White House Files Petition Asking FCC to Require Carriers to Unlock All Mobile Devices

[Small White Car]

I would not enjoy that, but other people don't exist to make me happy. If Paramount owns the movie theater, they can show whatever they like. If I don't like it, I can start my own theater, watch movies online (I realize this wasn't possible in the past, but the Internet does help free markets tremendously), organize a boycott of Paramount, or try to get another theater started some way.

It was proven that those things didn't work. (Or do you think no one thought to try them?) So you can't say "I would..." as if you're the only smart person in the world that those things could possibly have occurred to.

That was the situation that actually happened, this is not a hypothetical you can will away by some kind of magic. It's a true story.

The only choices were government intervention or letting the corporation control your choices by way of localized monopolies.

You have to pick one of those things. There's no magical middle ground where you get to pretend you get everything you want. The real world doesn't work that way.

 

[cuda12]

I am not missing the point, and you're wrong once again. The "ends" do justify the "means." This is not a case of the government wanting to constrain trade. You speak about this as if the phone carriers somehow gain a technical or costs benefit from requiring these phones to be locked to their networks. Let's not forget that these phones are not locked for any other reason than the fact that the carriers want them locked to keep what would otherwise be an open standard piece of hardware proprietary.

This is somewhat analogous to what happened with wireline carriers back in the days before the government stepped in. You may be too young to remember a time when Ma Bell required you to use their equipment, and rent it from them. And it was very expensive. You couldn't buy a phone and hook it up to your line. The government "overstepped their bounds" and told them it was unfair to the consumer. In fact, Bell's practice constrained trade, because it prevented other manufacturers from getting into the market. Now you can buy a phone in almost any store for less than $10.

What the wireless carriers do with locked phones is a variant of that. They created an artificially locked device (rather they have it created, since they create nothing) in order to confuse the market and keep you the consumer from making a free choice with what could otherwise be an open standard.

I am all for free market, to a point. But when a business becomes predatory or constrains the market to the detriment of the consumer as a whole with its practices it's time for the government to step in.

I'm inclined to agree with you on quite a few of your points (of course maintaining some of my own), but you don't argue from a point looking for consensus. We have different philosophies, and to attack each other personally is silly. "You're wrong" is not the statement to win an argument, but judging from your previous posts that's your default response. We disagree. Accept it and let's move on.

 

[Mrg02d]

Allow me to school you...

1st phones are subsidized because of contracts.

2nd carriers don't get some discounts on the devices because they buy in huge quantities.

3rd if they unlock phones you will ..... YOU WILL pay full prices.

4th understand business before you make any comments.

5th why would a carrier buy a 500.00 phone unlocked it so you can buy it for 200.00 hoping you stay around to recoup the money. This is automatic bankruptcy and anyone that thinks other wise in this LTE network country is a fool.

So yes I don't care either way but I'm prepared and have the money to do whatever.. Because I understand business.


6th can you pay right now, this moment for 500.00 for a phone blank period. Now ask yourself.... Next time you want an unlocked phone ... Go to apple... They sell them for 650.00 before taxes....

Yea, okay...

Lets just see how long a carrier lasts charging full price for a phone AND asking for a two year commitment.

Understand business my ass.

 

[timborama]

When all phones are required to be unlocked on demand, you can kiss the $99 or $199 iPhone goodbye. They'll START at $499 or $549, to reflect the true retail value of the phones. It's locking that makes subsidized prices possible.

You're absolutely right. Those pressing for mandatory unlocking better be careful what they wish for.

 

[Mrg02d]

So you're going to ignore the economy collapsing in the last 4 months of Bush's term and the US being on the brink of complete economic disaster under bush?


Are you also so ignorant to think Obama has some magic switch in his Oval Office that can reverse the damage?


Please keep listening to rush and hannity

Bush sucked and Obama sucks. Are we past this now?

Lets not go down this path. It's ageless and has no victor. Both parties are full of crap.

I applaud the Whitehouse for this, so far.

----------

You're absolutely right. Those pressing for mandatory unlocking better be careful what they wish for.

Yea, and carriers can also KISS GOODBYE, getting people to re-up their contracts. Ever heard of prepay? One month I'm on tmobile...Next Verizon, next AT&T...Get the picture?

Tmobile got smart and showed us what our contracts were worth. Now almost anyone can go get an iPhone and an unlimited plan for $70 per month. I can also leave anytime I want as long as I pay of my phone. In the end, I keep my phone though and use where I WANT!

 

[Treq]

Allow me to school you...

1st phones are subsidized because of contracts.

2nd carriers don't get some discounts on the devices because they buy in huge quantities.

3rd if they unlock phones you will ..... YOU WILL pay full prices.

4th understand business before you make any comments.

5th why would a carrier buy a 500.00 phone unlocked it so you can buy it for 200.00 hoping you stay around to recoup the money. This is automatic bankruptcy and anyone that thinks other wise in this LTE network country is a fool.

So yes I don't care either way but I'm prepared and have the money to do whatever.. Because I understand business.


6th can you pay right now, this moment for 500.00 for a phone blank period. Now ask yourself.... Next time you want an unlocked phone ... Go to apple... They sell them for 650.00 before taxes....

If I pay full price, i wont be under a contract.

Wow, you really need to take your own advice.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

So you're going to ignore the economy collapsing in the last 4 months of Bush's term and the US being on the brink of complete economic disaster under bush?


Are you also so ignorant to think Obama has some magic switch in his Oval Office that can reverse the damage?


Please keep listening to rush and hannity

1 - I get all of my news from CNN, not Fox.
2 - Obama has had five years to fix the economy. According to you, bush broke it in four months - surely having 20 times that length of time is enough to reverse that damage? You can't just say Obama was handed a crap hand - he's had more than enough time to turn his entire hand over several times.

 

[mdorais]

5th why would a carrier buy a 500.00 phone unlocked it so you can buy it for 200.00 hoping you stay around to recoup the money. This is automatic bankruptcy and anyone that thinks other wise in this LTE network country is a fool.

They don't "hope" you stay around, they charge you an ETF if you leave. Haven't you read any comments here?

 

[ftaok]

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that companies will be hurt by this decision because unlocked phones somehow cost more. They'll probably be helped because they'll attract more customers. I just don't see why it's government's business. The ends don't justify the means for me.

I've been following your posts on this thread. I just wanted to make a quick point.

The airwaves and spectrum belong to the citizens of the USA. Not the cell providers. The FCC auctioned off chunks of spectrum to the cell providers to use to provide service. They don't own the spectrum, we do.

If they don't want to play fair with consumers, then to hell with them. We give them their money back and we let someone else play ball.

If they want to play fair and provide services to people and make money doing so, then everyone's happy.

In the end, locked or unlocked is not a big deal. What got us in this mess in the first place was the FCC not mandating a single standard with standard frequencies and bands. But that's a rant got another day.

 

[Taz Mangus]

Finally, Sprint will be forced to unlock the phones on their network when requested to do so.

 

[rdlink]

I'm inclined to agree with you on quite a few of your points (of course maintaining some of my own), but you don't argue from a point looking for consensus. We have different philosophies, and to attack each other personally is silly. "You're wrong" is not the statement to win an argument, but judging from your previous posts that's your default response. We disagree. Accept it and let's move on.

Point taken. My apologies for the tone of my opening statement.

I am impressed by your respectful debate on the subject. And I am one who believes in minimal government interference. But I do believe it's appropriate here, because the carriers are deliberately trying to create an artificial limitation where one doesn't exist, and the market cannot be argued to be better with it in place.

 

[cuda12]

I've been following your posts on this thread. I just wanted to make a quick point.

The airwaves and spectrum belong to the citizens of the USA. Not the cell providers. The FCC auctioned off chunks of spectrum to the cell providers to use to provide service. They don't own the spectrum, we do.

If they don't want to play fair with consumers, then to hell with them. We give them their money back and we let someone else play ball.

If they want to play fair and provide services to people and make money doing so, then everyone's happy.

In the end, locked or unlocked is not a big deal. What got us in this mess in the first place was the FCC not mandating a single standard with standard frequencies and bands. But that's a rant got another day.

You're exactly right. The problem is the FCC not allowing full competition by allowing loopholes that phone companies want. This is a government-created problem, though, not a market one. Remember: regulation often helps big corporations by making it harder for the little guy to compete. The barrier of entry into wireless telecommunications is enormous for a lot of reasons, but FCC rules and regulations are part of it.

----------

Point taken. My apologies for the tone of my opening statement.

I am impressed by your respectful debate on the subject. And I am one who believes in minimal government interference. But I do believe it's appropriate here, because the carriers are deliberately trying to create an artificial limitation where one doesn't exist, and the market cannot be argued to be better with it in place.

I much prefer civil debate; I think everyone benefits. I respect you being willing to offer an apology, and of course I accept it.

I looked up a few of your previous posts, and one caught my eye. You were talking about the idea of government existing to serve the people, and not the other way around. I agreed with the post entirely. We seem to both favor free markets, as you point out, and I can see how this situation can be construed as an unfair practice that government rightly has a duty to correct. I know I learned a lot from our back-and-forth, so I thank you for it.

 

[Treq]

You're exactly right. The problem is the FCC not allowing full competition by allowing loopholes that phone companies want. This is a government-created problem, though, not a market one. Remember: regulation often helps big corporations by making it harder for the little guy to compete.

This is exactly a market problem. This is an excellent example of how regulation helps the market. I so hate the whole Free market is always the way argument. The free market works for business which some times works for consumers but not always. Smart regulations foster a better marketplace for business and customers alike.

 

[srsub3]

I think that a lot of people here are missing the point. The price you are paying at the beginning is low not because you are buying a locked phone, but because you are signing a 2 year contract! (which is worth at least 2 grands!) it is like buying a car from an oil company, signing that you will buy each month a certain amount of gas and at the end of the contract you cannot put another brand gas still! It is stupid! and then, for preventing you from switching, they invented the early termination fee, which is the money you owe them from the original discount sow it is legit to oblige them to unlock the phone, since at the end of the contract you have fulfilled a contract an the phone is 100% yours.

 

[Windlasher]

The FCC is part of the executive branch, of which Obama is the head. Can't he just tell them to change their policy?

He uses executive orders to do everything else...

Yeah, cause the republicans would never do anything like that! Like say LIE about WMDs in IRAQ to start a war.

 

[DarthNooR]

Where was I wrong? I'd like to know so I can show my lack of knowledge more effectively.

Why? I promise you, you are doing great already!

 

[montclaire]

Yes, blame it all on Obama, just like rush and hannity want you to

U liberast think it's bushe's fault

 

[rydewnd2]

When all phones are required to be unlocked on demand, you can kiss the $99 or $199 iPhone goodbye. They'll START at $499 or $549, to reflect the true retail value of the phones. It's locking that makes subsidized prices possible.

Why would AT&T care of you swap in another sim if they have you on a two year contract anyways?

----------

U liberast think it's bushe's fault

Is there nowhere one can go to geek out and talk about gadgets whilst avoiding political drudgery?

 

[curiouspeter]

Great! It's a free market. Carriers are free to subsidize phone but consumers should be allowed to unlock their phones on demand too! Of course, contracts are contracts and early-termination fees are still fair.

I rather see an end too phone subsidization. I prefer lower monthly fees and fully-priced devices.

I hate having to call the carrier for unlock codes. Phones should be unlocked and unbranded by default.

 

[ChrisA]

The FCC is part of the executive branch, of which Obama is the head. Can't he just tell them to change their policy?.

No the FCC commissioners are independent. By law a president can't tell them what to decide. Congress could change this when they renew the telecommunications act but they will not as it ha been like this for something like 70 or 80 years.

 

[oplix]

wow Obama administration did something right.

 

[H2SO4]

Glad to see the whitehouse has its priorities straight


/s

That's what I thought. With all the other troubles they have this is where they're directing their efforts?
I agree with the other posters saying that prices will rise. To all those saying they won't, we both stand to be proven wrong in time of course but the phone manufacturers and networks have a business model and although the carriers and handset manufatcurers work independently they both make plans depending on what they think the other might do.

Yes it's possible to unlock the phones when a contract is up but they are betting that most won't and all this goes into their forecasts as potential revenue. This is what you are forgetting. If they can't make that potential revenue there anymore they'll look to make it elsewhere, it's money they've been used to getting for ages.

 

[charlituna]

Better move

Don't allow them to be locked in the first place.

 

[shikakenin]

Contracts not locking enable subsidized prices

When all phones are required to be unlocked on demand, you can kiss the $99 or $199 iPhone goodbye. They'll START at $499 or $549, to reflect the true retail value of the phones. It's locking that makes subsidized prices possible.

How do you figure it is "locking" that makes it possible? Hogwash. Who cares if I go to another carrier provided that I pay a penalty for breaking the contract. They subsidized the price as consideration for me signing the contract. It is my phone. Should have never been locked. Especially for those who travel frequently and need foreign sims. Locking was pure BS. Verizon now has competitive advantage as their iPhones are sold unlocked (at least the 5 was, so assume the s and c will be). Locking schmocking. To H with locking!

 

[Hurda]

OK- so are they asking that this be done despite carriers offering incentives to customers by selling discounted phone?

No phone is ever actually discounted. You're paying the full price, one way or the other, sooner or later.
Besides: You're locked to the carrier for two years anyway, there's no point in locking the device, too.