Huh? That's what the contract is for. An unlocked phone doesn't get you out of the contract, that pays the subsidies.
Even if the phone is unlocked, and you switch carriers, you still have to pay your original contract.
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.
White House Files Petition Asking FCC to Require Carriers to Unlock All Mobile Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Huh? That's what the contract is for. An unlocked phone doesn't get you out of the contract, that pays the subsidies.
Even if the phone is unlocked, and you switch carriers, you still have to pay your original contract.
Early Termination Fees can still be a thing... This won't stop that from happening and they won't lose the subsidy cost.
So if I'm on At&T and I want to go to Europe and buy a sim card there and use it in my phone, I shouldn't be able to do that? Even if your phone is unlocked, it doesn't mean you can get out of your contract without an early termination fee, which more than covers the subsidy on your phone. This is exactly what government is there for, to keep corporations from abusing customers.
Whine to FDR if it will make you feel better, or Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Truman, Johnson, Ford, Kennedy, Bush 1.0/2.0, Clinton, etc.
Tracking has been going on since the end of WWII, on a national scale. It has been going on since after the Spanish War regionally.
You are wrong. The companies have to go through the FCC to do business to begin with. They will do it if they want to stay in business.
This would be a very nice consumer friendly change. Fairly instantly the carriers would all switch to T-Mobile's policy where you buy the phone cheap and then get financing for it. Financing is legal.
This will be better for consumers since the cost will be more clear and it will be harder to be "trapped" in a plan or with a carrier. Carrier's can adjust their plans to put themselves in a good economic position. Maybe not as good as before, but they can make themselves okay.
This will be better for consumers since the cost will be more clear and it will be harder to be "trapped" in a plan or with a carrier. Carrier's can adjust their plans to put themselves in a good economic position. Maybe not as good as before, but they can make themselves okay.
I don't see them doing that since placing a proprietary level of network or transport is a large technical burden that carriers are not interested in performing leaving that to equipment suppliers.
What I do see is the "free" phone with a signed contract going away. More up front fees to pay for the phone will happen.
Also, while it is currently so-called illegal to unlock a phone purchased after the said date, has there been been any arrests, trails or convictions for this law?
You mean like what we had in the late 1990s/early 2000s, when they (the cell companies) required you to buy their model of phone that only worked on their network? Like the Nokia 6185 for Sprint, 6180 for VZW, 6110 for Cingular, and 6115 for ATT?
Been there, done that. That's why we have 2 different implementations of CDMA between Sprint and Verizon, and GSM for ATT and Cingular. This is what happens when the Telcos build their own network, pass that as the standard, and tell the phone manufacturers to build phones that only work on their network, otherwise they won't sell your product. In short, the network dictates what goes into the phone.
The opposite way is TONS better, and what was in use in Europe and Australia at the time, which was tailor the network to the phone. That way the phone can be used anywhere. I shouldn't have to pay $300 for a Nokia 6185 to work with Sprint, then pay another $300 for the 6115 for ATT just because I want to switch carriers.
In this case, the White House is on the right side here.
Again, the problem isn't just the contract; it is being stuck having to buy the same phone all over again because your current phone won't work on their network.
BL.
You misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that companies don't have to listen to the government. I am saying that the government should not be able to tell companies what prices/contracts/phones they can and cannot offer, so long as they don't hurt anyone. Of course, government does do things it shouldn't, and companies have to go along to get along.
Some people do not make sense here. It does not matter locked or not. If you sign 2 year contract and get out early, Companies will always fine and they can always raise the fine and collect the price difference of the device you paid.
Why would people flip flop their plans?
Why would people flip flop their plans?
It is illegal in New Zealand to sell phones that are locked to carriers. The iPhone has been sold unlocked here since day one, the first country to do so.
You can buy an iPhone from carriers who offer various subsidised plans, where they provide the SIM card, or direct from the Apple website and buy a prepay SIM from a carrier. All are unlocked, and this makes no difference to the subsidised plans offered by carriers. You can change carriers by changing the SIM card at any time.
Apple has willingly gone along with this, so why not in the US? The problem is monopolistic carriers who don't want customer churn. The government must regulate to promote competition in the interests of the consumer.
When traveling to other countries I buy a SIM to swap in. No roaming charges.
You can buy an iPhone from carriers who offer various subsidised plans, where they provide the SIM card, or direct from the Apple website and buy a prepay SIM from a carrier. All are unlocked, and this makes no difference to the subsidised plans offered by carriers. You can change carriers by changing the SIM card at any time.
Apple has willingly gone along with this, so why not in the US? The problem is monopolistic carriers who don't want customer churn. The government must regulate to promote competition in the interests of the consumer.
When traveling to other countries I buy a SIM to swap in. No roaming charges.
Looks like you are living in a very civilized country.
Do you like The Dead C?
USA consumers do not know what’s good for them, they do what fake pundits say, and the government works against its own people.
If you bought a locked phone, you did so because it was initially cheaper. No one forced you. Of course, the phone companies get their money back in the end, but the deal isn't a secret. If a company tells you what is going to happen and you agree, you're not being abused. Abuse is when a company commits fraud or breaches a contract. When that happens, government absolutely has a role.
Because people need the carriers for their phones to work. So you would be paying for any carrier anyway and now you can simply dump the company you bought the phone, thus increasing the CREDIT RISK, which reflects higher prices. Some people don't care about problems with credit for the lack of payment.
PS: Also there's the fact that after your contract finishes, you can go to any other carrier you want. That is not good for the carriers.
Again, locked phones aren't any cheaper for the carriers. I don't know why people are making that up. The subsidy is in the contract price, not the phone.
----------
Huh? Even if you unlock you're still on the contract. Even if you dump the contract there is a clause making you pay for the full price of the phone.
Do you people even know how phone contracts work?
Yes, blame it all on Rush and Hannity (and Bush), just like Obama wants you to.