing.

AT&T's coverage sucks in some areas and there are surely people who would love to own an iPhone and use a different carrier. I think Apple should have chosen a different business model that would allow that. I just don't think it's any of Congress' business.

Further, owning an iPhone is hardly an inalienable right. If you don't want the strings that come with it, get a Blackberry or another PDA.

It's not optimal, to be sure. That's how the people who own the rights to their products are choosing to sell them. As a result, they limit their market. That's their call.

But let's not pretend that it's just automatically the best scenario because it happens to be the current state of affairs here. Otherwise, you play right into the hands of the true leftists who think the market is ALWAYS broken and should thus never be trusted.

Imagine of the Beatle's White album was only available through Columbia House . . . Now imagine a Columbia House competitor is the only one that offers the newest Fallout Boy album . . .

I imagine I'd buy other albums.

Indeed, I have that sort of choice all the time. I want NFL Sunday Ticket. That's available only via DirecTV via exclusive licensing arrangement. I also want FiOS. The best deal is one that includes television. I either have to decide between them or suck it up and buy both.

We finally broke down and bought a Blu-Ray to play high def DVDs. Some movie companies only make their movies available in high def on HD-DVD format, which is incompatible with Blu-Ray. And vice-versa.

It's not optimal, to be sure. That's how the people who own the rights to their products are choosing to sell them. As a result, they limit their market. That's their call.

But as Chris Murray, an attorney at Consumers Union, pointed out at the House hearing last week, wireless companies don’t give customers a choice over whether they want to take this deal. You can’t offer to pay full price for a handset in exchange for a reduced early-termination fee and an unlocked phone — no major firm will let you do that.

I'm not sure any wireless company will disallow a phone purchased from a third party, as long as that phone supports their network protocol. But with things like the iPhone, most of the functions are built on services proprietary to AT&T. So even if you took the iPhone to another carrier that used the same network protocol, all those fancy feature won't work, just the phone and basic internet. For those interested in an alternative, the FIC Neo 1973 and OpenMoko offer most of the same features of the iPhone, without any of the vendor lock-in. http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo1973

Perhaps John Edwards will address this injustice when he's President.

That’s pretty harsh. It reminds me of when I was 15 and joined the Columbia House Record Club. They sent me 13 albums for a penny. Then, they had the audacity to expect me to buy six more albums from them — at prices higher than Wal-Mart charges for them — over the next three years plus pay shipping and handling. Sure, I knew that going into the deal but all I could see was “13 albums for a penny.” The rest of the deal was not to my liking. Boy, was I steamed.

Imagine of the Beatle's White album was only available through Columbia House (at above Walmart price, or course), and only if you signed a contract to buy 120 other CDs from them or pay a $175 termination fee. Sure you still don't have to buy the album, but at least this way the analogy is a little closer (financially) to the iPhone deal.

Now imagine a Columbia House competitor is the only one that offers the newest Fallout Boy album, and again with the same contract. You want to listen to it? Sure, just pay Columbia House that $175, plus $20 for the new Album, and $2,400 in additional albums because of your new contract (or pay another $175 termination fee). Suddenly that new Fallout Boy album costs between $370 and $2,595.

As to Apple and AT&T doing business together, I see that as their choice. In a free market economy we ought to respect that.

If Apple is evil, it is in an old testament way. They invoke lust and desire for their offering. When you see the iPhone, you don't want it. You want to touch it, you want to caress it, you want to fondle it. In the end, you neeeed it even if you don't need a cell phone. Even if you don't have cell service in your town. That is an evil the devil could get behind. Not the Microsoft petty annoyance kind of evil but deep in the belly overwhelming lascivious lust.

To satisfy this deep yearning, you must sign a contract. One you can't fiddle yourself out of. But also one that provides a useful service and doesn't lead to eternal damnation. On the other hand, those who have had iPhone activation problems do describe their experience as a special kind of hell.

Think of AT&T as the mother-in-law you have to accept in order to get to spend your nights enjoying the delights of your beautiful bride.