Personally I don't think they should be locked to begin with. We've already signed an agreement in which i've agreed to terms which include making payments until the cost of the device is paid. Given that contract there should be no reason why I can't use the device as I please so long as I haven't violated those terms.
People who travel with a locked phone know how useless it is. No one is stupid enough to want pay the ridiculous roaming rates. Locked phone prevents you from using a local service during your stay! #thisNeedsToChange
I know my point of view is really unpopular, but in my opinion if you value your freedom and privacy you should buy a phone. Just get one that is cheaper or a used one if you can't afford the latest greatest.
Would you take a subsidise laptop with a bunch of restrictions from your ISP?
Of course it is unpopular. You're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity. If I cared and spent enough money, could I also restrict other people's freedom or privacy? Neither should be a function of ability to pay. That being said, that is more or less how it is now -- you pay in cash/time/effort.
I think it is unpopular because people want the latest gadget but don't want to pay for it.
> You're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity
To the same extent that when I rent a car I accept the restriction on it. The difference is that I am more concerned about these restrictions than most people, and most of the time I will buy a smaller car or a used one rather than live by rental companies rules.
To me the current situation in the phone market is like people leasing cars and crying to the government that the leasing companies' rules are unfair.
I bought a used one, but I think it's still locked, and I'm not using a major carrier, so they're not going to 'unlock' me now (was an AT&T iPhone 5s, now using net10). Maybe it's 'unlocked' enough to use net10, but I think it's not truly 'unlocked', and may never be.
No one is forcing you to buy a locked phone. It's easy enough to buy unlocked phones and sign up with any of the carriers without a contract. You get a lower monthly rate too and often pay less in the long run. People have been voting for the carrier locks with their dollars by mortgaging their phones through carrier subsidies. We can all agree that carrier locks are stupid, but I don't see why the government needs to get involved.
Apple did not sell an unlocked iPhone 6 until last month, and I think they may have done the same locked-only-for-a-few-months thing with the 5s. I don't recall seeing earlier iPhones for sale unlocked at all, you had to do something illegal to them up till surprisingly recently -- maybe the 4, not sure?
I think the legislation is responsible for the easier access these days; I've wanted to buy unlocked phones since 2005, but haven't really been able to until this year.
I didn't know that about the iPhone, interesting point. Unlocked phones have always been available, but you should certainly be able to buy the phone you want. All the same, the free market has made unlocked phones available already without any legislation. I don't see manufacturers reversing course, especially now that consumers have so many choices.
This seems pretty vague about what "unlocking" really means. For example, I had a Verizon HTC 8X which was "unlocked" (as are all Verizon LTE phones), but you couldn't edit the MMS gateway. Some older Verizon Android phones were "unlocked" but with no APN editor, so you couldn't get data service.
Does anything about this code prevent carriers from playing the "it's unlocked but good luck configuring it" game?
That's a problem I notice when lawmakers don't have a the domain knowledge and this leads to all kinds of loopholes, the good thing is that it's a start.
Initially I'd have agreed, but it seems more subtle than that.
Let's read from Verizon's "Postpay Device Unlocking Policy"
> ... We do not lock our 4G LTE devices, and no code is needed to program them for use with another carrier.
So I take this as "we don't have a subsidy lock that prevents you from moving this phone to another LTE vendor."
Indeed, they clarify later:
> “Unlocking” a device refers only to disabling software that would prevent a consumer from attempting to activate a device designed for one carrier’s network on another carrier’s network, even if that network is technologically compatible.
But these phones do ship with signed bootloaders, and it doesn't sound like Verizon provides the mechanism to replace it.
It doesn't sound like this re-legitimizes 3rd party businesses who offer unlocking services. TFA refers to FCC negotiations with carriers, and not the LoC changing policy. I'll wager that's the only thing that would let you install your own OS.
No, "unlocking" in this context refers to the baseband lock which prevents your phone from joining another carrier's network. This form of lock vastly predates phones with customizable OSes and was originally in place to prevent customers from receiving a subsidized phone, re-selling it for use on another network, and then breaking their contract, or trying to arbitrage a margin between early termination fees and remaining phone cost.
This guidance requires that phone companies allow their phones to join networks they are technically compatible with (i.e., have the radios and baseband support for). It's generally unrelated to the OS or bootloader, as this form of lock is often implemented at the baseband level.
The issue is that phones can be "unlocked" (made able to join another network at the baseband level) but non-configurable at the OS level, barring features requiring OS configuration, like MMS, from functioning. This doesn't seem to be specific enough guidance to prevent phone carriers from playing this trick, as they can continue to provide technically unlocked phones that don't work properly on other networks.
This doesn't really change much these days as the US market is gradually moving towards a financed (rather than subsidized) phone sales model where early termination fee arbitrage isn't possible and collections for broken contracts are more conventional. In general, carriers have less of an incentive to carrier lock their phones than they used to. Plus, some carriers (like Verizon) are already required to supply their LTE phones unlocked due to agreements made to acquire spectrum licenses, so this doesn't really affect them.
Thanks for the explanation. I guess the confusion comes from "locked baseband" and "locked bootloaders." Unlocking is ambiguous without enough context or domain knowledge.
No, the cost of the discounted phone is incorporated into the ETF. I left ATT for T-Mobile after paying an ETF to unlock my phone. The trouble was that it left me without a phone for ~2 weeks: You cannot pay your ETF until your account is cancelled and your final bill posts. I cancelled the account just before the final bill was generated, but still had to wait a few days for the bill to post, another few days for my payment to process, and another few days for my phone unlock request to go through. They drug their feet through every step of the process.
In my country (Mexico) there was a law for them to sell you unlocked phones/unlock them on request.
The biggest company had you fill a stupid request and you couldn't fill it if you had your phone for less than X months, something which was not allowed by the law, that ceased after a series of complains to some branch of government made to "protect consumers"
Anyway, I wonder if AT&T is kind of going with it and saying yes we'll unlock it BUT as a way to kind of cheat on the law, or if the law really allows them to do that.
edit: I guess I forgot most people here have prepaid phones, so really I ignore if that was the case for phones on plans, too.
The article says the agreement is to unlock "...after the fulfillment of the applicable postpaid service contract, device financing plan, or payment of applicable early termination fee." So AT&T is just doing what they're allowed to do.
I'll note that this has been AT&T's policy for at least a couple of years now. I don't think anything has changed for them.
I was reading about this upcoming milestone last week when attempting to unlock my old Sprint iPhone 5 for use on other domestic carriers. The consensus then was that it would apply only to Sprint devices sold after this date; an old Sprint iPhone 5 will continue to NOT work on other networks.
As far as I know, that is an artifact of the hardware. The network compatibility of early (all?) iPhone 5s was divided across three models. Some can work on other networks, but not in other networks' LTE bands. Depends on your particular model and which network you're trying to move to.
My Sprint iPhone 4S worked fine on CDMA networks in the US, and it worked fine while traveling internationally on GSM / non-CDMA networks.
There's something going on in the baseband firmware that rejects domestic carrier SIM cards, but still allows international carriers when an international unlock is granted.
I wonder how this will work with used phones purchased privately. I bought a phone on craigslist that was locked to T-Mobile. It wasn't blacklisted so I'm able to use it on T-Mobile, but I don't know if the contract was paid in full, the original account is in good standing, etc.
I think, because, the contract is between you and the carrier you should be okay. Even if you sell your phone to someone else you're still obligated to pay your bill or terminate early.
Carriers aren't stupid. They sell you a phone at a quarter of the price because you will pay nearly if not more than $100/mo. and they have recouped their loss by the end of April.
Can we please just get rid of carrier locking altogether? It is clearly anti-consumer and dangerous in the oligopoly ruled wireless market. So just outlaw the practice and be done with it.
Exactly, its a horrible policy. I can't believe it even exists. Imagine if Gas companies lock you into using only certain brands of cars. OR If your computer comes locked with Comcast internet access only!
Makes perfect sense. What if the gas company knocked 3/4th off the cost of the car but you could only buy their gas at an inflated rate? Same thing.
After buying an unlocked phone at full price and using a pre-paid plan, I am never going back to the "buy the phone from the wireless carrier" plan. I am saving a ton of money, can easily use it internationally and I can easily resell the phone when I upgrade.
It would be nice if they were forced to unlock your bootloader on request too. I would love to install Cyanogen mod on my Verizon Galaxy S4 but it is impossible to do so as the bootloader is completely locked down with no recourse.
I think these phones should be unlocked the day you sign up for a contract. What's the point in keeping them unlocked? You can't violate your contract. I can think of one downside for them carriers: they won't be able to charge you extra when you travel abroad, but then you have to ask if that's really in the best interest of the customers? Perhaps not.
Prosecuting a violated contract takes money itself. You have to do the cost/benefit of prosecuting users and losing subsidized phones vs. paying to develop locks and maintaining an unlock process.
You definitely can violate your contract. Just stop paying your bill. Or declare bankruptcy. The carrier will try to collect, but even if they do they'll end up with a fraction of the value.
Most phones can be unlocked. For an iPhone, the difficult part is to jailbreak it and doing it yourself can be a little painful, but that hasn't been a problem for many people. So somebody stops paying their bill, or declares bankruptcy. Do you think there's anything stopping them from unlocking their phones for pennies?
As an anecdote, I once stopped paying my bills to Vodafone and gave up on my contract obligations. At that time Vodafone demanded a 250 EUR interruption fee, which in the meantime became illegal in my country. Well, I told them to dare and sue me, because I have proof of unjust treatment and service disruption on their part and I did have that evidence. Basically they were assholes, they knew it and they gave up on any claims. I also unlocked my iPhone 3GS by myself and moved my business somewhere else.
Just like DRM, there is absolutely no valid reason for selling locked phones, other than lock-in, i.e. to prevent you from using other carriers while in roaming and thus suffer roaming charges. But even that is just annoying, because you can get unlocked feature phones for $30 without a contract, with a battery that lasts for a whole week and just use that.
Is it common to need permission from the carrier to unlock?
I use a smartphone now (which I was able to unlock myself), but when I had a 'feature' phone there were any number of small mobile shops that would unlock for a few quid. This is in the UK.
There are carriers that do much better than this, right? T-Mobile (my carrier) allows unlocking postpaid plans after much less than 2 years, and I had no trouble at all calling them and saying "Hey, I'll be in Europe, unlock code plz" despite not having paid off the device.
In 2010, Brazil mandated that carriers had to unlock phones at customers' request for free. In 2012, it was mandated they stop selling locked phones altogether.
In Poland all phones have to be sold without a simlock. Doesn't matter if you are on contract or not. The world still hasn't collapsed, people on contracts continue to pay for them, nothing has changed.
Some contracts can be nastier (e.g. no early termination, just pay the rest), but that may just be an unrelated local difference (I've seen the same thing with residential ISP contracts, where there isn't a SIM-locking equivalent).
Same thing in Belgium. Simlocked phones are illegal, even subsidized phones are unlocked. Of course, the phone subsidy is much lower than in countries that allow simlocking.
How it works in Canada: whether you pay off the phone entirely or not, pay 3 months in a row to the carrier you bought the locked phone from and then you can pay an additional $50+tax to have it unlocked. While it's nice the CRTC (our FCC basically) required this, it's terrible in that most carriers were either doing free/cheap unlocks after 3 months or $50 anytime after your device was paid for. Feels like we ended up with a mandated "worse" option to me.
Over the past week I've had no problems getting an unlock code from ATT for a GoPhone Nokia 635 bought on Black Friday for $40 (and never activated), and for a HTC One M7 bought outright from Best Buy last week for $150. It took a couple of days for each one but the unlock codes arrived in email after I submitted the info using their online form.
Damn. I just had to pay $80 to unlock a t-mobile hotspot I bought outright, because they claimed I needed to spend $100 on service before they'd unlock it. Wouldn't be so bad if I weren't job-hunting :/
People who travel with a locked phone know how useless it is. No one is stupid enough to want pay the ridiculous roaming rates. Locked phone prevents you from using a local service during your stay! #thisNeedsToChange