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

[ElectronGuru]

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

This question hints at the core for the whole thread: Why would a company do something if there was no incentive, if there was no advantage to locking your phone? If I'm Verizon and you bought a phone from me and at one, two or three years, you got another phone. Would I care if the first phone had to be used on a Verizon network? Sure I would - cause the guy who bought it from you couldn't then use the phone with my competitor. Locking is a way of marking territory, of making sure the % of devices sold for a given carrier for a give year, stay with that carrier.

Smart regulations foster a better marketplace for business and customers alike.

I've enjoyed many of the posts in this thread, from both 'sides'. It seems like everyone agrees that competition and choice is good. There's just a difference is how that can best be ensured. But both can be good and both can be bad. As a business can grow to powerful and stifle a market (less competition), so to can a government. I would go far as to say that only when both business and government are in play and working in balance, is maximum competition possible.

 

[saha-med]

Check the US rate plans before making a comparison. Singapore is far cheaper than the US, and includes higher data limits, lower up front cost for similar monthly spend AND an unlocked phone.

Eg. A USD50/month plan on Singtel has an upfront phone cost of USD220 (including taxes) and 3GB data

A USD80/month plan has an upfront phone cost of USD40 and includes 4GB/month

Compare that to the cheapest AT&T plan at USD$70 which includes 300MB .. Your conclusion completely doesn't align with the situation.

Ur right, i wasn't thinking about the differences in monthly cost.

 

[bdrake47]

Working both in the US and overseas, have had to buy unlocked phones for years.

A lot of good thoughts in this thread. Ultimately, it seems like this was a change a long time coming, and the rest of the world and the market itself has already moved on from the "carrier locking" business model.

Average Joe for the most part now knows the difference between unlocking and jailbreaking. At that point, the carriers should have felt the wind of change.

IMHO it seems consumers are getting more savvy and less tolerant of byzantine DRM policies as a whole, be it iTunes movie purchases, BluRay players, etc. The not-so-techie crowd is waking up to the fact that copyright law was written well before the digital age we now find ourselves in.

 

[terraphantm]

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....

Your logic is flawed. All a subsidy lock does is make it so that particular phone has to be used with that carrier. It doesn't prevent me from using another compatible phone, nor does it prevent me from selling the phone to someone else. The phone and its status is irrelevant. The carriers also apparently believe this, because with exception of the iPhone, they generally unlock phones whenever you want without demanding the subsidy be paid off in full.

Therefore, the lock status is unrelated to the price of the phone. All a carrier wants to do is ensure they get my money. They do that by tying me down to a 2 year commitment with a large fee for early termination. Once I sign the contract, they don't give a rat's ass as to what I do with the phone.

 

[Aluminum213]

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.

If I destroy a car in 1 second by driving it into a tree should I also be able to fix it in one second? Or 20 seconds?


You realize are terrible your logic is?

 

[GoCubsGo]

If I destroy a car in 1 second by driving it into a tree should I also be able to fix it in one second? Or 20 seconds?


You realize are terrible your logic is?

I'm not sure his logic is all that terrible. If someone tells me Bush ****ed things up in 4 months then you're saying it is absolutely unreasonable to believe that there hasn't been time for some change in 5 years?


On topic:
All phones should be unlocked but carriers have had us all by the short hairs for well over a decade and far into the terms of other congressional authorities.

 

[i5pro]

I really don't see a point to this..It's not like I can take my verizon phone to att or tmobile to sprint.

 

[musicianm]

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

That whole mess, was the housing bubble which started before Bush.

Freddie and Fanny - and it had something to do with loosening restrictions on loans so that anyone could be approved for a house.
What is crazy, is that even today they are allowing ridiculous approval amounts beyond what people are really capable of paying for.
It hasn't changed, it will happen again.

 

[Aluminum213]

I'm not sure his logic is all that terrible. If someone tells me Bush ****ed things up in 4 months then you're saying it is absolutely unreasonable to believe that there hasn't been time for some change in 5 years?


On topic:
All phones should be unlocked but carriers have had us all by the short hairs for well over a decade and far into the terms of other congressional authorities.

Again, you think "fixing" an economy is something that takes some logical amount of time like fixing a broken dishwasher

I wonder if I'm talking to people who only get their education from Fox News and conservative talk radio

 

[fark]

Like every edict from Washington, or any other govt, it is based on a static model, i.e., it assumes people and companies will not react.

Carriers need to receive a certain amount of revenue from each sale. Up until this point, it's been done with locking people to their network, ETFs, etc.

If the govt forces them to unlock, they will not sit idly by and lose revenue.

Threads like this also bring all the non-US posters to claim how glorious their plans are. Foreign carriers are no different. They also need a certain revenue/phone. That revenue ALWAYS comes from the consumer, either directly via the bill they pay, or indirectly via the taxes they pay.

 

[Rafterman]

This won't get us to forget about the NSA, Obama.

But apparently everyone did forget, or didn't bother to read, the Patriot Act.

 

[iThinkIt]

This won't get us to forget about the NSA, Obama.

Maybe they want them unlocked to gain access much easier????

 

[simonmet]

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.

No, it's the two-year service contract that makes it possible. Unlocking does not absolve you of any agreement to purchase network coverage, but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to use your devise on another network when travelling or if you prefer on a different local network if you pay a contract exit fee.

 

[applesith]

He should make a red line for this and then act unilaterally when the carriers cross it.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Again, you think "fixing" an economy is something that takes some logical amount of time like fixing a broken dishwasher

I wonder if I'm talking to people who only get their education from Fox News and conservative talk radio

Nope, you are not talking to someone who got their education from Fox News and conservative talk radio. I was not giving it a time limit or any of the sort. I was asking if you think that it is illogical to think that if some asswipe can say Bush f'ed things up in 4 months (which is a timeframe BTW) then why can't someone else think 5 years is long enough to at least come close to something changing.

I put you in right the camp of the people you think you're talking to currently who may have gotten their education from similar organizations.

 

[PracticalMac]

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 still pay for the the "$499 or $549" or $999 for the phone by your 24 month contact.

Look at T-Mo. Unlocked phones, either full price up front or monthly (about $19) for 24 months.

----------

This won't get us to forget about the NSA, Obama.

Ah, yes, Bush's Baby.

Doesn't matter what party, its still Washington.

 

[Rafterman]

Maybe they want them unlocked to gain access much easier????

Or maybe everyone is becoming laughably paranoid.

 

[GSPice]

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.

Lol, kiss them goodbye? Carriers are already offering non-contract payment plans for expensive smart phones. They won't let unlocked phones crush sales because of cost.

 

[Bibbler]

Without taking this to PRSI, I'd say Bush with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and the Dept. of Homeland Security. Everyone seemed to have forgotten about their 4th Amendment rights for the sake of wanting to be safer, supporting our troops, and being called 'unAmerican' for speaking out against things going on at that time.

That expansion has been going on since well before this president; you just tend to blame someone that you don't like for your woes.

That's all I'm going to say on this. Want to continue it further? let's take it to PRSI and we'll lay it all out there.

BL.

Hey that's wonderful. What does your rant have to do with selling unlocked telephones?

----------

Lol, kiss them goodbye?

He remembers Bob Prince????

----------

That whole mess, was the housing bubble which started before Bush.

FINALLY!! Someone who gets it. You are 1000% correct!

 

[peglegjack]

Awesome

Oh man I hope this happens soon.

My contract ends with Sprint next month and it's criminal in my opinion that they won't unlock my phone.

 

[Gasu E.]

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...

No, it's an independent agency, not part of the Executive branch.

 

[iHEARTcartoons]

"At this time, it remains illegal"

Illegal is such a relative term in this country these days. Sure soccer Mom and straight shooter Joe of course wouldn't even know what unlocking a phone is, but anybody that can use Google search knows that you can unlock your phone for about $20. So technically this may be written as illegal on page 982 in a book buried in the a Washington DC basement, but I don't see the FBI hunting down phone unlockers anytime soon.

 

[jeffwc]

Verizon sells all iPhone 5 unlocked

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.

Nonsense, Verizon has to sell all iPhone 5 unlocked by law (due to the spectrum its LTE uses), and it sells with subsidized prices.

 

[mdelvecchio]

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

i voted for obama, dont listen to rush, and dont know who hannity is. yet the blame for increased spying on lawful citizens lies squarely on obama -- he's the president, he's in charge. and in this matter, he's as bad if not worse than bush. a shame.

 

[pearvsapple]

Greedy AT&T am pissed.