Chile Forbids Carriers From Selling Network-Locked Phones 291
An anonymous reader writes "As from today, network operators in Chile are no longer allowed to sell carrier-locked phones, and must unlock free of charge all devices already sold to costumers through a simple form on their respective websites. The new regulation came into effect in preparations for the rollout of Mobile Number Portability, set to begin on January 16th. This is one among other restrictions that forbid carriers to lock in the customers through 'abusive clauses' in their contracts, one of which was through selling locked devices. Now if a customer wishes to change carriers he/she needs only to have the bills up to date and the process of porting the number should only take 24 hours."
An outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I applaud it.
Re:An outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be able to do this in the U.S, but first you would have to unlock all the paid-for federal politicians.
Based on the chances of that happening, I guess not.
Re:An outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't do something like this in the US. All the teabaggers and their Republican allies will say it's Communism and that government regulation is wrong. The Democrats will say a few weasel words that appear to support this, but then will either not bother to do anything at all, or will make a lame attempt at passing a law, but when a few Republicans object they'll change the law so that it looks like it's supporting this at first glance, but in reality is actually making things worse and giving giant advantages to the incumbent carriers, while also throwing in a bunch of other unrelated stuff that Republicans want. When people complain, the Dems will say they were "forced" to "compromise".
Re:An outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Never happen in the US.
Every carrier would claim how this would stifle innovation, reduce competition, prevent them from expanding or upgrading their networks, force telcomm and layoffs of about 100K jobs and a loss to the US economy of about 100billion dollars a year. In addition, it would be unfair to minorities and illegal immigrants, those living in the inner city, cause an increase in child molestation incidents, raise prescription drug costs, and make illegal drugs more readily available to teenagers, further reduce the quality of our public schools and force the federal and local governments to raise taxes.
Don't push for this in the US unless you want all of the above to happen.
I live near DC. I hear TV and radio commercials related to some upcoming government policy change or decision all the time and they all follow that exact theme.
Getting off topic but for those outside the DC area.. It is surprising the number of commercials that are played on local radio and TV for the joint strike fighter, Boeing, health care, telecomm, network neutrality, cleaning up the hudson, etc. I guess if you can't lobby the pentagon and government officials directly, catch them in their commute waiting in traffic listening to the radio.
You forgot teen pregnancy in your list (Score:3)
Re:An outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Chile has a lot of forward-thinking legislation on tech issues. Net neutrality is already legally enforced there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"...and must unlock free of charge all devices already sold to costumers through a simple form on their respective websites."
You applaud retroactively changing private contracts? For extreme cases, it can be justified, but for cell phones?!
If a country treats private contracts this way, it discourages investment in a major way.
Re:An outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. I absolutely applaud it, and so should anyone who wants a healthy market.
As near as I can tell, the claim is that any kind of regulation, including forbidding businesses to mug people in the park to cover shortfalls is claimed to "discourage investment".
Sometimes the public interest calls for less muggings even at the cost of less investment.
What about subsidized phones (Score:4, Interesting)
how does the law handle those?
Because if carrier lock down is not permitted for subsidized phones then that market will end very quickly. As such it would not be something I would want to come to the US. One of the reasons for the explosion in smart phone popularity other than marketing is that buyers never had to pay for the phone up front.
How is this handled in Chile? Was there ever a subsidized market? If so, what happens to it?
Never applaud a regulation quickly as side effects are not always known or improperly dismissed.
Re:What about subsidized phones (Score:4, Interesting)
Dell seemed to figure out how to charge people over time for large tech purchases (and make more money in the process). Why wouldn't Verizon be able to do this?
(Replace Dell and Verizon with any large producer of consumer goods and cell carrier, respectively, to further illustrate my point)
Re: (Score:3)
Gee, you handle subsidized phones the way you did before, you charge the appropriate fee if the person terminates their contract. This isn't rocket science. Oh, you meant how do I keep people jumpin
Re:What about subsidized phones (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously locking people into a cellphone contract is not comparable to slavery (despite what some here might claim), but i suspect the economic impact of simply declaring those contracts null is also less significant.
I'm sure there are other examples of laws being passed to end a previously lucrative but legal way of business that incorporate less hyperbole.
Re:What about subsidized phones (Score:5, Informative)
From now on carriers are allowed to sell both locked and unlocked phones, but they have to clearly state which is the case, and what are the conditions of the lockdown (e.g. monthly discount, preferential prices). Also, the phone lease contract must be independent from the line contract. And the phone lease contract must provide a way to get the phone unlocked. The typical case will be something like "I give you this phone if you pay $X upfront and $Y monthly for Z months. If you have a voice plan with us, we'll discount you $Y for the first Z months".
I agree that changing previous contracts is somehow abusive against carriers, but IMHO it's the only way to encourage the first big wave of people switching. The market appears to be OK with this so far, and carriers already started aggressive marketing campaigns to steal each others' customers.
(Yes, I live in Chile. Sorry for suboptimal english ;) )
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that changing previous contracts is somehow abusive against carriers
Given the abuse that most carriers like to inflict on their customers, I'm not going to be shedding any tears for them.
Re:What about subsidized phones (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they'd likely handle subsidized phones the same way the carriers do now, early termination fees. The reason they put the lock on the phone has nothing to do with the subsidy. It's to prevent switching to a more competitively priced plan once the contract expires.
Re:What about subsidized phones (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a big peeve of mine. The carriers are ripping you off here too. The ETF (early termination fee) handles the loss they would take on the subsidized phone if you jumped ship before your contract expired. But once your contract expires, there is no more subsidy. They've recouped the subsidy cost through your monthly payments over 2-3 years. So once you are off-contract, they should drop your monthly fee an appropriate amount.
T-Mobile is the only carrier which does this. All the other carriers continue charging you the same monthly fee as if you have a subsidized phone. In effect, they are stealing from you by charging you the subsidized monthly fee even though your phone is no longer subsidized. I am generally against regulation, but anti-regulation is just a means to an end. The end is the free market, and hiding charges like this is not conducive to a free market. So regulation which prohibits these hidden charges which can be abused in this manner is a good thing.
At this point, we need legislation to force carriers to break out phone subsidies into a separate charge. If you don't want to pay full-price for your phone, you can get it at a discount. But rather than characterize it as being subsidized via your monthly fee, it should be structured for what it really is - a loan. The carrier loans you the purchase price of your "$0 down" phone. The monthly loan payments get added onto your monthly service bill. When your loan is paid off, you have only service charges left to pay. If you jump ship before repaying the loan, the full amount of the loan becomes due. No ETFs. The way they currently do it is so obfuscated it's rife with abuse and cheating.
Re:What about subsidized phones (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if there were no subsidized phones. Would we still have iPhones, Samsung Galaxies, HTC whatchamacallits and whatever else? I think so. Would they cost $500 or more? I doubt it - I think market competition would drive the prices down. Plus we might actually have some reasonably priced contract terms for service.
Instead we have manufacturers who set whatever exorbitant price they like and conspire with the carriers to hide that price into locked-in contracts. PT Barnum, wherever he is, must be smiling!
why the fuck you want subsidized phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
why the fuck you want subsidized phones?
really? if you're poor and short on cash - then buy a fucking 40 bucks phone - they do exist, they work as phones really well. or spend 120 bucks and buy something that can run angry birds. if you can afford an expensive smartphone buy it upfront.
OR do a proper partial payment plan for it. doing long contracts with carriers is stupidity, doing long contracts that you don't even know the terms for is greater stupidity and that's what carrier locked subbed phones are.
Re:What about subsidized phones (Score:5, Interesting)
It really is sad when people buy into the propaganda and actively work against their own interests, such as when they oppose regulations that protect them from big corps. A moments thought on your part would have made you realise that most countries have regulations to prevent the cell providers from locking phones to networks, and they have a healthier cell ecosystem than the US.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's not that big a deal... it only affects the entertainment industry. Re-read that quote:
"...and must unlock free of charge all devices already sold to costumers through a simple form on their respective websites."
Re: (Score:3)
It's "outbreak" only in for United States. Many other developed countries normally use it.
Re:An outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:An outbreak of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that in the US? In Canada they either come unlocked (straight from Apple), or you can get the carrier to unlock them over the phone in 15 minutes.
Re:An outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Funny)
RTFA: Chile != China
ROTFLMAO
Re: (Score:3)
The Chairman smiles on your pedantry...
He goofed and thought of China instead of Chile
ROFL *MAO*. Google it, then bask in the pun. kthxbai
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
This will increase competition between providers as consumers can move to the best deals a little bit more easily. Hopefully other countries will follow suit, but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
if someone insists on buying with partial payment, that's their problem. but buying on partial payment you can't measure is much worse than that - and that's what carrier locking and discounting is all about.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe he's saying you're still only making a "partial payment" on a locked phone, because the carrier expects to make up the rest of the payment from you paying for more service long-term. This then is the partial payment that really can't be measured.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand. You CAN switch whenever you feel like it, but you might have to keep paying the old service minimum fee until the contract runs out, but the phone can always be changed to a different service.
Re: (Score:2)
This is already the status in Norway where I live. That is, it's not illegal to sell locked phones but all of the carriers are using gsm and you can port your phone number to any provider you want free of charge. There are three national networks and about 50 providers that are piggybanking on the large ones as they can by law only charge the smaller providers for the actual cost of running the network. The result is a lot of cheep plans that do not involve buying a phone.
I don't think I have ever bought a
Re: (Score:2)
However Private Industry is usually bad at managing Infrastructure.
Now this could (I am not saying it will... Just a possibility) hurt the customer, as the big names in the area loose a lot of their business and cannot afford to maintain their infrastructure. This will close a good portion of the backbone and with more competition but with smaller competitors none of them will have the resources to make a complete network. So while we can choose carriers based on price or perfor
Re: (Score:2)
First it's 'lose' and not 'loose'.
Second other countries have solved this problem. Have one company take over and be responsible for the network infrastructure. BT do this in the UK with broadband and wireline. It's not a stretch for this to happen with wireless as well without a detrimental affect on the customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you driven in most of the US (that gets varying weather)? Government is no better at infrastructure. The commonality to both is that they have priorities that do not include maintenance and upgrades.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why are privately owned toll roads in such good repair? Why does our privately owned worldwide system of trade networks work so well? Why does the internet work so well? Why does cellphone service work so well? Why do private urgent package delivery services work so well?
Why are cable monopolies such shitty services? Why do electricity prices keep rising? Why does electricity flicker in a big city like Houston? Why did sewage used to bac
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
"Then why are privately owned toll roads in such good repair?"
Generally, it's because they are new and are only in good shape when they have to compete directly against non-toll roads going to the same destination.
in sum: works well when there is strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why does our privately owned worldwide system of trade networks work so well?"
Because they are in an industry which has strong competitive substitution, there are universal non-proprietary technical standards, and
foremost, they are beneficiaries of huge government investments in regulated infrastructure like ports, roads, rail and airports. One tanker or container ship is as good as another.
in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why does the internet work so well?"
Brutal competition, and the inability to apply proprietary standards, like with shipping carriers. This is a historical artifiact of the initial investment & technology being developed by government.
in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why does cellphone service work so well?"
It doesn't, except where there is strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why do private urgent package delivery services work so well?"
Because they aren't providing infrastructure, they are beneficiaries thereof.
in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
When the infrastructure does not offer competitive substitutability or there is technical lock-in, it is very lucrative and undesirable for private entitites to run it, without intrusive and constant regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely not necessary, this is total fear mongering at its finest (I suspect you have been successfully brainwashed on the issue by your local providers who want to keep their monopoly). We have a great example of this in almost all if not all Nordic countries. You can change providers while keeping your number, unlocked phones available essentially everywhere (and even contracted phones are often unlocked, because you're still bound by contract if you want a subsidy).
This works because infrastructure co
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it rather decreases it*. Whereas a carrier (like T-Mobile in the US) could compete with the ability to unlock phones, now all carriers are required to offer it thus eliminating that option as a difference between carriers. And while that isn't itself a bad thing (as either way the customer can get their phone unlocked), quite often these days carriers will add hidden costs as "compliance fees". So even though you can unlock your phone, instead of it being a feature, it's now a cost burden on yo
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Europe already has this, and has done since the beginning. You buy your phone and put in a SIM for your chosen network, if you want. You can even use PAYG SIMs that don't expire straight into the latest and greatest devices. Where people come unstuck is believing they're getting a "free" latest version iPhone/Nexus/Whatever when locking into a contract. You want choices? You ain't getting a "free" phone.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Not in my country, Portugal. Here, locked phones are the norm. Paradoxically, one of the earliest adopters of mobile phones and one of the countries in the world with more mobile phones per person.
The explosion of mobile phones in Portugal can in part be explained by locking. Being able to sell locked phones, the operators gave the phones almost for free and made money on calls. This made it possible for every cat and dog to buy a locked mobile phone really cheap. If calling between operators is too expensive, no problem. Buy more phones locked to the other operators.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling locked phones might be the norm, but unlocking them should be perfectly legal if Portugal follows EU law (which I assume they do). In fact you can unlock GSM phones yourself if you know how.
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
Where I live (Taiwan) we have "unlocked" phones, so I was surprised when my dad (in the USA) finally got a cell phone, and I discovered that it was possible to have a cell phone without a removable SIM card.
Me: "Let's try your SIM card in my phone, and see if that fixes the problem..."
Him: "My what?"
Me: "Your SIM card... you know, that little chip-thing that they put in your phone when you buy it..."
Him: "Uuuhhh.... what?"
I still find it hard to wrap my head around this notion of buying a phone that's tethered to a particular provider.
[taiwanjohn: posting as AC to preserve mod-points]
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure what you consider mainstream, but I'm fairly sure Carphone Warehouse only sell unlocked phones (i.e. they don't sell any that are locked).* Certainly it's the norm for phones to be locked when bought on contract from the networks (carriers), but unlocked phones aren't as uncommon/difficult to get hold of as one might think.
*I may be mixing it up with Phones 4 U, not that it really matters, the point still stands regardless of which it is - I'd consider both to be fairly mainstream retailers.
Re: (Score:3)
Networks are required to unlock phones, although they are allowed to recover their initial subsidy. The carriers state what their unlock policy is, and in general, if a phone is more than 1 year old, they are likely to do this for free. If they do not, or charge an excessive unlock fee, you can complain to the government regulator.
Most networks try not to tell you this, however. For instance, while looking for my phone I asked in a Virgin store what the unlock fee was: "we don't unlock phones" -- "OFCOM say
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. Europe has the exact opposite: a law that makes laws that make SIM locks illegal illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock#Belgium [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
sure. my unlocked phone has cost me about 30 € if my phone bill wouldn't be paid by my employer, it would cost me about 10-20 € ...
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Legislation which actually benefits consumers instead of large corporations, very good...
Locked cellphones are abusive and totally unnecessary, you already have existing contract laws to ensure that someone continues paying their bill for the duration of the contract term so there's really no reason to try and lock handsets too.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I'm glad THIS sort of blatantly anti-job-maker legislation won't ever happen in the good ol' US of A! You won't hear us clamoring for such a violation of corporate* rights and freedom!
*: Hallowed be their almighty names.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
The vast majority of people would rather pay less money for a locked phone.
... and pay the difference in their phone bill, because they can't count. Locking the phone does not make the phone magically cheaper !
Re: (Score:2)
How does the lockin stop a phone costing that much? It simply shifts the method of payment from an upfront cost to one spread over the length of a phone contract or more.
I assume you don't think we should still have to use a landline phone rented from the phone company rather than bought, do you?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
The low cost is in exchange for a term contract. The carrier lock is just US industry's 1950's mentality kicking in. In principle, it's very little different from the proprietary lock-in we see in software.
Re: (Score:3)
I can buy an unlocked phone but it does not reduce the cost I pay monthly by one cent. If I buy a locked phone I get 400-500 off the price of the device and my monthly bill stays the same.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out which road to take here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does. But you need to change to a prepaid plan and provider. In the USA you also need to worry about frequencies and compatibility.
$40/month unlimited talk/text/data.
Re: (Score:3)
I can buy an unlocked phone but it does not reduce the cost I pay monthly by one cent. If I buy a locked phone I get 400-500 off the price of the device and my monthly bill stays the same.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out which road to take here.
This is exactly where the problem is in the US. Everyone is eager to extoll the virtues (or lack thereof) of subsidized handsets, but few people really know what is on the table. You could, with your unlocked phone, go to a MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) and pay roughly half as much as you do on the "big three" for voice minutes, txts, and data. But how many people even know that? Most just assume that their only option is to keep paying the big network operators and see no benefit in owning a p
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think Chileans are going to pay the 400-600 USD an unlocked/unsubsidized phone costs?
Not all phones are that expensive you know and besides customers pay for their phones one way or another, it's just a case of whether they do it explicitly or whether it is hidden in the cost of a cellphone contract.
I think there are two distinct but intertwined issues here
1: allowing carriers to offer subsidised phones in exchange for signing up to a 1-3 year contract.
2: allowing those same carriers to lock the subsidised phone so that even after the contract expires you are still locked in unless you get a new phone
When theese two factors are both present customers are basically forced into paying for a new phone every 1-3 years whether they actually want one or not since moving carrier would mean getting a new phone and your existing carrier has little motivation to lower prices for a customer who can't move without signing up to another phone contract with hidden phone purchase plan. This is hugely wasteful as huge number of mobile phones are made that people wouldn't buy if they had to pay for them directly.
If the government allows 1 but not 2 and assuming the phone networks are technically compatible* people can still get a "subsidised" phone but when their contract expires they can take that phone to any provider. This in turn gives the providers and incentive to offer and compete on cheaper "sim only" phone deals for the newly freed up customers. Phones will get used until people actually want/need to buy a replacement rather than being replaced on an arbitary schedule set by the carriers.
* the US has the additional problem that it's mobile phone networks are a mess of two competing sets of standards (GSM/UMTS verses IS-95/CDMA2000) so unlike most other places even if artificial barriers to taking your phone with you were removed your options for moving would still be limited.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlocking the phone doesn't tear up the contract terms. The customer would still be under contract for the duration (or pay the termination clause).
Refreshing (Score:2)
Nice to see a positive South American headline.
It must be nice having a small(er) country where you can pass progressive pro-consumer legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Chile some time ago surpassed New Zealand on my "potential nice place to live" list. Too bad about their Internet censorship, NZ's techie/gearhead culture is really appealing.
Luckily Chile isn't in the EU (Score:5, Informative)
.. otherwise the law might have been struck as "unfair": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock#Belgium [wikipedia.org]
Yes, you read this right, forcing your provider not to lock your phone is "unfair" in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you please quote this elusive EU law that's "forcing carriers to allow unlocking FOR FREE" ? Please note that "after 1,2,5,50,500 years" doesn't qualify as "FREE" anymore as even popular expensive smartphones tend to be "left behind" after about one year or so nowadays.
Because the countries are so small and close you might want to go to Germany tomorrow (for one day, one week or one month) and use (for example) a cheap local SIM for data with YOUR phone. And you can't (and the fact that your provider mi
Re: (Score:2)
Would you care to edit the relevant parts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock [wikipedia.org] ?
They list only Israel and Singapore as countries banning simlocked phones; I'm sure somebody will add Chile but probably won't think/won't find the relevant "citation needed" to add Estonia as well.
A good law, except (Score:2)
must unlock free of charge all devices already sold to costumers through a simple form on their respective websites
When the phones were sold, the carriers would have used the future earnings from these phones to offset the initial discount.
Now they cannot make that money
Somewhat unfair isnt it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any unexpected (and everything is unexpected at some point) regulation is "somewhat unfair"; the provider might bet on you staying with them after you finished your contract because you don't want to lose your number but then number portability comes and then they can't keep you.
Fact is the provider is intentionally crippling a perfectly good phone betting there will be enough people paying for their "official" unlocking service to offset all the costs associated with these procedures and even get them some
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfair? No. Unfair is selling someone a device, telling them that they own it, it belongs to them, and if it breaks, they must pay to replace it.... and while it can technically connect to any network, its restricted to only use one. If they own it...its theirs, its unfair to make them own it AND tell them they can't use it as they see fit. Period.
So yes, it makes this particular business model untenable. Thats not unfair, it was the model that was based on an unfair practice.
Re:A good law, except (Score:5, Informative)
When the phones were sold, the carriers would have used the future earnings from these phones to offset the initial discount. Now they cannot make that money Somewhat unfair isnt it?
You're still in a contract with the carrier so they get their subsidized money back. This just means when you're done with your contract you can take your phone with you to another carrier.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing to stop them from putting a cluase in the contract that forces you to pay some ammount for the phone if you cancel the contract early. It just prevents them form denying you the use of the phone you purchased on another provider.
Re: (Score:2)
They still have a contract, dont they?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need locked handsets to do this, existing contract law requires that the consumer uphold their end of the contract, which usually involves paying for mobile service for a minimum period of 12 or 24 months at an inflated cost to cover the subsidy on the handset, or to pay an "early termination fee" which basically amounts to paying for the cost of the handset up in one go anyway.
There are many reasons someone may want unlocked phones, for instance:
To use a local simcard when travelling
To buy a phon
Chile, technology leader of the region. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've traveled there on business and agree. Very impressive low-cost for access infrastructure. It is good they are being heavy handed with the cellular carriers though - the prices for international roaming are robbery there and forces people onto VOIP if they are working temporarily in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
An FTA with the US? Meh, not the end of the world.
This might be explained... (Score:2)
Yay for chile! (Score:2)
cheap phones, cheaper calls, cheaper data and operators have to compete with quality too.
I really, really wish they hadn't allowed operator locking for 3g phones in Finland. it had shit to nothing impact on 3g adaptation.
Free as in...? (Score:2)
Okay, we say "free as in freedom" and "free as in beer." Can we now say "free as in Chile" and "free as in chilli"?
Carrier Subsidy (Score:2)
I agree with this 100% but I hope everyone realizes that with no ability to force customers to stick around, there will be a dramatically reduced incentive for carriers to offer subsidies on fancy phones. I think this is fine but I wonder if there will be an uproar when $600 iPhones cost $600 instead of $200 + contract and/or lock.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what ETFs are for. If the customer doesn't stick around, they have to pay $200+ to cover the subsidy that was given to them on their phone. There is no reason to lock phones at all because of this.
No matter what happens, the carrier will get paid back for the subsidy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Phones don't cost $600 and Windows doesn't cost $300. Just because party X "charges" Y for something in 'retail' things doesn't mean it's worth it or that anyone actually pays that much let alone "costs" that much to make.
Re:Carrier Subsidy (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. An Unlocked iPhone 4S costs more than an iPad 2. There is no reason for the unlocked phone to cost what it does. The price is artificially inflated to make it look like you are getting a huge amount off in subsidy.
Re: (Score:3)
The contract already locks you in for the duration of its terms, and the carrier is protected here by contract law.
There is no reason to add the additional lock-in of a locked handset, and no reason that carriers could not offer unlocked handsets with subsidies.
More government interference! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the "sarcasm" tag didn't you...
The race to the bottom seems to pay off quicker and better than the race to the top.
I may buy my next phone from Chile (Score:2)
I wonder if I can get phones that work with TMobile-USA's network from Chile. Seems like the best way to buy a new phone.
In the original spanish this is known as... (Score:3)
"Con carne" communications laws.
Yum! Make mine with cheddar and onions, please!
Wouldn't help in North America (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, by North America, I cannot speak to the situation in Mexico.
But in Canada & USA, one can take their unlocked phone to another carrier after a contract is over, but there is a price disincentive against doing so.
If the new carrier offers either 1, 2, or 3 year plans, all with a new phone, or PAYG, then the incentive is to take the "free" new phone, not bring the unlocked one along. PAYG being a rip-off for anything but the most casual usage, of course.
Until carriers in NA are forced to have plans with different prices for "free" phones vs bring-your-own phones, there will not be much incentive to switch carriers and continue using the previous phone.
BTW, Wind Mobile in Canada will give you - for free - your network unlock code after 3 months of service. I've unlocked 2 Android phones that way. Now we can travel internationally and just plug in any cheap SIM, or switch to competition and simply get a SIM.
Re:Unlock iPhone? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Can someone unlocked a US-based iPhone in Chile?
You'd be wasting your time, if the intent is to use it in the US.
A non-Sprint iPhone will never work on Sprint as a customer phone (but can roam on Sprint if your carrier has agreements with them). Sprint just won't allow it, period.
A non-Verizon iPhone will never do EVDO on Verizon, even if you can get it to limp along with CDMA2000 voice and 1xRTT.
A non-AT&T iPhone will almost certainly never do HSUPA on AT&T, and would almost certainly cost way more than just buying an AT&T iPhone.
In theory, an unlocked iPhone could be used with T-Mobile, but (drumroll, please) will never do anything better than EDGE. There's no hard technical reason why an AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon iPhone can't do 1700/2100 HSPA+ on T-Mobile (their MSM6600 chipset is certainly capable of it), but an an end user you'll never, ever get it to work because the radio firmware is separate, with its own heavily-encrypted bootloader, and no iPhone sold anywhere on earth has 1700/2100 HSPA+ enabled in its radio modem firmware.
It's sad. Apple basically has one hardware design for all of its iPhones, but the three US models are intentionally as non-interoperable with each others' networks as their firmware can make them be.
Re:Unlock iPhone? (Score:5, Informative)
Just to add, even if a US judge were to block carrier SIM-locking, it would be almost meaningless in the US due to the way Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T run.
Sprint's network will literally refuse to talk to a phone that attempts to identify itself as a subscriber phone with a MEID that isn't in Sprint's official database of Sprint-branded phones.
Verizon authenticates EVDO via firmware extensions that don't exist in Sprint phones, so Verizon's network will refuse to negotiate EVDO connections with a theoretically-unlocked Sprint phone.
T-Mobile's frequency bands aren't supported by default in most GSM phones (most new chipsets can do them, but few phones have support for 1700MHz uplinks enabled, the Samsung Galaxy S i9000 sold internationally is one of the very, very few exceptions).
Most European phones can roam on AT&T, but AFAIK, HSUPA is a semi-proprietary extension to UMTS that's mostly unique to AT&T and not used in Europe(?), so even European phones capable of doing 3G on AT&T will be limping along at less than the max data rate (not 100% sure about this one, but I've seen it widely reported that only AT&T-branded phones can achieve the maximum HSUPA data rates)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless, of course the judge also required them to interoperate tho the maximum extent technically possible. That is, the radio firmware must also be unlocked and freely updatable. Sprint will just have to enter your MEID into their database if you want to bring your own, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. ON 4G Sprint CANNOT refuse your device in the US, in theory at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I'm sure somebody can.
If you meant to ask if AT&T will follow this Chilean law, then I'd say you'd sooner get Disney to endorse the Pirate Party.
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe and Australia, you are tied financially to the carrier. If after a week of a 12 or 18 month contract you want out, you can ask for them to unlock your phone and they will normally do it, you port away, they will give you a bill for the remainder of your contract.
Some carriers will ask that you pay the bill before the unlock (Change from monthly billing to pay as you go) but a lot of them will unlock first.
Re: (Score:2)
Since at any time during the contract the phone belongs to you then I don't really see why they should be allowed to lock it to their own network. If you want to use the phone with another network it is none of their business, surely? It's your phone after all and no matter what you do with it, you are committed to paying them the full monthly amount your contract
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in some european countries, but in Sweden, all phones except the iPhone(unless they've changed that, haven't really paid attention to it) are unlocked, meaning you don't have to pay or even make a phone call to have it unlocked, you just swap SIM and off you go. You're still tied to the contract to pay for the phone, but no need to unlock it.
Point in case, one of my phones is tied to a carriers contract, yet when I go abroad, I just buy a pre-paid SIM in that country and use that to call or surf witho
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.emol.com/noticias/tecnologia/2012/01/02/519679/desde-hoy-companias-desbloquearan-gratis-celulares-por-internet.html [emol.com]
http://www.guioteca.com/tecnologia/desbloquear-el-celular-que-significa-y-como-se-hace/ [guioteca.com]