U.S. Department of Justice Reviewing Wireless Carrier Exclusivity Agreements

[nkawtg72]

Wow, just wow. Did you skip school or what? The free market is about "freedom" for entrepreneurs to start their own business without permission from the government. You too could be free to start a business. It does not mean that you have the right to dictate how companies should operate. It does not mean that companies should be forced to carry a product just because you want them to. Can you force a local store to carry a product. No. They why would you expect to be able to force a manufacturer to sell to a particular service provider at a potentially unfavourable rate or having to provide concessions such as disabling the app store and enabling the providers crapware instead.

What you people don't seem to get is that Apple's iPhone was a game changer in more ways than one. One significant change was the fact that iPhones are sold without carrier branding, without integration into their online ringtone/wallpaper store, without carrier bundled crapware and without a lock down preventing installation of additional ringtones or apps from iTMS. Apple had to concede disabling purchase and conversion of purchased songs on the Canadian iTMS within iTunes directly but I am still able create an ACC copy of a clip of any non-DRM'ed song, drag it to the desktop, rename the extension to M4R and double click to import it and sync with my phone.

Previous phones from Rogers that I owned had Rogers startup logos, integration with the Rogers ringtone and wallpaper store and the ability to use Mp3 ringtones disabled by Rogers even if I purchased the phone at full price.

add to that, voice control (at one time and still is in places) is paid service provided through the carrier rather than simply a feature of the device
. it had to be paid for and enabled before it would work on your phone if the phone even supported it.

 

[diamond.g]

So what is the fallout of the government making AT&T (and all carriers) unlock phones after the contract has been fulfilled?

 

[PeterQVenkman]

There are two ways, high taxes, or limit care, where government decides ultimately whether you live or die because they will decide whether your care or you are an acceptable risk. While we all die eventually, I would prefer to have my own choices, and not some government bureaucrat making the choice for me, which is the ultimate outcome of any government run system.

Speaking of taking blinders off, how is that any different than what we have now?

Some paper pusher at a desk made the decision to not pay for any more physical therapy on my arm when it was injured in a car accident.

Not my doctor or physical therapist, not me, an insurance company chose for me. Some guy in Nebraska told me my arm should be better with the 6 physical therapy visits I had gone to.

I'm so glad the free market was there to help me out. As a consumer of health insurance, I do not have the option of switching to something else.

That's not a free market. That's BS.

This applies even here to this Telecomm debate, the free market will always decide if you leave it alone. Its when government meddles in the market, that it gets all screwed up, and if you cannot see that, you need to take the blinders off..

Even with my blinders on, I can see every major company in the US charging almost exactly the same amount for the exact same plans under the exact same amount of time on a contract. These same carriers will charge you $30/month for internet access on your phone, but 20 cents per text message if you don't pay for a message plan up front.

If that's the free market, then it sucks monster balls!

 

[jpl0539]

Hmm I don't see Apple wanting to open their phone up to Sprint or Verison because of the OS control they both have on EVERY one of ther phones. If you notice all of the phones on AT&T have their own OS running on the phone. I would see Apple going to T-moblie before either Sprint or Verison due to the OS restrictions both providers have.

 

[pdjudd]

Hmm I don't see Apple wanting to open their phone up to Sprint or Verison because of the OS control they both have on EVERY one of ther phones. If you notice all of the phones on AT&T have their own OS running on the phone. I would see Apple going to T-moblie before either Sprint or Verison due to the OS restrictions both providers have.

The biggest restriction that Sprint and Verizon have is their usage of CDMA. The problem of course is that Qualcomm holds most of the CDMA related patents and Infeneon (Apple's current chip provider) doesn't have any. Apple would, at the very least, need to supplement their chip supplier to add CDMA support.

It should also be pointed out though, that starting in 2012 or so, Verizon is moving to LTE - a GSM technology (where AT&T is going too). Sprint is going to WI-Max - a competing format that they (Sprint) own a significant interest in.

Verizon would have no problem activating an iPhone on their network. They cannot do it now though since the iPhone will not function on it due to radio technological differences. Of course if Verizon were a seller of the iPhone, they would be darn controlling. But if Apple could get away with it, they would sell the iPhone in their stores alone and not at the carrier retail stores as it is now. It is a pity they can't do that - even in some cases if you are already an AT&T business account holder.

 

[samab]

Worse? Compared to the US?
1. All cellphones, even prepaid ones sold by a US carrier are provider locked. None of the carriers provide a clear information how to unlock the phone. In case of the iPhone, AT&T will not unlock it regardless of the situation, even if your contract is done. Even worse, they still force you into a contract even if you bring your own phone.
2. Number portability sounds great, if it works. Even in the US, it doesn't always work smoothly, and you can have services delayed for extended period of time while having to deal with customer service blackhole. Some countries approach this in an easier manner, by having cellphones its own area code. In the end, with upcoming services like Google Voice, and more people being in contact via social networking, switching phone numbers are not as critical as it used to.
3. No free phone. Oh well (knowing UK people can get the iPhone for free). In the US, most free phones are ancient basic phones anyway. At least in Singapore, all the phones are not locked. Besides, there's always second hand market if you're looking for cheaper deals. I rather have an unlocked phone than a "free" phone that are provider locked, negating the "free" cost.
4. Nothing new. Obviously, this is how they balance the subsidy you get with subsidized phones. At least it's fair, since the phone itself is not locked. The contract is just that. Once your contract is up, you're good to go anywhere WITH the phone that you paid for, unlike in the US where providers get double/triple dipping, forcing customers under contract & still locked the phone even if contract is done.

Not saying Singapore is perfect. It's just an example, but definitely a better market than what we have in the US.

So what if AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile simlock all their phones --- they also provide unlocking codes for FREE to their customers (unlike most other countries that charge for unlocking codes).

Americans prefer having their mobile numbers with local area codes --- nothing to do with portability or not. There are also many problems associated with having special "mobile phone" area code numbers as well.

A lot of countries have lively phone markets --- precisely because they have weak import/export controls. You can buy a "cheap" phone overseas because they evade import duties.

How do you know that the other carriers are not double dipping or triple dipping? When they give you a "free tv" with a MSRP of $500 when you sign a mobile contract --- they are not really giving you a $500 gift. Now you (as a consumer) have to go and dig deep on what that free tv is really worth. Well, the free tv is last years model --- that they are selling it at $400 at a local mall, that they are sell it at $350 online, that the carriers probably got them for $100 wholesale....

When your contract is up --- you are going to get a brand new free phone from your new carrier anyway. Who really cares about your old 2 year phone that you ALREADY got unlocking codes 21 months ago (American carriers usually give out unlocking codes for free after 90 days).

 

[pika2000]

So what if AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile simlock all their phones --- they also provide unlocking codes for FREE to their customers (unlike most other countries that charge for unlocking codes).

When your contract is up --- you are going to get a brand new free phone from your new carrier anyway. Who really cares about your old 2 year phone that you ALREADY got unlocking codes 21 months ago (American carriers usually give out unlocking codes for free after 90 days).

We're talking about Singapore, where the phones are not even locked in the first place. Try asking AT&T to unlock the iPhone after 90days through the contract, or after the contract is up. Also, these unlocking practices are NOT advertised at all. I'll take my free TV with the unlocked phone than having to deal with customer service asking stupid question why I want to "unlock" my phone. T-Mobile seems to be more lenient (the 90day policy is T-Mobile's). AT&T is not (I don't think they even have an unlocking policy). If you tell them you're going overseas, they will force you to pay more for international plans instead of unlocking your phone.

Again, I'm glad to be proven wrong. Try asking AT&T to unlock the iPhone.

 

[pika2000]

So what is the fallout of the government making AT&T (and all carriers) unlock phones after the contract has been fulfilled?

No, I think the DoJ got it all wrong. They're looking into exclusivity, which imo is not the problem. So the fallout maybe that AT&T and T-Mobile will be selling the same phones, but they are all still provider-locked, defeating the whole point. The DoJ should scrutinize provider-locking, not exclusivity.

 

[ULFoaf]

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Look at the countries in the top 5 most 'free' countries according to the Heritage Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/Index/

1 Hong Kong 90.0 +0.3
2 Singapore 87.1 -0.2
3 Australia 82.6 +0.4
4 Ireland 82.2 -0.3
5 New Zealand 82.0 +1.2

Interesting that the top five have mobile networks that aren't a massive joke. I remember hearing the kinds of things you guys have to put up with; from the lack of a decent EFTPOS and banking network for transactions, the mobile network that covers only part of the country and then has the gaul to demand that both the caller and receiver have to pay for the call (what happens if the call is from a marketing company? what about an SMS from a marketing company? why should I have to pay for that crap?) - talk about a giant joke that keeps getting worse with each decade. Its like watching New Zealand from 30 years ago when shops used to shut at 5:00pm and closed on the weekends - talk about a regressive country both socially and economically the US is becoming.

None of your comments make one bit of sense to me.

 

[samab]

We're talking about Singapore, where the phones are not even locked in the first place. Try asking AT&T to unlock the iPhone after 90days through the contract, or after the contract is up. Also, these unlocking practices are NOT advertised at all. I'll take my free TV with the unlocked phone than having to deal with customer service asking stupid question why I want to "unlock" my phone. T-Mobile seems to be more lenient (the 90day policy is T-Mobile's). AT&T is not (I don't think they even have an unlocking policy). If you tell them you're going overseas, they will force you to pay more for international plans instead of unlocking your phone.

Again, I'm glad to be proven wrong. Try asking AT&T to unlock the iPhone.

We shouldn't change the law just so that you (a very small minority part of the population) gets to have unlock iphones.

The other 99% of the population in Singapore have suffered with long delays of mobile number portability, extremely high ETF's, idiotic handset subsidies that the normal population can't never truely compare (when they give you a free tv).

Meanwhile, 99% of the American populations get to have their normal GSM phones unlocked by the carriers after 90 days, that they have number portability years before Singapore, that they only have to pay reasonable pro-rated ETF's; and that when they get mobile phone services, they don't have to learn about the cost of a free tv or a free mp3 player to do shopping comparisons.

 

[diamond.g]

We shouldn't change the law just so that you (a very small minority part of the population) gets to have unlock iphones.

The other 99% of the population in Singapore have suffered with long delays of mobile number portability, extremely high ETF's, idiotic handset subsidies that the normal population can't never truely compare (when they give you a free tv).

Meanwhile, 99% of the American populations get to have their normal GSM phones unlocked by the carriers after 90 days, that they have number portability years before Singapore, that they only have to pay reasonable pro-rated ETF's; and that when they get mobile phone services, they don't have to learn about the cost of a free tv or a free mp3 player to do shopping comparisons.

Wasn't number portability a government mandate in the US?

 

[ULFoaf]

Network differences

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this forum, so I thought I would add some more

The reason there is an extended exclusive deal between apple and AT&T. AT&T had apple over a barrel. Apple had no history in the phone market, and verizon had already said no as they wanted to load the phone up with their content crap. So Apple had no-one else they could deal with. So AT&T had them by the short and curlies. I am sure Apple will want out as soon as possible, based on what has happened in other countries.

Countries that do not have an exclusive deal
In other countries, such as Australia, to use an example I am familiar with, you can buy an unlocked iphone from the Apple online store, from a retail apple store, or from the four (soon to be five on the 17th) carriers that also carry plans for the phone. So the scenario is:
a) buy an unlocked phone, pay as you go or a set monthly account from whoever you want
b) buy a locked, subsidized phone from a carrier for twelve or 24 months.
c) buy a locked phone outright in a twelve or 24 month contract that is less than the monthly contract in b.
Both scenarios b and c can be unlocked for suitable, eye gouging fee.
But it is not all beer and skittles. Only one carrier offers visual voice mail. And Aussies had to wait a whole extra year to get hold of an iphone.

Now, some of you yanks might fantasize that the government will wave its regulatory wand and you will get the wonderful system that we have in Australia (which actually isn't wonderful coverage wise, but that is another story). But it will not be. In Australia, all carriers are GSM. In the USA, all four carriers have subtle differences that mean that you will not get the full features of an iphone and the iphone might not even work on that network. BTW the four carriers originally ended up that way as a result of government interference, but I guess most of the posters here were nothing more than a twinkle in daddy's eye or still in their nappies back then.

The result though is that breaking up exclusive deals might not give you the savings you are looking for. A phone optimized for one network will not work as well on another network. So the carriers still get to maintain higher prices through defacto exclusivity. This will only resolve once broader coverage for all carriers is available, using similar technology.

One other thing. Those bragging about the superior EU networks forget that the americans developed their system first, and thus have legacy issues that the EU never had to deal with. That and Euroweenies all live on top of each other. Real countries like the USA and Australia have to deal with distance, low densities (while the USA has high density overall, it is all concentrated in a few cities, the density in most places is low).

The US network differences are significant. There is no chance an iphone will work with Sprint, for example. The Bell descendants (Verizon, AT&T) have the same technology.

I doubt ANYONE in the US is really happy about the situation with wireless providers. They all equally hose the public. I had to pay a big termination fees from Sprint when they had given me NOTHING over the last 3 years - no phones. Charging for texts is my peeve. They should be ENCOURAGING you to text. It is far, far less data than voice. Instead, they charge for tiny amounts of data transmission. As pointed out, you can do nothing with an old iPhone, as least officially. They think they still own it! Don't want to cut down on sales of NEW iphones, would they now?

Coverage in rural areas is ALWAYS an issue, as is any other kind of services. Easy to brag about coverage when you live in a country that is only a few hundred miles across. Try 3,000 miles through some sparsely populated areas.

 

[danpass]

Telefonica Adds Palm Pre To Exclusive Handset Range


Uh oh. This means the USDOJ will have to get involved in the EU.

BREAK OUT THE KNIVES AND PITCHFORKS!


[/sarcasm about current .gov being open to foreign law instead of USCon law]

 

[diamond.g]

The US network differences are significant. There is no chance an iphone will work with Sprint, for example. The Bell descendants (Verizon, AT&T) have the same technology.

Since when?

 

[Shivetya]

I like how the system works now.

Consider the price of the iPhone. I seriously doubt it would have come down so fast if every carrier could use it. What happened is that the other carriers made similar deals with the requirement of the handset provider to do better.

As such competition in devices became very fast paced and now you can get that $500 iPhone for only $99 today...

 

[samab]

Wasn't number portability a government mandate in the US?

Yes, it was.

The government should deal with anti-trust issues --- but the Bush administration ignored them and kept approving telecom mergers.

It would help consumers by making national standards on various things like uniform ETF rules, uniform deposit return rules (maybe like the carriers would return your deposit after 1 year), and all the other mundane stuff.

It is the mundane stuff that would benefit 99% of the population.

 

[pika2000]

We shouldn't change the law just so that you (a very small minority part of the population) gets to have unlock iphones.

The other 99% of the population in Singapore have suffered with long delays of mobile number portability, extremely high ETF's, idiotic handset subsidies that the normal population can't never truely compare (when they give you a free tv).

Meanwhile, 99% of the American populations get to have their normal GSM phones unlocked by the carriers after 90 days, that they have number portability years before Singapore, that they only have to pay reasonable pro-rated ETF's; and that when they get mobile phone services, they don't have to learn about the cost of a free tv or a free mp3 player to do shopping comparisons.

The fact that you said only the minority wants unlocked phones show how successful the brainwashing of US consumers by the US cellular providers.

Long delays of mobile number portability is common in the US too. At least with unlocked phones there's more flexibility in switching phones. And like I already said, most people now are in contact via social networking, and with services like Google Voice coming, number portability is not as critical as it's used to.

Extremely high ETF is obvious. That's what you get for going into contract and getting a subsidized phone. Fair game. Don't like it, use prepaid or don't get subsidized-contract-phones. Pro-rated ETF is not introduced until recently in the US. Besides, what's the point of having pro-rated ETF if the phone is provider-locked? Even if you get out of contract, your phone is useless with other carriers.

Shopping comparison? Simply compare the full prices of the unsubsidized unlocked phones, which are readily available too. Is that too hard?

99% of Americans get their phones unlocked? A recent article by CNET reveals it's more like 5% (which is surprisingly high to me). Unlocking practices is NOT advertised at all in the US. Consumers that know them happen to fumble about them on the internet. Again, PROOF IT to me. Try asking AT&T to unlock the iPhone.

 

[samab]

The fact that you said only the minority wants unlocked phones show how successful the brainwashing of US consumers by the US cellular providers.

Long delays of mobile number portability is common in the US too. At least with unlocked phones there's more flexibility in switching phones. And like I already said, most people now are in contact via social networking, and with services like Google Voice coming, number portability is not as critical as it's used to.

Extremely high ETF is obvious. That's what you get for going into contract and getting a subsidized phone. Fair game. Don't like it, use prepaid. Pro-rated ETF is not introduced until recently in the US. Besides, what's the point of having pro-rated ETF if the phone is provider-locked? Even if you get out of contract, your phone is useless with other carriers.

Shopping comparison? Simply compare the full prices of the unsubsidized unlocked phones, which are readily available too. Is that too hard?

99% of Americans get their phones unlocked? A recent article by CNET reveals it's more like 5% (which is surprisingly high to me). Unlocking practices is NOT advertised at all in the US. Consumers that know them happen to fumble about them on the internet. Again, PROOF IT to me. Try asking AT&T to unlock the iPhone.

99% of Americans don't use iphones.

American carriers don't advertise their FREE unlocking practices vs. overseas carriers advertising their money-charging unlocking practices.

Don't need to retain your old phone when you switch to new carriers --- mobile phones are pretty much disposible now. Do you keep your phone for 2 years +?

 

[JGowan]

The free market isn't providing enough freedom. We ought to be able to use the phone we want with the provider we want. I don't want AT&T. A prime example where government can create more freedom for its people.

That's why I support this. There's no downside to this. Other countries have legislation on this and they have no problems.

There's no downside to YOU! You get the phone you want on the network you want! Of course, you'd like it. I'd like to have my iPhone on Verizon (they offer 3G in my area and AT&T doesn't -- so I'm stuck on Edge), but I believe in the agreement and will wait it out. AT&T's contract will only last so long.

There are downsides to the businesses it would affect if the goverment decided in favor of this thinking. Major downsides that I don't want to see happen. Business has a right to thrive and grow and to invent ways of advantage. That's the purpose of competition: finding ways to create choice that will lure the consumer to you. If every phone company had exactly the same phones, exactly the same service, exactly the same rates -- well, I suppose we would all choose the logo we liked better or the shortest name to make our monthly bill paying-checking writing easier. But that's not business. Let businesses create their own differences instead of trying to make them all the same with all the same advantages.

You seem to forget as well as many here that AT&T was the one company who BELIEVED in Apple and agreed to their terms of doing the phone exactly how they wanted. AT&T didn't even SEE the phone until just before Steve's keynote in January 2007. Shouldn't AT&T's faith garner them the right to have the phone in the exclusive manner it was originally agreed upon?

Hindsight is 20/20. Sure any and every phone company who passed on Apple before HISTORY is wishing they had made the deal first. But they didn't. AT&T made the right move and deserve whatever deal that is now in place without the government butting in.

Your way of thinking is tantamount to thinking that it's unfair that DREAMWORKS and McDONALD'S teamed up to bring toys from their latest SHREK FILM to be sold with their children's menu at McDonald's instead of the restaurant that you tend to go to. Where does it stop? Does it stop at Major chain fast food or can now Mom and Pop restaurants complain that they want the toys too so they can sell them with their food? It's ludicrous, yes?! But it's the same thinking that you are proposing is a good thing ---> AND IT ISN'T!!!!

 

[pika2000]

99% of Americans don't use iphones.

American carriers don't advertise their FREE unlocking practices vs. overseas carriers advertising their money-charging unlocking practices.

Don't need to retain your old phone when you switch to new carriers --- mobile phones are pretty much disposible now. Do you keep your phone for 2 years +?

Who's saying 99% of people use iPhones? I said a CNET article revealed that only 5% of phones in the US are unlocked, contrary to your 99% claim.

What's the point of "FREE" if NOBODY knows about it? If it's really free, then why do they locked the phones in the first place? Besides, we're comparing Singapore, where phone are not locked in the first place. So what's with your argument about charging for unlocking? In the US, there are plenty of independent retailers that DO charge money to unlock your phone too.

Again, proof it to me. Try asking AT&T to unlock the iPhone

That attitude is the reason we have the backward cellular market in the US. What would you do with that old phone? In Asia, one can simply resell the phone with no hassles, that's the beauty of unlocked phone.

 

[MarkAK]

so you're saying our banking and auto industries have suffered and failed because they ARE monopolies?! also, explain the difference to me between a Large monopoly and a Small monopoly. a "pure" monopoly would be when there is only ONE entity in a market without competition, thus wouldnt that be considered large, since it possesses the whole market?

and its not just businesses that want their cake and eat it too. its also citizens who buy houses they cant afford and then when they go into foreclosure they want the government to bail them out too, or they run up too much debt, and CHOOSE to declare bankruptcy effectively running a FU stick up the butts of the people they owe all the money too.

as long as we keep electing politicians that are willing to pay out to businesses and individuals that dont want to take responsibility for their actions, we will continue to see these bailouts.

but i hate to tell you, none of that has anything to do with the exclusive agreements between carriers and phone manufacturers.

What i'm saying is that it would suck if you had to buy your PC from your ISP.

It sucks that we have to buy our cell phones from the cell service providers.

You are correct that the only thing that will change this model is if consumers change their buying habits. What I mean is that we stop buying devices and only start buying again when manufacturers are able to sell them to us directly.

Simple economic demand model......

 

[samab]

Who's saying 99% of people use iPhones? I said a CNET article revealed that only 5% of phones in the US are unlocked, contrary to your 99% claim.

What's the point of "FREE" if NOBODY knows about it? If it's really free, then why do they locked the phones in the first place? Besides, we're comparing Singapore, where phone are not locked in the first place. So what's with your argument about charging for unlocking? In the US, there are plenty of independent retailers that DO charge money to unlock your phone too.

Again, proof it to me. Try asking AT&T to unlock the iPhone

That attitude is the reason we have the backward cellular market in the US (that and environmental issue too). What would you do with that old phone? In Asia, one can simply resell the phone with no hassles, that's the beauty of unlocked phone.

I am saying that people can have it unlock for free, whether they actually do obtain it or not, that's not the issue.

You can also sell your simlocked phones --- to people who have those carriers. It doesn't affect your ability to resell your old phones.

What you believe that Singapore really did think it through with their regulations? These are the same people who outlaw chewing gum. Singapore didn't think it through at all --- Singapore based their regulations on European regulations from the late 1980's (when Europe was dead set against simlocking). Europeans don't even believe in those views anymore --- EC switched to consumer awareness as the official policy. As long as the carriers tell you clearly beforehand that you are getting a simlocked phone, that they tell you clearly that you are never going to get simlocking codes, then it's ok with the EC. That's the official EC policy that UK adopted.

Singapore --- delaying true mobile number portability until last year, allowing carriers to charge fixed unreasonable ETF's, disallowing direct handset subsidies but allowing indirect handset subsidies (in the form of a free tv) --- hurt the average consumers way more than their "helping" policy of zero simlocking.

 

[pika2000]

I am saying that people can have it unlock for free, whether they actually do obtain it or not, that's not the issue.

Since you like to go all over the place (chewing gum laws?), I'll start slow and one by one. Okay, you claim that people in the US can get their phones unlocked for free (which is another argument by itself on why they should be provider-locked in the first place). True for T-Mobile and their 90day policy, questionable on AT&T.

Proof it to me. Ask AT&T to unlock the iPhone. Simple request.

 

[samab]

Since you like to go all over the place (chewing gum laws?), I'll start slow and one by one. Okay, you claim that people in the US can get their phones unlocked for free (which is another argument by itself on why they should be provider-locked in the first place). True for T-Mobile and their 90day policy, questionable on AT&T.

Proof it to me. Ask AT&T to unlock the iPhone. Simple request.

Instead of looking at Singapore as a model --- you should look at the definitive iphone paradise, Hong Kong.

Hong Kong ALLOWS simlocking, ALLOWS iphone exclusivity --- yet Hutchison 3 HK (the exclusive iphone carrier in Hong Kong) sells the iphone completely unlocked.

Don't need any laws in Hong Kong forcing carriers to sell completely unlocked phones, don't need any laws in Hong Kong forcing Apple to scrap their exclusive iphone contracts (like France).

 

[pika2000]

Instead of looking at Singapore as a model --- you should look at the definitive iphone paradise, Hong Kong.

Hong Kong ALLOWS simlocking, ALLOWS iphone exclusivity --- yet Hutchison 3 HK (the exclusive iphone carrier in Hong Kong) sells the iphone completely unlocked.

Don't need any laws in Hong Kong forcing carriers to sell completely unlocked phones, don't need any laws in Hong Kong forcing Apple to scrap their exclusive iphone contracts (like France).

Changing topics and ignoring rebuttals. Fine, I'll play along.
I'm completely aware about Hong Kong. Apple is selling unlocked iPhones straight from the Apple store. That's perfect.

I pick Singapore only as an example. A lot of people here are arguing that they have to pay full price for an unlocked phone, which is the reason I used Singapore as an example where subsidized phones are unlocked. Try reading my earlier posts instead of making claims and changing topics all the time.