Democratic bill could force Apple, AT&T to unlock iPhone

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by EricBrian, Feb 26, 2008.

  1. TEG macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #2
    The iPhone is not subsidized, therefore it does not affect the iPhone.

    TEG
     
  2. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    Not to mention that I believe every provider DOES offer subsidy-free phones. Not only is the iPhone not subsidized, even if it was the wording of the legislation doesn't say that ALL phones offered by a carrier be available subsidy-free, just that there are subsidy-free phones of some sort.
     
  3. EricBrian thread starter macrumors 6502a

    EricBrian

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    #4
    I removed the quote that I put in the original post since it only captured a small part of what is in the bill. The article goes into detail why it does apply to the iPhone.
     
  4. EricBrian thread starter macrumors 6502a

    EricBrian

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    #5
    Here the quote I should have posted:

     
  5. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #6
    But if it didn't force Apple to sell it unsubsidized, then it wouldn't achieve anything more than move sales from an AT&T store to the Apple store.
     
  6. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #7
    So an unlocked, unsubsidized iPhone would sell for $799 or $899?
     
  7. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #8
    its unsubsidized. seriously as far as anyone knows and by all that has been said, this is the truth.

    if they were forced to unlock it, they might raise the price to make up for their other source of income, and thats from sharing the profits of the monthly bill with att. i would imagine that if the phone could no longer be tied to att, att would then back out of the profit sharing, and thus apple would raise the price to make up for it.
     
  8. EricBrian thread starter macrumors 6502a

    EricBrian

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    #9

    Or even $1000 so that people won't even consider it.
     
  9. calvy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    #10
    I'm just glad the Democrats are working on the important things.
     
  10. BOSS10L macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    #11
    Ain't that the truth.
     
  11. s8film40 macrumors 6502

    s8film40

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    #12
    The unsubsidised iPhone they sold in Germany for a short period was around $1500.00. If they were forced to do that here I don't think it would change anything people would still buy a contract phone and unlock it.
     
  12. wildcardd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #13
    But here is the real catch. I believe that the Att contract with Apple states that they will only make a CDMA (ATT and TMobile) version of the iPhone for 5 years...they can't make a GSM (Verizon) version. Soooo even if it were unlocked they wouldn't be able to use it on Verizon, only Tmobile or ATT.
     
  13. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #14
    got your technologies backwards.

    ATT and TMobile are GSM networks (and most of the world for that matter)
    Verizon is on CDMA.
     
  14. skubish macrumors 68030

    skubish

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #15
    I read the link. It says nothing about requiring unlocking. Unsubsidized is not the same as unlocked. All this bill would do:
    1. Require the carriers to sell unsubsidized phones
    2. Offer contracts without early termination fees.

    IMHO this bill will never see the light of day because the carriers already offer unsubsidized phones and prepaid or pay-as-you-go plans satisfy #2.

    This is just a politician wasting taxpayer money.

    I am all for a bill requiring unlocked phones, but this is not it.
     
  15. wildcardd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #16
    Awwww Crap! I knew I would screw that up.

    Thanks for setting me straight. ;)
     
  16. carfac macrumors 65816

    carfac

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    #17
    Just to play devils advocate....

    That 20 clams a month that ATT pays Apple a month. You CAN look at that as de facto subsidy... I mean, ATT does not do it just becaue they are nice guys... and the iPhone is the only thing they have in common.
     
  17. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #18
    I think I heard somewhere Apple is being sued for something like $600 million over this issue.
     
  18. Anthony8720 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    The democrats had to. The republicans were too busy grilling Roger Clemens :p. But seriously, I think this is a good thing. It really is completely wrong for us to have to sign a contract and be stuck with ATT if we aren't actually getting a break on the price of the phone.
     

Share This Page