Campaign Launched To Outlaw Carriers From Locking Your Phone

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=833' target='_blank'>http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=833</a><br /><br /></div>"Consumers Union yesterday launched a campaign to lobby the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to outlaw the practice of "locking" mobile phones to specific wireless carriers. Known as carrier locks or subsidy locks, the practice prevents consumers from using their old phone when they switch to a different carrier with a compatible network. Carriers argue that the locks are the only way to prevent abuse of subsidies that keep handset prices low."<br /><br /> :clap: It's about time.

[possmann]

:rock on dude!:

its about time! What a waste cell phones have been - dumping perfectly good cell phones away due to carrier locks and crap. What should a carrier care what type of phone I have? They should issue the technical specifications required in a cell phone for use on their network and then allow me - the consumer - to choose what type of cell phone I want.

:ninja: Time to attack them again! HOOAH I'm signing the form and I hope everyone else that reads these forums also signs.

I cannot wait for the day when wireless carriers realize that their purpose in life is to provide a strong, reliable signal - AND THAT IS ALL!

[brianchris]

Ultimately, I'm against carrier locks, as I'd like to be able to bounce between carriers without hardware issues (contracts are a whole other issue).

HOWEVER, you must understand, such action WILL increase the price of the phones (i.e. the subsidies will go away). Most of you probablly realize this, but if you don't, you may want to think long and hard about signing the petition.

-Brian

[possmann]

Yeah I was thinking about that - but cell phone makers can still sell all the phones they want and provide a discount via contracts or buying direct from the wireless providor.

Out side of creating an opportunity to lock you into their service there is no incentive for them to lock the phones down.

If the service is good and the price (for the service) is right I'll pay more for a phone that I want - not for a phone I have to settle for.

Case in point: I would have bought the MPx200 but only AT&T offered it. I am a loyal T-Mo customer and their are only 2 ways to purchase this phone and use it on my providor of choice:
1. From AT&T, buy the phone at a high cost - no contract, PAY to have it unlocked and SIM free.
2. I could buy this SIM Free and unlocked from someplace like tekntoys at a high price and take it with me if I ever decide to leave T-Mo (why? i have no clue :lol: ).

Why not just being able to buy the phone directly from Moto without having to worry about the carrier? It's my phone. I bought it becuase I like the features on it and like how it looks, why should I have it locked into one carrier?

Carriers locking phones is like buying a disposable camera that will only allow you to develop the film at the store/chain you bought it from.

Where's that rant/soap box emoticon when you need it? :lol:

[bibap]

According to the Verizon letter posted at escapecellhell.com, Verizon does not lock its phones and they can be used on Sprint. I never knew this, even though I have used both carriers. I wonder how my Samsung i600 would work on the Sprint network.

[possmann]

Interesting... But isn't Verizon CDMA and Sprint GSM???

[brntcrsp]

Interesting... But isn't Verizon CDMA and Sprint GSM???

Sprint is also CDMA

[rbrome]

According to the Verizon letter posted at escapecellhell.com, Verizon does not lock its phones and they can be used on Sprint. ...

Well... that's true only from Verizon's point of view. Sprint will not activate a non-Sprint phone. Period. Their activation system is linked to their database of ESNs (electronic serial numbers) for all Sprint phones ever made, which means even if you try to activate online or find a friendly employee, it still won't work.

[ShivShanks]

According to the Verizon letter posted at escapecellhell.com, Verizon does not lock its phones and they can be used on Sprint. ...

Well... that's true only from Verizon's point of view. Sprint will not activate a non-Sprint phone. Period. Their activation system is linked to their database of ESNs (electronic serial numbers) for all Sprint phones ever made, which means even if you try to activate online or find a friendly employee, it still won't work.

I do believe that Verizon will active a CDMA phone from another carrier if you pester them about it. So as far as this goes Verizon is better than Sprint. In fact the day I decide to dump Sprint and go for Verizon I am going to try this (when EV-DO comes and Sprint keeps dragging its foot over EV-DV). However there is one more bad practice followed by the industry. Mandatory contracts for even signing up for service. Lets say I am willing to buy my phone for full price (or already have a phone), so then why should I subject myself to any long term contracts? After all they aren't subsidising anything for me. In this regard Sprint is very good. They are the only service provider which will allow you to be in a month to month contract albeit for a few extra dollars. At least they give you the option, which I personally feel is worth the freedom to bolt whenever their service gets bad. True competition in the mobile space in the US will only happen when there is phone portability and no mandatory contracts (for those who pay full price for a phone). Till then all these phone companies are sitting pretty with their big numbers of signed contracts they can show to their shareholders and keep them locked in without really improving coverage and fixing problems. Make these changes and see how fast the companies scramble to improve service and coverage since that would be the major differentiating factor.

[David C]

Although Sprint and Verizon are both CDMA, they do data differently. Sprint's Vision server links customer's ESN to the account, as well as a user name and password that they sent to the phone to let the phone get data service. I don't know about Verizon, but I don't think they do that. Even if you are good enough to get someone to activate your Verizon I600 on Sprint, you will not get data service. Period.

Second, Verizon phone use Brew, Sprint phone use J2ME. If you switch carriers, they won't work.

Third, consider that customer always expect the people in the store to support phone on updates and warranty issue. How's that going to happen when you having phone comming from all over the world? Your phone don't work, too bad, tough luck, talk to the manufacture, get out.

Sure, I'd like to use my favorite phone on my favorite carrie. But, I don't know if consumer in general have consider all the support issue, the cost of it (carries surely won't find the need to subsidize phones anymore), and all the compatibility issue that involves around it. I can already see how someone is going to raise hell in a store becaue they can't get their beloved GSM world phone to work in some poor CDMA carrie's network.

[Mike Temporale]

I can already see how someone is going to raise hell in a store because they can't get their beloved GSM world phone to work in some poor CDMA carrie's network.

Some things the consumers will have to learn. Just like Windows App's won't run on a MAC, Diesel fuel won't work in a gas engine, CF cards don't work in a SD slot, etc.... These are things that people will hopefully research and learn as they shop around. But it's no different than the examples above. Some people will be upset, but in the long run it's better to have the phone unlocked.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would rather pay full price for the phone and have a discount on service. Instead of trying to lock the phone to the network, lock me to your service. Sign up for 2 years, your rate is x amount. Sign for 1 year, it is now y amount. Just my thoughts.

[possmann]

For the common user... there is no reason for a carrier to stop selling phones. they could easily provide discounts on the phones they sell and then also meet the common customer's expectations of supporting the phone they bought.

OR - they could start taking the approach like a major retailer selling a computer - if you ahve probelms with the computer - call the vendor/hardware maker not the store you bought it from.

The carriers have got to be making a nice chunk change in revenue from locking customers in - so why would they willingly want to give this up? Take a look at how hard they fought the number portabilty... If you elminate another reason to stay, what DO they have left? My argument all along - what they should have ALWAYS focused their efforts on - quality service & support and coverage.

We can have our cake and eat it too - those who want to pay a higher price for a phone and perhaps and activation fee should be allowed to do so with the expectation that the carrier will only support the service provided to the hardware (phone) and not the phone itself. Those who want to buy a "package" from the carrier - their phone and service - should be allowed to do so with the expectation that the carrier will provide support for the service and the hardware.

Why is this so difficult? :roll:

[David C]

The carriers have got to be making a nice chunk change in revenue from locking customers in

Actually, it takes a carrier on adverage 18 month to start earning money when a new customer is signed up and get a free phone. We must not forget that the carrers have to pay for FCC licence fee, land lease for building towers, wages for emplyee (especially if you want quality and knowledgable customer service), R&D cost, other operational cost, Marketing (can't forget that, since telecom is a very tough market), and more....

Sprint, for example, used to do no contract, and you pay full price for the phone when they first started. The problem is, everyone is so used to getting free phone when you sign up. People were complaining, and didn't want to sign up becaue they have to fork out the full price for a phone. Since Sprint use 1900Mhz CDMA, and no one else really use that (dual band phone weren't invented yet) it acually makes more sense to just call it a Sprint phone you use on Sprint network, and give customer some discount when they buy the phone. At the time CDMA phone were expensive also because it was a new technolgoy, so all phone are subsidized, even if you weren't activating. It was easier to market to people that way. Also, for quality assurance, you don't want some 3rd rate manufacture making cheezy phone that have poor output, and cause unwanted interferance to other subscribers, so you control the quality of what gets to be on the market.

Now, if everyone is more educated about the telecom system, and there are less standard to abide by, I do think that unlock phone is a good idea. For example, all the other GSM network. (by the way, when I signed up for a T-Mo account using my old Cingular phone, the mom n' pop cell phone shop unlocked it for free) In a perfect world, cell phone service would cost less. All packet data are unlimited. All Cell phones are multi-band and multi-mode, and all carries have no politic against each other, so everyone roam happily with each other, and share cell towers freely. I would even love to see UWB used insted for communication instead, so we don't have to carry 10 different radio for 10 different application.

[Neil]

Most mobile operators will give you the unlock code for your phone if you ask them nicely. Many do it free of charge, or charge you a minimal fee. I did this with my T-Mobile phone many years ago when I was going to travel to Europe and wanted to use a prepay SIM over there.

Neil

[ShivShanks]

Most mobile operators will give you the unlock code for your phone if you ask them nicely. Many do it free of charge, or charge you a minimal fee. I did this with my T-Mobile phone many years ago when I was going to travel to Europe and wanted to use a prepay SIM over there.


Actually thats only really true of T-Mobile. Most others will try to stonewall you from unlocking the phone if at all.