U.S. Department of Justice Reviewing Wireless Carrier Exclusivity Agreements

[flar]

Up until 3 years ago, AT&T and T-Mobile shared towers and the same 850 band frequency in the state of Arizona.
Cingular (AT&T) was in the process of switching all their towers from TDMA to GSM and needed to be able to support the newer GSM handsets while they phased out the older TDMA ones.
They entered into a sharing agreement with T-Mobile to share T-Mobiles GSM space while they got thiers up and running.
AT&T now uses the 1900 GSM band in AZ and has since phased out the sharing agreement with T-Mobile.
Yes, T-Mobile was using AT&T networks in many areas while they built out their own, but my understanding was that it was via a roaming (http://www.t-mobile.com/company/PressReleases_Article.aspx?assetName=Prs_Prs_20030423&title=T-Mobile%20USA%20and%20AT&T%20Wireless%20Sign%20Roaming%20Agreement%20Significantly%20Expanding%20GSM/GPRS%20Footprint%20in%20U.S.) agreement, not by managing its own transmitters on the same frequency as AT&T. In that article I linked to you will see that this was a 2-way agreement since both of them had areas covered that the other wanted (though I think AT&T built themselves out of the need for it faster than T-Mobile). It was roaming, not "using the same frequencies" and it was only possible on that kind of scale because both had a need that the other could satisfy.

As T-Mobile built towers in various areas they switched off their roaming agreements with AT&T, but it required actually installing their own transmitters, not simply switching frequencies to a new frequency. This happend in a lot of markets, not just AZ.

[charlituna]

I am glad to see there are still american institutions capable of defending consumer interests against corporate giants. Let's hope they force companies to more honest practices. Apple should be fines as well for initiating this whole thing.

Apple hardly initated all this. device locking has been going on for, well as long as cell phones have existed. Apple didn't really have a choice if they wanted to get the someone to service the phone and to help pay the development costs. They are well aware that folks want a choice even if it is just ATT or T-Mobile. Apple isn't likely to keep the phones locked one day longer than required by their contract with ATT. nor are they likely to give an extensions they don't have to

Even worse, they still force you into a contract even if you bring your own phone.


you sure about that. as in you bought a full price iphone and then went to ATT to activate it and they made you sign a contract, with ETF etc.

because if that is true, someone needs to tell Apple they were lied to cause they are saying full price is no contract.

[marksman]

For me this says pretty much everything I need to read about this to dismiss this as nonsense.

AT&T and Verizon are expected to be the prime targets of the inquiry, as the two companies control a combined 60% of the U.S

Really? We are launching anti-trust investigations because the top 2 companies in an industry who account for 60% of the business are doing something that others don't like?

This is a non-starter in terms of exclusivity agreements. Phone manufacturers can make exclusivity agreements with carriers if they want to...it is their product and they can certainly decide who they want selling it.

People are trying to flip it around, but the reality is this is the phone makers agreeing with the wireless companies so they can have their phones distributed. Beyond that though, there are other issues. Again, fundamentally, it is a non-starter to be telling manufacturers who they have to sell their product to... they can sell it to whomever they want.

[pika2000]

Perhaps you want to take your extremely old 2 year old phone to another carrier, but most people don't. And every phone except the iphone can be unlocked for free by the carriers. Whether the end-users obtain those unlocking codes from their carriers, that's an entirely different matter.

The BIG difference between Hong Kong and USA is that Hong Kong has 6 carriers and the Bush administration allowed telecom mergers to take place and the American market went from 6 national carriers down to 4 national carriers. Nothing to do with simlocking laws, nothing to do with exclusivity --- it is the allowance of telecom mergers with minimal amount of anti-trust oversight.
The 2 year upgrade cycle becomes a trend simply because that's the average contract length in the US. I don't see what relevance that is into carriers locking phones. Besides, whatever I want to do with the phone that I already pay for should not have anything to do with the carrier. As for unlocking codes, why does the iPhone have to be different? Why don't carriers simply advertise upfront that users can ask for unlock codes for free? Why does it have to be a "secret"? Why do users have to beg/go through difficult conversation to get their phones unlocked? (this is with AT&T, T-mobile has the unadvertised 90day policy and is pretty lenient) Why prepaid phones are still provider-locked? Why don't the carriers simply unlock the phones in the first place? In short, provider-locking have no logic behind it. It's simply an anti-competitive business practice. That's my point. We don't see PCs being locked on Comcast as the sole ISP. We don't see landline phones being locked into QWEST. The lay consumers don't care about those things either, but we don't see provider-locking-kind of business practices with those markets. Why cellphones have to be different?

Okay, now we're talking about Bush. This is actually a good thing, especially for those people that are claiming US cellular market is a free market. Fact is, it's not a free market, as the government is already involved like you have stated. The least they should do now is prevent anti-competitive practices and put more consumer protection.

[macintoshtoffy]

None of your comments make one bit of sense to me.

Then you need to go back to school and keep repeating it until either you get it or your brain explodes.

[pika2000]

This would be nice. Unlocking would no longer be needed. Apple's contract is up in 2010 and I don't think it will be renewed. Imagine that you walk in to T-mobile and buy an iPhone rather than buying off Ebay and unlocking. That would be nice. I hope it happens.
Unless if AT&T decided to give Apple a boat-load of money. I don't think AT&T want Apple to go, especially after seeing the sales of the 3G and 3GS. Apple is already irked with AT&T (a lot of the complaints about the iPhone are AT&T related, plus MMS+tethering), but in the end, if the price is right, they could extend the exclusivity.

I don't really have a problem with exclusivity. It's their choice. However, my major issue is provider locking. Like I already stated, in other countries, iPhones are being sold exclusively through a carrier, but it's unlocked out of the box. I fail to see why AT&T has to lock the iPhone. This is imo the real issue, and the DoJ is looking at it from the wrong way.

[pika2000]

you sure about that. as in you bought a full price iphone and then went to ATT to activate it and they made you sign a contract, with ETF etc.

because if that is true, someone needs to tell Apple they were lied to cause they are saying full price is no contract.
There was a story about a guy with his old first gen iPhone that is out of contract already. He wanted to get the iPhone 3GS, and give the old iPhone to his family member. Obviously since the iPhone is locked to AT&T, the family member has to go with AT&T, and when they got in, AT&T wanted the person to be on another 2 year contract, even though technically that 1st gen iPhone is out of contract already.

AT&T does sell no-contract iPhones at full price (nothing new, they do this for all other phones they sell), but all of them are still provider locked, even though technically you're paying full price with no commitment. Talk about illogical.

I'm just going to say this again. I have no issue with contracts (I was ready to get the iPhone when it was first announced, thinking that since Apple is selling it at full price and they're talking how they would change the cellphone market that it would not be locked. But decided not to once I know it's still provider-locked) nor exclusivity. My beef complaint is provider-locking.

[xIGmanIx]

You are only allowed to watch certain stations. You can get the free local channels unless you pay monthly for a package of more stations from a provider. :rolleyes:

A better, better analogy is someone complaining that they can only watch a certain show on a certain station (I had an example earlier in the thread: you complain that you can't watch Mythbusters on Cartoon Network even though you want to).

not exactly, its like saying i can only buy a certain TiVo to work on your cable, not satelite because Comcast made a deal, not because the hardware is limiting you

[iphones4evry1]

AT&T charges waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much for voice minutes.
They force us to buy at least $39.99 worth of minutes every month, and most people don't even use a quarter of that. They need a $29.99 plan for voice minutes. I would still be spending much more on data and text. Voice minutes are sooooooo yesterday. We still need them because we still make phone calls, but we don't need several thousand minutes every month. That's just ridiculous!

[Winters75]

That and Euroweenies all live on top of each other. Real countries like the USA and Australia have to deal with distance, low densities (while the USA has high density overall, it is all concentrated in a few cities, the density in most places is low).

Move somewhere else...

[MarkAK]

Poor analogy as you don't "need" and ISP to use a PC.
They have these cool things called removable media and install CD/DVD's.
You don't "need" internet access to use a PC. You can perform this stuff called "work" or even have fun on a PC without an ISP. A PC is still a functioning PC even without internet access.

A cell phone is pretty useless without a carrier providing service to it.
A cell phone without service is a paperweight or a portable game player and/or media at best. But it is no longer a phone.


You don’t need cell service to use a BB, iphone or any smart phone. Are you using it to its fullest capability? No but you can use it (as you stated) as an iPOD or PDA etc....

Again I should be able to by my cell phone directly from the manufacturer and receive better technical service also!

What about land line phones? I don’t buy them from the service provider......anymore. I can buy it from the manufacturer or authorized retailer and elect to use it with phone service or not (paperweight).

I buy my TV from Best buy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to Direct TV and I was told I had to buy a new TV?

I buy my Phone from BestBuy not AT$T.
What if I changed from AT$T to Comcast and I was told I had to buy a new phone?

I buy my PC from BestBuy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to AT$T and I was told I had to buy a new PC?

All three of these devices require you to purchase a service to fully use them.

I buy my gas from any gas station I choose.
What if I change from Mobile to Getty and the car manufacturer told me i had to buy a new car......lol okay you get my point.

[diamond.g]

People who live outside the US who have "open" cellphone markets (my definition: you buy a cellphone from a store and you get a sim from your cellphone service provider; if you want a subsidised cellphone, you get it (unlocked) from the service provider and sign a contract with an early termination fee) really wonder why people from the US are in a tizz about the "free market" vs "socialism/communism". This is a system that just works. We're wondering when you'll revert to this open system, in the same way we're wondering which country is going to be last to go metric: Myanmar, Liberia or the USA.Everytime someone mentions rocking the boat of the established players using the federal government that argument always pops up. We Americans seem to believe (almost to a fault) that if the people want something the market will provide.


you sure about that. as in you bought a full price iphone and then went to ATT to activate it and they made you sign a contract, with ETF etc.

because if that is true, someone needs to tell Apple they were lied to cause they are saying full price is no contract.AT&T tells you that you are agreeing to a data plan for two years and that the device has to have one to operate on the network. Someone posted something in the iPhone forum that claimed they are starting to do data sweeps. Adding a data plan to those whom are not using one. According to the agreement Apple has with AT&T you have to have a data plan to use the iPhone on the AT&T network. At least that is what they told that poster.

[marco114]

I buy my TV from Best buy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to Direct TV and I was told I had to buy a new TV?

I buy my Phone from BestBuy not AT$T.
What if I changed from AT$T to Comcast and I was told I had to buy a new phone?

I buy my PC from BestBuy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to AT$T and I was told I had to buy a new PC?

All three of these devices require you to purchase a service to fully use them.

I buy my gas from any gas station I choose.
What if I change from Mobile to Getty and the car manufacturer told me i had to buy a new car......lol okay you get my point.

Ok, but that's not a feature of a car when you buy it. When you BUY an iPhone, you are agreeing to the terms. If you don't agree. don't buy. If cars were advertised the same way, then you'd have to make the decision to buy a car.

What you are implying is that those cars and TVs you mention are already "open" to numerous networks and gas stations. They are advertised and not restricted in that way.

When you buy an iPhone, you're agreeing to use it on AT&T. there's nothing scrupulous about it. sorry.

[nkawtg72]

If this were a totally open market segment I might agree with you, but cell phone service is not totally open.

There is only a limited set of frequency spectra ......

Oh, and, by the way, Apple did not choose to enter into this agreement because it was in *their* best interest. They were forced into accepting the agreement in order to get in the game because of the lack of alternate players in the industry - a lack imposed by the nature of this industry and its reliance on a small number of airwave frequencies which they have been given custody of by the people. Where was the "freedom of choice" there?

with all do respect, although this sounds like a convincing argument, it in actually has nothing to do with two entities agreeing to do business together. Apple agreeing to distribute their product through ATT has nothing to do with ATT and whether its living up to this quote bargain that you are speaking of to manage wireless spectrum. i wont even begin to argue with you that you have that twisted beyond reality with the way it really is.

also, at what point did someone put the gun to apple's head and tell them to make a phone in the first place? the choice you ask about, was a voluntary one on apple's part to enter in the market. its entrance into the market wasnt blocked by any monopoly that another cellphone manufacturer may have had on the market, nor did apple's entrance into the market (along with the agreement they made with att) create a monopoly preventing any other manufacturer from remaining or entering into the market as well. apple brought competition to the market, hence forcing other manufacturers as well as carriers to pay attention and to also make a voluntary choice to either continue down the path they were on or provide competition to apple's smartphone.

wisely, they chose to provide competition, and that's why we see them putting specific models of phones and service plans up in direct competition to the iPhone on ATT.

Apple did go to verizon, and couldnt get what they wanted, so they went to ATT and met with success. as my previous post suggests, there is NO RIGHT to happiness, only the pursuit of it. to say that the agreement that apple made was NOT in their best interest makes you sound pretty naive. you are suggesting then, that apple only agreed to the terms out of the goodness of their hearts because they wanted to see ATT make a crap load of money. forgive me, but apple's agreement with ATT may not have been perfect for them, but it was the best agreement any manufacturer had been able to get out of a cell carrier in decades.

apple expected visual voicemail, and att had to step up and integrate the necessary technologies to support it.

apple asked for at home activation and got that too. and before you point out to me that they no longer do that, ill remind you that the original phone wasnt subsidized. in store activation, for good reason, helps protect ATT financial investment in the sale of the phone.

apple was even able to prevent a carrier from BRANDING a device used on their network. i cant say all phones, but every phone ive come in contact with has always had the logo of its respective carrier plastered all over it, many times instead of or more prominent than the logo of the manufacturer.

add to that one, apple was also successful in not letting a carrier load a device up with all of its own junk software.

so dont try and pretend that apple didnt like or even benefit from this agreement that was "forced" (to use your words) down their throat.

[Tallest Skil]

not exactly, its like saying i can only buy a certain TiVo to work on your cable, not satelite because Comcast made a deal, not because the hardware is limiting you

But the hardware IS limiting you in this case, so that's not applicable.

The iPhone doesn't work on T-Mobile's, Centennial's, or anyone else's 3G network, and you can't use it on Verizon, Sprint, or any of the local CDMA providers at all.

[diamond.g]

with all do respect, although this sounds like a convincing argument, it in actually has nothing to do with two entities agreeing to do business together. Apple agreeing to distribute their product through ATT has nothing to do with ATT and whether its living up to this quote bargain that you are speaking of to manage wireless spectrum. i wont even begin to argue with you that you have that twisted beyond reality with the way it really is.

also, at what point did someone put the gun to apple's head and tell them to make a phone in the first place? the choice you ask about, was a voluntary one on apple's part to enter in the market. its entrance into the market wasnt blocked by any monopoly that another cellphone manufacturer may have had on the market, nor did apple's entrance into the market (along with the agreement they made with att) create a monopoly preventing any other manufacturer from remaining or entering into the market as well. apple brought competition to the market, hence forcing other manufacturers as well as carriers to pay attention and to also make a voluntary choice to either continue down the path they were on or provide competition to apple's smartphone.

wisely, they chose to provide competition, and that's why we see them putting specific models of phones and service plans up in direct competition to the iPhone on ATT.

Apple did go to verizon, and couldnt get what they wanted, so they went to ATT and met with success. as my previous post suggests, there is NO RIGHT to happiness, only the pursuit of it. to say that the agreement that apple made was NOT in their best interest makes you sound pretty naive. you are suggesting then, that apple only agreed to the terms out of the goodness of their hearts because they wanted to see ATT make a crap load of money. forgive me, but apple's agreement with ATT may not have been perfect for them, but it was the best agreement any manufacturer had been able to get out of a cell carrier in decades.

apple expected visual voicemail, and att had to step up and integrate the necessary technologies to support it.

apple asked for at home activation and got that too. and before you point out to me that they no longer do that, ill remind you that the original phone wasnt subsidized. in store activation, for good reason, helps protect ATT financial investment in the sale of the phone.

apple was even able to prevent a carrier from BRANDING a device used on their network. i cant say all phones, but every phone ive come in contact with has always had the logo of its respective carrier plastered all over it, many times instead of or more prominent than the logo of the manufacturer.

add to that one, apple was also successful in not letting a carrier load a device up with all of its own junk software.

so dont try and pretend that apple didnt like or even benefit from this agreement that was "forced" (to use your words) down their throat.
You don't get device branding if you get the device from the manufacturer. I do think that the gov should make it a rule that you can get your phone unlocked for use on any carrier with a compatible network after you fulfill the contract terms (either 2 years or ETF). The unlock code should be from the device manufacturer and not the service provider that way we don't get the stupid charge like they did for wireless number portability (which was also mandated by the gov).

[windywoo]

You are only allowed to watch certain stations. You can get the free local channels unless you pay monthly for a package of more stations from a provider. :rolleyes:

A better, better analogy is someone complaining that they can only watch a certain show on a certain station (I had an example earlier in the thread: you complain that you can't watch Mythbusters on Cartoon Network even though you want to).

No, the analogy still holds, because you can choose which provider, at least you can where I live. Your analogy is more like someone complaining they can only talk to customers on one network, something which would cause a huge outcry.

[nkawtg72]

You don’t need cell service to use a BB, iphone or any smart phone. Are you using it to its fullest capability? No but you can use it (as you stated) as an iPOD or PDA etc....

Again I should be able to by my cell phone directly from the manufacturer and receive better technical service also!

What about land line phones? I don’t buy them from the service provider......anymore. I can buy it from the manufacturer or authorized retailer and elect to use it with phone service or not (paperweight).

I buy my TV from Best buy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to Direct TV and I was told I had to buy a new TV?

I buy my Phone from BestBuy not AT$T.
What if I changed from AT$T to Comcast and I was told I had to buy a new phone?

I buy my PC from BestBuy not Comcast.
What if I changed from Comcast to AT$T and I was told I had to buy a new PC?

All three of these devices require you to purchase a service to fully use them.

I buy my gas from any gas station I choose.
What if I change from Mobile to Getty and the car manufacturer told me i had to buy a new car......lol okay you get my point.

the problem with arguments like this is they tend to ignore one major fact:
you, as an individual, ARE CHOOSING to participate in the market.

no one is forcing you to buy a tv, and when you do buy one, no one is telling you where you have to buy it from. i would like to buy brand X of a tv from best buy, but they only carry brands Y and Z. should the government step in and tell brand X and best buy, that they must sell brand X to me because im able to get brand X at WalMart?

no one is forcing you to buy a car. your decision to buy a car, means you will have to invest in it to continue to use it. that means buying gas, and again, you have a choice on where to buy gas. do i have the "right" to complain that i can't get Chevron gas at a BP?! if you had your way, it sounds like i should. i think chevron gas is better, but i like the hot dogs at BP better, so i would rather shop there. before you say, but Ford cant tell me i have to use BP gas. do they, no. can they require it? believe or not, yes. if when you bought the car from Ford you signed a contract, and made an agreement, that for X number of years, or for the life of the car, or for the duration of the warranty, or for the duration of the Ford financing, that you would use only BP gas, then by contract (enforceable by law) you would have to do that. and going back to that warranty point for a moment. when you buy a car, it comes with a manufacturers warranty (sometimes you even buy an additional or extended) and in the terms of that warranty it defines how you must use the car, and take care of the car, in order for the warranty to cover any problems with the car. racing, is a good example. most warranties come right out and say that if they determine that you used the vehicle for extreme duty situations like that, the warranty is void. but wait, i paid for the warranty!!! and isnt it my car!!!! dont i have the RIGHT to take that car racing?!?! answers: YES, YES, and YES. but Ford also has the right to say you violated the contract, so they wont fix the transmission.

buying a computer, again is a choice. using that computer on the internet, again is a choice. buying the computer is one market. getting on the internet is another. the two markets are independent of one another. believe it or not, i can actually make a choice to participate in the Internet market, and also choose NOT to participate in the Computer market. i can choose to go to the public library, and browse the internet for free. or go to a friends house and use his. or go to my school and use a computer lab.

to carry that out further. those are all choices and options i have to participate in the internet market, but they all come with a "price", i must agree to specific terms of use when i do it. to use the library or school, i may have to agree to a time limit, or even a restriction on the sites i can go to (ie NO PORN). or to use my friends, i must agree to only be there during times of the day that are convenient to him and may not be that convenient to me.

like my previous posts have said, at least in the US, you do NOT have the Right to a product or even a Right to participate in a Market. i will not rehash that here, if it matters to you, go back to page 18 or 19 on this forum and read my post discussing it.

ive tried to stay away from too many analogies, but i am reminded of one.

if i were to walk up to you on the street and tackle you face first into the pavement, i would have violated your Rights. my Rights end where yours begin. however, if you and i were on a football field during a game and i did the same thing, there would be nothing wrong with that. why is that?! because you and i agreed to participate in the game and to the terms (rules) of engagement. if these rules are not pleasant to you, then get off the field of play and out of the game.

choosing to own a cell phone and having cellular service, and participating in that market, means agreeing to certain rules. those rules are presented to you in the form of a contract, and terms of service, when you buy your phone or activate service. if you do not like those terms, dont agree to them. i dont like the way a lot of carriers run their businesses any more than the rest of you, but i still recognize that they are within their "right" to do so.

[nkawtg72]

People who live outside the US who have "open" cellphone markets (my definition: you buy a cellphone from a store and you get a sim from your cellphone service provider; if you want a subsidised cellphone, you get it (unlocked) from the service provider and sign a contract with an early termination fee) really wonder why people from the US are in a tizz about the "free market" vs "socialism/communism". This is a system that just works. We're wondering when you'll revert to this open system, in the same way we're wondering which country is going to be last to go metric: Myanmar, Liberia or the USA.

i cant speak for everyone, but even though i may agree with you and that an open system for cell phone purchase and activation would be great, i at the same time do not believe in a government interfering in a market. a consumers choice in participating in a market is exactly that, a choice. as long as the consumer as been properly informed of the terms of agreements or contracts, then i believe both parties (consumer and carrier) have behaved appropriately and nothing is wrong.

at the same time, what is at issue here, goes beyond the open market idea. it boils down to the government stepping in and interfering with the contracts of two private entities (apple and att for example) that have by choice decided to do business with each other. yes i think the government should monitor the markets for many reasons, but in this case, i am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with the exclusive agreements found between carriers and manufacturers.

[RaceJunkie]

As much as AT&T has failed, this could be a big hurt for Apple. It's kind of like trying to put Vista on different types of computers, now Apple will have to make different models of the iPhone. This is because AT&T and Verizon and Sprint all run of different networks. Well, now the iPhones would all need different chips.
Rim does it why not Apple? If they want to be part of the cellular network then I say make them play fair. I love all my Apple devices but until Apple gets off their ass and spreads out to other carriers I will keep enjoying my loyal Blackberry.:D

[nkawtg72]

You don't get device branding if you get the device from the manufacturer. I do think that the gov should make it a rule that you can get your phone unlocked for use on any carrier with a compatible network after you fulfill the contract terms (either 2 years or ETF). The unlock code should be from the device manufacturer and not the service provider that way we don't get the stupid charge like they did for wireless number portability (which was also mandated by the gov).

personally, i agree with you. i think once you fulfill your end of the deal, then you should be able to use the device you invested time and money in however you like. whether a carrier allows you to use an unlocked phone on their network though should be up to them. i doubt too many would have a problem with that but my point is that just because we're able to get our devices unlocked at the end of contract, doesnt mean we will be guaranteed to find somewhere to use it.

[pdjudd]

Rim does it why not Apple? [/
Because they don't want to? You cannot force a company to participate in a market that they do not want to unless one company (in this case Apple) has huge market power.

quote]If they want to be part of the cellular network then I say make them play fair.

Every provider has exclusive phones on their networks. Why should Apple have to help their competitors create a better device. That is competition. You cannot penalize a company simply because they cannot accommodate everybody. It's absurd to think that supporting every carrier is an absolute requirement. CDMA is a minority technology. That is the only thing that Apple has to justify.

I love all my Apple devices but until Apple gets off their ass and spreads out to other carriers I will keep enjoying my loyal Blackberry.:D
See you are already making a choice here. If one comany does not make the product you want or offer the services you require, spend your money elsewhere. Sure its too bad that you can't always get what you want, but that's life. Life is not fair, never been claimed to be.

[nkawtg72]

Maybe a better analogy is buying your TV and only being allowed to watch certain stations.

i know others have already responded to this, but let me give it a stab too.

i pay for service with comcast. i chose comcast over several other options. some people only have one option, i luckily had many. i digress.

i pay for digital cable, and high speed internet with comcast. i get a specific set of channels with my purchase.

i have a friend who lives just an hour and a half away from me. he has comcast too. as a matter of fact, he has the same selection of services as i do. we've even compared our contracts, and their exactly the same.

HOWEVER, he's getting several channels in HD that i don't in his area. he's also getting channels in standard def that i dont get at all.

my point to this is that yes you are right, i can buy pretty much any tv and use it on comcast, but that is still no guarantee that ill get the same functionality out of it as someone else even if i have the same contract as they do with comcast.

cable content providers, broadcasters, cable companies, etc etc all have these same exclusivity contracts between themselves as the cell carriers and manufacturers do, which ultimately determines exactly what the consumers are able to do with their devices.

if my friend can get SpeedHD on his Comcast, why cant I?

once again, there is nothing new or on the surface wrong with these types of agreements. at least in the US, they are an integral part of our economy.

[diamond.g]

personally, i agree with you. i think once you fulfill your end of the deal, then you should be able to use the device you invested time and money in however you like. whether a carrier allows you to use an unlocked phone on their network though should be up to them. i doubt too many would have a problem with that but my point is that just because we're able to get our devices unlocked at the end of contract, doesnt mean we will be guaranteed to find somewhere to use it.

Well I do feel that the carriers should provide a cheaper level of service (basically sans subsidy repayment) after you fulfill the contract. It is too bad Americans as a whole like the whole subsidy thing. With it being so ingrained in our culture it is near impossible to break. Note how Apple tried (and failed miserably) to get out of the whole subsidy thing. People didn't buy, but with the phone selling at "199" people are all over it like white on rice...

[nkawtg72]

See you are already making a choice here. If one comany does not make the product you want or offer the services you require, spend your money elsewhere. Sure its too bad that you can't always get what you want, but that's life. Life is not fair, never been claimed to be.

ditto to that

[nkawtg72]

Well I do feel that the carriers should provide a cheaper level of service (basically sans subsidy repayment) after you fulfill the contract. It is too bad Americans as a whole like the whole subsidy thing. With it being so ingrained in our culture it is near impossible to break. Note how Apple tried (and failed miserably) to get out of the whole subsidy thing.

i believe we have our consumers to blame for the subsidies, again at least in the US. i am an American and damn proud of it, but ill be the first to admit that we are a society based on consumption and possessions.

as such, in the technology arena, that means having the newest gadgets. well, technology is never cheap to start with. and more times than not, people (Americans in this case) want things they cant afford and are willing to sell their souls for them.

carriers recognize this desire of the consumers and know that if they can provide a cheaper alternative to the consumer, that they will buy. and when the consumer buys, it generates a source of cash flow, through activation, for the carrier.

so carriers provide subsidies, and in turn contracts to ensure the consumer sticks around long enough for them to recover their investment.

what a lot of people forget is that even though companies do care about making money, they sometimes care more about generating cash flow, even if in the long run, they at best break even.

for investors, a company's cash demonstrates potential for growth as well as stability.

so im not of the opinion that subsidies were a cruel and devious trick on the part of carriers to suck consumers into a downward spiral of financial hardship. the carriers simply gave the consumers what they were asking for, whether they realized they were asking for it or not.

[seedster2]

My problem with AT&T is that you buy a phone outright or bring in a phone, they are charging you an early termination fee if you decide to leave early.

Fine but what is the termination fee covering? is it for the subsidization? can't be as I bought the phone outright or brought the device to ATT they subsidized nothing.

If it is for breaking the contract, why do i pay the same as someone who has had their device subsidized?

And after satisfying your contract, why wont ATT provide an unlock code to your iphone? it's yours and you completed your contract. It's an absolute joke and everyone is willing to bend over and take it because they partner with Apple.

[nkawtg72]

well, its been great throwing back and forth with you guys, but i think im done with this topic :)

i never set out to convince others to change their minds, just to provide my side of the story.

i must say though, this is a pretty hot topic with regard to the politics of government and private industry. we'll see where it ends up i guess.

[windywoo]

i know others have already responded to this, but let me give it a stab too.

i pay for service with comcast. i chose comcast over several other options. some people only have one option, i luckily had many. i digress.

i pay for digital cable, and high speed internet with comcast. i get a specific set of channels with my purchase.

i have a friend who lives just an hour and a half away from me. he has comcast too. as a matter of fact, he has the same selection of services as i do. we've even compared our contracts, and their exactly the same.

HOWEVER, he's getting several channels in HD that i don't in his area. he's also getting channels in standard def that i dont get at all.

my point to this is that yes you are right, i can buy pretty much any tv and use it on comcast, but that is still no guarantee that ill get the same functionality out of it as someone else even if i have the same contract as they do with comcast.

cable content providers, broadcasters, cable companies, etc etc all have these same exclusivity contracts between themselves as the cell carriers and manufacturers do, which ultimately determines exactly what the consumers are able to do with their devices.

if my friend can get SpeedHD on his Comcast, why cant I?

once again, there is nothing new or on the surface wrong with these types of agreements. at least in the US, they are an integral part of our economy.

OK I don't know a great deal about American TV providers, but the point is still there that you can choose which provider you go with when you buy a television. Televisions or telephones are just tools to get the job done, locking them to one provider is making them less effective tools.

[MarkAK]

the problem with arguments like this is they tend to ignore one major fact:
you, as an individual, ARE CHOOSING to participate in the market.

no one is forcing you to buy a tv, and when you do buy one, no one is telling you where you have to buy it from. i would like to buy brand X of a tv from best buy, but they only carry brands Y and Z. should the government step in and tell brand X and best buy, that they must sell brand X to me because im able to get brand X at WalMart?

no one is forcing you to buy a car. your decision to buy a car, means you will have to invest in it to continue to use it. that means buying gas, and again, you have a choice on where to buy gas. do i have the "right" to complain that i can't get Chevron gas at a BP?! if you had your way, it sounds like i should. i think chevron gas is better, but i like the hot dogs at BP better, so i would rather shop there. before you say, but Ford cant tell me i have to use BP gas. do they, no. can they require it? believe or not, yes. if when you bought the car from Ford you signed a contract, and made an agreement, that for X number of years, or for the life of the car, or for the duration of the warranty, or for the duration of the Ford financing, that you would use only BP gas, then by contract (enforceable by law) you would have to do that. and going back to that warranty point for a moment. when you buy a car, it comes with a manufacturers warranty (sometimes you even buy an additional or extended) and in the terms of that warranty it defines how you must use the car, and take care of the car, in order for the warranty to cover any problems with the car. racing, is a good example. most warranties come right out and say that if they determine that you used the vehicle for extreme duty situations like that, the warranty is void. but wait, i paid for the warranty!!! and isnt it my car!!!! dont i have the RIGHT to take that car racing?!?! answers: YES, YES, and YES. but Ford also has the right to say you violated the contract, so they wont fix the transmission.

buying a computer, again is a choice. using that computer on the internet, again is a choice. buying the computer is one market. getting on the internet is another. the two markets are independent of one another. believe it or not, i can actually make a choice to participate in the Internet market, and also choose NOT to participate in the Computer market. i can choose to go to the public library, and browse the internet for free. or go to a friends house and use his. or go to my school and use a computer lab.

to carry that out further. those are all choices and options i have to participate in the internet market, but they all come with a "price", i must agree to specific terms of use when i do it. to use the library or school, i may have to agree to a time limit, or even a restriction on the sites i can go to (ie NO PORN). or to use my friends, i must agree to only be there during times of the day that are convenient to him and may not be that convenient to me.

like my previous posts have said, at least in the US, you do NOT have the Right to a product or even a Right to participate in a Market. i will not rehash that here, if it matters to you, go back to page 18 or 19 on this forum and read my post discussing it.

ive tried to stay away from too many analogies, but i am reminded of one.

if i were to walk up to you on the street and tackle you face first into the pavement, i would have violated your Rights. my Rights end where yours begin. however, if you and i were on a football field during a game and i did the same thing, there would be nothing wrong with that. why is that?! because you and i agreed to participate in the game and to the terms (rules) of engagement. if these rules are not pleasant to you, then get off the field of play and out of the game.

choosing to own a cell phone and having cellular service, and participating in that market, means agreeing to certain rules. those rules are presented to you in the form of a contract, and terms of service, when you buy your phone or activate service. if you do not like those terms, dont agree to them. i dont like the way a lot of carriers run their businesses any more than the rest of you, but i still recognize that they are within their "right" to do so.

I’m not disagreeing with the definition of free market.

I’m saying that at some point we as customers are saying enough. We are voicing our opinions, feelings, issues, frustrations....That's also allowed in a free society.

I don’t want the government to come in and change a thing. I'm waiting for the first cell service provider to say "We are going to concentrate on building the best cell service infrastructure and leave the device design, support and sales to the experts (manufacturers)".

[rjohnstone]

But the hardware IS limiting you in this case, so that's not applicable.

The iPhone doesn't work on T-Mobile's, Centennial's, or anyone else's 3G network, and you can't use it on Verizon, Sprint, or any of the local CDMA providers at all.
That was Apple's decision, not AT&T's.
As for the provider lock argument seedster2 mentioned, Apple controls the lock, not AT&T.
That is why AT&T can't/won't unlock your iPhone once the contract is up. They simply don't have the ability too.

[samab]

The 2 year upgrade cycle becomes a trend simply because that's the average contract length in the US. I don't see what relevance that is into carriers locking phones. Besides, whatever I want to do with the phone that I already pay for should not have anything to do with the carrier. As for unlocking codes, why does the iPhone have to be different? Why don't carriers simply advertise upfront that users can ask for unlock codes for free? Why does it have to be a "secret"? Why do users have to beg/go through difficult conversation to get their phones unlocked? (this is with AT&T, T-mobile has the unadvertised 90day policy and is pretty lenient) Why prepaid phones are still provider-locked? Why don't the carriers simply unlock the phones in the first place? In short, provider-locking have no logic behind it. It's simply an anti-competitive business practice. That's my point. We don't see PCs being locked on Comcast as the sole ISP. We don't see landline phones being locked into QWEST. The lay consumers don't care about those things either, but we don't see provider-locking-kind of business practices with those markets. Why cellphones have to be different?

Okay, now we're talking about Bush. This is actually a good thing, especially for those people that are claiming US cellular market is a free market. Fact is, it's not a free market, as the government is already involved like you have stated. The least they should do now is prevent anti-competitive practices and put more consumer protection.

Hong Kong is the perfect example of how you can treat the actual disease --- foster competitive telecom environment by giving out new telecom licenses to newcomers. When you treat the actual disease, you don't need simlocking laws and other handset subsidies laws.

What you talk about is treating the symptoms --- much like how France treat the symptoms of the iphone by disallowing Apple to have the exclusive and how they have real rigid regulations on when/how unlocking codes are given out to consumers. Guess what? They don't work because France is a country where there are only 3 national carriers, all French owned, zero international giants (like Vodafone and T-Mobile) operating in France's mobile market.

Without any regulation at all, AT&T and T-Mobile manage to give out unlocking codes for free to their customers (the iphone being the exception). Not bad for such regulatory environment. Meanwhile when you look at Europe where the regulators spent all their time and energy crafting simlocking laws and handset subsidies laws --- all were defeated by Apple.

[pdjudd]

Hong Kong is the perfect example of how you can treat the actual disease --- foster competitive telecom environment by giving out new telecom licenses to newcomers. When you treat the actual disease, you don't need simlocking laws and other handset subsidies laws.

I would love to see that happen along with ISP's as well. Regrettably the ones that are out there are massively large and happen to be major lobbyists in politics. They are the ones that do not want this to happen and will invest there monies into making sure it won't. Very regrettable.

[pika2000]

Hong Kong is the perfect example of how you can treat the actual disease --- foster competitive telecom environment by giving out new telecom licenses to newcomers. When you treat the actual disease, you don't need simlocking laws and other handset subsidies laws.

What you talk about is treating the symptoms --- much like how France treat the symptoms of the iphone by disallowing Apple to have the exclusive and how they have real rigid regulations on when/how unlocking codes are given out to consumers. Guess what? They don't work because France is a country where there are only 3 national carriers, all French owned, zero international giants (like Vodafone and T-Mobile) operating in France's mobile market.

Without any regulation at all, AT&T and T-Mobile manage to give out unlocking codes for free to their customers (the iphone being the exception). Not bad for such regulatory environment. Meanwhile when you look at Europe where the regulators spent all their time and energy crafting simlocking laws and handset subsidies laws --- all were defeated by Apple.
I see what you're saying. However, please be realistic. Do you think at this point, the major telcos will open up for new competitors? Hell no. Sure, the government was at fault here, like you said. As you have stated, the government is already involved. The market is no longer a free market. The damage is done. The least they should do now is enact anti-competitive and consumer protection laws. If what you said could be done, I'm all for it, reversing the cause of the problem. But like I said, let's be realistic here. Do you think that's possible? The government already did the damage. Not doing anything after creating a non-free market situation will make the market even worse.

All in all, I still don't see any relevance of those with why there should be provider locking. I already said, I have no problem with contracts, subsidy, exclusivity, etc. Provider locking, however, has no logic behind it other than an anti-competitive business practice. AT&T already tied customers with the contract, why should the device itself be provider-locked? Why don't both AT&T and T-Mobile explicitly tell customers that they are provider locked, and there's unlocking policy? Of course, then why the iPhone should be different?

[samab]

I see what you're saying. However, please be realistic. Do you think at this point, the major telcos will open up for new competitors? Hell no. Sure, the government was at fault here, like you said. As you have stated, the government is already involved. The market is no longer a free market. The damage is done. The least they should do now is enact anti-competitive and consumer protection laws. If what you said could be done, I'm all for it, reversing the cause of the problem. But like I said, let's be realistic here. Do you think that's possible? The government already did the damage. Not doing anything after creating a non-free market situation will make the market even worse.

All in all, I still don't see any relevance of those with why there should be provider locking. I already said, I have no problem with contracts, subsidy, exclusivity, etc. Provider locking, however, has no logic behind it other than an anti-competitive business practice. AT&T already tied customers with the contract, why should the device itself be provider-locked? Why don't both AT&T and T-Mobile explicitly tell customers that they are provider locked, and there's unlocking policy? Of course, then why the iPhone should be different?

I think that you have to be realistic as well.

If the damage has already been done by reducing from 6 national carriers down to 4 national carriers, then the "symptoms treating" regulations on simlocking won't help the general American public much anyway. Apple has already defeated those kinds of regulations with the $1000 iphone.

Instead of spending time and energy of your slate of "consumer protection laws" (which has been proven to be ineffective worldwide), the US government should concentrate on the really "mundane" stuff --- uniform national ETF rules (even though the big carriers do offer pro-rated ETF's, they are doing it voluntarily with widely different standards), uniform deposit returning rules (forcing the carriers to return your deposit after 1 year of service), uniform contract extension rules (i.e. preventing carriers to automatically extend your contract for 2 years if you make a minor change on your plans --- at the very least, tell you about it first)...

[flar]

i cant speak for everyone, but even though i may agree with you and that an open system for cell phone purchase and activation would be great, i at the same time do not believe in a government interfering in a market. a consumers choice in participating in a market is exactly that, a choice. as long as the consumer as been properly informed of the terms of agreements or contracts, then i believe both parties (consumer and carrier) have behaved appropriately and nothing is wrong.

Perhaps it doesn't take legal interference at all. All it takes is the people exercising their free market rights and the right contracts.

When I want a cell phone I go to one of a small handful of providers and they all say the same thing "sell us your soul and you can have a working phone". My choice is to enter into a ridiculous contract or use an overpriced pay-as-you-go phone which typically doesn't offer much in terms of data services. It sucks, but if I go down the street I find another company doing the same thing. There are a few small regional companies that will provide basic cell phones with a reasonable plan, but again their offerings are as low-featured as the pay-as-you-go plans. Perhaps this is collusion, and perhaps that might raise the question of potential legal solutions, or perhaps not. But, it doesn't matter. In either case the consumer's "free market decision" pressure has been totally defused in practice on this front, but it isn't the only pressure that can be exerted here.

You see, those companies doing business that way? The ones providing a service that depends on transmission rights that have to be licensed? They have a contract and it will run out. In time when they go to the FCC, a part of the government which represents the interests of the people, the FCC will just say to them "completely change your business practices and you can continue to use those frequencies". And what are they going to do about it? Go down the street to another frequency licensing agency?

Either way, we technically own the airwaves. There is a way for us to have what we want on those airwaves - the evidence of the feasibility of what we are asking for is in the way things are managed in other countries. The current crop of service providers are great at doing a lot of whining about how they are doing us a favor by not giving us choice, but they aren't totally unanswerable to us - even ignoring the DOJ.

Here's hoping the FCC wises up and starts expecting more from them.

In the meantime, even though I too am not a big fan of government interference in business, the providers are lying to us about what is necessary for their success in business and I don't care about their particular rights any more. Call it self-serving if you will, but I've never believed in completely unchecked business practices. I would get a great big belly laugh if the DOJ calls them all on their business practices. I just hope if they do act that they execute a few well-aimed surgical blows rather than imposing a huge regulative bureaucracy.

And, in the end, I would have been much happier if the general population had been much wiser all along as this situation developed and made choices which did not validate the current "evil contracts are required" nonsense that slowly became the norm. I, myself, am also to blame there. I saw the ridiculous nature of the contracts they were creating and still played the game. I saw the needlessness of locked phones and yet still bought phones that were locked. I have been a part of the developing problem, but I now also fully recognize the corner we've collectively allowed ourselves to be painted in. In my defense, I've stayed clear of the providers with the worst practices and pretty much stuck with the one provider in the US that has an open mind - T-Mobile has always had the least restrictive contracting options and has always been very up-front about unlocking phones for customers. The fact that they are a part of a global provider that provides service in other, more enlightened, countries probably has something to do with that. The fact that they are the underdog probably also doesn't hurt. For that, they've won my loyalty regardless of contracts. I just wish they weren't receiving pressure from the competition to up their contract ante to stay alive because all too many people are getting hypnotized by the amazing hardware locks that AT&T is able to wrestle out of the major hardware providers and their better business practices are starting to wane in competitive significance.

The situation we've let ourselves get caught in may be humorous and I think the big providers should be allowed to snicker at us, but I don't think they should be allowed to sit there and keep us pinned. They won round 1, fine. Let round 2 commence and we'll be that much wiser.

[wordoflife]

If AT&T doesn't offer unlock codes for the iPhone, I don't think any other provider will. Apple doesn't want it unlocked.

[flar]

Provider locking, however, has no logic behind it other than an anti-competitive business practice. AT&T already tied customers with the contract, why should the device itself be provider-locked? Why don't both AT&T and T-Mobile explicitly tell customers that they are provider locked, and there's unlocking policy? Of course, then why the iPhone should be different?

I can't speak about AT&T, though the one time I was with them (briefly) they refused to unlock a phone and apparently they will outright refuse to unlock an iPhone, but...

T-Mobile pretty much uses it just to control "flight risk" during the early part of a contract when their ability to go after their subsidy recovery fees is limited, and where you are still establishing your history of being able to actually pay your contract. Once you are a customer in good standing and their options to protect their subsidy are matured they have no problem with unlocking your phone. I haven't seen them go as far as advertising that the phones are locked, but they are pretty up front about it if you ask and they make it easy to get it unlocked once they can trust you to honor the contract.

Also, those saying "they should at least unlock it after your contract is up" are missing the point. "They" should really unlock it any time. Your contract is your obligation and it doesn't require a locked phone to enforce. And many people need to have an unlocked phone even while under the contract because if you travel abroad it costs much less to get a local phone SIM for local calls than anyone's international roaming charges. If your phone is locked then it is better to buy a foreign pay-as-you-go phone than to even incur 20 minutes of roaming charges. To me, 90 days of locking is probably statistically unnecessary, but reasonable. 2 years of locking is not necessary and reduces the value of the phone to me even while under the contract. Locked forever is just mean.

[flar]

so im not of the opinion that subsidies were a cruel and devious trick on the part of carriers to suck consumers into a downward spiral of financial hardship. the carriers simply gave the consumers what they were asking for, whether they realized they were asking for it or not.

Offering the subsidized contracts wasn't the evil part. That's a nice option to have and gets better hardware into more hands in general. We wouldn't be in the place we are now if that was the end of it.

The evil part was slowly removing any reasonable alternative. I guess if I was to point to one specific issue that demonstrates this it is the fact that you pay the same ETF whether your phone was subsidized or not. That's the evil here.

What started out as "we'll sell you the phone cheaper if you promise to be with us for a period of time" eventually became "if you want our service you have to promise to be with us for the same period of time or we'll penalize you". What????

Also, consider that this is (close to) an example of a Prisoner's Dilemma. Once one company starts locking customers in with contracts, the others must follow or they will simply hemorrhage customers to the one that does the locking. The way in which it differs from a Prisoner's Dilemma is that there is no grand collective advantage to none of them offering locking - there is an advantage to the public, but not to the companies.

I'd love to have the freedom to choose or not choose a subsidizing contract, but we don't have that choice. We are given a standard contract that is equally punishing and binding either way and we can choose to also receive a subsidy value from it or forfeit the value but pay the same price. How is that right or fair? People get the subsidized phones now because "what the heck, you might as well, you are paying for it anyway" and implicitly validate the fact that they are in a binding contract that they shouldn't have had to choose in the first place.

Locking also plays in here. Providing a subsidy doesn't require locking, but locking is easy to justify on the surface in the presence of a subsidy. They can say "We need the lock to protect our subsidy", but they are lying and most people don't think to call them on it. At that point the locking becomes part of the background noise of the subsidy and then over time it becomes part of the background noise of the whole industry, and then in the end consumers have no option to switch providers whether or not they paid a subsidy - scratch their heads. The point was that locking wasn't necessary in the first place, it was simply there to add to the bonds the company had over the customer to further remove the need to compete.

So, subsidy contracts may have been the sauce that allowed the cellular industry to distract us while it over-cooked our goose, but it was a good sauce and it's too bad that they used it for evil purposes... ;-)

[flar]

with all do respect, although this sounds like a convincing argument, it in actually has nothing to do with two entities agreeing to do business together. Apple agreeing to distribute their product through ATT has nothing to do with ATT and whether its living up to this quote bargain that you are speaking of to manage wireless spectrum. i wont even begin to argue with you that you have that twisted beyond reality with the way it really is.

With all "due" respect, my comment on Apple's agreement with AT&T had almost nothing to do with AT&T and its agreements with the FCC about its wireless assets. If you are trying to associate them then that is probably the source of the twists. The only association there is that due to the limited number of frequency bands for cellular providers to use and the way they have been licensed here there can only be a small number of wireless providers in any given market and that limited number does not provide a lot of alternatives for negotiating contracts.

also, at what point did someone put the gun to apple's head and tell them to make a phone in the first place? the choice you ask about, was a voluntary one on apple's part to enter in the market. its entrance into the market wasnt blocked by any monopoly that another cellphone manufacturer may have had on the market, nor did apple's entrance into the market (along with the agreement they made with att) create a monopoly preventing any other manufacturer from remaining or entering into the market as well. apple brought competition to the market, hence forcing other manufacturers as well as carriers to pay attention and to also make a voluntary choice to either continue down the path they were on or provide competition to apple's smartphone.

You are right that nobody put a gun to their head and asked them to do this. But, the small number of players in the market is what dictated how much flexibility they had in getting a good deal to enter. If the industry was more open then I'm sure they would have had a much more beneficial contract, but there were basically 2 main players to talk to and one wasn't interested so the other could play the "you need what we have and we're the only game left so you must give us what we want" card. Sure, they could have considered T-Mobile and Sprint, so it wasn't the end of the story, but they didn't have a totally open field here.

Apple did go to verizon, and couldnt get what they wanted, so they went to ATT and met with success. as my previous post suggests, there is NO RIGHT to happiness, only the pursuit of it. to say that the agreement that apple made was NOT in their best interest makes you sound pretty naive. you are suggesting then, that apple only agreed to the terms out of the goodness of their hearts because they wanted to see ATT make a crap load of money. forgive me, but apple's agreement with ATT may not have been perfect for them, but it was the best agreement any manufacturer had been able to get out of a cell carrier in decades.

No, I'm saying that Apple only agreed to the terms because they were at the last negotiating table worth considering. It wasn't ideal for them and given all of the evidence they are clearly hoping to break free from the terms they had to agree to, but they did agree to it. The problem wasn't a gun to their head so much as to the lack of choices and the need to make a deal in order to get started in the game.

And I will agree that the many "innovations" that they planned are a big part of the problem. If they had simply made a generic GSM device and sold it unlocked and offered to let the providers also sell it in their provider retail stores we likely wouldn't see the problem we have here. In my opinion, the fact that they were going for an "at-home" activation experience in the first place and the fact that they were negotiating for no branding indicates that their original hope and desire was to be provider-agnostic in the first place. But they had to get clever and the particular brand of cleverness required some compliance from the providers - and thus they needed a deal. But, none of the requirements were really that huge. They were annoying enough that it was distasteful to entertain, but if there had been more major providers then they may have been able to negotiate a 6 month exclusivity contract or no exclusivity like so many other phones. I really wish they had just guts'd it out and provided the phone and let the providers come crawling to their door when everyone went out asking "do you support VV? will you?" with the hottest pocket toy to hit the streets for years.

so dont try and pretend that apple didnt like or even benefit from this agreement that was "forced" (to use your words) down their throat.

I'm pretending nothing of the kind. This was a "necessary evil" for something that Apple did want, but I'm sure there were plenty of contracts they would have rather had if they'd had enough options to competitively shop for a partner.

Also, originally I was referring pretty much to the N-year exclusivity. Apple didn't "want" the exclusivity itself, they put up with the exclusivity to achieve some other goals. They probably did want a partner as they are a big believer in controlling a "total user experience", but they didn't necessarily want to be locked in contractually in case the agreement went sour. But, AT&T was the only major provider player that saw the value in the unproven hardware from a new hardware player at the table and they were able to get Apple to agree to a pretty tight collar in the US.

[pika2000]

I can't speak about AT&T, though the one time I was with them (briefly) they refused to unlock a phone and apparently they will outright refuse to unlock an iPhone, but...

T-Mobile pretty much uses it just to control "flight risk" during the early part of a contract when their ability to go after their subsidy recovery fees is limited, and where you are still establishing your history of being able to actually pay your contract. Once you are a customer in good standing and their options to protect their subsidy are matured they have no problem with unlocking your phone. I haven't seen them go as far as advertising that the phones are locked, but they are pretty up front about it if you ask and they make it easy to get it unlocked once they can trust you to honor the contract.

Also, those saying "they should at least unlock it after your contract is up" are missing the point. "They" should really unlock it any time. Your contract is your obligation and it doesn't require a locked phone to enforce. And many people need to have an unlocked phone even while under the contract because if you travel abroad it costs much less to get a local phone SIM for local calls than anyone's international roaming charges. If your phone is locked then it is better to buy a foreign pay-as-you-go phone than to even incur 20 minutes of roaming charges. To me, 90 days of locking is probably statistically unnecessary, but reasonable. 2 years of locking is not necessary and reduces the value of the phone to me even while under the contract. Locked forever is just mean.
I completely agree with you. Ideally, what you described is what should be happening. However, at this point, T-Mobile is the lesser evil as at least they have the 90day unlocking policy, albeit it's unadvertised. AT&T has no such unlocking policy at all.

[pika2000]

If AT&T doesn't offer unlock codes for the iPhone, I don't think any other provider will. Apple doesn't want it unlocked.
If Apple wants the iPhone to be "provider-locked," then why are they selling it unlocked in many other countries? There are countries that prohibits sim locking obviously, but then as stated above, Apple is selling the iPhone unlocked straight from the Apple store in Hong Kong.

[pika2000]

If the damage has already been done by reducing from 6 national carriers down to 4 national carriers, then the "symptoms treating" regulations on simlocking won't help the general American public much anyway. Apple has already defeated those kinds of regulations with the $1000 iphone.

Instead of spending time and energy of your slate of "consumer protection laws" (which has been proven to be ineffective worldwide), the US government should concentrate on the really "mundane" stuff --- uniform national ETF rules (even though the big carriers do offer pro-rated ETF's, they are doing it voluntarily with widely different standards), uniform deposit returning rules (forcing the carriers to return your deposit after 1 year of service), uniform contract extension rules (i.e. preventing carriers to automatically extend your contract for 2 years if you make a minor change on your plans --- at the very least, tell you about it first)...
How did Apple "defeat" those regulation? What is the $1000 iPhone have to do with anything? Fact is the iPhone is sold unlocked in some countries, like both of us have pointed out. What kind of regulation being "defeated" by Apple?

How do consumer protection laws "ineffective"? What kind of worldwide consumer protection law that is ineffective? Simlocking? Looks like it works just fine to me as Apple is selling iPhones unlocked in countries that require them to do so.

Tell me, what's wrong with ETF? Why should there be a "national" rule for ETF? What is wrong with the current contracts/ETF? When you want a subsidized phone, you're offered it with the trade-off of signing a contract. The length of the contract is clearly shown. The amount of ETF is clearly explained when you sign the contract. I don't see anything wrong with any of that. There's no deception. You want subsidy, there's contract & ETF. Fair enough. Also, like you stated on how most people have an upgrade cycle of 2 years, thus whatever amount of ETF won't affect most people as most will follow thru the length of the contract. You have not explained why you're so against ETF. Based on your proposal, the only think we will see is all carriers offering the exact same contracts terms with a max amount of ETF allowed per law. In fact, if the carriers feel that they're loosing money on pro-rated ETF, we would only see higher prices, less subsidy, and no unlocking possibilities. Doesn't really solve the problem now does it. Phones will still be locked, even after completing the contract.

On the other hand, the fact that the phone is provider-locked, and AT&T won't unlock the iPhone, currently are not readily disclosed. The fact that the phone is still locked after the contract is fulfilled is not readily disclosed. The fact that there are "secret" unlocking policies, or in case of AT&T, you-beg-&-scream-&-we-might-think-about-it-but-no-iPhone-unlocking policy, those are deceptions, and need to be scrutinized.

[sauer228]

Just what we need, the government entering the cellphone business. Exclusive contracts between Apple and ATT are just that and should include nobody else sticking their nose in their business. If Verizon wants the iPhone they need to pony up the capital to get that contract.

[Bubba Satori]

It's about time. The carriers are as bad as the music industry. Choice is good.

[pdjudd]

If Apple wants the iPhone to be "provider-locked," then why are they selling it unlocked in many other countries? There are countries that prohibits sim locking obviously, but then as stated above, Apple is selling the iPhone unlocked straight from the Apple store in Hong Kong.

As you said - in some countries, SIM locking is outright illegal in some areas , however, SIM locking is primarily a carrier decision obviously. We would need to see the details of the agreements made (unlikely as they are confidential) if we want to comment on Apple's motives in this matter.

[samab]

How did Apple "defeat" those regulation? What is the $1000 iPhone have to do with anything? Fact is the iPhone is sold unlocked in some countries, like both of us have pointed out. What kind of regulation being "defeated" by Apple?

How do consumer protection laws "ineffective"? What kind of worldwide consumer protection law that is ineffective? Simlocking? Looks like it works just fine to me as Apple is selling iPhones unlocked in countries that require them to do so.

Tell me, what's wrong with ETF? Why should there be a "national" rule for ETF? What is wrong with the current contracts/ETF? When you want a subsidized phone, you're offered it with the trade-off of signing a contract. The length of the contract is clearly shown. The amount of ETF is clearly explained when you sign the contract. I don't see anything wrong with any of that. There's no deception. You want subsidy, there's contract & ETF. Fair enough. Also, like you stated on how most people have an upgrade cycle of 2 years, thus whatever amount of ETF won't affect most people as most will follow thru the length of the contract. You have not explained why you're so against ETF. Based on your proposal, the only think we will see is all carriers offering the exact same contracts terms with a max amount of ETF allowed per law. In fact, if the carriers feel that they're loosing money on pro-rated ETF, we would only see higher prices, less subsidy, and no unlocking possibilities. Doesn't really solve the problem now does it. Phones will still be locked, even after completing the contract.

On the other hand, the fact that the phone is provider-locked, and AT&T won't unlock the iPhone, currently are not readily disclosed. The fact that the phone is still locked after the contract is fulfilled is not readily disclosed. The fact that there are "secret" unlocking policies, or in case of AT&T, you-beg-&-scream-&-we-might-think-about-it-but-no-iPhone-unlocking policy, those are deceptions, and need to be scrutinized.

iPhones are sold "unlocked" in most of the countries because the carriers decided to sell them unlocked --- not because they were forced by their governments to sell them unlocked.

Australia does allow carriers to sell simlocked phones. Italy does allow carriers to sell simlocked phones. France does allow carriers to sell simlocked phones. All of these countries sell unlocked iphones for commercial reasons --- not because of regulatory limitations.

The only country that explicitly forbids the selling of simlocked phones is Singapore --- and they based their regulations on old European laws that even Europeans don't follow anymore.

[flar]

Tell me, what's wrong with ETF? Why should there be a "national" rule for ETF? What is wrong with the current contracts/ETF? When you want a subsidized phone, you're offered it with the trade-off of signing a contract. The length of the contract is clearly shown. The amount of ETF is clearly explained when you sign the contract. I don't see anything wrong with any of that. There's no deception. You want subsidy, there's contract & ETF. Fair enough.

I have no issues with ETF on subsidized contracts and they are explained very well up front. I think they should be pro-rated, but most are not.

But, they also have ETF on contracts with no subsidy. If you go in, get a $200 discount on a phone and sign a contract you pay a $200 ETF. If you go in, get no phone whatsoever, but just want service - same $200 ETF. How is that necessary or fair?

Also, like you stated on how most people have an upgrade cycle of 2 years, thus whatever amount of ETF won't affect most people as most will follow thru the length of the contract.

Is the 2 year contract due to the 2 year upgrade cycle? Or is the 2 year upgrade cycle because of the 2 year contract (i.e. waiting to qualify for a reasonable upgrade price on a new phone)? If the full 2 years was required in order to recoup the subsidy, then why do the providers allow you to upgrade a couple of months before your contract is up? Those last few months can't be paying off the subsidy or they'd just shorten the required contract. The subsidy was likely paid off long before and now that they are under the threat of you being without a contract they quick throw you an upgrade bone to re-lock you before you become free. It's all a psychology game and has little to do with what they need to do to protect a return on their customer expenditures.

You have not explained why you're so against ETF. Based on your proposal, the only think we will see is all carriers offering the exact same contracts terms with a max amount of ETF allowed per law. In fact, if the carriers feel that they're loosing money on pro-rated ETF, we would only see higher prices, less subsidy, and no unlocking possibilities. Doesn't really solve the problem now does it. Phones will still be locked, even after completing the contract.

I, for one, am not against subsidies and ETF on contracts that came with a subsidy - or even a smaller ETF on a shorter contract for a new customer to establish monthly billing service (say 6 months with an ETF of $50 just to stop service hopping every month). But, if you think the ETFs really are scraping the bottom of the barrel and any change in the way they work is going to have to come out of higher prices or less subsidies then you've drunk the industry's kool-aid. Ask yourself why the ETF is the same on a contract that came with hardware regardless of how much of a discount was provided on that hardware. Ask yourself why the same ETF is required on a contract that came with no hardware. Ask yourself why they need a 2 year contract just to establish service in the first place. Ask yourself why the monthly bills are the same whether you are paying off a subsidy or not.

It's all just a game for them to lock customers in so that they don't have to provide decent service (or, more to they point, everyone hates their service and they know that and rather than fix the problem they institute contracts with ETF to shackle customers).

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that the government should regulate these contracts, but the reason they exist is because everyone believes the industry's sob stories and believes that they are a fair and necessary part of doing business.

Proper education of the US consumer and the presence of alternatives (which seem sadly lacking) would probably fix this as easily as government intervention...

[Kid Red]

Instead of being stupid and looking at exclusive contracts (Xbox, PS3, and so on) they need to look at THE PRICE OF TEXT MESSAGES!!!

WE ARE BEING EXTORTED over text messages, they need to look into that practice which has a greater impact on the consumer.

[pika2000]

iPhones are sold "unlocked" in most of the countries because the carriers decided to sell them unlocked --- not because they were forced by their governments to sell them unlocked.

Australia does allow carriers to sell simlocked phones. Italy does allow carriers to sell simlocked phones. France does allow carriers to sell simlocked phones. All of these countries sell unlocked iphones for commercial reasons --- not because of regulatory limitations.

So? What is your point then? You were saying that Apple is "defeating" some regulations, while you yourself are now saying that phones are not locked in those countries. So what "regulation" that Apple defeated? I don't get it. It seems you just go round and around pointing what my original point was, yet keep arguing outside the context and always ignoring my questions.

In those countries, one can argue that a "healthier" market have existed beforehand. Like you already said, the no simlocking law was established before. Even though it's not followed anymore today, in those countries, unlocked phones have become the norm. Carrier that decided to lock their phones would simply alienate consumers and be ignored. In the US, provider locking is the norm, and all the carriers do it, even on no-contract/no-subsidy/pay-as-you-go phones. If there is no force to prohibit simlocking, there will be no change at all. AT&T will not just decide to unlock their phones if they don't have any reason to.

[samab]

So? What is your point then? You were saying that Apple is "defeating" some regulations, while you yourself are now saying that phones are not locked in those countries. So what "regulation" that Apple defeated? I don't get it. It seems you just go round and around pointing what my original point was, yet keep arguing outside the context and always ignoring my questions.

In those countries, one can argue that a "healthier" market have existed beforehand. Like you already said, the no simlocking law was established before. Even though it's not followed anymore today, in those countries, unlocked phones have become the norm. Carrier that decided to lock their phones would simply alienate consumers and be ignored. In the US, provider locking is the norm, and all the carriers do it, even on no-contract/no-subsidy/pay-as-you-go phones. If there is no force to prohibit simlocking, there will be no change at all. AT&T will not just decide to unlock their phones if they don't have any reason to.

Just because those carriers sell iphones unlocked for commercial reasons --- absent any governmental regulations --- doesn't mean that those countries have "healthier" mobile telecom markets.

France is the perfect example of that --- a very unhealthy mobile telecom market where there are only 3 national carriers, all 3 are French owned, zero foreign competitors enter the French mobile telecom market --- and all 3 French carriers were fined hundreds of millions of dollars for price fixing.

http://www.itu.int/ituweblogs/treg/Consumer+Group+Seeking+Damages+On+Mobile+Price+Fixing.aspx

In terms of the G7 countries, UK has the best iphone plan followed closely by the US iphone plan --- both O2 and AT&T don't plan to give out unlocking codes for the iphone even after the iphone contract is over. That's the healthy telecom market.

[pika2000]

I have no issues with ETF on subsidized contracts and they are explained very well up front. I think they should be pro-rated, but most are not.

But, they also have ETF on contracts with no subsidy. If you go in, get a $200 discount on a phone and sign a contract you pay a $200 ETF. If you go in, get no phone whatsoever, but just want service - same $200 ETF. How is that necessary or fair?

I, for one, am not against subsidies and ETF on contracts that came with a subsidy - or even a smaller ETF on a shorter contract for a new customer to establish monthly billing service (say 6 months with an ETF of $50 just to stop service hopping every month). But, if you think the ETFs really are scraping the bottom of the barrel and any change in the way they work is going to have to come out of higher prices or less subsidies then you've drunk the industry's kool-aid. Ask yourself why the ETF is the same on a contract that came with hardware regardless of how much of a discount was provided on that hardware. Ask yourself why the same ETF is required on a contract that came with no hardware. Ask yourself why they need a 2 year contract just to establish service in the first place. Ask yourself why the monthly bills are the same whether you are paying off a subsidy or not.

Proper education of the US consumer and the presence of alternatives (which seem sadly lacking) would probably fix this as easily as government intervention...
Why does the government have to meddle with what contract a company wants to put out? You are against government intervention, yet you want government to meddle with specific details of contracts?

Okay, let's play the assumption game. Let's say, based on your proposal, that the government decide to meddle with contracts, with pro-rated ETF and such. Then what? Carriers would still be locking their phones. In the end, contracts are still there, and phones are still locked. Sure, you can leave early, pay pro-rated ETF, but then what? The phone is still locked. You can buy a non-subsidized phone without contract, but it's provider locked (just like today). I don't see change there.

I do agree about forcing people going into contract with their own phone is not fair. However, there's already an alternative for that today, pre-paid. I see that you think some unfair contract/ETF practices being the problem. Although they are a problem by themselves, to me simlocking is the bigger problem.

I have no problems with the current contracts/ETF themselves, as they are well disclosed to consumers. Consumers can choose to sign it or not. However, provider-locked phones are deceptive and not clearly disclosed. AT&T prohibit the use of the device on other networks, even after it's technically mine. It's an obvious anti-competitive practice and deceptions. If the DoJ want to scrutinize the market, that is the obvious sticking thumb.

People that are okay with simlocking are the ones that drink the kool-aid. Simlocking has no logic behind it. None. It's only an anti-competitive practice, and should be illegal. Period. Dealing the details about contracts/ETF are only dealing with the superficial issues. We already see pro-rated ETFs being introduced without any meddling from the government required.

Consumer education? Who's going to do that? The carriers? Sony Ericsson did this a while back, and it didn't do anything. US consumers have been brainwashed that locked phones are the norm, and they have to pay big $$$ for unlocked phones. In a not-so-free market, and where simlocking is the established standard, we need a bigger force to change it.

[pika2000]

Just because those carriers sell iphones unlocked for commercial reasons --- absent any governmental regulations --- doesn't mean that those countries have "healthier" mobile telecom markets.

France is the perfect example of that --- a very unhealthy mobile telecom market where there are only 3 national carriers, all 3 are French owned, zero foreign competitors enter the French mobile telecom market --- and all 3 French carriers were fined hundreds of millions of dollars for price fixing.

http://www.itu.int/ituweblogs/treg/Consumer+Group+Seeking+Damages+On+Mobile+Price+Fixing.aspx

In terms of the G7 countries, UK has the best iphone plan followed closely by the US iphone plan --- both O2 and AT&T don't plan to give out unlocking codes for the iphone even after the iphone contract is over. That's the healthy telecom market.
So, are we going to argue on a per-country basis now? You still have not explained what "regulation" that Apple "defeated," per your previous statement. Are you implying that government regulation is needed for a healthy market? I appreciate your points and knowledge, but you yourself never answer any of my questions, and keep going round and round the discussion.

Fact remains, there are some countries where cellphones are being sold unlocked out of the box, with or without subsidy/contract. This is the starting point. People were arguing that provider-locked phones are necessary for subsidy since unlocked phones = paying full price. I stated that having subsidy != locking, and stated examples where iPhones are being sold unlocked, with or without subsidy. My point is, provider-locking is anti-competitive, and if the DoJ is going to do anything, they should scrutinize that practice.

[pika2000]

Instead of being stupid and looking at exclusive contracts (Xbox, PS3, and so on) they need to look at THE PRICE OF TEXT MESSAGES!!!

WE ARE BEING EXTORTED over text messages, they need to look into that practice which has a greater impact on the consumer.
Use Google Voice or Email. Problem solved. Current SMS practice may be an extortion, but imo not a big deal, not as big as simlocking.

[samab]

So, are we going to argue on a per-country basis now? You still have not explained what "regulation" that Apple "defeated," per your previous statement. Are you implying that government regulation is needed for a healthy market? I appreciate your points and knowledge, but you yourself never answer any of my questions, and keep going round and round the discussion.

Fact remains, there are some countries where cellphones are being sold unlocked out of the box, with or without subsidy/contract. This is the starting point. People were arguing that provider-locked phones are necessary for subsidy since unlocked phones = paying full price. I stated that having subsidy != locking, and stated examples where iPhones are being sold unlocked, with or without subsidy. My point is, provider-locking is anti-competitive, and if the DoJ is going to do anything, they should scrutinize that practice.

Most of the European regulations basically said 2-3 thngs --- the carriers can simlock, the carriers should give out unlocking codes for free after x months (usually 12 months), that the carriers (i.e. Italy) should list the exact subsidies beforehand.

How do those European regulations help the US at all --- when Americans already have official carrier unlocking FOR FREE after 90 days? If Americans impose European style regulations, all you will see is the carriers start charging for unlocking codes for everybody else within the first year.

I am saying that there is a limited amount of political goodwill to spend on these policy issues --- and those goodwill should be spent on the really mundane stuff that helps the most number of people. The starting point should be whether the general population can get affordable mobile service prices, not whether the needs of gadget geeks are satisfied.

[samab]

Use Google Voice or Email. Problem solved. Current SMS practice may be an extortion, but imo not a big deal, not as big as simlocking.

Especially when American carriers charge the same price for MMS as SMS. In Europe, many carriers charge double or 4x the price for MMS.

[samab]

Okay, let's play the assumption game. Let's say, based on your proposal, that the government decide to meddle with contracts, with pro-rated ETF and such. Then what? Carriers would still be locking their phones. In the end, contracts are still there, and phones are still locked. Sure, you can leave early, pay pro-rated ETF, but then what? The phone is still locked. You can buy a non-subsidized phone without contract, but it's provider locked (just like today). I don't see change there.

Then what do you want the US government to do? Because your slate of proposals won't change a single thing either.

Do you want the US government to force the carriers to also sell an unlocked version along with simlocked versions? The carriers are just going to price the unlocked version very high --- the $1000 iphone vs. $200 iphone. So all that political goodwill is spent on stuff that would benefit a few thousand Americans who would spend that much money on a mobile phone (i.e. it would only benefit people that actually go to Nokia's flagship store in NYC to buy a $1000 N-series phone).

Do you want the US government to force the carriers to unlock for free at the end of contract? American carriers already unlock 99% of the phones that they sell. So all that political goodwill is spent on the 1% of the phones that are sold in the US.

What do you want the US government do?

[JoeG4]

I've never seen an unlocked cellphone, lol.

[pika2000]

How do those European regulations help the US at all --- when Americans already have official carrier unlocking FOR FREE after 90 days? If Americans impose European style regulations, all you will see is the carriers start charging for unlocking codes for everybody else within the first year.

Gosh, how many time are we going to go back and forth like this? There is no official 90day unlocking policy. That's just T-Mobile's unadvertised consideration. AT&T has no such policy. Heck, look at the iPhone. Why should US impose the whole European style regulations down to its bits and pieces? All I want to see is prohibition of simlocking, as it is obviously anti-competitive and deceptive. Charging for unlocking codes should not be an issue if the phones are not locked in the first place.

[pika2000]

Then what do you want the US government to do? Because your slate of proposals won't change a single thing either.

Do you want the US government to force the carriers to also sell an unlocked version along with simlocked versions? The carriers are just going to price the unlocked version very high --- the $1000 iphone vs. $200 iphone. So all that political goodwill is spent on stuff that would benefit a few thousand Americans who would spend that much money on a mobile phone (i.e. it would only benefit people that actually go to Nokia's flagship store in NYC to buy a $1000 N-series phone).

Do you want the US government to force the carriers to unlock for free at the end of contract? American carriers already unlock 99% of the phones that they sell. So all that political goodwill is spent on the 1% of the phones that are sold in the US.

What do you want the US government do?
Simple, prohibit simlocking, period. It's anti competitive and deceptive business practice. Simply outlaw provider locking. Why do you like making things appear more complicated than they are? None of your potential problems would be an issue. Carriers can still subsidize phones, do contracts, whatever they do right now. The only difference is none of the phones would be provider locked from the get go, period. No confusion about having to unlock phones or whatnot. Compare that to your idea of government meddling on how companies should write their contracts, ETFs, etc. Today, no carriers are selling unlocked phones. They only sell no-contract phones, which are full-priced yet are still provider locked.

Your statement of US carriers unlocking 99% of phones is simply false. Try getting AT&T to unlock any of their phones. The only lesser evil is T-Mobile, which has the unadvertised 90day unlocking policy. Try finding a pay-as-you-go phone that is not locked. Beside, why do we have to deal with this secretive unlocking policy? Why can't carriers simply sell all of their phones unlocked in the first place? That's my point. All of these issues become a concern because simlocking has become the standard in the US. Simply prohibit that from the get go, one less problem. Why do you want simlocking anyway? Show me a logic behind simlocking.

[pika2000]

Especially when American carriers charge the same price for MMS as SMS. In Europe, many carriers charge double or 4x the price for MMS.
Okay, I fail to see your argument there. I already pointed out alternatives like Google Voice or email that simply use the data rate. Sure, SMS/MMS pricing are ridiculous, but that is not what the DoJ should be looking at.

[samab]

Gosh, how many time are we going to go back and forth like this? There is no official 90day unlocking policy. That's just T-Mobile's unadvertised consideration. AT&T has no such policy. Heck, look at the iPhone. Why should US impose the whole European style regulations down to its bits and pieces? All I want to see is prohibition of simlocking, as it is obviously anti-competitive and deceptive. Charging for unlocking codes should not be an issue if the phones are not locked in the first place.

Europe is a very diverse continent with dozens and dozens of different permutations of simlocking laws --- none of which are effective.

No country in the world --- other than Singapore --- explicitly prohibits simlocking. And Singapore's rationale for such prohibition is based on outdated European policies that even Europeans don't follow anymore. (Well, there is always UAE who thinks that it's totally immoral for Apple to screw with their people with iphone monopoly, but have absolutely zero reservation being in the OPEC and screwing the rest of the world).

What you want --- have been rejected by countries worldwide.

[samab]

Okay, I fail to see your argument there. I already pointed out alternatives like Google Voice or email that simply use the data rate. Sure, SMS/MMS pricing are ridiculous, but that is not what the DoJ should be looking at.

Who said I was arguing with you on it --- I was agreeing with you that American pricing of SMS/MMS is not ridiculous.

[charlituna]

If Apple wants the iPhone to be "provider-locked," then why are they selling it unlocked in many other countries?
the ATT lock in the US is part of the contract given to ATT in return for R&D money. so in the US, Apple has no choice. but in other countries ATT has no control, so it's the local carrier and/or laws that are the issue


There are countries that prohibits sim locking obviously, but then as stated above, Apple is selling the iPhone unlocked straight from the Apple store in Hong Kong.

Apple is selling it unlocked in the countries that have laws requiring it that way. in ones that don't, it varies but generally it has been locked because that was the only way to get a carrier to sign up to sell it.


Tell me, what's wrong with ETF? Why should there be a "national" rule for ETF? What is wrong with the current contracts/ETF? When you want a subsidized phone, you're offered it with the trade-off of signing a contract. The length of the contract is clearly shown. The amount of ETF is clearly explained when you sign the contract.

all well and good. but before the recent laws, companies were charging an ETF that was well over the amounts they claimed they were owned for a device. they would take, for example, a $199 phone and offer it to you 'for free' (really for the cost of an activation fee and the sales tax but whatever) in return for a two year contract. but they would make you agree to a $400 ETF. AND to top it off, they would charge you the same ETF amount one month into your contract and one month before the end. That's robbery. It was determined since they claimed it was to repay the device over the course of the contract, they could only charge as an ETF the amount of the device they had paid and they had to pro-rate it over the course of the contract.

[macintoshtoffy]

Apple New Zealand is now selling the iPhone 3G S directly to the public through their online store (prices include GST which is 12.5%):

http://store.apple.com/nz/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2OTU

Btw, the lack of simlocking in New Zealand was a combination of pressure by government and the two main carriers voluntarily choosing to do so.

[xIGmanIx]

But the hardware IS limiting you in this case, so that's not applicable.

The iPhone doesn't work on T-Mobile's, Centennial's, or anyone else's 3G network, and you can't use it on Verizon, Sprint, or any of the local CDMA providers at all.

GSM is GSM, doesn't matter what carrier in the US, its a spec that you build to

[str1f3]

I would actually like them to investigate the price gouging that goes on with the prices of unlocked phones. How in hell on earth are these phones $600-$700 when parts are 1/3 the price?

People would not pay for these ridiculous contracts if not for exhorbitant unlocked prices.

[pika2000]

Europe is a very diverse continent with dozens and dozens of different permutations of simlocking laws --- none of which are effective.

No country in the world --- other than Singapore --- explicitly prohibits simlocking. And Singapore's rationale for such prohibition is based on outdated European policies that even Europeans don't follow anymore. (Well, there is always UAE who thinks that it's totally immoral for Apple to screw with their people with iphone monopoly, but have absolutely zero reservation being in the OPEC and screwing the rest of the world).

What you want --- have been rejected by countries worldwide.
How does simlocking law not effective? You already pointed out Singapore. Cellphones there are not locked. How's that "not effective"? It is obviously "effective" in some countries as it sets a precedence of unlocked being the norm/standard, thus even if the law is not valid anymore, the market still expect unlocked phones and will not accept provider-locking. Not the case in the US, where provider locking is actually the norm/standard.
Based on what you're saying, simlocking is okay with you because laws that prohibits simlocking is old? I don't get it. Please tell me why do you want cellphones to be locked. Point a logic behind simlocking. Please, as it seems I'm the only one that thinks it's anti-competitive and deceptive.

[pika2000]

all well and good. but before the recent laws, companies were charging an ETF that was well over the amounts they claimed they were owned for a device. they would take, for example, a $199 phone and offer it to you 'for free' (really for the cost of an activation fee and the sales tax but whatever) in return for a two year contract. but they would make you agree to a $400 ETF. AND to top it off, they would charge you the same ETF amount one month into your contract and one month before the end. That's robbery. It was determined since they claimed it was to repay the device over the course of the contract, they could only charge as an ETF the amount of the device they had paid and they had to pro-rate it over the course of the contract.
What's wrong with that? ETF and the terms of the contract are clearly disclosed when you sign it. Consumers still have the choice to sign a contract or not. Whether you think the ETF is fair or not, it's not up to the government to meddle. However, having the phone provider locked, which are not readily disclosed, even after the contract ends which means the phone is yours, that's deceptive, thus my point against provider locking in the first place. As for pro-rating, it's been introduced already without any need of regulation.

[pika2000]

I would actually like them to investigate the price gouging that goes on with the prices of unlocked phones. How in hell on earth are these phones $600-$700 when parts are 1/3 the price?

People would not pay for these ridiculous contracts if not for exhorbitant unlocked prices.
Why should there be an investigation about prices? I think BMWs are overpriced. Should the government investigate BMW? I think Monster cables are hella overpriced. Should the government investigate them too?

Besides, in countries where unlocked phones are the norm, there's a second hand market, where people are buying older/last year's high end phones at cheaper prices. Also, the prices are more flexible, and you almost always see a downward trend throughout the phone's life. That second hand market is very limited in the US where the phones are provider locked. "Subsidy" pricing in the US is also pretty rigid, where subsidized pricing remains mostly constant throughout time, even for old/last year's models.

[diamond.g]

What's wrong with that? ETF and the terms of the contract are clearly disclosed when you sign it. Consumers still have the choice to sign a contract or not. Whether you think the ETF is fair or not, it's not up to the government to meddle. However, having the phone provider locked, which are not readily disclosed, even after the contract ends which means the phone is yours, that's deceptive, thus my point against provider locking in the first place. As for pro-rating, it's been introduced already without any need of regulation.

I thought it was done under the threat of regulation and all the class action lawsuits that were supposedly filed.

[rjohnstone]

GSM is GSM, doesn't matter what carrier in the US, its a spec that you build to
That only covers the voice side. Your average GSM phone will already work with any GSM carrier in the US, but the data side is different.

[pdjudd]

That only covers the voice side. Your average GSM phone will already work with any GSM carrier in the US, but the data side is different.

Indeed. A good example is that T-Mobile's implementation of 3G technology is different from what is done by AT&T and incompatible with that of the iPhone's chipset. GSM is a set of standards.

[samab]

How does simlocking law not effective? You already pointed out Singapore. Cellphones there are not locked. How's that "not effective"? It is obviously "effective" in some countries as it sets a precedence of unlocked being the norm/standard, thus even if the law is not valid anymore, the market still expect unlocked phones and will not accept provider-locking. Not the case in the US, where provider locking is actually the norm/standard.
Based on what you're saying, simlocking is okay with you because laws that prohibits simlocking is old? I don't get it. Please tell me why do you want cellphones to be locked. Point a logic behind simlocking. Please, as it seems I'm the only one that thinks it's anti-competitive and deceptive.

Government is supposed to regulate to help the little guys, not the gadget geeks. How effective is a completely unlocked cell phone in Singapore for the last 10 years when you couldn't get your numbers ported until last year, and when you finally can get your numbers ported --- you are facing $800 in ETF.

How effective is Singapore's law to consumer protection when instead of just comparing handset price (via subsidies) and monthly plans, now the average Singapore consumers have to learn about the pricing of a free tv or a free mp3 player as well. Pricing simplicity (when you just have to look at handset prices and monthly plans) helps the average consumer to compare prices --- when you add a free tv or a free mp3 player to the equation, that's just more way for corporations to scam the average consumer. The average Singapore citizen would have been far more better if their government focused on the real mundane stuff 10 years ago --- like numbers portability and ETF.

I didn't say simlocking is okay because laws that prohibits simlocking is old --- I said that Singapore's rationale for the prohibitation of simlocking came from outdated European policy papers that even Europeans themselves have no longer even follow. There are legitimate reasons why Europeans no longer follow their own old policy papers.

You won't find a single government in the first world --- that explicitly prohibits simlocking AND provide legitimate reasons behind such policy. Go to Singapore's telecom regulator website (IDA) and you won't find even a single policy paper outlining their reasons for the prohibition. They just felt like it --- so they decided to ban simlocking (just like how Singapore banned chewing gum because they thought that chewing gum cause littering).

[samab]

I thought it was done under the threat of regulation and all the class action lawsuits that were supposedly filed.

Yes, you are correct.

Stuff like pro-rated ETF's started because the State of California has some laws on the books that allowed their public utility commissions to have a say, and then class action lawsuits started against all the major carriers in California.

After the carriers started losing those class action lawsuits, then they started to lobby the FCC to implement very weak national ETF standards to try to get California off their backs.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/95264

Instead of spending valuable time and energy on simlocking laws that only benefits the gadget geeks --- we should be getting the FCC to implement very strong national standards on ETF.

[flar]

Indeed. A good example is that T-Mobile's implementation of 3G technology is different from what is done by AT&T and incompatible with that of the iPhone's chipset. GSM is a set of standards.

T-Mobile uses a different frequency band than AT&T, but AFAIK the technology is the same. They also (mainly) use a different frequency band than AT&T for voice, but it became standard practice over time for GSM phones to support the 4 major world-wide bands (i.e. "quad-band" phones). In a couple of years I imagine that most smart phones will also support all of the major 3G frequencies in one handset as well.

I believe that GSM is a protocol, but it doesn't define the frequency spectrum on which it is used - the 4 standard bands arose simply due to the practicality of wanting to minimize the variations in a world of countries that had legacy users of various frequency spectrums, combined with wanting to allow multiple carriers to offer service in their own separate bands.

[flar]

Why does the government have to meddle with what contract a company wants to put out? You are against government intervention, yet you want government to meddle with specific details of contracts?

I'm not dead-set against government meddling. I think it is limiting, but I think it has its place. I think the current situation here on a number of fronts (ETF scheduling silliness, sim-locking, exclusivity) could have been regulated by simple market pressure, but that requires education and choices. Sadly, in practice this never happened and it is hard for it to have any effect at this point because the industry drove the sheep into a corner paddock and locked the gate behind them.

One of the problems with letting market pressure solve this is that the industry has, almost by design, a limited playing field. Market pressure is great for resolving issues, but only if there are a lot of alternatives and/or if there is a constant threat of a new player coming along if the existing players leave themselves open. I don't think that describes the cell phone industry very well so perhaps a little mandated sanity couldn't hurt.

And, if there is any legislation that would come about, I would hope it would be more along the lines of "you must offer the customers an alternative choice" rather than "you must offer them these terms". For example, "if you lock the phones you sell under subsidy (or even without subsidy) then you must also allow a customer to buy the same phone directly from the distributor unlocked and use it on your network" doesn't prevent them from offering subsidies or locking the phones that go with their contracts. An unlocked phone walking into their store looking for service could hardly be considered a threat to their business model. Most providers would have no trouble at all with this (Verizon is the only company I've seen that ever refused to provide service for a phone they didn't sell with a lock on it, the GSM providers are all happy to provide you with service on your GSM phone bought elsewhere). What it may prevent is providers forcing manufacturers to only distribute a given phone in a locked form through them. It may also, due to the alternative of getting an unlocked version from another source, encourage the providers to sell them unlocked if the customer pays full price and possibly even eventually to just ditch the locks as an unnecessary hassle since they really would have no more purpose.

I would hate to see legislation that dictated "you must sell all phones unlocked and use pro-rated ETF's of a maximum of $X". I'd rather see that encouraged through market pressure in a market where the alternative of getting the unlocked phone caused the consumer to see true value-loss in the one they get that is locked. Right now all phones are locked so the consumer doesn't see it as a feature that provides or removes value.

The providers might play games with "we'll sell the unlocked version for $1M", but if they must allow a customer to buy the phone from the manufacturer directly then they would simply be saying "you can get an unlocked phone, but we don't really want to be your salesman in that case".

Okay, let's play the assumption game. Let's say, based on your proposal, that the government decide to meddle with contracts, with pro-rated ETF and such.

I talked about pro-rated ETFs, but I thought I was being clear that this was just what I thought the industry should do if they really had the customer's interests at heart. In other words, I think that non-pro-rated ETFs are stupid, but I don't think they should be outlawed. Any attempts to justify them on the industry's part are simply evidence that they are trying to swindle us.

Then what? Carriers would still be locking their phones. In the end, contracts are still there, and phones are still locked. Sure, you can leave early, pay pro-rated ETF, but then what? The phone is still locked. You can buy a non-subsidized phone without contract, but it's provider locked (just like today). I don't see change there.

I'd rather see legislation that forced availability of unlocked phones somehow. For example, providers are not allowed to dictate to manufacturers that they can't sell an unlocked version direct to consumers, or dictate the price on that. And, optionally, but not necessarily, if they sell a full price phone (full price defined by the MSRP, not by them) then they would not be allowed to simlock it. In other words, they are not allowed to prevent hardware from getting to a customer's hands in an unlocked form, but they don't necessarily have to be the agent that gets it to them. If they take steps via contract to prevent an alternative source for the hardware then they are engaging in anti-competitive practices.

I do agree about forcing people going into contract with their own phone is not fair. However, there's already an alternative for that today, pre-paid. I see that you think some unfair contract/ETF practices being the problem. Although they are a problem by themselves, to me simlocking is the bigger problem.

Unfortunately I don't think pre-paid can be used with smart phones and the pre-paid prices are way higher than the contract prices. I agree that sim-locking is the primary enemy, though I'd like to see a requirement to provide non-contract service that is on par with the contract service (perhaps with a requirement that it cannot cost more than the subsidy-recouping contract prices).

I have no problems with the current contracts/ETF themselves, as they are well disclosed to consumers. Consumers can choose to sign it or not. However, provider-locked phones are deceptive and not clearly disclosed. AT&T prohibit the use of the device on other networks, even after it's technically mine. It's an obvious anti-competitive practice and deceptions. If the DoJ want to scrutinize the market, that is the obvious sticking thumb.

The only issue I have with "consumers can choose to sign it or not" is that the choices are limited and the limitation is not arbitrary - it's a direct result with the nature of this industry. In other words, all things being equal I think everything should be left to market pressure. But in artificially constrained markets like the cell phone industry I do think that limits on anti-competitive practices are reasonable to a point.

Consumer education? Who's going to do that? The carriers? Sony Ericsson did this a while back, and it didn't do anything. US consumers have been brainwashed that locked phones are the norm, and they have to pay big $$$ for unlocked phones. In a not-so-free market, and where simlocking is the established standard, we need a bigger force to change it.

For one thing, a requirement that they offer the "choice B" that, if chosen by a significant portion of consumers, would lead us out of the mess through ordinary market pressure would be a step in the right "education" direction. Currently, if you want a data plan then there really are no "unshackled" options for service. And, if you want a voice plan with any national coverage for a reasonable airtime price you also don't really have any alternatives. Pre-paid offers an important billing alternative for some customers, but it doesn't offer a competitive "market pressure to change" alternative in its current form.

[charlituna]

What's wrong with that? ETF and the terms of the contract are clearly disclosed when you sign it.



there is nothing wrong with the notion of an ETF. but if you are told that it is to repay the carriers investment in your device and they want to charge you more than that, well that's just wrong.

As for pro-rating, it's been introduced already without any need of regulation.

not exactly. Sprint and T-Mobile were both sued over the whole ETF gouging issues and lost, big time. Verizon and Cingular/ATT volunteered to follow the courts orders because they were basically told if they didn't, they could be hit with class action suits for the same issues. or so was the issue in California. I remember because I was with Sprint and left to go to ATT cause of crappy service and was jacked on my ETF, which I got back most of thanks to the case settlement.

[pika2000]

Government is supposed to regulate to help the little guys, not the gadget geeks. How effective is a completely unlocked cell phone in Singapore for the last 10 years when you couldn't get your numbers ported until last year, and when you finally can get your numbers ported --- you are facing $800 in ETF.

:rolleyes: How does number-porting and ETF have anything to do with how effective simlocking law is? Fact is, the phones are not locked. That means, the law works. If not, then the phones would be locked, which is not the case. You seem to have plenty of knowledge and have valid points, but I think in the end you're always providing irrelevant arguments about what my point originally is.

I didn't say simlocking is okay because laws that prohibits simlocking is old --- I said that Singapore's rationale for the prohibitation of simlocking came from outdated European policy papers that even Europeans themselves have no longer even follow. There are legitimate reasons why Europeans no longer follow their own old policy papers.
Well, yet you keep repeating yourself how the simlocking law came from outdated European policy that was no longer followed. Fine, it came from an outdated policy. Heck, some thinks the US constitution is outdated. Point being? I already stated despite the policy being outdated, nonetheless the market in those countries are shaped to accept unlocked phones as the norm, while in the US, provider-locking is considered the norm.

I only stated Singapore as an example. I never said that the US should copy what Singapore does. It is merely an example where subsidized phones are sold unlocked, contrary to the popular beliefs that unlocked phones have to be full priced. You, on the other hand, showed obvious dislikes against Singapore. Well, I don't care about that or your chewing gum law. We're talking about the US DoJ. Just answer this, why are you against simlocking? Show me the logic behind simlocking.

[pika2000]

there is nothing wrong with the notion of an ETF. but if you are told that it is to repay the carriers investment in your device and they want to charge you more than that, well that's just wrong.

not exactly. Sprint and T-Mobile were both sued over the whole ETF gouging issues and lost, big time. Verizon and Cingular/ATT volunteered to follow the courts orders because they were basically told if they didn't, they could be hit with class action suits for the same issues. or so was the issue in California. I remember because I was with Sprint and left to go to ATT cause of crappy service and was jacked on my ETF, which I got back most of thanks to the case settlement.
Remember, regardless of how fair/unfair the ETF is, it's already disclosed upfront before you sign the contract. Sure, there are some unfair ETF policy, but the amount itself is never hidden nor a secret, unlike unlocking policies.

Thanks for pointing the lawsuit. However, that's a lawsuit. It's not the same as government doing a direct intervention. If we see a class-action lawsuit against the carriers for locking their phones, I'm all for it.

[pika2000]

What it may prevent is providers forcing manufacturers to only distribute a given phone in a locked form through them. It may also, due to the alternative of getting an unlocked version from another source, encourage the providers to sell them unlocked if the customer pays full price and possibly even eventually to just ditch the locks as an unnecessary hassle since they really would have no more purpose.

I'd rather see legislation that forced availability of unlocked phones somehow. For example, providers are not allowed to dictate to manufacturers that they can't sell an unlocked version direct to consumers, or dictate the price on that. And, optionally, but not necessarily, if they sell a full price phone (full price defined by the MSRP, not by them) then they would not be allowed to simlock it. In other words, they are not allowed to prevent hardware from getting to a customer's hands in an unlocked form, but they don't necessarily have to be the agent that gets it to them. If they take steps via contract to prevent an alternative source for the hardware then they are engaging in anti-competitive practices.

Unfortunately I don't think pre-paid can be used with smart phones and the pre-paid prices are way higher than the contract prices. I agree that sim-locking is the primary enemy, though I'd like to see a requirement to provide non-contract service that is on par with the contract service (perhaps with a requirement that it cannot cost more than the subsidy-recouping contract prices).

Good points. I'm just going to counter on some things.
Currently, I don't think the carriers are forcing manufactures to only sell their phones thru them. Nokia and Sony Ericsson are readily selling their phones unlocked. However, carriers do force the phones to be locked if the manufacture want the carriers to "carry" them.
Again, I don't see why subsidized phone should be locked. The carrier already retains the customer via contract and ETF. I don't see a logic behind provider locking at all, regardless of subsidy status. That is still anti-competitive, especially with the secretive and uneven "unlocking" policies. Why can't we just abandon the notion of provider locking in the first place?

Pre-paid can be used with smart phones. I'm using pre-paid on my Nokia E51, no problems surfing the web and running google maps on AT&T's 3G. Sure, the rate might be more expensive than contracted plans, but those rates are clearly disclosed, and I'm completely aware of them. Besides, there are services that would help in reducing cost (eg. SMS via Google voice, using twitter app to tweet instead of via SMS, using email instead of SMS/MMS, etc).

We agree that simlocking is the primary issue, thus my point if the DoJ wanted to scrutinize something, that should be the first one.

[samab]

:rolleyes: How does number-porting and ETF have anything to do with how effective simlocking law is? Fact is, the phones are not locked. That means, the law works. If not, then the phones would be locked, which is not the case. You seem to have plenty of knowledge and have valid points, but I think in the end you're always providing irrelevant arguments about what my point originally is.

Well, yet you keep repeating yourself how the simlocking law came from outdated European policy that was no longer followed. Fine, it came from an outdated policy. Heck, some thinks the US constitution is outdated. Point being? I already stated despite the policy being outdated, nonetheless the market in those countries are shaped to accept unlocked phones as the norm, while in the US, provider-locking is considered the norm.

I only stated Singapore as an example. I never said that the US should copy what Singapore does. It is merely an example where subsidized phones are sold unlocked, contrary to the popular beliefs that unlocked phones have to be full priced. You, on the other hand, showed obvious dislikes against Singapore. Well, I don't care about that or your chewing gum law. We're talking about the US DoJ. Just answer this, why are you against simlocking? Show me the logic behind simlocking.

Yes, the phone is unlocked, but migrating to the new carrier meant for a new telephone number (in Singapore until last year) and cost a king's ransom in ETF to get out of contract --- and all you got is the right to use your 2 year old phone at your new carrier's network.

I would prefer the other way around --- you pay a cheap pro-rated ETF to get out of contract, you keep your current telephone number and your new carrier gives you a brand new zero dollar phone. This is the silicon valley you are talking about --- where CPU speed doubles every 18 months. A brand new zero dollar phone is going to be a better than your 2 year old $600-800 unbrand/unlocked cell phone.

I am talking about old policy papers that NOBODY in the world has adopted. The US Constitution may be old, but a lot of countries still adopt their principles. And for other countries who adopted the unlocked phone as the norm --- what --- you think that they are doing this because they care about consumers? They are doing this because these regulators are siding with their incumbant carriers on the MAJOR issues so they give the consumer an illusion of doing something constructive. You "won" a minor issue of simlocking and lost the war against the carriers on major issues.

I never said that I am for simlocking. I said that that the average consumers can get much better consumer benefit by concentrating their political goodwill on other important but mundane stuff. It's about priorities. You said that simlocking is the number 1 issue that they should deal with first and I am saying that simlocking is like number 57.

[samab]

Thanks for pointing the lawsuit. However, that's a lawsuit. It's not the same as government doing a direct intervention.

That's why we prefer the US government to actually step in and give us a direct intervention on standardizing ETF rules nationally.

[samab]

Again, I don't see why subsidized phone should be locked. The carrier already retains the customer via contract and ETF. I don't see a logic behind provider locking at all, regardless of subsidy status.

Yet every country in the world except Singapore have subsidized phones that are simlocked. And Singapre is a really bad example to begin with --- with their very very high ETF, their consumer unfriendly free tv business model where the average consumer would have a hard time comparing prices...

[pika2000]

I would prefer the other way around --- you pay a cheap pro-rated ETF to get out of contract, you keep your current telephone number and your new carrier gives you a brand new zero dollar phone. This is the silicon valley you are talking about --- where CPU speed doubles every 18 months. A brand new zero dollar phone is going to be a better than your 2 year old $600-800 unbrand/unlocked cell phone.
So, you're arguing that technology advances pretty quick that 2 year old phones should just be dumped. Yet you are arguing how number portability is so important? Going around Silicon Valley, most people already have multiple accounts with multiple carriers. Most already/will utilize services like google voice, VOIP, and social networking for getting in touch with others. Phone number portability is not that critical anymore. On the other hand, if I finish my 2 year contract, then technically the phone is mine, and I should be able to sell it, give to my family members, use it on other carriers etc without having to deal with the original carrier. Not the case with locked phones. What's the point of getting out of contract early with pro-rated ETF anyway if the phone itself is useless outside the carrier?


I never said that I am for simlocking.
:rolleyes: You have pretty much argued against me about no-simlocking in all of your posts with additional run around the topics filled your hatred towards Singapore, which is not even relevant. Either that, or you're just trolling (which I unfortunately fell into) with run around comments about ETF/contracts/TVs/chewing gum that are argued against my main point of wanting unlocked phones.

To summarize, sounds like you prefer simlocking like it is now in the pretense that most people are not aware by it. You just want the government to force pro-rated ETF, so geeks like you (or insider traders/ebay cellphone resellers) can take advantage of getting out of contracts with a subsidized phone and maximizing the secretive "unlocking policy" (which by the way, you have not shown me whether AT&T will always unlock their phones or not). :rolleyes:

[pika2000]

**double post

[samab]

So, you're arguing that technology advances pretty quick that 2 year old phones should just be dumped. Yet you are arguing how number portability is so important? Going around Silicon Valley, most people already have multiple accounts with multiple carriers. Most already/will utilize services like google voice, VOIP, and social networking for getting in touch with others. Phone number portability is not that critical anymore. On the other hand, if I finish my 2 year contract, then technically the phone is mine, and I should be able to sell it, give to my family members, use it on other carriers etc without having to deal with the original carrier. Not the case with locked phones. What's the point of getting out of contract early with pro-rated ETF anyway if the phone itself is useless outside the carrier?

:rolleyes: You have pretty much argued against me about no-simlocking in all of your posts with additional run around the topics filled your hatred towards Singapore, which is not even relevant. Either that, or you're just trolling (which I unfortunately fell into) with run around comments about ETF/contracts/TVs/chewing gum that are argued against my main point of wanting unlocked phones.

To summarize, sounds like you prefer simlocking like it is now in the pretense that most people are not aware by it. You just want the government to force pro-rated ETF, so geeks like you (or insider traders/ebay cellphone resellers) can take advantage of getting out of contracts with a subsidized phone and maximizing the secretive "unlocking policy" (which by the way, you have not shown me whether AT&T will always unlock their phones or not). :rolleyes:

Vonage is a total bust. Ebay overpaid to buy Skype.

Technically, you DO own the cellphone --- you just have to sell them to someone who wants to have a phone that is simlocked to a particular cell phone carrier. You can put it in a blender and see if it blends --- AT&T is not going to try to stop you from destroying the cell phone.

The point is that the new carrier is going to give you a free phone, so there is no need to use your 2 year old phone.

I prefer having the option of carrier providing FREE simlocking to 99% of their cell phone models vs. having the government imposing some sort of idiotic law that has proven to be ineffective worldwide.

Somehow --- the US having the second best iphone data plan in the G7, the US having the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the whole world according to the wired.com survey --- somehow there are something massively wrong with that? I don't buy it a single bit.

[kdarling]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet...

Verizon gave a present today to the small (less than 500,000 customers each) rural CDMA carriers, by promising that they would allow access to even exclusive phones, after six months.

This is something that the Rural Carriers Association has been after, and a major reason why Congress was looking into exclusivity.

Now if only ATT would do the same for the GSM carriers.

It doesn't affect most of us, but those who live in rural areas have been without decent smarpthone choices for a long time.