No. A locked phone is like buying a car from a dealer for 1/3 of the cost you expected, with a requirement that you buy their tire and gas.
If is petition gets approved, cell phone price will surge even with 2-year contract.
After we fulfill our contract, carriers should be required to unlock the phone.
I'll never understand America and its 'freedom'
No. A locked phone is like buying a car from a dealer for 1/3 of the cost you expected, with a requirement that you buy their tire and gas. You got the upfront savings by buying the subsidized phone. The long term contract and locked up feature of the phone you bought is part of the deal.
The problem is that is basically a pretty bad deal for consumers. So Congress really shouldn't be making things easier for cell phone companies and they shouldn't be making a law making unlocking illegal. However, you have to acknowledge that at least initially when you get that cheap subsidized phone, that you owe something to cell phone company for that.
The government shouldn't be allowed to make the companies unlock people's phones. It would be smarter to petition the companies to let them used unlocked phones. The companies have a right to not let you use their towers and service unless you follow their rules. That is totally fair and legal. Their stuff, their rules. It does suck, and if you don't like it, if you live in America, you have a right and freedom to go and start your own cellphone company.
Govt cares about the Corporation. they do not care about people!. what is new?
Seriously it's just a phone. Doesn't the US government have better things to worry about?
Govt cares about the Corporation. they do not care about people!. what is new?
However, you have to acknowledge that at least initially when you get that cheap subsidized phone, that you owe something to cell phone company for that.
I don't get why need it to be illegal. They could just make the contract exit so expensive that it isn't worth it. You gradually pay off the phone and if you exit in the first few month you pay extra or hand the hardware back.
It is done already they don't need to criminalize anything. In any case I doubt the ban would deter anyone anyway. In some european contracts it is said to be illegal and nobody cares. If it is possible, people end up doing it.
Well, there's the ideal, and then there's the imperfect reality. There's also the fact that people have differing notions as to what constitutes "freedom" – i.e., when my freedom to do one thing interferes with another person's freedom to do something else, whose freedom takes priority? Is the UK not full of complexities and contradictions, too?
The government shouldn't be allowed to make the companies unlock people's phones.
Aw. So cute... does anyone believe these "petitions" are going anywhere aside from in the trash?
Typical response here. To that I say to look at Europe, Australia, and basically the rest of the world, who does not have this type of restriction, and you will see otherwise.
It doesn't have anything to do with the government, nor what the companies' rights are. To put it plain and simple, their business model sucks. They decided to create their own network(s), pass that along as what they would like the standard to be, and force the phone makers to make phones suited only to their networks.
If they had a standard network, like say... ohh... i dunno... GSM, or LTE, there wouldn't be this problem. Each tower in Europe could be used by multiple carriers so no such restriction on locking would be needed.
Face it: The USA got this one backwards, and has been that way since the late 90s.
BL.