Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Will Investigate U.S. Mobile Phone Unlocking Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not. I want this ban to stay in place. So all these jackass companies ripping folks off to unlock their phones will be stopped. Those are the folks that benefit with this law. When its illegal they can be shut down for criminal activity
What we need is a ban on locking phones in the first place. All phones should sell unlocked with any device cost assistance by the carriers made a separate line item so once you pay off 'their' part you don't owe that anymore
Yes, that would be the right way to do it.
Unfortunately, companies like Apple oppose this, as it would decimate the subsidized handset marketing approach.
A) Apple probably wouldn't give two *****. Even if unlocked, customers would still continue to lock into lucrative contracts in exchange for the subsidy. Locked or unlocked does not change this.
B) "Companies like Apple", or rather Apple itself has no fondness for subsidies. Or do you forget that Apple was the first major company to sell phone without subsidy and on contract? The original iPhone was only available on contract and without subsidy. The carriers hated this. Where do you get "companies like Apple"?
----------
And other than for anticompetitive reasons there is no reason to lock the phones, so why allow them to be locked in the first place. Don't telle you are one of those people that the subsidy is reason to lock phones. Because they aren't even vaguely related. The subsidy is certainly an excuse given for the lock, but excuses aren't reasons. Explain one legitimate reason for locks or how they are related to subsidies.
Wait wait now.... did I miss something?
There's a ban on unlocking subsidized phones without the permission of carrier it's locked to, during the time of the subsidy? What's wrong with that?
1) If you bought it unlocked, then it's unlocked. No problem.
2) If you bought it locked, but then you're done with the contract. You're still allowed to unlock it. (you paid it off) No problem.
3) If you're on a contract, and you ask your carrier to unlock it (and most in the US do) then it's unlocked. No problem.
Who does this affect? Afterall, if you're on a contract with a subsidized phone, then until you pay it off, IT'S NOT YOUR PHONE.
There's a ban on unlocking subsidized phones without the permission of carrier it's locked to, during the time of the subsidy? What's wrong with that?
1) If you bought it unlocked, then it's unlocked. No problem.
2) If you bought it locked, but then you're done with the contract. You're still allowed to unlock it. (you paid it off) No problem.
3) If you're on a contract, and you ask your carrier to unlock it (and most in the US do) then it's unlocked. No problem.
Who does this affect? Afterall, if you're on a contract with a subsidized phone, then until you pay it off, IT'S NOT YOUR PHONE.
Have you ever traveled overseas with your phone, and wanted to use it?
If not, then you don't understand the problem; if you have, then you would understand the need to not want to pay rates higher than your monthly POTS phone bill for a 20 minute call back home to talk to your family.
BL.
I may be wrong, but I don't believe AT&T allows unlocking of phones currently under contract.
And, please show me where in an AT&T contract (or Verizon or Sprint contract) it states that the consumer does not own his/her phone.
I don't see how unlocking a phone will result in a financial loss from the carrier. A person signs a contract. They are then on the hook for paying a monthly fee for the life of the contract. Unlocking wouldn't change this. That said, the carriers themselves placed a clause in the very contract they dictate offering a way out of a contract. Therefore, even if a customer choses to remove themselves of said contract, they have a way of doing so well within the confines of the legal contract. They will just have to pay a termination fee. Unlocking a phone doesn't change this contractual stipulation either.
The locking of phones is anticompetitive because it forces the customer to be overly proactive if they want to change carriers after the life of the contract. Most people don't know how to do this. If anything, this should be a passive process. The phone should automatically unlock on the day after a contract expires.
Apple doesn't care. They get their money either way. Hell they would probably love no unlocking cause then they don't have to deal with folks pissed that Cousin George screwed their phone AND their warranty
It's the carriers that want phones locked. And control of unlocking
Actually, yes, you missed quite a bit. Even with the subsidy it is 100%, free and clear, completely your phone.
You have an obligation to meet the terms of your contract which means having a plan and paying your bills. But the phone is yours absolutely. So why should it be locked?
There are very good accounting reasons to lock the phones. If the phones - even on-contract ones - are unlocked, then the subsidized price will necessarily go up.
Again - anybody who wants an unlocked phone is free to buy one anytime they like. That has always been the case, and there is no threat to consumers continuing to have that right.
Wait... You mean it actually matters who we elect to Congress?!? But I thought Mr. President can do anything if I hope and dream it!!
I wonder how many more "wake-up calls" will it take before we quit hitting the Snooze button..
Why would the subsidized price of a locked phone be higher than an unlocked one, if al phones were unlocked? The subsidy given is in exchange for an expensive, long term contract. The lock isn't related to the price at all.
Similarly, when apple sells contract free but locked phones they are identical in price to when the start selling them unlocked. The locked status has no bearing on price, other than because of the current situation where contact free are unlocked (generally) and subsidized are locked. But locked or unlocked, a subsidized price is the same.
I was one of the people that signed that petition. The bottom line here is that it was deemed legal to unlock a cell phone in 2006 but, with the assistance of Lobbyists this was over turned in favor of Major Corporate Conglomerates such as AT&T giving them preference over "WE THE PEOPLE" which is completely unconstitutional and utter ******** to begin with.
When you buy a phone it becomes your property, hence you should be able to do whatever you want with it! If your under contract and wish to terminate your services say for example your carrier conducts themselves in an unethical manner (HELLO! AT&T) and you wish to terminate your contract then why should you be left with a completely inoperable High $$ cell phone that is basically a paper weight now?
You shouldn't, it's your property and you should be able to do whatever you wish with it!
When you buy a phone it becomes your property, hence you should be able to do whatever you want with it! If your under contract and wish to terminate your services say for example your carrier conducts themselves in an unethical manner (HELLO! AT&T) and you wish to terminate your contract then why should you be left with a completely inoperable High $$ cell phone that is basically a paper weight now?
You shouldn't, it's your property and you should be able to do whatever you wish with it!
Locked phones = Shameless Scamming of customers
The very fact that the big-whig telecoms have been allowed to lock cell phone handsets at all up until this point in the USA is just beyond greedy and anti-competitive. The FCC should have nipped this practice in the bud ages ago.
The very fact that the big-whig telecoms have been allowed to lock cell phone handsets at all up until this point in the USA is just beyond greedy and anti-competitive. The FCC should have nipped this practice in the bud ages ago.
LIke really??? Hmm...let's see when an unlock for this is in cydia. Like it's not hard to unlock it or anything.
Like it's not hard to unlock it or anything.
Like it or not, it wasn't "deemed" any such thing. It was given an EXCEPTION for several years under a provision in the DMCA. That exception has to be renewed. It was never "legal" on its own under the DMCA. In fact, you're pretty much not allowed to do ANYTHING under the DMCA, whether you own it or not since defeating ANY (even the most basic kindergarten variety) security is a violation of the law. Yes, the law sucks to high heaven and hell too, but where was all the crying about it when they were debating voting on the bill? Lobbyists pushed it and Congress kowtowed and now we're stuck with a crock of BS the size of the moon.
Whereas judges deemed it "fair use" to record tv shows for time-shifting purposes, no such thing applies to "digital" because "digital" is somehow magically different from analog (in reality isn't different if you know anything about engineering; HOW you record something is meaningless; the end result is all that matters and things like lossy recording (video or audio) are just as degradable upon multiple encodes as any hissy/noisy analog signal, ALL of which are BESIDE THE POINT when it comes to whether you should have the freedom to use a product you bought for fair and reasonable purposes. I mean WTF is the point of a digital VCR if it cannot record??? You just wanted to copy your digital camcorder to a digital VHS tape? Bullcrap. It's USELESS and that's why it never caught on).
The problem is that government is broken and they do not always do what's best for the people (rarely, IMO). Lobbying/Corruption is rampant.
Well I hate to sound glib since I mostly agree with you, but if you take that logic to the extreme you end up in places you don't want to be. For example, saying you should be able to do anything you want with a gun because it's your property ends up in bad places. Similarly, the argument against letting you do anything you want with a digital VCR is that you will just copy all the movies in HD quality off whatever movie channel and never buy one again (and thus hurt the movie companies bottom line). Now maybe you think you should be able to do that and I cannot argue with opinions, but I've always felt one person's rights end where another person's rights begin and perhaps some things are more shades of grey when it comes to intellectual property (owning "ideas" or digital sequences of ones and zeroes just isn't the same as owning property since it's not material in nature), but ultimately the system breaks down with no legal protections as you end up with an anarchy analogy.
Well, did you BUY the phone or was it provided as part of a subsidized contract? One can easily argue that if you cancel your contract, you've not fully paid for your phone. There's a really simple answer to all this, though. Companies should stop subsidizing phones and just start charging at rates that do not include that subsidy. You could then buy an unlocked phone (I think the iPhone unsubsidized is well over $600 to START so be prepared). Maybe a payment plan? Hey, isn't that what T-Mobile is going to instead?
Basically, what I'm seeing are people that want an iPhone for cheap and/or free but then don't want the carrier/contract that it comes with. Well, then you should be buying an unlocked phone from the start. $649 from Apple for a 16GB model. $849 for a 64GB one. That's what they REALLY cost. OTOH, after your contract is fulfilled they SHOULD be forced to unlock it (i.e. there should be no ambiguity here, but then you should know that upfront before you sign the contract and unlike in years past, Apple has unlocked phones for sale so it's hard to argue that people don't know what they're getting into when they sign that contract).
C'MON bro, AT&T and the other Major cellular providers are corporate Criminals cut and dry!
The DMCA as well as the Fiasco that society calls "Intellectual Property" is also total B.S as well.
All of these Laws and institutions only exist because of corrupted and morally challenged individual that call themselves Lawyers and Lobbyists and it has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong but, it does have everything to do with greed, corruption, power and control in our society!
Please don't preach how companies like AT&T are good law abiding citizens that are ethical in their business dealing because that is basically what you are conveying with that long winded point by point rebuttal above.
I think that I can speak for everyone here when I say that AT&T are a bunch of lying and cheating scumbags who have single handedly screwed all of us on many levels on many different occasions and they continue to do it and operate with complete impunity because of Lawyers and Lobbyists.
No one is on your side here buddy, regardless of what you say or how artful your post may be.
Seeing how you like Law: Possession is 9/10 of the Law so take that!
The DMCA as well as the Fiasco that society calls "Intellectual Property" is also total B.S as well.
All of these Laws and institutions only exist because of corrupted and morally challenged individual that call themselves Lawyers and Lobbyists and it has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong but, it does have everything to do with greed, corruption, power and control in our society!
Please don't preach how companies like AT&T are good law abiding citizens that are ethical in their business dealing because that is basically what you are conveying with that long winded point by point rebuttal above.
I think that I can speak for everyone here when I say that AT&T are a bunch of lying and cheating scumbags who have single handedly screwed all of us on many levels on many different occasions and they continue to do it and operate with complete impunity because of Lawyers and Lobbyists.
No one is on your side here buddy, regardless of what you say or how artful your post may be.
Seeing how you like Law: Possession is 9/10 of the Law so take that!
Then all contracts harm competition. In the US if you want an unlocked phone, buy an unsubsidized phone and don't sign a two year contract. If you want a cheap subsidized phone, honor your contract.
I believe we all have the right to alter anything we purchase, as far as it does not remove rights of others around us.
Not if you sign a contract stating that you will not do so. I'm not claiming that it's right or wrong but, people in the US are agreeing to the terms when they sign the two year agreement to get a subsidized (cheap) phone. Buy an unsubsidized phone, don't sign a contract, and you will have an unlocked phone.
On the contrary, Apple is one of the primary companies who wrote the Library of Congress and pushed for making unlocking illegal via jailbreaks.
Carriers didn't hate it at all. It was great for them. Subsidies COST them money by tying it up in loans.
However, Apple failed with their plan. After the first rush, sales dropped like a rock because Americans didn't want to pay full price. So Apple dropped the price (and got in trouble with first buyers for doing so)... which again only worked for a little while.
By the end of the first year, Apple switched to the usual subsidy model, and US sales took off dramatically.
Now that Apple benefits from locks, since their unique method allows them to charge a higher gate price to the carriers, certainly they will fight to keep locks in place. Very likely they have a contractual obligation to the carriers to do so. Apple isn't fighting to keep locks in place because it would "decimate the subsidized handset marketing approach". They are doing so because they have an obligation to. And perhaps because it helps keep their prices to the carriers higher.
But damir00's assertion was that Apple would fight against it because forbidding locks would cripple the subsidy model. That is simply fantasy. Locks have no bearing on the subsidized price. The subsidy is provided in exchange for you locking into a contract. It is not provided in exchange for your agreement not to do business with another carrier while under contract, which is really all a lock does (at least if you wanted to use your property to do).
Carriers hate subsidies but they hate losing leverage over their customers even more. This is exactly the same reasoning that led them to revolt against Apple's plans for an integrated SIM. Seems benign, but to the carriers it was toxic because it removes a touch point for them to influence the customer. Same goes for subsidies. They hate the cost, but they love the lock-in it provides for them.
The subsidy is the real lock. No reason to introduce a defect to lock it physically and in fact, no benefit to the carriers as far as ensuring their investment is repaid. It only server to ensure that any extra revenue from the customer, not related to the contract or subsidy at all, will flow to the carrier, i.e. roaming.