I never understood why they were locked in the first place, its like locking my car so that I can only buy gas from one source until I pay it off. Even if I do go somewhere else I still have to pay that bill. Its a contract, unlocking the device does not free anyone from the commitment from the subsidy. You still have to pay it off or suffer with bad credit.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. House Approves Bill Making Smartphone Unlocking Legal, Obama Pledges to Sign it Into Law
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Locking a device deters you from moving carriers and keeps you as a customer for as long as you have that phone. Even if you can call to unlock it, it is still something that not everyone is willing to deal with.
This is a good first step, but this isn't over until it's illegal for them to be locked in the first place.
Technically speaking all of Verizon's LTE phones (which represent pretty much all smartphones these days) are already factory unlocked by default.
----------
Both AT&T and Verizon give discounts to those with phones that are not subsidized--basically to lines that are not under contract. Counting those as two of the largest carriers in US, and factoring in T-Mobile and various other smaller carriers not even offering contracts/subsidized options, it seems that the majority already have access to cheaper options when it comes to using non-subsidized equipment.
this hurts big business. are they out of their mind. wth was the GOP thinking agreeing to this. smh
What keeps you is the contract not the device. One doesn't have anything to do with the other, and shouldn't be tied to the other.
Yah, here in Canada on the Rogers network, we're required to give them $50 just to unlock our own phones. It's crazy, but at least it's possible. #criminals
The law will be crippled by some fine print. Never under estimate the power of the telecom lobby.
Well, I guess we can't call them a 'do nothing' Congress anymore. And just in time for them to take another multi week vacation. 
The sole purpose of locking the device is not to keep you committed into a contract but to charge you high amounts of fees when travelling outside your network coverage area as Roaming.
Besides not giving up on the locked device, pushes the mentality to continue using the phone with the same provider.
Its a fraudulent business practice that the US carriers use at all times. Congress is surely doing something nice for a change.
Besides not giving up on the locked device, pushes the mentality to continue using the phone with the same provider.
Its a fraudulent business practice that the US carriers use at all times. Congress is surely doing something nice for a change.
Inb4 Fox News says that it's a "terrible idea" and "the end of the world as we know it" based solely on the fact that Obama is backing it.
Does this mean all the Obama haters are going to try to find ways to lock their phones just to spite him?
How does this hurt business? I know that republicans usually don't make sense when they have to try to explain their corporate wealth favoring agenda to the commoners, but your comment here is rather odd.
Takes an act of congress to... oh I don't even...
But it's nice to see they've got their priorities in order.
The US is lost in the woods.
But it's nice to see they've got their priorities in order.
The US is lost in the woods.
I would imagine it means the subsidies are shortly going to disappear. I think they wanted to ultimately do this anyway, and instead impose those silly "flex" upgrade plans on you where you end up paying for the whole device anyway.
Frankly, and this probably sounds cynical, but this is why this bill is even happening in the first place. They simply don't care anymore since these new plans negate the need for locking.
Of all the important things Congress must consider, this is what makes it through. Sad.
I agree cellphone unlocking should be legal, just that it's not important compared to other issues.
I agree cellphone unlocking should be legal, just that it's not important compared to other issues.
I don't understand why subsides would disappear. A subsidy is given to a consumer in exchange for signing a 2-year contract. Unlocking phones has nothing to do with a contract. Unlocked phone or not, the consumer is still legally bound to a 2-year contract. Now, if AT&T or Verizon say "no more contracts", then subsidies would disappear.
That said, if all major carriers decided to let people out of existing contracts and sign no new ones, I doubt they'd been much net movement. Where would people go? The major carriers would just end up exchanging customers.
Last edited:
At least for AT&T and Verizon, the bills are a little lower now if you have an unsubsidized device. Before the Next/ Edge programs came out (and in the early days of the programs) there was no discount for paying off a subsidy.
Not really. Your service provider will still charge the rest of the phone to your credit card or any other method of payment and they will receive the cash, assuming you switch carriers and stop paying your bill.
I love how anything involving politics around here instantly gets shoved into PRSI.
I know right, I mean why do they have a Politics subforum
----------
No it doesn't
lmao
Oh of course, I'm not disagreeing with that. It's just that carriers figured out how to "extend" 2-year contracts for people who can't afford to get a new phone (since they can't get a new plan elsewhere without getting a new phone). Though, it is probably even more true for people who are reluctant to change phones (i.e., stubborn).