White House Petition Lobbies to Make Cell Phone Unlocking Legal

[Belmont31R]

No phone should be tied to a carrier even if subsidized.

[adcx64]

iSigned.

[PeterQVenkman]

Make cell phone unlocking illegal, or change the Instagram TOS and people organize to fight back. But while the US gov't does scary things that really impact our freedom, we are too lazy to act.

[sza]

If is petition gets approved, cell phone price will surge even with 2-year contract.

[Daalseth]

Originally Posted by TallManNY

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.

At least up here when I checked into it phones were locked whether they were subsidized or not. Before I gave up getting one I talked to the carriers up here. They would sell me a phone outright and then go pay as you go without a subsidy, but the phone would still be locked to their service. The example I gave before was if I bought an unlocked phone from Apple and brought it in. They would let me go month to month but insisted on locking my own personal phone to their network. YMMV in other countries.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by sza

If is petition gets approved, cell phone price will surge even with 2-year contract.

You miss the point.

Cell/mobile phone companies should not be told which network their phones must be built for. That's what got VZW andSprint in hot water in the late 90s, where when you bought a Nokia phone, say the 5120 for Sprint, you would have to repurchase the same phone (different model, e.g.: Nokia 5125) to use on VZW's network, or the 5130 to use on ATT's network. And they were the same phone, but since the phone was tailored to the network, you were screwed.

You should be able to buy the phone from the phone manufacturer, and take it to whatever network you choose. Contracts are with the carrier, not the phone maker and carrier.

And especially with LTE coming up to be the single unified network, tying the phone to the carrier becomes more and more useless.

You were able to buy the phones separately in Europe and take it to the carrier of your choosing for the longest time (granted, every network there was GSM), while we in the US were stuck with GSM (TDMA) and CDMA, which led to our fragmentation.

How funny that Europe had more freedom of choice than us in the US.

Back on topic: I signed.

BL.

[brop52]

Signed

[G4DP]

Originally Posted by Consultant

After we fulfill our contract, carriers should be required to unlock the phone.

In the UK that is what happens if you request it. Although they make an admin charge.

[Ubele]

Originally Posted by leon44

I'll never understand America and its 'freedom'

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?

As for the issue at hand, I think I should have the freedom to unlock a phone I've paid for, as long as I pay for my two-year contract with the carrier.

[swissmann]

I signed as well. It only took a couple of seconds. I don't like the control of the government nor the corporations. It's my phone let me do what I want with it.

[osaga]

So many libertarians on MR... that explains a lot actually

Who cares honestly, no one is going to pay attention to the law regardless.

[bilboa]

Originally Posted by TallManNY

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 thing is that the contract and phone locking are two separate things. I think it's completely reasonable for companies to offer subsidized phones in exchange for a contract which binds you to 2 years of service or a large early termination fee. However, I don't think they should be allowed to lock the phones to a particular carrier and legally prevent users from unlocking their phones.

[Jamo12]

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.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Jamo12

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.

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.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by shanmugam

Govt cares about the Corporation. they do not care about people!. what is new?

Not 100% correct, the government also cares about what polls well and helps their careers. If they can say they fixed this problem, which invariably will help children with Down's Syndrome, the elderly, and the poor, then they'll do it. Of course, this won't so they'll do everything they can do short of ignoring it.

[poorracerkid]

The last paragraph sums up everything.

[motoracer1486]

Signed. Thanks MR for posting this.

[koban4max]

Originally Posted by MultiMediaWill

Seriously it's just a phone. Doesn't the US government have better things to worry about?

Okay. next time you get unlock...we'll report u.

[voltes]

signed

[drewyboy]

If you expect the government to do anything, you're wasting your time. Speak with your wallet. Unlocked iPhone + TMobile. Problem solved, next please.

[kalsta]

Originally Posted by shanmugam

Govt cares about the Corporation. they do not care about people!. what is new?

Politicians care about getting elected, and they don't get elected in the US without huge financial contributions from the wealthy and powerful. It's capitalism down to the very core, and while the system works better than many others, it can't be denied that money (and the power it brings) tends to corrupt.

Originally Posted by TallManNY

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.

As others have already said, you owe them the agreed monthly payment over the full term of the contract, by which time they have been adequately compensated for the cost of the phone.

If carriers fear a loss of income from people using a second SIM when travelling (or whatever it is they fear), they have every right to (1) offer a more compelling service to compete, or (2) raise their prices to compensate—that's what a free market and fair competition is supposed to look like. That this level of control has been legislated by the mighty hand of the US government should be concerning to its citizens.

[Lancer]

Originally Posted by dusk007

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.

As far as I remember here in Australia we get a contract for a fixed time, if we got to another provider before it's up we have to pay an exit fee, which in some cases is the balance of the contract. They you still need to pay a fee to lock the phone and you can do what you want.

On top of that we get to keep our phone number even at the new provider, I've had mine for about 15 years with a number of phone and 2 providers.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by Ubele

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?

Well, nobody in the UK tries to tell the whole world how they are the freest country around. And a shining example to the world.

Originally Posted by Jamo12

The government shouldn't be allowed to make the companies unlock people's phones.

Speaking about contradictions... Must be an American thing to defend the freedom of companies to exploit their customers, and not the freedom of people of exploitation from companies.

[FluJunkie]

Originally Posted by Lesser Evets

Aw. So cute... does anyone believe these "petitions" are going anywhere aside from in the trash?

The White House responds to them - whether or not anything gets done is another question entirely, but they've been decent about reading and responding, which is more than the trash.

[Jamo12]

Originally Posted by bradl

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.

Lol I totally agree that their business models suck. That's why I said petition the businesses to go and fix it. It's not the governments job to run other people's businesses. Let the market sort it out