Remarking on Apple’s (AAPL) December quarter in a note to investors this morning, Thomas Weisel Partners analyst Doug Reid said iPhone and iMac sales for the period have been quite strong. “Our checks suggest December quarter sales of iPhones are tracking ahead of our prior estimates, driven by increased market penetration in the United States, additional carrier agreements in multiple countries, and first-time launches in Korea and China,” Reid wrote.

“Mid-December Apple Store and carrier checks indicate that the 2009 holiday shopping season has seen a sharp increase in the purchase of iPhone as a gift option,” the analyst continued. “We also estimate better than expected iMac sales in the quarter following a successful product refresh (announced on October 20). Our checks indicate strong demand throughout the holiday season for the new iMac line.”

Seems that the shipping delays associated with Apple’s new 27-inch iMacs haven’t undermined sales nearly as much as some feared. Reid says that demand and in-store availability of both 21.5-inch and 27-inch models remains strong, so much so that he’s raising his iMac unit estimate for the December quarter from 655 thousand to 721 thousand.

Demand for the iPhone has also been strong thanks to the end of carrier-exclusivity agreements in some markets.

“The ability to add iPhones to existing family service plans with carriers has been a key driver in C4Q09, our checks indicate. In addition, industry checks also suggest that AAPL is benefiting from the addition of second or third carriers in markets (e.g. UK, Canada) and from a strong initial sales ramp in Korea.”

How much of a benefit? A sizable one. Reid figures Apple will sell 8.21 million to 8.89 million iPhones during the December quarter. And he expects the company to sell 31.59 million to 32.27 million in fiscal 2010.

Five dollars and a ratty “Think Different” T-shirt says Apple shares will hit another new 52-week high today.

Among the issues to be discussed: The state of competition in the wireless market, carrier handset vendor-exclusivity deals like those between Apple (AAPL) and AT&T (T), fee-setting and “truth in billing.”

Also likely topics of discussion: Apple’s recent rejection of Google Voice from its App Store and why Google (GOOG) doesn’t support a full version of Skype for its Android mobile OS.

It’s not clear what will come of the meeting, though given the Obama administration’s intention to ratchet up scrutiny of antitrust issues, it’s likely that the inquiries proposed will be approved by FCC commissioners.

The wireless industry is already gritting its teeth in preparation. “We’re excited and we look forward to responding to the commission’s round of inquiries,” said Christopher Gutman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA, the wireless industry’s trade association. “We’re looking forward to educating not just the Commission but other policy makers about the evolution of the industry and the innovation that’s occurring, not just by carriers but across the ecosystem.”

That’s the word from agency Chairman Julius Genachowski, who says he’s concerned not just with the competitive ramifications of carrier-exclusivity deals, but with their tendency to limit customer access to top smartphones. “There are markets in the country where if you wanted an iPhone, if you wanted a Pre, you just couldn’t get it–from anyone,” Genachowski told Bloomberg. “So one question is, is that consistent with broad consumer interests?”

Vermont residents and those living in the rural areas of other states who can’t use the iPhone because AT&T (T) offers only roaming coverage there would likely say the answer to that question is no. But AT&T, Verizon (VZ) and other Tier 1 wireless carriers disagree. They claim exclusive handset deals are beneficial.

“The popularity of the iPhone and its innovative features and applications…has provoked an unprecedented competitive reaction,” James Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. “Exclusive handsets have provided U.S. consumers the most advanced devices in the world at distinctly affordable rates. 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.”

Verizon argued that point as well in a recent letter to Congress’s Telecommunications Subcommittee. “Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design,” the company said. “We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers. When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device. Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device.”

In some cases, perhaps. Though I doubt Apple (AAPL) and Research in Motion (RIMM), maker of the BlackBerry, feel that way these days. If there’s reluctance anywhere, it’s reluctance on the part of carriers like AT&T, which can’t bear the thought of losing its exclusive on the iPhone, without which it will face defections and slowing growth.

Since Varney’s confirmation in late April, the Department of Justice has seen a sort of Trustbuster renaissance. The DOJ has begun inquiring into potentially anticompetitive recruiting practices in Silicon Valley. It opened an investigation into the Google Books (GOOG) settlement. And now, the Department is scrutinizing cellphone exclusivity deals like the lucrative one between Apple (AAPL) and AT&T (T). Sources close to the DOJ tell The Wall Street Journal that the agency is probing such deals to see if they adversely restrict consumer choice or hamper competition.

The inquiry, which is in its very early stages, follows recent calls for the Federal Communications Commission to open a similar investigation, and it remains to be seen what, if anything, will come of it. For while exclusivity deals may undermine consumers, there’s little doubt that they benefit them as well. After all, AT&T’s iPhone deal with Apple scared the hell out the entire industry, forcing innovations in handsets and networks alike. Were it not for that deal, we might not be seeing the network improvements now occurring–the deployment of high-speed downlink packet access and long-term evolution, or LTE, networks, for example. And we almost certainly wouldn’t have devices like the Palm (PALM) Pre and the BlackBerry Storm.

Since Varney’s confirmation in late April, the Department of Justice has seen a sort of Trustbuster renaissance. The DOJ has begun inquiring into potentially anticompetitive recruiting practices in Silicon Valley. It opened an investigation into the Google Books (GOOG) settlement. And now, the Department is scrutinizing cellphone exclusivity deals like the lucrative one between Apple (AAPL) and AT&T (T). Sources close to the DOJ tell The Wall Street Journal that the agency is probing such deals to see if they adversely restrict consumer choice or hamper competition.

The inquiry, which is in its very early stages, follows recent calls for the Federal Communications Commission to open a similar investigation, and it remains to be seen what, if anything, will come of it. For while exclusivity deals may undermine consumers, there’s little doubt that they benefit them as well. After all, AT&T’s iPhone deal with Apple scared the hell out the entire industry, forcing innovations in handsets and networks alike. Were it not for that deal, we might not be seeing the network improvements now occurring–the deployment of high-speed downlink packet access and long-term evolution, or LTE, networks, for example. And we almost certainly wouldn’t have devices like the Palm (PALM) Pre and the BlackBerry Storm.