I think using either "symbolic" or "arbitrary" in place of rhetorical might better express your point, rhetorically speaking.
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.
U.S. Carriers and FCC Come to Agreement Over Consumer Unlocking of Mobile Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think using either "symbolic" or "arbitrary" in place of rhetorical might better express your point, rhetorically speaking.
Ideally, yes, within the USA the manufacturing of one model of an iPhone to be carrier agnostic would be a great win for the consumer, but that's not going to happen so long as the big 4 service providers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile) continue to prevent allowing handsets to be that flexible and cross-network compatible, as that would allow the phones to operate on a local competitor's networks which they are each adverse too.
So, the reality here is, as long as this distinction continues to persist, an "unlocked" phone in the USA simply means you're free to use the GSM carrier of your choice only while traveling outside the country, but the phone itself won't be truly carrier independent with regard to it's home-country operability.
However, having this "unlock" feature is still a great benefit to USA consumers, chiefly in that it'll save you the hassle of either 1) buying a separate handset to use while traveling outside the country or 2) paying up the nose for your USA carrier's International roaming plans, so it's overall a step in the right direction IMO.
Agreed. It makes no sense whatsoever to buy an unlocked phone from a carrier. And you also may have an easier time down the road should a problem arise. It's not right, but it does happen.
Putting aside CDMA carriers, an unlocked AT&T phone works on T-Mobile, and visa versa. Don't forget also the dozens of MVNO operators on both networks, so an unlocked phone is a good thing to have even if you don't leave the US.
Maybe this is why ATT's Stephenson was so down on subsidized phones the other day. This was long overdue.
It would be nice if there was some language that stated that a carrier must allow phones on their network that are technologically compatable even if the carrier did not originally sell the phone...or something to that effect.
What I'm getting at is that from what I've heard, T-mobile and ATT iPhones technically have the CDMA capability, but VZ just won't allow them to be moved to their network since they weren't originally sold as a VZ CDMA phone. I would think it would be in VZ's best interest since they could get more BYOP customers that way. With the wording as above, it sounds like you still won't be able to take a phone that was not originally designated as a VZ compatible phone to VZ (even if it technically has CDMA capability).
----------
Also it would be great if this agreement somehow forced carriers to offer something like an ETF "deposit" which would allow you to unlock your phone early, but would be paid back to you over time if you continue service.
For instance if your ETF was currently $240 and you still had a year on your contract, it would allow you to pay the $240 ETF now and get your phone unlocked immediately, but then the carrier would refund you $20 per month over the next year as long as you continued service. This would be fair to people who want their phone unlocked for international travel.
Of course none of that would be necessary if carriers did away with the subsidized model and just unlocked once you pay the phone off.
I also don't understand why the agreement allows a prepaid carrier to lock a phone for 1 year. I'm assuming the prepaid phone would be paid for in full in advance, so why any lock period at all??....or at most something minimal like the 40 day wait period that T-mobile currently has.
Don't worry, there is a hidden-fee that AT&T, Verizon and Sprint hide from you to pay off your phone. That Early Termination Fee is the fee that consumers pay to pay off their phone. The carriers that offer contracts absolutely do not care if you stay with their service or not, as long as you pay-off your phone, buy it outright or bring in one for yourself. Now, the trouble is even if you buy the phone at full price or have completed your 2-year sentence, you are still paying that "2-year fee" that was on your bill.
I needed this 12 days ago... not a year from now!
We left At&t, paid the ETF and yet 3 of our phones are still locked and I had to "open up a case" to get them eligible to unlock...
We left At&t, paid the ETF and yet 3 of our phones are still locked and I had to "open up a case" to get them eligible to unlock...
The only part that has me rolling my eyes is the "the carrier may charge a reasonable unlocking fee"
Being that they only give you a code to unlock and the instructions, after you just gave them a period of service you paid for on a device you paid for, I think a fee is nuts.
And reasonable to the general public is never even in the same universe of ATT or Verizon.... I can see ATT deciding to charge over the $40 they already charge.
And you can usually buy an unlock code online for $14.99
Being that they only give you a code to unlock and the instructions, after you just gave them a period of service you paid for on a device you paid for, I think a fee is nuts.
And reasonable to the general public is never even in the same universe of ATT or Verizon.... I can see ATT deciding to charge over the $40 they already charge.
And you can usually buy an unlock code online for $14.99
Or buy the Verizon iPhones. All of the Verizon iPhones since the 5 have been unlocked out of the box even on contract. That's one of the main reasons I will stick with Verizon even on contract. The Verizon 5s is even better than the 5 was since you can literally walk out of a Verizon store with the 5s, pop an AT&T LTE-compatible SIM into that bad boy, and it will hop right on AT&T's LTE network (the 5 was limited to 2G, 3G, and HSPA+ on AT&T).
It would make sense for those companies only if all Phone companies did it. Otherwise, unaware consumers will look at the $200 price of a subsidized phone and wonder why anyone would pay $750 for a comparable one from a different manufacturer. I recently had a discussion with a man in his seventies who did not understand that his $200 phone was subsidized and couldn't grasp why I would pay much more for the same exact model (to purchase it unlocked).
I don't like to subsidize phones, I rather pay $600 or $700 and own it up front. But it's a bit of an annoyance that you pay full price for a phone on a carrier and they still won't unlock it for you unless you use their service for 40 days or so 
.... Seriously, it's just a phone, which I'm paying for in full. It should be unlocked right on that moment.
.... Seriously, it's just a phone, which I'm paying for in full. It should be unlocked right on that moment.
clarification...
Yes, I know technically an unlocked AT&T iPhone would work on T-Mobile or any other regional GSM-based service provider, but that in itself doesn't guarantee you can use the full base-band capabilities of the phone with the new service provider. In other words it may run slower going from one network to the other due to the different bands the telecom spectrum is primarily operating on in that area of the country. So, this was my main point earlier that it isn't a simple "carrier swap" with unlocked iPhones in the USA, apologies for not making that clearer. We're behind Europe & most of the rest of the world in this BYOD department but I believe we're [slowly] catching up.
And I'm all for a GSM-based system across the board in the states, but in the meantime CDMA iPhone users are the most stuck with the carrier they purchased the iPhone with within the USA, and can only enjoy an "unlocked" BYOD scenario when they're traveling abroad.
Yes, I know technically an unlocked AT&T iPhone would work on T-Mobile or any other regional GSM-based service provider, but that in itself doesn't guarantee you can use the full base-band capabilities of the phone with the new service provider. In other words it may run slower going from one network to the other due to the different bands the telecom spectrum is primarily operating on in that area of the country. So, this was my main point earlier that it isn't a simple "carrier swap" with unlocked iPhones in the USA, apologies for not making that clearer. We're behind Europe & most of the rest of the world in this BYOD department but I believe we're [slowly] catching up.
And I'm all for a GSM-based system across the board in the states, but in the meantime CDMA iPhone users are the most stuck with the carrier they purchased the iPhone with within the USA, and can only enjoy an "unlocked" BYOD scenario when they're traveling abroad.
Nope.
Pricing after two years:
Unlocked = $2,400
Carrier = $5,360
That's almost $3,000 saved! The thing is with contracts, you will get bamboozled at every turn. $40 per month two year contract fee?
Ha ha! Never that.
Ya'll need to stop paying those carriers hundreds a month.
Not a good analogy.
If you buy a car with a loan, your title will be locked (has a lien holder) until your commitment is fulfilled. You can't fully use the car without restriction until your contract is up and your debt is satisfied.
Unlocking of phones in the US would probably hurt Sprint more than any other carrier. While benefitting T-Mobile and AT&T the most since you can bring unlocked devices to those networks. The CDMA situation in the US really hampers things. Unlocked devices cannot be brought to Sprint or Verizon.
Me being.....
cynical....: Why reach a voluntary agreement on something too prone to erode your consumer base, if not to avoid govermment meedling onto your business....?............
cynical....: Why reach a voluntary agreement on something too prone to erode your consumer base, if not to avoid govermment meedling onto your business....?......
......
This is wonderful. As an eBay seller this will greatly increase business of cellular mobile products.
You are not missing much. The iPhone saved AT&T's butt and everyone else has been catching up in the US market.
Then here we are towards the end of 2013 and there is still no official iPhone distributor in the Russian Federation while it is the biggest grey market for the iPhone.
