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
This will be a great change. I go to China every year and hate having to change phones just to use local SIM cards. 
According to the constitution, it IS the governments business...What it will come down to is, is whether or not US carriers will pay to shut this petition down.
You're correct in challenging my assertion that phones are subsidized because they are locked. Sorry I'm not as clear on why contracts are the way they are and thank you for calling me out on it.
I still maintain that it is possible (likely or not, I couldn't say) that companies spin this as a feature and charge more, but even if they don't I'm against the move.
I see this as two issues:
1. Does/should the government have the right to do this?
2. What will be the effect of this on consumers?
On point 2, I was misguided, and accept that the net outcome may be positive. On point 1, I still say no, because a contract between two private parties is not the business of government, so long as no one is wronged. I realize that people may think I'm crazy for opposing government intervention in this way even if I think the outcome may be positive, but that's the fundamental disagreement I was mentioning earlier. I'm wary of government acting in this way, while others are wary of big business. It's a philosophical disagreement, whereas the second issue is much more straightforward, even considering the complexities of the marketplace.
I bought by 4s from someone on eBay. sprint told me that even though that phone was not on ANY contract with them, that 4s was BOUND to them for LIFE. When I went to sell my 4s, I got LESS for it because it was BOUND to sprint for life...Therefore, I incurred LOSS.
The government has the right to regulate trade to this extent. Two parties cannot form an agreement that violates US law either. I cannot sign an agreement to let my neighbour kill me for $100 either. So, just because I sign a contract, doesn't mean it was legal to begin with.
Was it legal for one man to BUY another man from a slave trader???? Just cuz you gots you a contract, don't make it legal.
Your last point is obvious; I don't disagree with that.
For the first thing, it seems the issue is with the eBay seller. If they didn't tell you about the phone being locked, they committed fraud or were negligent, which are things government can legitimately regulate against. Sprint didn't sell you the phone as an unlocked phone; why should they be required to unlock it?
This would be great. The carriers could even keep subsidizing the phones, and just actually enforce early termination fees.
However they will claim that ending locking will end subsidies. It doesn't have to be that way.
If subsidies end, the real losers will be Apple, Samsung and other cell phone manufacturers, who make most of their money from the carriers rather than from end users. If the market is forced to bear the 'unlocked' prices of phones -- people just won't buy them. They are way too expensive, which is why people don't buy unlocked phones now. They want their $99, $199 iPhones. Apple will raise prices -- they do need to keep some margin -- but not to the current unlocked prices, if subsidies end as a result of the end of carrier locking.
However they will claim that ending locking will end subsidies. It doesn't have to be that way.
If subsidies end, the real losers will be Apple, Samsung and other cell phone manufacturers, who make most of their money from the carriers rather than from end users. If the market is forced to bear the 'unlocked' prices of phones -- people just won't buy them. They are way too expensive, which is why people don't buy unlocked phones now. They want their $99, $199 iPhones. Apple will raise prices -- they do need to keep some margin -- but not to the current unlocked prices, if subsidies end as a result of the end of carrier locking.
Sprint doesn't go around advertising the phone is LOCKED and inellgibile to EVER be locked either.
People are forced into contracts, ALL THE TIME, that aren't fair...In this case, the US government is saying that refusing to unlock a phone that "I" own ISNT legal.
That's a fair point, but it is in the contract. Nobody reads the contract, but they still agree to everything in it.
And again, just because I agreed, doesn't mean it was legal to make me agree. US government is deciding that I shouldn't have been made to agree...Deal with it.
When did corporate freedom win out over personal freedom? I own the phone, I should be able to do anything I want with it, including unlocking it.
I would expect the monthly plan rates to be lower. But I suspect that would require another petition! sigh
EXACTLY.
Here's another example...
My damn car...Put a bunch a ethanol in my gas, I'll go buy gas from another brand! All I care about is my mpg in the end...Don't like it? Give me more mpg than your competitor!
Why are people arguing that this somehow will make phones more expensive? American cellular contracts are already extortionate and you pay for the phone on top of that. Unlocking a phone does not change the contract, you still have your 2 years of payments, they still get all that money.
I am not missing the point, and you're wrong once again. The "ends" do justify the "means." This is not a case of the government wanting to constrain trade. You speak about this as if the phone carriers somehow gain a technical or costs benefit from requiring these phones to be locked to their networks. Let's not forget that these phones are not locked for any other reason than the fact that the carriers want them locked to keep what would otherwise be an open standard piece of hardware proprietary.
This is somewhat analogous to what happened with wireline carriers back in the days before the government stepped in. You may be too young to remember a time when Ma Bell required you to use their equipment, and rent it from them. And it was very expensive. You couldn't buy a phone and hook it up to your line. The government "overstepped their bounds" and told them it was unfair to the consumer. In fact, Bell's practice constrained trade, because it prevented other manufacturers from getting into the market. Now you can buy a phone in almost any store for less than $10.
What the wireless carriers do with locked phones is a variant of that. They created an artificially locked device (rather they have it created, since they create nothing) in order to confuse the market and keep you the consumer from making a free choice with what could otherwise be an open standard.
I am all for free market, to a point. But when a business becomes predatory or constrains the market to the detriment of the consumer as a whole with its practices it's time for the government to step in.
I applaud this.
I'm also dumbfounded how people here, somehow, find some convoluted way to argue against this.
I suppose you'd rather blame Bush. I'm sure the economy is his fault too - that's why it's gotten worse since Bush left. (and not a little bit worst - I don't expect the US dollar to be worth anything anymore in 18 months and am converting as much as I can into anything that will hold value despite the dollar's value plummeting as fast as I can)
Unlocked is the way to go because this will stimulate competition in wireless communication. We would have better prices on our wireless services if the government would get out of this regulation.
You conveniently forget about sales and special offers to lure people over to the competition. You can still get your subsidized phones.
Look at the European model. Anyone can go to Europe and buy a prepaid card in a gas station or grocery store. For residents, prepaid becomes an affordable option once someone owns their phone. The German, Austrian and Croatian carriers I have used have a 15 euro monthly rate with unlimited (although throttled after 500Mb) internet and unlimited SMS and 9 cents per minute out of the 15 Euro.
If you sign a 2 year contract with T-Mobile Germany 85 Euros for 5Gb data with LTE, Hotspot flat, internet phone, unlimited phone, unlimited SMS, you can get a 16 Gb 5c for one EURO. Or an S4 for one Euro.
I can tell you that if Verizon would lower their prices by 20% of what I pay for service now, I would dump AT&T in a heartbeat. I would have no problem signing a 2 year contract with them if I owned my own phone.
If AT&T lowered their prices by 15% and offered me a free phone for signing a 2 year contract, I would stay with them.
Competition = lower prices and better choices for the consumer. The only way for true competition is to get the government control out of the equation.
You conveniently forget about sales and special offers to lure people over to the competition. You can still get your subsidized phones.
Look at the European model. Anyone can go to Europe and buy a prepaid card in a gas station or grocery store. For residents, prepaid becomes an affordable option once someone owns their phone. The German, Austrian and Croatian carriers I have used have a 15 euro monthly rate with unlimited (although throttled after 500Mb) internet and unlimited SMS and 9 cents per minute out of the 15 Euro.
If you sign a 2 year contract with T-Mobile Germany 85 Euros for 5Gb data with LTE, Hotspot flat, internet phone, unlimited phone, unlimited SMS, you can get a 16 Gb 5c for one EURO. Or an S4 for one Euro.
I can tell you that if Verizon would lower their prices by 20% of what I pay for service now, I would dump AT&T in a heartbeat. I would have no problem signing a 2 year contract with them if I owned my own phone.
If AT&T lowered their prices by 15% and offered me a free phone for signing a 2 year contract, I would stay with them.
Competition = lower prices and better choices for the consumer. The only way for true competition is to get the government control out of the equation.
Super lol but if they did charge that did you know that no one would want to pay $500+ for a phone?
and in apple's case it would be $650+
no way would anyone want to pay up front that much money for a phone.
I mean when the ipod touch cost less than half of that.
EVEN the full sized retina iPad with a camera cost less than that.
So you're going to ignore the economy collapsing in the last 4 months of Bush's term and the US being on the brink of complete economic disaster under bush?
Are you also so ignorant to think Obama has some magic switch in his Oval Office that can reverse the damage?
Please keep listening to rush and hannity
Not really. It's the contract that makes subsidized pricing possible. No matter what I do with the phone, I still have to fulfill the contract (by either staying with the carrier or paying the ETF). Unlocking would limit the ability for carriers to extort their absurd international rates, but I would imagine that group is pretty small anyway.
Allow me to school you...
1st phones are subsidized because of contracts.
2nd carriers don't get some discounts on the devices because they buy in huge quantities.
3rd if they unlock phones you will ..... YOU WILL pay full prices.
4th understand business before you make any comments.
5th why would a carrier buy a 500.00 phone unlocked it so you can buy it for 200.00 hoping you stay around to recoup the money. This is automatic bankruptcy and anyone that thinks other wise in this LTE network country is a fool.
So yes I don't care either way but I'm prepared and have the money to do whatever.. Because I understand business.
6th can you pay right now, this moment for 500.00 for a phone blank period. Now ask yourself.... Next time you want an unlocked phone ... Go to apple... They sell them for 650.00 before taxes....
1st phones are subsidized because of contracts.
2nd carriers don't get some discounts on the devices because they buy in huge quantities.
3rd if they unlock phones you will ..... YOU WILL pay full prices.
4th understand business before you make any comments.
5th why would a carrier buy a 500.00 phone unlocked it so you can buy it for 200.00 hoping you stay around to recoup the money. This is automatic bankruptcy and anyone that thinks other wise in this LTE network country is a fool.
So yes I don't care either way but I'm prepared and have the money to do whatever.. Because I understand business.
6th can you pay right now, this moment for 500.00 for a phone blank period. Now ask yourself.... Next time you want an unlocked phone ... Go to apple... They sell them for 650.00 before taxes....