Major US carriers announce principles for unlocking devices(techhive.com)
techhive.com
Major US carriers announce principles for unlocking devices
http://www.techhive.com/article/2079405/all-five-major-us-carriers-agree-to-let-you-unlock-your-phone-anytime-you-want.html
49 comments
Does this mean that an out-of-contract Verizon iPhone that's unlocked "internationally" but doesn't work on T-Mobile, etc. domestically can now be fully unlocked to work with other domestic carriers? I know it has the proper radios, so I've always assumed it wasn't fully unlocked.
So, what's going on with repealing DMCA 1201 altogether? This development shouldn't be used as an excuse not to fix the root of the problem.
This title and article are not accurate.
It's not whenever you want - just are just clearly documenting when they will let you. For the actual info read here:
http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/fcc-filings/ctia-let...
In short:
Prepaid: 1 year.
Postpaid: When your contact is up.
Military: Upon deployment.
It's not whenever you want - just are just clearly documenting when they will let you. For the actual info read here:
http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/fcc-filings/ctia-let...
In short:
Prepaid: 1 year.
Postpaid: When your contact is up.
Military: Upon deployment.
I also love this part, in the attachment:
"Carriers reserve the right to charge non-customers/non-former-customers a reasonable fee for unlocking requests".
"Carriers reserve the right to charge non-customers/non-former-customers a reasonable fee for unlocking requests".
Who buys a phone "prepaid", that is locked?
I bought my iPhone straight from Apple, unlocked, to avoid it. Are there phones you pay for in full, up-front, that are still only available locked?
I bought my iPhone straight from Apple, unlocked, to avoid it. Are there phones you pay for in full, up-front, that are still only available locked?
The only carrier I have found with decent coverage at my house is Verizon, who (as far as I can tell) charges me the same amount for a plan whether the phone is subsidized or not, on or off contract. Why shouldn't I get a subsidized plan?
If subsidized works for you, go for it. There are a bunch of MVNOs that host on Verizon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_v...
Prepaid in this context i think is one of the cheap phones with no contract that you can grab in some places like walmart or gas stations. So you've got to have been using it for a year before you can unlock.
Such phones typically do have a contract that requires you to pre-pay a balance from which all fees are collected (and typically has no monthly fee).
The point is that the carrier also subsidizes the cost of the phone and hopes to recoup it through the fees. But since there are no guaranteed payments, the subsidy amount is usually low and the phones accordingly cheap.
The point is that the carrier also subsidizes the cost of the phone and hopes to recoup it through the fees. But since there are no guaranteed payments, the subsidy amount is usually low and the phones accordingly cheap.
You can also buy prepaid, no-contract phones from major carriers like T-Mobile. They're not all cheap; you can get a pre-paid smart phone.
I just bought an iPhone 5s from T-Mobile yesterday. I paid $650 for it upfront. On a no contract plan. They won't unlock the phone for 45 days.
That's disappointing. Is there a reason you didn't just buy an unlocked iPhone directly from Apple? Or did you assume (just as I would have) that because you paid full price it would be unlocked?
It was easier to walk into the T-Mobile store 5 minutes from my house than to order from Apple or Amazon and wait. And I can live with 45 days.
My mom ended up with a locked AT&T Moto X that she bought "off-contract" from the Moto Maker website. She was pretty pissed when she found out she couldn't put it on T-Mobile.
In Canada the situation used to be same that you have to wait until after your contract is over then you can unlock your phone for a petty fee. Fido has just changed their policies early this year to allow unlocking for $50 within half a year of starting a contract. Not sure about other carriers, but can't say how glad I was to see this change as I come to US every few months.
Of course, still unfortunate that I have to pay the fee, though I'd rather have this than in states where you still have to wait until your contract is up.
Of course, still unfortunate that I have to pay the fee, though I'd rather have this than in states where you still have to wait until your contract is up.
This is likely due to the CRTC releasing a new wireless code back in June, where they specified that "[c]arriers must offer consumers the ability to unlock unsubsidized devices (ie. devices purchased at full price) at any time." [1]
I'm not sure why you paid specifically $50 (as the cost should be specified at the time of contract), as the policy was supposed to be 100% in effect as of December 3rd. Unless of course I'm mistaken and Fido changed their policies before this was introduced. Thankfully though, you can get your device unlocked in Canada after up to 90 days, at your carrier's discretion [1]. (Though really, forcing a 90 day wait won't really affect much in the long run if consumers start using this clause, so I expect most will just be willing to unlock the phone fairly quickly as time goes on)
[1] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6862/125/
I'm not sure why you paid specifically $50 (as the cost should be specified at the time of contract), as the policy was supposed to be 100% in effect as of December 3rd. Unless of course I'm mistaken and Fido changed their policies before this was introduced. Thankfully though, you can get your device unlocked in Canada after up to 90 days, at your carrier's discretion [1]. (Though really, forcing a 90 day wait won't really affect much in the long run if consumers start using this clause, so I expect most will just be willing to unlock the phone fairly quickly as time goes on)
[1] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6862/125/
"If you've bought something you should be able to do whatever you want with it, whether it’s modifying it, or unlocking it. You shouldn't need a massive corporation's permission."
If you think $200 buys you an iPhone, you're sadly deluded. "$200 with 2 year contract" means you haven't bought anything, you're still paying the mortgage with every phone bill. If you want to buy something and "do whatever you want with it", Apple, Google, and a host of others will sell you an unlocked phone. And it will cost a bit more than $200 (though the Nexus 5at $349 isn't too far off).
On the other hand, if you're fed up with your carrier and would like to switch, you're free to do so. I just did it with AT&T. Walked into a T-Mobile store, asked them to transfer our numbers. The next day I called AT&T and asked, "how much do I owe for the ETF?" I paid the $225/phone (that's how fed up with AT&T I was) over the phone with AT&T. Wait a few days for their accounting system to catch up, go to the web page and enter the IMEI for both phones, and two days later the phones are unlocked. Slapped the T-Mobile SIMs into the iPhones and we were on the air.
I just don't get the sentiment of "unlock my free-with-contract phone two months into my contract, you bastards!" It's not your phone. Now, if Verizon, Sprint, or $YOUR_CARRIER don't as readily unlock your phone as AT&T after you pay the ETF or your contract is up, I'll stand with you in your complaint. Otherwise, I don't see the issue.
If you think $200 buys you an iPhone, you're sadly deluded. "$200 with 2 year contract" means you haven't bought anything, you're still paying the mortgage with every phone bill. If you want to buy something and "do whatever you want with it", Apple, Google, and a host of others will sell you an unlocked phone. And it will cost a bit more than $200 (though the Nexus 5at $349 isn't too far off).
On the other hand, if you're fed up with your carrier and would like to switch, you're free to do so. I just did it with AT&T. Walked into a T-Mobile store, asked them to transfer our numbers. The next day I called AT&T and asked, "how much do I owe for the ETF?" I paid the $225/phone (that's how fed up with AT&T I was) over the phone with AT&T. Wait a few days for their accounting system to catch up, go to the web page and enter the IMEI for both phones, and two days later the phones are unlocked. Slapped the T-Mobile SIMs into the iPhones and we were on the air.
I just don't get the sentiment of "unlock my free-with-contract phone two months into my contract, you bastards!" It's not your phone. Now, if Verizon, Sprint, or $YOUR_CARRIER don't as readily unlock your phone as AT&T after you pay the ETF or your contract is up, I'll stand with you in your complaint. Otherwise, I don't see the issue.
> I just don't get the sentiment of "unlock my free-with-contract phone two months into my contract, you bastards!" It's not your phone.
Sure it is. You received a discount on the phone on the condition that you sign a separate contract which obligates you to pay the carrier a certain amount of money for the next 2 years, but that's a separate matter.
If you've bought a phone, you can do what you want with it. Separately, you may have to pay a penalty for breaking a contract (and that penalty would include the cost of the discount that you initially received), but that doesn't mean that the phone isn't yours.
Sure it is. You received a discount on the phone on the condition that you sign a separate contract which obligates you to pay the carrier a certain amount of money for the next 2 years, but that's a separate matter.
If you've bought a phone, you can do what you want with it. Separately, you may have to pay a penalty for breaking a contract (and that penalty would include the cost of the discount that you initially received), but that doesn't mean that the phone isn't yours.
Exactly. If I'm allowed to smash the phone with a hammer than I should be allowed to twiddle the electronic bits inside. Anyway, it sounds like the carriers finally agree.
No, they don't. These "principles" still require your contract be up or an ETF be paid on a "post-paid" (aka subsidized) phone.
So when you get a car loan and buy a car, the bank can dictate where and how you can drive and service it? I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a sentiment.
The carrier lends you the money, you agree to pay it back, that's as far as their involvement goes. This is standard practice in Europe. You get a phone for cheap, you agree to pay monthly installments, you can throw the phone off a cliff or install BeOS on it, for all the carrier cares.
The carrier lends you the money, you agree to pay it back, that's as far as their involvement goes. This is standard practice in Europe. You get a phone for cheap, you agree to pay monthly installments, you can throw the phone off a cliff or install BeOS on it, for all the carrier cares.
> So when you get a car loan and buy a car, the bank can dictate where and how you can drive and service it?
Last I heard, they usually demand that you purchase certain insurance coverages... And insurers usually have their own rules about what you an and can't do with your car (if you want your insurance to be affordable anyway).
Last I heard, they usually demand that you purchase certain insurance coverages... And insurers usually have their own rules about what you an and can't do with your car (if you want your insurance to be affordable anyway).
The difference here is that with a car loan, even if you drive off the car lot and right into the ocean and leave it there you still legally owe the full price of the car to the bank and they can come after you if need be. Cellphone companies make money off of you from the 2 years of data/voice plan service. If I go sign up with AT&T for a $200 iPhone5 then unlock it and go to T-Mobile the next day, AT&T got screwed. Maybe smartphones should just be sold at full price and you either pay it in full or get a bank loan, like cars & houses. But we know if we did that, a whole bunch of people suddenly wouldn't be able to afford the phones and the whole market around cellphones would have to change dramatically.
How exactly? You're still in a 2 year contract. Whether you're using T-mobile's SIM or not is completely irrelevant. You signed a 2 year contract with AT&T and you're paying them every last time until that period expires. Unlocking the phone changes nothing.
Unless, you actually interrupt the contract with AT&T, but in that case it's not much different than it is today, and you just pay the ETF and you're on your merry way.
Unless, you actually interrupt the contract with AT&T, but in that case it's not much different than it is today, and you just pay the ETF and you're on your merry way.
Because the contract isn't the same as a bank loan. They're suppose to be making money on the voice/data usage for 2 years, but you're not using the AT&T sim card anymore. I thought the person I was replying to wasn't happy with the ETF fee since he was debating with the mikestew who said he just paid ETF to make the carrier switch.
If we're all in agreement that the current business model needs the ETF fee before unlocking, then I guess I have nothing to say. But anyone who wants their phone unlocked without paying ETF is missing the part where carriers would get screwed on high-end phones.
Get a $200 iphone5 from AT&T, next day unlock it without paying ETF and get a cheap prepaid T-Mobile sim and never use the AT&T sim again; thus not paying AT&T's voice/data fees(and we all know they get you on overages). That'd be a problem for the current business model. To make up for the lack of overage-charges they'd have to make the phones more expensive or raise the monthly minimum charge.
NOTE: I understand the awkward issue of travel though. I made the mistake of using my AT&T sim in Nigeria once. Maybe smartphones should accept difference SIMs after it determines its in a country other than where it was bought. But of course, then I go to amazon.co.uk and order an iPhone5 to be sent to America. ;)
Get a $200 iphone5 from AT&T, next day unlock it without paying ETF and get a cheap prepaid T-Mobile sim and never use the AT&T sim again; thus not paying AT&T's voice/data fees(and we all know they get you on overages). That'd be a problem for the current business model. To make up for the lack of overage-charges they'd have to make the phones more expensive or raise the monthly minimum charge.
NOTE: I understand the awkward issue of travel though. I made the mistake of using my AT&T sim in Nigeria once. Maybe smartphones should accept difference SIMs after it determines its in a country other than where it was bought. But of course, then I go to amazon.co.uk and order an iPhone5 to be sent to America. ;)
No, I disagree that the current business model needs an ETF fee before unlocking. It needs an ETF fee before terminating the contract, but that's not the same thing.
There's no issue with unlocking your phone and using T-Mobile while continuing to pay your AT&T bill (except to your wallet). Nor is that scenario outlandish - just replace T-Mobile with a foreign carrier while traveling.
There's no issue with unlocking your phone and using T-Mobile while continuing to pay your AT&T bill (except to your wallet). Nor is that scenario outlandish - just replace T-Mobile with a foreign carrier while traveling.
> Get a $200 iphone5 from AT&T, next day unlock it without paying ETF and get a cheap prepaid T-Mobile sim and never use the AT&T sim again; thus not paying AT&T's voice/data fees(and we all know they get you on overages).
Huh? You would still have to pay your monthly contract to AT&T even if you no longer used the AT&T sim.
Huh? You would still have to pay your monthly contract to AT&T even if you no longer used the AT&T sim.
If you're not using the AT&T sim, then you can never incur overage. I don't have the data to back it up, but I'm pretty sure overages are a significant part of their profits. If I'm wrong about that then my argument falls apart and I accept defeat.
That just sounds like they are miss-selling their product and they should face some kind of regulation to prevent it happening.
Caveat Emptor and everything, but routinely exploiting ignorant customers should not be a business plan.
Caveat Emptor and everything, but routinely exploiting ignorant customers should not be a business plan.
If you're not using the AT&T SIM, you're also not putting any load on their network, and they can oversell it more without spending any money on network upgrades.
> They're suppose to be making money on the voice/data usage for 2 years
And they will! You can throw your AT&T sim away and never touch it again. But you will still pay them the $70 a month or whatever you were paying them before, unless you actually break the contract with them and pay the ETF. AT&T doesn't lose in either situation.
And they will! You can throw your AT&T sim away and never touch it again. But you will still pay them the $70 a month or whatever you were paying them before, unless you actually break the contract with them and pay the ETF. AT&T doesn't lose in either situation.
I would agree with you if all the carriers offered transparent plans that charge you just the monthly plan amount without the phone subsidy if you bring your own phone. Only T-Mobile does at the moment. As it is, I can bring my own unlocked phone, but I'll still get charged the subsidy.
AT&T just announced their own lineup of no-subsidy plans as well: http://www.zdnet.com/at-and-t-announces-new-mobile-share-val...
To me, this just underlines how the GSM carriers are playing in a very different field than the CDMA carriers (especially after the T-Mobile refarm added 1900 MHz HSPA+ to their network and since new AT&T and T-Mobile phones both support LTE band 4).
To me, this just underlines how the GSM carriers are playing in a very different field than the CDMA carriers (especially after the T-Mobile refarm added 1900 MHz HSPA+ to their network and since new AT&T and T-Mobile phones both support LTE band 4).
I think that's a fair argument, and one of the reasons I switched to T-Mobile. With AT&T, et. al., if you don't get a new phone in the same month that your contract ends you're getting screwed on your next bill.
I think you need to differentiate between unlocking the phone and breaking the service contract. Just because you want the former doesn't necessarily mean you want the latter.
For example, you might want to make sure your phone is unlocked so when you take a week trip overseas you can pop in another sim card to use in another country, but you might keep your existing contract with AT&T active because you'll keep using it when you come home.
I don't really see any logical reason why having a service contract with a cell company should prevent you from doing this.
For example, you might want to make sure your phone is unlocked so when you take a week trip overseas you can pop in another sim card to use in another country, but you might keep your existing contract with AT&T active because you'll keep using it when you come home.
I don't really see any logical reason why having a service contract with a cell company should prevent you from doing this.
> I just don't get the sentiment of "unlock my free-with-contract phone two months into my contract, you bastards!"
This is a reasonable thing to want if you travel overseas and want to pop in a cheap local SIM card for the duration of your trip, instead of paying the absurd roaming charges.
This is a reasonable thing to want if you travel overseas and want to pop in a cheap local SIM card for the duration of your trip, instead of paying the absurd roaming charges.
I think you're confusing 2 issues here:
1) unlocking the phone
2) killing the contract with AT&T
Until now to "unlock your phone", you had to kill your contract with AT&T, and then move over to T-Mobile. But now you'll be able to unlock the phone for free - while maintaining the contract with AT&T - and still be able to use T-mobile. So you'll be paying both contracts (if for some reason you want to use both - like say you have family on AT&T's network, etc).
This is very common in Europe. People use 2 networks on the same phone all the time, by switching the SIMs. And I think in Asia, too, because in both these regions dual-SIM phones are on the rise.
1) unlocking the phone
2) killing the contract with AT&T
Until now to "unlock your phone", you had to kill your contract with AT&T, and then move over to T-Mobile. But now you'll be able to unlock the phone for free - while maintaining the contract with AT&T - and still be able to use T-mobile. So you'll be paying both contracts (if for some reason you want to use both - like say you have family on AT&T's network, etc).
This is very common in Europe. People use 2 networks on the same phone all the time, by switching the SIMs. And I think in Asia, too, because in both these regions dual-SIM phones are on the rise.
Even if your mortgage isn't paid off, you can still live in your house and modify it as you see fit. Granted there are some conditions (have to maintain insurance, etc.), but phones represent a smaller possible loss, and thus should probably be less restrictive with what you do with the collateral (also, phones aren't secured loans, so they can come after you for other assets, unlike houses).
> If you think $200 buys you an iPhone, you're sadly deluded. "$200 with 2 year contract" means you haven't bought anything, you're still paying the mortgage with every phone bill. If you want to buy something and "do whatever you want with it", Apple, Google, and a host of others will sell you an unlocked phone. And it will cost a bit more than $200 (though the Nexus 5at $349 isn't too far off).
Assume that's true, for the moment.
That doesn't mean they get to use unrelated laws in weird ways to stop unlocking. Either they lobby to get a law introduced, or they improve their locking technology, or they stop selling phones like they are.
But abusing copy-right protection and anti-piracy laws is sub-optimal.
Assume that's true, for the moment.
That doesn't mean they get to use unrelated laws in weird ways to stop unlocking. Either they lobby to get a law introduced, or they improve their locking technology, or they stop selling phones like they are.
But abusing copy-right protection and anti-piracy laws is sub-optimal.
If you think $200 buys you an iPhone, you're sadly deluded.
At a typical retail markup, perhaps ~$400 is about right.
For those interested> Teardown Shows iPhone 5S Costs at Least $199 to Build, $173 for the 5C
http://allthingsd.com/20130924/teardown-analysis-shows-iphon...
At a typical retail markup, perhaps ~$400 is about right.
For those interested> Teardown Shows iPhone 5S Costs at Least $199 to Build, $173 for the 5C
http://allthingsd.com/20130924/teardown-analysis-shows-iphon...
Paying the contract and using the phone are two different things. As long as you continue paying for your contract, why should the carrier get any say on how you use your subsidized phone?
There are plenty of great uses to unlock your phone even if you still want to keep the primary contract, like travelling abroad or maintaining multiple SIMs on a single phone.
There are plenty of great uses to unlock your phone even if you still want to keep the primary contract, like travelling abroad or maintaining multiple SIMs on a single phone.
Is this how you get to the top of a HN comment thread? by posting something totally ignorant?
Why is the text in your post not completely faded away yet? There must me more of your type around here than I thought.
Where was it said that if you unlock your subsidized phone that you no longer had to pay for it? The fact that it is subsidized means that you are under contract for it. Break the contract and what happens? You pay for the rest of the phone plus more in early termination fees. It's YOUR PHONE once you sign the contract and you are going to pay for it one way or another. Stop paying and you are going to have collection agencies stalking you, won't be able to register your car or get any type of credit, and your wages garnished.
Don't ever have pin stripes painted on that sports car you are paying off. Don't ever replace the flooring on the home you are mortgaging. Try logic sometime.
Why is the text in your post not completely faded away yet? There must me more of your type around here than I thought.
Where was it said that if you unlock your subsidized phone that you no longer had to pay for it? The fact that it is subsidized means that you are under contract for it. Break the contract and what happens? You pay for the rest of the phone plus more in early termination fees. It's YOUR PHONE once you sign the contract and you are going to pay for it one way or another. Stop paying and you are going to have collection agencies stalking you, won't be able to register your car or get any type of credit, and your wages garnished.
Don't ever have pin stripes painted on that sports car you are paying off. Don't ever replace the flooring on the home you are mortgaging. Try logic sometime.
How about instead of writing new legislation against cell phone unlocking we enforce the anti trust laws we already have?
Would you mind explaining how you think antitrust laws have any bearing on this issue?
Sim locking is purposely breaking the normal functionality of a device in order to limit competition.
I wouldn't care so much if there were plenty of other affordable ways to get a phone and coverage, but sim locking is so prevalent in the US that it's unavoidable in many cases, and most phones you can get unlocked are incredibly expensive.
I wouldn't care so much if there were plenty of other affordable ways to get a phone and coverage, but sim locking is so prevalent in the US that it's unavoidable in many cases, and most phones you can get unlocked are incredibly expensive.
OK, thanks. Now please explain how any of these companies fall under antitrust definitions.
(I'll save you the effort: they don't. None have sufficient market share that anyone would go after them and there are enough BYO provides to look at that there's no way you'll win a claim you don't have choice.)
(I'll save you the effort: they don't. None have sufficient market share that anyone would go after them and there are enough BYO provides to look at that there's no way you'll win a claim you don't have choice.)
You need to fix the garbage like DMCA 1201 which causes this thing to begin with.