Umm Canada is ahead of the US in this area.
Edit: I guess it's not mandated that unlocking be free. We'll see what happens when these come into full effect at the end of this year.
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
Umm Canada is ahead of the US in this area.
Edit: I guess it's not mandated that unlocking be free. We'll see what happens when these come into full effect at the end of this year.
What exactly does this have to do with the topic at hand? How is the government telling you what's good for you by requiring cell phone carriers to keep phones unlocked? This anti-government paranoia is just sad to watch.
Of billions of people on earth, .0001% of them known terrorists or those who are in contact with them, they are after YOU. You must be very, very important.
Anyone who thinks a company is paying >50% of the actual cost of the phone is no being honest with him/herself
I agree. I'm a right wing conservative (minus nut status), but completely support the White House on this one.
----------
Anyone who thinks a company is paying >50% of the actual cost of the phone is no being honest with him/herself
Yea, we need to remember that what sprint pays apple and what WE pay apple may not be equal. Smi
No what's sad to watch is half of America needs the Government to take care of them. Very Very Sad.
That would be business suicide; by doing that, they would be excluding themselves from the mainstream, and forcing new clients to buy (expensive) new handsets. Once the industry goes 'unlocked', it would be exceedingly difficult for any ONE carrier to go the 'incompatible' route again.
Non-discounted and off-contract phones, already come unlocked.
It's not even a partisan thing. There are just some people who are anti-government regardless of the topic at hand. Most of these people are on the right wing, but it doesn't mean most of the right wing is like that.
If Apple's gross margins are more than 30%; what we pay and what the wholesale price is, is very different.
Coupled with the fact that after you go month to month, carriers don't cut your bill. They get tons of extra money from me because I refuse to give up unlimited.
If you factor in a $400 subsidy over 24 months, then they get an extra $16/month from me. So my unlimited data now costs an extra $16 per month.
They don't want me off unlimited. They like the extra cash flow.
This is exactly what the government is supposed to do. Locked phones impede competition, drive quality down, and prices up. Remember the company still has a contract and an early termination fee to protect them. Locking the phone is like gm selling you a car and then making it so you can only buy gas from their gas stations until the car is payed off. Then you have to make a special request to get the car to work with a diffrent gas station. It's anti-competive and anti-American.
Yep and this is when people stop buying new iphones every couple years. I know that I cannot afford an iphone at full retail price. I hope this petetion gets denied.
You've still failed to explain how government regulation of corporations in the best interest of the customers is "government taking care of them".
You're wrong because the practice of locking phones has nothing to do with subsidization. The reason a phone is "apparently cheaper" to a user is because the phone company subsidizes part of the cost of the phone in return for a fixed term contract commitment from the buyer. If the buyer violates that contract by terminating early they are required to pay an early termination fee that offsets the cost of subsidization.
The act of locking a phone is just a way for the carrier to create an artificial barrier to the user taking that phone to another carrier. It's patently unfair, for a number of reasons. Imagine if you bought a car from Ford and they told you that you could only drive it on roads that they owned.
A locked phone costs no more than an unlocked phone. Price an unlocked phone and a locked unsubsidized phone and you will find that they cost the same price.
Clear enough?
Anyone who thinks a company is paying >50% of the actual cost of the phone is no being honest with him/herself
You're right. I realize I was simply wrong in saying that. My point still stands since no one forces you to pay for a locked phone, though I concede this argument only convinces those who are for an extremely limited government, who are in the minority.
But is it anti-'Murican? That's the real question at hand...
Attachments
And then one carrier decides to carpe diem by offering subsidised pricing just for a two year contract in return...Thus competition, once again, continues...
There's no way any US carriers would survive asking people to pay $500 for a new phone simply because they have to unlock it...
This will force carriers such as SPRING to get their Ish together and FIX their damn network!
Exactly. Cellphone prices, dumbphone or smartphone, have remained constant for well over 10 years. Why? Because people indirectly buy them (via carriers) with no regard to price due to subsides. And the carriers don't push for lower prices because they (the prices) are the only reason they can financially rape their customers. If prices come down, say goodbye to subsides, and then say goodbye to costly contract (which dwarf the prices carriers pay for subsides).
To use them interchangeably is completely wrong, which is why I say you don't understand the market or model. It's best you learn how the market works before you spout off about things.
And BTW: I have bought locked and unsubsidized phones. Why? Because there was not an unlocked option, and I wanted a new phone before my contract was up. Not a big deal, since I was able to sell my existing phone on the secondary market for a price that was high enough to offset the price of buying the unsubsidized phone.
You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that companies will be hurt by this decision because unlocked phones somehow cost more. They'll probably be helped because they'll attract more customers. I just don't see why it's government's business. The ends don't justify the means for me.
American cellphone carriers love cellphone subsides. They're the reason they can lock you in to lengthy contracts. Lay your worries to rest, they're not going anywhere.
Check the US rate plans before making a comparison. Singapore is far cheaper than the US, and includes higher data limits, lower up front cost for similar monthly spend AND an unlocked phone.
Eg. A USD50/month plan on Singtel has an upfront phone cost of USD220 (including taxes) and 3GB data
A USD80/month plan has an upfront phone cost of USD40 and includes 4GB/month
Compare that to the cheapest AT&T plan at USD$70 which includes 300MB .. Your conclusion completely doesn't align with the situation.
All this will do is level the playing field...I'm with Sprint, and they keep talking about LTE coming soon any time I ask why I pay as much as someone who gets to rock LTE in their house while I can't even connect...SAME AMOUNT, let they live the good life while I PAY FOR IT. I'm too poor to suck it up, pay 5 ETFs, then go BUY 5 new phones.