New FCC Chairman Tells Wireless Carriers to Unlock Cell Phones

Disposed said:
Oh the sheer amount of irony.:eek:
Click to expand...

No irony involved. Plenty of people have offered arguments without drenching them in contempt for the person who disagrees. There seem to be a few for whom such a concept is beyond their ability. Their expectation of being treated better than they treat others is puzzling.

Tech forums in general, I've noticed, often are breeding grounds for those who are so incensed by people holding opinions they don't like that they don't bother with an argument from the start. They merely express how annoyed they are that the opinion was even stated...as if anyone cares.
 
I'm down for this. If I buy a $600 device, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Maybe cell phone bills will start to come out of the sky too....
 
Atl530i said:
I'm down for this. If I buy a $600 device, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Maybe cell phone bills will start to come out of the sky too....
Click to expand...

Any device you purchase out right will be unlocked. I don't know if a carrier that artificially locks the phone if you pay full price. The subsidized price phones how ever are not paid for, they are tied to a contract, which is owned by the carrier. If you were looking to control your hardware I'd sure hope you weren't looking to go contract.
 
Disposed said:
Ok. Let me break down why i am completely dismissing your opposition.

A) The notion that a company has a right to impose anything they want on consumers is 100% dead wrong and absurdly ignorant.
B) Your whole argument goes against YOUR OWN best interests. (Unless of course you own significant stock in VZW or ATT)
C) This whole mindset that imposing rules against a companies practice to protect consumers is wrong just makes me wonder what you think these agencies like the FCC exist for.

So its hard to take you seriously in here with your tons of replies trying to make a case that the government agency actually working for US for a fucking change instead of the corporations is so terrible.

Oh the fucking tyranny. :rolleyes: If this brutal dictator gets his way we might actually get to move past the 90s in cellular business practices and only be 10 years behind the Europeans. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A) They certainly have the right to do anything they want as YOU also have the right to choose not to do business with them ... except in really small towns or rural areas (around 20% of the USA population or less) there is plenty of competition in the mobile phone arena and no one is forcing you to do business with a given company.

B) I think the argument is against the government being required to act to enforce "MY" best interest ... as Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine scariest worlds in the language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" ... there are plenty of people who are willing to protect their interests without government intervention by their selection of services or service providers they will support

C) There are certainly many aspects of government agencies that serve the public interest but all government agencies tend to suffer from scope creep ... Washington DC is a power city (especially in government circles) ... people measure their power and influence by how much they control ... some aspects of communication need to be controlled by the federal government (access to frequencies to prevent interference and compatibility throughout the entire country, company participation to ensure that viable competitors are on the market, etc) while the others can be left to the local or state governments to deal with (if they so desire)

If you have completed your contract with a phone provider then all of them will unlock your phone currently already ... if you buy a phone at full price that is compatible with the networks you wish to connect to then those phones are also unlocked ... if you are under contract then I see nothing wrong with a phone company controlling the unlocking of the phone as a contract condition (if you don't like it then you can choose one of the other carriers or buy a burner phone for use in local markets) :cool:
 
tazeat said:
Subsidized phones need to go the way of the Dino as well...
Click to expand...

Except the consumers like subsidized phones (which is why they sell so well here in the States) ... unless you are implying that the government should interfere with what consumers actually want and impose a non-subsidized system on them :eek: :p
 
kbrickley said:
Except the consumers like subsidized phones (which is why they sell so well here in the States) ... unless you are implying that the government should interfere with what consumers actually want and impose a non-subsidized system on them :eek: :p
Click to expand...

There are better ways to allow people to pay less other than locking them into a 2 year contract. T-Mobile's new policies and payment plan is the perfect example. You can pay off the phone slowly over time (removed from bill once paid off) or buy a device outright. If you leave the carrier before paying off the device you pay the difference. That's how it should be. This 2 year contract and extremely high ETF bullshit is for the birds.

My wife and I are stuck on Verizon. Speeds and data signal has gotten worse as more LTE devices have hit their network (we live in the DC Metro area). Yet, I have friends with T-Mobile and Sprint and have better signal than me at times which is quite annoying.

My wife's contract is up in April and mine in June. Verizon is getting a big fuck you and T-Mobile is getting two more monthly subscribers. T-Mobile is leading the charge for change in the US when it comes to carriers and I'll be very happy to be part of it. "Un-carrier" is the way it should be.
 
Trimlock said:
Any device you purchase out right will be unlocked. I don't know if a carrier that artificially locks the phone if you pay full price. The subsidized price phones how ever are not paid for, they are tied to a contract, which is owned by the carrier. If you were looking to control your hardware I'd sure hope you weren't looking to go contract.
Click to expand...

If you break the contract you pay an early termination fee. Locking the phone has nothing to do with the phone subsidy. It's just a piled on monopolistic tactic.
 
even if they said phones must be unlocked, they'll just add a new fee or up prices saying that unlocking each phone is the reason.
 
sir-gold said:
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.
Click to expand...

that's not a subsidy, its a loan... much more honest transaction
 
Stiletto said:
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:
Click to expand...

Who is "we?" Because you don't if you're going to another country.
 
The companies already had you (even with a subsidized phone) "locked", in that you have a service CONTRACT and they are "protected" from YOU roaming with the early termination fee.

The "LOCK" on the phone was just overkill because they are dicks.

The FCC, with new democratic control finally, comes along to give you, the consumer "freedom" and people start bitching about dictatorship? WTF :eek::rolleyes:
 
I believe the whole point is for the longest time, we had no choice.
We had to sign 2 year contracts if we wanted service, and it was the same rate if we provided our own phone or took one from the carrier.
If you wanted pay as you go, you had to settle on a piece of crap low end phone you had to pay $200+ for.
Grant it, NOW things are changing. Most carriers are now offering reduced rates if we provide our own phones or let us purchase the phone over time and we make 2 payments.
But..
If the phone is paid off..
Why shouldn't it be ours to do whatever we want with?
The second our contract are up or we've paid in full is the second those phones should be unlocked and free to go to any compatable network.
 
as previously stated -- the only LOCK companies should be allowed to have is the contract itself. It's breakable of course but with certain penalties.

However when I pay for something physical (a phone) I expect to own it. And by owning it I expect to do whatever the hell I want with it that's technically possible.

I fully realize when a company gives you a 700 dollar phone for 200, they have to make that money back, locking it though and then telling me they won't unlock it even though it's 100% mine. well fuck you then.

The entire model can be simplified and solved by doing what Tmobile is doing. Same cost in the eyes of the consumer but worked differently on the backend (to the benefit of the consumer)

The subsidy provided is nothing but a loan, pay it back and get it unlocked, or pay the penalty if you want to leave and go somewhere else with said hardware.

If I buy a car from ford -- and its fully E85 capable, but for whatever reason not enabled, once I pay off the car why should I not have that feature unlocked because i FREAKING OWN THE THING.
 
Telcoms want it both ways, they want the government involved and they don't. The government has to be around to keep people from running off with phones without termination fees. Telcoms just want only the regulations that work in their favor. When you spend big bucks lobbying Uncle Sam you invite him in the door. Once he's in, you just can't tell him to leave you alone whenever you want.

I think some careful doses of deregulation would do this country a lot of good. Yes, even good for the consumer. But gigantic businesses that have huge lobby dollars and an army of lawyers shouldn't be the first to benefit from deregulation.
 
kbrickley said:
A) They certainly have the right to do anything they want as YOU also have the right to choose not to do business with them ... except in really small towns or rural areas (around 20% of the USA population or less) there is plenty of competition in the mobile phone arena and no one is forcing you to do business with a given company.
Click to expand...

If you want nation-wide coverage, there are only 4 option, 3 of which are essentially identical (sprint VZW and at&t) bringing your total choices down to only 2 (t-mobile vs. everyone else)

In some areas even t-mobile is not an option, meaning you don't have a choice.

Free market only works when companies actually compete instead of just collude
 
Parmenides said:
Telcoms want it both ways, they want the government involved and they don't. The government has to be around to keep people from running off with phones without termination fees. Telcoms just want only the regulations that work in their favor. When you spend big bucks lobbying Uncle Sam you invite him in the door. Once he's in, you just can't tell him to leave you alone whenever you want.

I think some careful doses of deregulation would do this country a lot of good. Yes, even good for the consumer. But gigantic businesses that have huge lobby dollars and an army of lawyers shouldn't be the first to benefit from deregulation.
Click to expand...

Deregulation is the reason there are only 3 cable companies in the entire US instead of the hundreds of local providers that we used to have.

The cable and cell companies have nearly infinite power, and unless someone equally powerful (the government) steps up to oppose them, they will just take advantage of us.
 
collegeboy69us said:
The entire model can be simplified and solved by doing what Tmobile is doing. Same cost in the eyes of the consumer but worked differently on the backend (to the benefit of the consumer)

The subsidy provided is nothing but a loan, pay it back and get it unlocked, or pay the penalty if you want to leave and go somewhere else with said hardware.
Click to expand...
it's not the same cost, not even just in the eyes of the consumer, because the service rates are lower. once the device is paid off the loan is satisfied and the rates are $25 bucks less per month. With any other carrier the services rates stay the same and the only way the cost is offset is if someone continually upgrades phones every time possible.

Also, there is no penalty to leave and go somewhere else from T-mobile. There are no contracts anymore. The only thing that needs to be paid is the remainder of the loan on the device. It's a legitimate interest free loan not a subsidy by another name.
 
sir-gold said:
Free market only works when companies actually compete instead of just collude
Click to expand...

Exactly... and it's foolish to expect companies to behave altruistically without their hand being forced to do so.

ya0YpyM.jpg
 
kbrickley said:
A) They certainly have the right to do anything they want as YOU also have the right to choose not to do business with them ... except in really small towns or rural areas (around 20% of the USA population or less) there is plenty of competition in the mobile phone arena and no one is forcing you to do business with a given company.
Click to expand...

Do we really live in a world this ignorant now?

No they do not have the right to do whatever the fuck they want. There are actually believe it or not quite a few laws they have to play by or the situation for us as consumers would be much worse.

I hate to burst your bubble but theres not really any competition in the US cell market.

kbrickley said:
B) I think the argument is against the government being required to act to enforce "MY" best interest ... as Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine scariest worlds in the language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" ... there are plenty of people who are willing to protect their interests without government intervention by their selection of services or service providers they will support
Click to expand...

Please explain the purpose of the government then if its not to act on the behalf of its citizens.

We have an issue with the locked phones and its frankly ILLEGAL that the carriers keep selling us phones we can do shit with who do you call to fix an issue when a company is fucking with your rights? Oh wait nobody because we dont want to infringe on the companies rights for the sake of the consumers. :rolleyes:

kbrickley said:
C) There are certainly many aspects of government agencies that serve the public interest but all government agencies tend to suffer from scope creep ... Washington DC is a power city (especially in government circles) ... people measure their power and influence by how much they control ... some aspects of communication need to be controlled by the federal government (access to frequencies to prevent interference and compatibility throughout the entire country, company participation to ensure that viable competitors are on the market, etc) while the others can be left to the local or state governments to deal with (if they so desire)
Click to expand...

So they need to control the airwaves but the shady borderline illegal practices, thats ok?

kbrickley said:
If you have completed your contract with a phone provider then all of them will unlock your phone currently already ... if you buy a phone at full price that is compatible with the networks you wish to connect to then those phones are also unlocked ... if you are under contract then I see nothing wrong with a phone company controlling the unlocking of the phone as a contract condition (if you don't like it then you can choose one of the other carriers or buy a burner phone for use in local markets) :cool:
Click to expand...

Who the fuck are they to say what i can and cannot do with the phone i bought?

And NO buying a phone at full prices does not magically mean its unlocked. This is the ignorant bullshit i get sick of hearing. Thats not even remotely close to how it works in the US.

If i walk into big red and buy a phone for full price it is locked and branded to the carrier, end of story.

My contract does not give them the right to tell me what i can and cannot do with the phone that i purchased. It is in fact MY right to do with that phone as i wish but i cannot do so. Subsidized is a whole different story but i hate to break it to you the carriers treat them exactly the same, whether you paid full price or subsidized the phone they still have all the control and thats just wrong.
 
sir-gold said:
Deregulation is the reason there are only 3 cable companies in the entire US instead of the hundreds of local providers that we used to have.

The cable and cell companies have nearly infinite power, and unless someone equally powerful (the government) steps up to oppose them, they will just take advantage of us.
Click to expand...

Cable companies? They are awarded monopolies by the local governments! It's the government who makes it hard for the little companies. Aside from lobby and lawyer power, it's the big companies who are also able to angle in tax loopholes with top notch accounting staff.

Obviously some regulation is always needed, but you have it backwards here.
 
Let me rephrase that.....

In addition to lobby and lawyer power, the big companies have top notch accounting staff who alone are able to figure out an extremely complex and regulated tax system which allows great advantages over small companies who are just stuck paying up.
 
Stiletto said:
Exactly. I'd love a la carte choices, but think about it: we'll go from $70 a month for 500 channels(read: about 6 or 7 that you actually want to watch) to channels in various tiers that will be 4.99/mo, 7.99/mo, 9.99/mo, with a minimum of probably 5 or 10 channels. You'll end up paying the same amount or more in total.

If not for internet streaming coming in and quickly making cable and satellite redundant, government action might be warranted. At the rate Netflix and Amazon Instant Video and other services are going, however, I'm pretty sure the free market will take care of this(uh oh, I just pissed off some people by daring to promote laissez-faire policies).
Click to expand...

Maybe, but my guess is that both of those services will have to raise prices significantly or you'll end up having to subscribe to so many Netflix like services that you'll be back to where you are with cable. As it is, there are a lot of things you simply can't get streamed on those services.

With that said, I'm not sure why the premium channels aren't jumping on the streaming bandwagon. I've got to believe that even with the cost of bandwidth, they'd make more if I bought directly from them...especially if they charge what the Cable guys charge. I'd pay TW 10-12 bucks a month for HBO or Viacom the same for Showtime (and yeah I know cable charges 17 for the first one, but it's 10 bucks after that...I think they gouge you for that first one...I bet they pay 6 bucks).

Whether laissez faire will work or not, I don't know. Truth is that TW is both a content creator and cable provider. They have a vested interest in the current system. Same goes for Comcast, which owns a lot of channels via their NBC-Universal acquisition.

Currently, it's not something I think about much. I just know that Ala Carte will not lower rates for most people. It might not even lower it for those who'd just get HBO and Showtime, because TW and Viacom would likely lose revenue from other channels and they'd make it up by charging more for their premiums (pure speculation, I know).
 
rudy said:
If you are married to HBO or any other single thing cable offers sure I guess you are stuck too, but for most people HBO isn't worth that much. I have only ever had it as a sign up bonus and it vanished when my promotion was over and I didn't flinch.

I am not going to argue that a la carte will probably not work in the end, you are right, I am just saying that is where a lot of the push for a la carte comes from. A ton of people really only need 1 channel for their favorite sport team or whatever. I would even argue in your case you only need 1 channel, HBO, but I am not sure.
Click to expand...

OK, you'll need to educate me. How many single sport team channels are there? I know the Yankees have the YES network. I guess there is TBS and WGN, but are there really that many masochistic Cubs fans around the country? Besides, I believe that you can subscribe to Baseball over the web.
 
samm said:
While I love the idea of a politician/government agency head deciding to order the wireless carriers to unlock cell phones, I wonder what I kind of end user affect this decision implicates. Ideas from bureaucrats are sometimes great, but the execution of said ideas tend to do more harm than good...and we all can find one recent example of this....._ _ _ _ _ care
Click to expand...

Unlocking a phone is not a big deal. Verizon currently, has to sell all iPhone unlocked (part of the deal to acquire Alltell (sp). Nobody is telling them to change their plans...just unlock the phone when it's not under contract. And I'm with others who say they should be internationally unlocked no matter what. My industry rips you off on international roaming. If you could buy a prepaid sim in Europe you'd save a lot.
 
tazeat said:
Subsidized phones need to go the way of the Dino as well...
Click to expand...

No they don't. There's nothing wrong with subsidized phones, so long as they go the T-Mobile route, where after the contract is up, your plan price drops. Right now, if pay for the subsidy even if your phone is ancient.
 
Vermillion said:
There are better ways to allow people to pay less other than locking them into a 2 year contract. T-Mobile's new policies and payment plan is the perfect example. You can pay off the phone slowly over time (removed from bill once paid off) or buy a device outright. If you leave the carrier before paying off the device you pay the difference. That's how it should be. This 2 year contract and extremely high ETF bullshit is for the birds.

My wife and I are stuck on Verizon. Speeds and data signal has gotten worse as more LTE devices have hit their network (we live in the DC Metro area). Yet, I have friends with T-Mobile and Sprint and have better signal than me at times which is quite annoying.

My wife's contract is up in April and mine in June. Verizon is getting a big fuck you and T-Mobile is getting two more monthly subscribers. T-Mobile is leading the charge for change in the US when it comes to carriers and I'll be very happy to be part of it. "Un-carrier" is the way it should be.
Click to expand...

That's a subsidy. The problem we have no isn't the subsidy it's that they never drop the extra fee. Bottom line is will eventually happen everywhere. And it will happen sooner if carriers are forced to unlock phones that are no longer under contract.
 
I will believe that he really cares for us when the damn ISP monopolies are broken and I can pay a reasonable fee for service.

Right now, TWC is forcing me to get a bundle, since it is cheaper to do that instead of just getting internet service. Damn thieves....
 
nilepez said:
That's a subsidy. The problem we have no isn't the subsidy it's that they never drop the extra fee. Bottom line is will eventually happen everywhere. And it will happen sooner if carriers are forced to unlock phones that are no longer under contract.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Ridiculous that paying full price for your phone vs buying subsidized gets you nothing at all. The system is broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top