3 ms·
The governments in many other countries actually have laws that prohibit the practice of locked phones by telcos. Anyone can enlighten why the US government is
by jemeshsu 15y ago
The governments in many other countries actually have laws that prohibit the practice of locked phones by telcos. Anyone can enlighten why the US government is not taking such approach as it is definitely pro consumers. Is such laws perceived by US as bad for the free market, entrepreneurship and competitiveness?
- evgen 15y agoIf your phone is not locked then you paid retail for the phone. In the US there has been a long history of the carriers subsidizing phones (e.g. loaning you money to pay for the phone) and keeping the phone locked to that carrier for the duration of the initial contract. This kept phone prices lower and was previously not a major issue for most users since there were really only a couple of options available to them that were all approximately the same price (e.g. choose between GSM or CDMA and then choose one of two major players in each group.) Laws preventing carrier locks are not perceived as bad, but Americans liked their phones to appear inexpensive and since we had far fewer real options when it came to the carrier it was not a major inconvenience.
- steventruong 15y agoI don't think this is necessarily 100% accurate as to why it's locked. After all, you were still tied to a contract with a cancellation fee.
- jemeshsu 15y agoAgreed. In Hong Kong & Singapore, phones are subsidized by telcos also. You are locked into telco's contract, and not by phone's hardware.
- glenngillen 15y agoThat's not true. There are plenty of countries where you receive the phone unlocked, and you're free to use it on any network you chose. You will however still be contractually obligated to your 24 months of payments.
- kodablah 15y agoMany Americans think any laws that tell a manufacturer how to sell a phone are bad.