New FCC Chairman Tells Wireless Carriers to Unlock Cell Phones

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
Tom Wheeler has been the Chairman of the FCC for only a few weeks, but he’s made some bold moves for his short time in office. The latest involves telling wireless carriers to drop the locked phone requirement or have the FCC do it for them. :cool:

"It is now time for the industry to act voluntarily or for the FCC to regulate. Let's set a goal of including the full unlocking rights policy in the CTIA Consumer Code before the December holiday season."
 
When I first heard about Tom Wheeler getting appointed I thought he would be all buddy-buddy with the phone and cable companies, since he was a former lobbyist for them, but he seems to be kicking some butt right from the start

Hopefully he still goes through with adding this as a regulation though, and doesn't just take the phone companies word that they will keep unlocking phones, otherwise they will just go back to business as usual once a new FCC chairman comes along. Regulation should be done with actual laws, not just threats of laws.
 
This is probably the best news we as cellular consumers in the US have ever had...:rolleyes:

And it's always best that business owners have their rights taken away to give us more choice.

Because we don't have any choice in cell phones or cell phone carriers. :rolleyes:
 
A dictator dictates.

My thoughts precisely.

SirGold said it, "Regulation should be done with actual laws, not just threats of laws."

I do appreciate the chairman's sentiment though.

Next on the agenda should be ala' carte television programming.
 
Excellent news! If I buy a phone I should be able to use it wherever I want. This is about the consumers having rights to what they buy; because the phone providers have been dictating who, what, when, where to the consumers long enough.
 
Indeed, I am conflicted. I'm all for the bussiness to make their own decision... but this is really more of a consumer stance. However, I'm leaning towards the whole unlocking more because these companies basically run monopolies and duopolies and whatnots with agreements with each other and have had laws passed to prevent competition.
 
And it's always best that business owners have their rights taken away to give us more choice.

Because we don't have any choice in cell phones or cell phone carriers. :rolleyes:

If that right you are talking about is the "right" to royally fuck over customers with shitty practices then yes, fuck their rights.

What kind of person would want to defend the cell companies "right" to force locked phones on everyone? Nothing like consumers standing up for anti consumer bullshit. Theres just no logic to it.
 
Sounds like great news. Now they need to get cable companies to give unlimited bandwidth. Not limited to 250gb and crazy prices.
 
And it's always best that business owners have their rights taken away to give us more choice.

Because we don't have any choice in cell phones or cell phone carriers. :rolleyes:

Locking a phone so that if you travel you have to spend hundreds of dollars on roaming fees? :eek:

Or having an unlocked phone and spending far less on fees because you have a local number.
 
And it's always best that business owners have their rights taken away to give us more choice.

Because we don't have any choice in cell phones or cell phone carriers. :rolleyes:

By contrast, we can look at the cell phone regulations in other countries where devices are actually sold carrier agnostic, free to be used on the carrier of your choice, purchased free of the carrier bloatware that the end user is forbidden to remove without rooting and voiding their warranty.

American business is about herding people into specific marketing tiers, no promoting consumer interests.
 
And it's always best that business owners have their rights taken away to give us more choice.

Because we don't have any choice in cell phones or cell phone carriers. :rolleyes:

The ridiculousness of claiming there's much in the way of competition in cell phones is punctuated by the irony of the fact the people you are trying to retort are responsible for the lack of competitions. Overly regulation kills the upstarts and small companies. Only the large survive.

Take the FCC & radio. Can I plant a tower and start broadcasting. No way. Not only do I need permission, I have to prove I'd be 'responsible' according to their standards. Which pretty much means I have to have a track record in the industry or people in the industry vouch for me. Which pretty much ensures radio is a closed club. Of course they allow exceptions so they can pretend there isn't a rule.
 
Take the FCC & radio. Can I plant a tower and start broadcasting. No way. Not only do I need permission, I have to prove I'd be 'responsible' according to their standards.

And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I would imagine there'd be a lot of people not particularly happy if you just stuck a 100,000 W tower wherever you pleased.
 
And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I would imagine there'd be a lot of people not particularly happy if you just stuck a 100,000 W tower wherever you pleased.

But the point is that they go well beyond regulating broadcast space, don't they?.
 
Who the hell would think you'd find an argument in a thread about this? Shills. Shills everywhere.
 
But the point is that they go well beyond regulating broadcast space, don't they?.

The airwaves like roads are publicly owned. No one has any inherent right to use either, access to them is a privilege and privileges can come with number and variety of rules and restrictions and that's long been the legal precedent.
 
Does this mean that I'll be able to have a phone without the 20+ apps that Verizon puts on that I can't remove without voiding my warranty? Really don't get forcing the Amazon apps, the NFL apps, the social media apps...
 
And it's always best that business owners have their rights taken away to give us more choice.

Because we don't have any choice in cell phones or cell phone carriers. :rolleyes:

Well you have a point, law being made/changed by fiat is a very dangerous and stupid game to be playing. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Giving Government regulators the power to change law because of good intention or whim creates the potential for ugly destructive abuse, corruption, and the political weaponizing of regulatory agencies (something we are seeing right now).

Having said that unlocked cell phones could increase competition (drop prices) for cell plan rates but it also may have the unintended consequence of raising prices for low end cell phone because carriers will be less will to subsidize them.
 
This is great news. Now at least we can move some, but not quite since we have different frequency cell networks.
 
...because carriers will be less will to subsidize them.

Protip. Carriers don't subsidize phones. YOU DO. You pay for the phone through the rate you pay on contact. Don't give me any shit about how the rate doesn't drop after your contract is over on Verizon or anywhere else. You're still paying the full subsidy price even then. If you're on contract and don't upgrade as soon as you can, you're giving carriers more profit.

Pay as You Go carriers sell phones up front for full price. So you can't even argue subsidy there.

If you're going to posit a scenario, first make sure you're even in the same reality.
 
Hey folks, let's play a game! It's called Spot the Irrational Libhurrrtarian!

And another thing. Lets play spot the idiot who knows nothing about Libertarian political theory.

I am not a Libertarian but I do at least know the theory, under a Libertarian view of copyright and digital rights there would be legal standing for locked cell phones to start with. If you buy it, you own it, and can do what you please with it.
 
And lets play spot the idiot who does not understand the protections of law.

Government regulations are not the reasons prices keep going up. Corporate greed is.

http://thecontributor.com/economy/capitalism-stealthy-killer

TFA said:
Despite calling themselves “job creators,” CEOs like casino billionaire Steve Wynn have cut jobs while their corporate profits have doubled and their corporate taxes have been slashed in half.

Anything that forces corporations to play more fair for the consumers is a win, and quite frankly, should be required. Our cellular system is a worldwide joke. We pay about twice for the same services that Europeans pay for despite having a fraction of the competing carriers they have.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/why-cant-americans-stomach-unsubsidized-phones/

TFA said:
As you may know, Americans and Canadians are the only consumers that expect our cell phone companies to subsidize the cost of our handsets. Most consumers in the rest of the world, particularly Europe and Japan, buy their phones outright — what we call “unlocked” phones — and then connect them to whatever mobile carrier they choose under a pre-paid calling and data plan.

The people who have been unfortunate enough to break a phone out of warranty know exactly how much it costs — in the case of the iPhone, $650. So where does that extra $450 come from? You, silly! It comes in the form of a two-year contact loaded with exorbitant fees and weird costs. These high monthly fees more than make up for AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile’s initial $450 investment in your new phone after less than a year. North Americans spend an average of $51.40 monthly on cell service. Europeans spend only $30.83.

One way or another, we are still paying for the full cost of the phone.

Why the FUCK shouldn't I be allowed to buy the phone I want and use it on any carrier that provides service in my area?

Oh. Cause corporate anticompetitive tactics is somehow better than the government telling companies to play fair and allow people to unlock your phone.

I've seen your reality and quite frankly, it fucking sucks.
 
Protip. Carriers don't subsidize phones. YOU DO. You pay for the phone through the rate you pay on contact. Don't give me any shit about how the rate doesn't drop after your contract is over on Verizon or anywhere else. You're still paying the full subsidy price even then. If you're on contract and don't upgrade as soon as you can, you're giving carriers more profit.

Pay as You Go carriers sell phones up front for full price. So you can't even argue subsidy there.

If you're going to posit a scenario, first make sure you're even in the same reality.

Of course carriers absolutely subsidize the upfront cost of a phone. Of course you pay them with higher rate plans but if they do not subsidize the initial cost phones cost a lot more. Oh and many pay as you go phones are also subsidised in the same way by restricting which pay as you go plan you can buy.

Yes you should first make sure you're even in the same reality, but then you are not. And I suggest you do a google search on cell carrier subsidies, the results will back my terminology up and not your irrational twisting of reality.
 
Of course carriers absolutely subsidize the upfront cost of a phone. Of course you pay them with higher rate plans but if they do not subsidize the initial cost phones cost a lot more. Oh and many pay as you go phones are also subsidised in the same way by restricting which pay as you go plan you can buy.

Yes you should first make sure you're even in the same reality, but then you are not. And I suggest you do a google search on cell carrier subsidies, the results will back my terminology up and not your irrational twisting of reality.

Uhhhhh, right. That's why you just play the "I say so" game without any citations to back up what you claim.

Customers absolutely pay the full cost of the phone through their contract plans. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
 
If I get a subsidized phone, I expect it to be locked until the contract ends. I then expect them to unlock the phone on request. If you want to pay considerably more for an unlocked smart phone there is nothing stopping you. I never got the hubub about unlocking subsidy phones. Especially when the major carriers all unlock them on request, after the contract is up, and some do it prior to that if you ask. I could understand if you were paying full price for the phone like the early iphones, but not so much on the subsidy phones.
 
Who the hell would think you'd find an argument in a thread about this? Shills. Shills everywhere.

It's all the same people who insist that if you have the temerity to shop at Walmart, store security should be free to probe your butt for contraband on your way out. If you don't like it, just don't buy...things.
 
Especially when the major carriers all unlock them on request, after the contract is up

No they fucking do not. I wanted to sell my Droid X after my contract, or at least roll it onto a prepaid service. Verizon told me they weren't going to do shit. What am I going to do, hire a lawyer to unlock a $100 phone? Companies are happy to throw around the fact that they've got consumers by the balls, so I'm not weeping big tears if an actual pro-consumer regulation is proposed.
 
Don't give me any shit about how the rate doesn't drop after your contract is over on Verizon or anywhere else.


With T-mobile, your bill goes down when your phone is paid for.

The phone subsidy (payment plan) is separate from the service fee and goes away after the phone is paid off ($10-$20 per month for 20-24 months, depending on phone). You are also free to cancel your plan at any time, as long as you pay off whatever you still owe for the phone (the actual amount, not some pro-rated ETF)

at&t hates this idea of course, that's why they were trying so hard to buy T-mobile. They saw a competitor and decided to acquire instead of improve.
 
Back
Top