Sidebar Sidebar
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

goMac said:
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?
Click to expand...

Again, what you aren't getting is that this practice has been in place long before contracts were used on phones.

That Nokia 6185 I referred to? I had that on Sprint in 2000, and there wasn't a contract for their service at that time. Full price was also paid on that phone. Yet I couldn't take that phone to Verizon, and it was locked to their network. No amount of hardware or software mods could change that. No sim card as well. So this practice predates the use of any contract on a phone, and has been attempted to get rid of it for the past 16 years. This is the biggest traction the movement has had.

BL.
 
goMac said:
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?
Click to expand...


There's also the fact that after your contract finishes, you can go to any other carrier you want. That is not good for the carriers.
 
cuda12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, but that doesn't mean that the companies should have the right to lock phones to begin with. Yes, I buy into it because that's our current system, but it doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't think companies should have a legal right to sell locked phones.
 
clayj said:
When all phones are required to be unlocked on demand, you can kiss the $99 or $199 iPhone goodbye. They'll START at $499 or $549, to reflect the true retail value of the phones. It's locking that makes subsidized prices possible.
Click to expand...

How does a phone being unlocked relieve one of their contract which caused the phone to be subsidize?
 
lcmazza said:
There's also the fact that after your contract finishes, you can go to any other carrier you want. That is not good for the carriers.
Click to expand...

You can do that already, the phone companies unlock your phone when your contract is over as it is.
 
goMac said:
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?
Click to expand...

Locked phones are cheaper for consumers initially. I realize they cost the same for companies, but my point isn't to say that prices should rise as a result of this decision. Logically, they shouldn't. But phone companies follow one logic: maximize profit. When they're forced to sell unlocked phones (which is the wrong function of government), they'll likely spin it as a feature and charge us more. It's the same with early upgrades that have been coming out. Everything sounds good, but the company wins out in the end.
 
that would be awesome...

YES!!!! This would be a great win for the consumer, regardless of the phone carrier they're subscribing to. The USA has been behind on this unlock issue for far too long.
 
cuda12 said:
This is beyond what government should be able to do. If a company is paying >50% of the actual cost of the phone, they're entitled to put whatever restrictions they like. Anyone who thinks government can just force companies to sell us unlocked phones for what locked phones cost now is not being honest with him/herself.
Click to expand...

Thank you for showing us that you have absolutely no concept of the cell phone/service provider market.
 
Aluminum213 said:
Yes, blame it all on Obama, just like rush and hannity want you to
Click to expand...

Well Obama is directly responsible for the vast expansion in these programs, that is a fact that has nothing to do with Rush, Hannity or anybody else for that matter. The problem is the NSA has been around for years but has never been so intrusive into the private affairs of Americains. So who would you blame for the current over reach?
 
10162003HellFrozeOver2.jpg
 
They should definately be required to unlock once you have satisfied your obligation to the carrier, be it at the end of your contract or once you have left early and paid your ETF. Currently this isn't even a requirement. And it should happen automatically once the obligation is satisfied....it shouldn't be the consumer's responsibility to have to request an unlock.

Up until fairly recently ATT wouldn't unlock an iPhone under any circumstances. At least they will now do it on request at the completion of your contract, but there is no law requiring them to do so.

But ultimately I believe that having the carrier just enforce their contract through threat of a mark on your credit if you default should be sufficient. They could even be given the power to blacklist your ESN or IMEI if you don't satisfy your contract. But as long as you are abiding by it, they shouldn't prevent you from using your device elsewhere on occasion.....or even all the time as long as they are continuing to get paid as well.
 
clayj said:
When all phones are required to be unlocked on demand, you can kiss the $99 or $199 iPhone goodbye. They'll START at $499 or $549, to reflect the true retail value of the phones. It's locking that makes subsidized prices possible.
Click to expand...

I'd wager at least 70% of Cell Phone users after reading this once, would still think their iPhone 5S was $199. They just get to choose the carrier. :)
 
clayj said:
When all phones are required to be unlocked on demand, you can kiss the $99 or $199 iPhone goodbye. They'll START at $499 or $549, to reflect the true retail value of the phones. It's locking that makes subsidized prices possible.
Click to expand...

B.S. It is the two year contract you sign that makes the phone subsidized. They can sell you an unlocked phone for regular price. You don't have to use it on the carrier that you signed the two year agreement with, but you have to pay your monthly bill for 24 months or pay the ETF.
 
wizard said:
Well Obama is directly responsible for the vast expansion in these programs, that is a fact that has nothing to do with Rush, Hannity or anybody else for that matter. The problem is the NSA has been around for years but has never been so intrusive into the private affairs of Americains. So who would you blame for the current over reach?
Click to expand...

Without taking this to PRSI, I'd say Bush with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and the Dept. of Homeland Security. Everyone seemed to have forgotten about their 4th Amendment rights for the sake of wanting to be safer, supporting our troops, and being called 'unAmerican' for speaking out against things going on at that time.

That expansion has been going on since well before this president; you just tend to blame someone that you don't like for your woes.

That's all I'm going to say on this. Want to continue it further? let's take it to PRSI and we'll lay it all out there.

BL.
 
likemyorbs said:
Right, but that doesn't mean that the companies should have the right to lock phones to begin with. Yes, I buy into it because that's our current system, but it doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't think companies should have a legal right to sell locked phones.
Click to expand...

It's a fundamental disagreement about government's proper role and free markets. There is no point in debating on that in this kind of forum, but I will admit that I would love for phones to be unlocked. I just don't think companies should be forced.
 
Let's not forget the BS that is sprint...Despite being out of contract, a sprint iPhone will NEVER BE UNLOCKED. Now how is that ish fair? I hope this thing passes so I can go crap on sprint.
 
Aluminum213 said:
Yes, blame it all on Obama, just like rush and hannity want you to
Click to expand...

+infinity

There are still so many (LOL at the 10 posters who up voted that post) in denial or clueless and most importantly, IRONICALLY THEY COMPLETELY FORGOT that it is not something invented by Obama.
 
cuda12 said:
Locked phones are cheaper for consumers initially. I realize they cost the same for companies, but my point isn't to say that prices should rise as a result of this decision. Logically, they shouldn't. But phone companies follow one logic: maximize profit. When they're forced to sell unlocked phones (which is the wrong function of government), they'll likely spin it as a feature and charge us more. It's the same with early upgrades that have been coming out. Everything sounds good, but the company wins out in the end.
Click to expand...

Locked phones are not cheaper. Subsidized phones are "cheaper." Although, technically, they're not, since you're agreeing to a contract, during which the carrier will recoup the amount of the subsidization (and then some). Locked phones are what keep people from taking their phone to another carrier after that contract has been satisfied.

Go into the Apple store and price an unlocked phone vs. a locked unsubsidized phone. Same price.
 
cuda12 said:
It's a fundamental disagreement about government's proper role and free markets. There is no point in debating on that in this kind of forum, but I will admit that I would love for phones to be unlocked. I just don't think companies should be forced.
Click to expand...

If the companies all agreed on a standardized network (which is what GSM was supposed to be), this wouldn't be a problem, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

BL.
 
cuda12 said:
It's a fundamental disagreement about government's proper role and free markets. There is no point in debating on that in this kind of forum, but I will admit that I would love for phones to be unlocked. I just don't think companies should be forced.
Click to expand...

After a sprint contract is fulfilled, sprint still won't unlock the phone that you paid for...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back