Arguing that common agreements between cell phone manufacturers and major wireless companies are harmful to consumers outside of urban areas, the Rural Cellular Association recently filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission.

The association has requested an investigation into "the widespread use and anticompetitive effects of exclusivity arrangements between commercial wireless carriers and handset manufacturers," according to the filing.

"We're noticing that the large carriers are increasingly demanding exclusivity, and we're concerned about the trend and the access to these newest and best devices in rural markets," said David Nace, an attorney with Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, counsel for RCA.

RCA focuses on wireless communications issues in rural and underserved areas. Members include smaller wireless companies all over the country.

Nace said the exclusivity agreements violate a section of the Communications Act, which prohibits wireless companies from discriminating or giving preference based on class and location of customers.

For consumers - particularly those in rural areas - handset exclusivity arrangements mean fewer choices regarding the types of phones available, he said.

Wyomingites, for example, can't use the much-coveted iPhone because AT&T isn't a regular service provider in the state. Because of exclusivity agreements, Nace said, the iPhone and other advanced handsets like it are also unavailable in rural or all areas of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Vermont. The result creates "yet another digital divide between urban and rural America."

Currently, the "Big Five" - Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, AT&T and Alltel Wireless - distribute most of the advanced handsets and offer them only to customers within their service areas, Nace said.

Without such exclusivity agreements, he said, high-tech handsets could be made available by smaller or regional wireless carriers to those in rural and underserved wireless areas.

"Many of our members serve these rural markets, [they] want to provide these handsets, and frankly they're just not allowed to get them," he said. "Our members are willing to pay the appropriate price and offer the product, and we just believe it's causing rural markets to fall behind."

And with the recent announcement that Verizon may buyout Alltel, Casper area customers may soon only have the option of Verizon as a major provider. Smaller wireless companies are also available in the area.

Robert Kelley, a Verizon Wireless media relations representative, said Verizon is aware of the filing and the company is deciding on its next steps.

Contact reporter Megan Lee at (307) 266-0589 or megan.lee@trib.com

Section 202(a) of the Communications Act states:

"It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in the charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."