No it isn't. Contracts with penalties to break them are what make subsidized prices possible.
DOH! Guess I'm a bit late to this discussion. Others already beat me to it.
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
No it isn't. Contracts with penalties to break them are what make subsidized prices possible.
DOH! Guess I'm a bit late to this discussion. Others already beat me to it.
Not necessarily. Unlocking is not the same as breaking a contract. You'd still be obligated to maintain your account for 2 years, which is typical in the US.
The likeliest impact, IMHO, is increasing the typical contract length, perhaps to 30 months.
Perhaps you should know who is the BOSS.
Not Obama.
So, is it a Democracy?
Not so.
Stop making fun of North Korea.
I wonder If Kennedy assassination have something to do with his resistance to the Military industry advances.
Why did Obama change his mind, and why he ordered for G. W. Bush to be protected against any charges of war crime, in a war he vehemently opposed?
Obama serves imperialism as any other President.
Uh, don't all iPhones have identical antennas?
----------
Illuminati bruh.
But they never promised to unlock it. You bought it unlocked, expecting it would stay that way. How is Sprint doing something illegal? Wrong? Yes, definitely. I agree Sprint SHOULD unlock the phone and be ethical/logical about it, but I don't think government should FORCE them.
Yes, but for how long? two years is the limit, but carriers want more. If they can't have more with locked phones, prices WILL go higher, believe me. That's what happened in Brazil, although the prices are much higher than they would go in the US because 1 year is the limit here.
Oh I most definitely do. The behavior of corporations needs to be heavily regulated.
Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
NOT OBAMA!
So maybe prices will be somewhat steady or increase a little due to an increased credit risk.
Why? You're still locked into a contract and you still need to pay the fee to break the contract. If anything they'll just charge the customer more to break the contract. But Subsidization won't stop...
Uhh.. this problem existed before the iPhone?
The President, and through him/her, the Executive Branch, are part of the Government. That is what also gives him the power to present bills to Congress for them to pass.
BL.
Let's push for this to go forward. I think Europe already does that. If need be, pass another ruling to ensure compatibility between networks. The way I see it people are still bound by contracts and early termination fees. However, having unlocked phones will make international travel easier, for people who just want to get a local SIM card in the country they are traveling to. It also avoids the hassle of having to contact the cell phone company to unlock the phone. I think this is long overdue and companies shouldn't fear this measure.
You're right in that there is a distinction between "locked" and "subsidized," but companies only sell locked phones subsidized. Why someone would buy a locked phone unsubsidized is beyond me, hence why I use "locked" and "subsidized" interchangeably.
Europe has been doing this since the late 90s. Australia/New Zealand as well. S. America I believe did since then too. We are the only ones that are bass ackwards.
BL.
Yep everyone of those is bad, down right dangerous in fact.
It is the gun control mentality that has sweep the country. It is the idea that government can make people safe. The reality is that it never turns out that way and you end up living in fear of the government.
That is bull crap, Obama and nobody else is directly responsible for the current expansion. To say other wise is to deny facts that have come to light over the year. Remember Bush was almost 8 years ago now.
I'm not one to get into discussion with people that don't grasp the facts.
That's not actually the case. The 2 year contract is what makes subsidized prices possible, which is how carriers can justify the massive early termination fees. You'll notice that the $350 or $375 a carrier will ask you to pay for an ETF matches pretty closely with the $450 they subsidize your iPhone for ($649 becomes $199 and so on per price tier), after they have the first month's service payment.
They want you to believe that the locking allows them to subsidize your phone. They want you to believe lots of things.
This is the fundamental disagreement. I can see how your argument makes sense from your basic philosophy on government, so trying to convince you that the government shouldn't do this would require you changing your entire outlook, which is just impossible in an online forum (and probably in any circumstance).
Question: Would you enjoy living in a world where your town had only three theaters and a single movie studio owned them all? So, for example, you could see paramount movies, but never anyone else's films.
Because that's how it used to be until the government stepped in. Would you like us to go back to that system? Your stance says 'yes' to me, but I can't really understand that desire. Care to explain?
You still have an early termination fee in your 2 year contract. So what's the problem?
Glad you mentioned that! Actually, Obama is PETITIONING the FCC to require cell carriers to unlock phones. Guess who created the FCC for the purpose of regulating telecommunications, your bff, CONGRESS!! Funny how these things work right?