Regional U.S. Carriers Back Efforts to Ease Mobile Phone Unlocking in Bid to Draw iPhone Users

[Daalseth]

Originally Posted by JohnDoe98

Your wording is a little ambiguous here. If you bought a Roger's locked phone at Apple, the lock might not be implemented until Roger signs it up for service. But if you buy a factory unlocked phone from Apple, then no it's not true that Rogers will lock it. That would be illegal.

Sorry not to be clear. I was telling him that it would be an unlocked phone and he said that Rogers had to lock it to use their system. Illegal? Quite possibly, but as said before, Rogers is evil.

[tongxinshe]

Originally Posted by ghostface147

Sure, just pay full price for it. Not willing to do that? Too bad. That's on you.

Then give me a cheaper monthly usage charge when I don’t get AT&T’s subsidy and still sign a two-year subscription contract.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by nazaar

This just seems like a no brainer... I understand why a phone is locked if you buy it under contract. When that contract is done or you buy out of it the phone is fully yours, of course it should be unlocked!

Actually... The only reason why it should be locked is to make sure you pay the money that you owe (otherwise lots of people get a free iPhone with a 24 month contract, stop paying after three months, and then the carrier would have to sue, send bailiffs and so on which is just a lot of trouble). Apart from that there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to unlock the phone. If you buy an AT&T phone, pay them for 24 months, and after 3 months you decide to switch to Verizon and pay them as well, that's your business.

Originally Posted by swarmster

Sorry, but you've been misled. A subsidy is in no way a loan. Also, if you look at your bill and contract, there is no line item for any form of 'subsidy payback', only the rate you pay for service and various taxes.

A subsidy is not a loan. However, what the carriers call a "subsidy" isn't a subsidy. It is a loan.

Originally Posted by newdeal

I think it should be illegal for carriers to lock phones at all. Once they have you locked into a contract that should be good enough, I have agreed to pay you your money to pay off the subsidy, why should I have to agree to anything beyond that such as not using it on another carrier if I chose to.

That makes sense with your normal average law-abiding citizen. But plenty of crooks would sign on for dozens of iPhone contracts under different names, make one payment, then sell the phone to China.

[Thunderhawks]

Originally Posted by mattopotamus

Doesn't att unlock your phone if you paid full retail price?

And, they unlock it when you are out of contract.

[swarmster]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

A subsidy is not a loan. However, what the carriers call a "subsidy" isn't a subsidy. It is a loan.

Well, if you really want to get into it, the carriers rarely make official reference to any kind of "subsidy", outside perhaps passing reference to "benefits...which may include...a subsidized wireless device" (in AT&T's case). And the discounted pricing you typically receive in exchange for signing a contract does qualify as a subsidy, or "financial assistance given by one person or government to another".

But that's all it is. "Discounted pricing". AT&T stores (and often other retailers) offer you a good deal on a phone if you sign a contract of a certain type and length. It's totally outside your contract and is in no way a loan.

[JohnDoe98]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

That makes sense with your normal average law-abiding citizen. But plenty of crooks would sign on for dozens of iPhone contracts under different names, make one payment, then sell the phone to China.

Then make the sign up process more rigorous. Ask for the SSN or Driver license number, not merely a credit card.

[kerryb]

Is it just me or Samsungs ads getting more annoying these days or am I not in the desired age demographic. That annoying kid with the glass scolding his father in the forest for picking up a poisonous weed while his equally nerdy friend uses his phone like they were on a science expedition to an alien planet.
Those Unicorn Evil or something with all the hipsters launching the next great video game as if we were watching the birth of Facebook again... I could care what phone people buy but please stop with these horrendous ads.

[i-John]

Originally Posted by calisurfboy

When I pick up a phone that is locked, it comes at a discounted rate. I am explained that the phone company gives me a two year loan and that over the course of my two year contract, I pay back that loan. After those two years are up, does my bill go down because I am done paying off the loan, which is the phone, and left only paying for service?

No.

It doesn't matter if you have a subsidized phone or an unlocked phone, you still pay the same bill.

Telecommunications, including the cable industry, absolutely suck.

Not exactly. It's not a loan. The carrier is going to eat the extra cost of the phone with the knowledge that you will be with them for 2 years.

You buy a phone out of contract, the price for service is the same. The cost of your phone is not rolled into your service, it's eaten by the carrier to get you to stay for 2 years, knowing that in those 2 years, it has you as a customer.

All the whining is much ado about nothing. Carriers unlock your phones anyway as long as you don't owe anything (fulfilled contract obligations either by staying for 2 years or paying the early termination). If you read what the White House released, that's exactly what they support too.

You want an unlocked phone? They are available at full price now. Those prices are set by the phone maker, not the carrier. You want to whine and blame someone, shout at Apple, Samsung, Motorola and HTC for charging so much for their phones.

----------

Originally Posted by JohnDoe98

Then make the sign up process more rigorous. Ask for the SSN or Driver license number, not merely a credit card.

In the US they do. They run a credit check, but the thing is, crooks use identity theft to get service.

Thing is, if you make the sign up process more strict, people are going to whine about having to give up their information.

[JohnDoe98]

Originally Posted by i-John

In the US they do. They run a credit check, but the thing is, crooks use identity theft to get service.

Thing is, if you make the sign up process more strict, people are going to whine about having to give up their information.

There will always be people who complain, I'll grant you that. But it seems absurd to me to resort to such drastic measures (locking all phones for the first two years while charging exorbitant roaming charges for travelers) simply to cull down on the few people who are attempting to sell the iPhones to China by means of fraud/identity theft. I think there are other more efficient ways to prevent such crime.

For the overwhelming majority of citizens the ETF will be more than enough to protect the telecoms.

[rdlink]

This headline is a perfect, instant example of how locked phones are designed to hinder competition, and unlocking phones benefits the consumer.

[seecoolguy]

Originally Posted by mattopotamus

Doesn't att unlock your phone if you paid full retail price?

Yes

----------

I wonder if this becomes a standard if Verizon will finally allow their iPhone4S' to be local carrier unlocked?

currently they only unlock it for international sims, howerver you can always buy those 3gpp chips that allow you to use the phone on a local carrier like TMobile or AT&T.

hmm

[terraphantm]

Originally Posted by calisurfboy

When I pick up a phone that is locked, it comes at a discounted rate. I am explained that the phone company gives me a two year loan and that over the course of my two year contract, I pay back that loan. After those two years are up, does my bill go down because I am done paying off the loan, which is the phone, and left only paying for service?

No.

It doesn't matter if you have a subsidized phone or an unlocked phone, you still pay the same bill.

Telecommunications, including the cable industry, absolutely suck.

Uhm, last I checked, if you pay off a loan, then you no longer have to pay the bank a payment. So how exactly is what all the US telecom companies do equivalent to a loan?

[tomashi]

Unlocking SHOULD be a right.

With that said I went ahead and paid $2 online to some company and they unlocked my phone for me. Pretty sweet and easy, but I doubt that it's available to everyone. It should be though.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by ghostface147

Sure, just pay full price for it. Not willing to do that? Too bad. That's on you.

If a person were leaving ATT and wanting it unlocked before the contract expires, then you would be correct. It is on the customer, as they did things wrong.

But when a customer is going overseas, and has no intention of leaving ATT after they return to the US, and is being charged for that high amount is wrong.

If ATT's competitors are allowing them to use their phones overseas without exorbitant international fees (which they won't have because they are using PAYG sims while overseas), ATT will lose customers who travel overseas to those competitors, or avenues like Skype, Facetime, etc.

ATT is shooting themselves in the foot there, and people saying "tough ****" are naive to that fact.

BL.

[alphaod]

Originally Posted by Intarweb

Who does that?

An example would be Nokia and AT&T. I paid full price for my Lumia 920. I love the phone, and I want to use it when I travel. AT&T won't unlock it until their exclusivity period ends, which is in May.