5 ms·

New FCC chairman tells wireless carriers to unlock cell phones

98 points by _pius 13y ago

endianswap 13y ago
"Under Wheeler's proposal, carriers would have to unlock phones only after the consumer's contract is up." Why? If they're locked into a contract anyways, why does it matter if their phone is unlocked?
- ams6110 13y ago
  Because contracts are only as good as their (carriers) willingness to enforce them, and they don't want to open that door.
- lylebarrere 13y ago
  Because locking the phone to their SIM card means that the carriers can charge international travelers enormous rates for minutes and data rather than just putting a local sim card into the phone in each country.
  - Osiris 13y ago
    It is interesting that T-mobile U.S. has decided to provide free international roaming (with a data cap). That certainly removes one problem with traveling with your phone. I also believe that carriers shouldn't be allow to lock phones. I don't think carriers should be in the business of selling phones in the first place.
    - lylebarrere 13y ago
      T-mobile has been doing a lot of interesting things. They don't default to 2 year contracts anymore, they offer 200 mb free data per month for tablets, and their phones are SIM unlocked. It appears that most of these things aren't actually necessary and T-mobile is pulling back the curtain to show what ATT/Verizon are doing.
  - raverbashing 13y ago
    And that's why I don't care in the least to get a "contract phone" Really, why? I don't care for the latest overhyped bells and whistles, my current phone is an SIII Mini which I bought for an affordable price, and even better, I put whoever SIM card is best for me at the time
- ics 13y ago
  The comment on the article page asks the same question with a different sentiment: > Instead of proposing that unlocks be allowed, how about pushing for subsidy locks to be made illegal instead? There's no need for them; if you've received a subsidy on a phone, you've already signed a contract by which you're legally bound until its expiration, so there's zero need for the phones to be locked in the first place.
- viraptor 13y ago
  Because it's fairly easy to get out of such contract of you want to. At least in some parts of Europe the magic phrase is "moving out of the country". If you're going to close your bank account they won't be able to charge you anyway, so that's one way to finish the contract early with no extra charge.
  - jevinskie 13y ago
    I don't think many Americans are moving out of the country. If you close your bank account, they will send you to collections and damage your credit.
- mtgx 13y ago
  In my country people have a contract and get a prepay SIM, too, all the time. They don't even ask the carrier to unlock it. They just go to 3rd party service vendors who can unlock it. Here it's because you get like 10x or unlimited minutes in the same network compared to 100-200 you get with other networks, so that's why people want to be able to use at least 2 SIMs with their phones. Not sure how it is in US regarding the minutes you have with other networks, but I assume it's similar since carriers want to lock you in through that, too.
shmerl 13y ago
That referenced bill there is pretty weak and shouldn't be used as an excuse that "something was done". What happened to the bill by Rep. Zoe Lofgren that was supposed to break the teeth of DMCA 1201 by allowing circumventing DRM for non infringing purposes? That was the real thing. UPDATE: It doesn't seem to move anywhere: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1892 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1892
TallGuyShort 13y ago
I really like the FCC, and I don't like government agencies very often. I've interfaced with them when reporting illegal telemarketing and when getting an amateur radio license. They've always struck me as very accessible, responsive, efficient, and transparent. Although most of their job is regulation, it always seems like they approach the task with a sincere goal of actually serving the citizenry and making communication work well and fairly. General kudos to them.
- dantheman 13y ago
  You mean stuff like this? http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity or when the FCC in 2006 declined to investigate whether AT&T et al were breaking the law by sending data to the NSA? ... The FCC may do some good things, but it's history isn't near as nice as you suggest.
  - stretchwithme 13y ago
    ah, what choice do they have? The NSA has the goods on them too.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >They've always struck me as very accessible, responsive, efficient, and transparent. Are you talking about some FCC in another country that isn't the United States? Try applying for a LPFM or LPTV license. My experience with them is exactly opposite of what you report.
pdelbarba 13y ago
I think that this is important, but what about locked bootloaders and restrictive user privileges (rooting)? I truly do not understand how it appropriate to sell consumers a computing device that they don't have the right to run arbitrary software on. If I worked at [big box store] and tried to sell anyone here a desktop that was locked down harder than a high school computer lab from hell, someone would punch me...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- wlesieutre 13y ago
  The people who lined up outside said big box stores to buy PS4s might not feel the same way
- ISL 13y ago
  I've bought plenty of locked-down hardware. What manufacturers haven't yet capitalized upon is that I'll pay more for unlocked hardware.
  - saryant 13y ago
    One instance of this would be the Linksys WRT54GL wireless router which Linksys specifically sold as unlocked so users could install OpenWRT and other alternatives. Worked on me, I've bought a few of that model.
  - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
    I suppose there are not enough of us to make that worthwhile? I quit buying Apple and complain bitterly in any thread about them in hopes of creating more open computing advocates.
mikestew 13y ago
Seems kind of ho-hum in that it reads a lot like AT&T's current policy for unlocking. Perhaps other carriers are different, and hence the reason this would be a big deal. But read it, it's not saying the carriers would have to unlock two days into a two year contract. No, the contract must be fulfilled or the ETF paid. They wouldn't have to unlock just because you say so. As always, if you want an unlocked phone, then buy an unlocked phone. Plenty of places sell them.
alayne 13y ago
This falls short. Phones should never be locked, even if there is an open contract.
venomsnake 13y ago
Remove the subsidies for the phones and long term contract lock in-s, enforce the ability for carrier switch while keeping the phone numbers - that is the best a person could do to protect the consumers. No one loses anything.
tcbawo 13y ago
I was amused to find discover that Steve Largent (CEO of the CTIA) is the former Seattle Seahawks wide receiver. Apparently, he was a U.S. congressional representative for Oklahoma before losing a race for governor in 2002.

98 points by _pius 13y ago

"Under Wheeler's proposal, carriers would have to unlock phones only after the consumer's contract is up." Why? If they're locked into a contract anyways, why does it matter if their phone is unlocked?

ams6110 13y ago
Because contracts are only as good as their (carriers) willingness to enforce them, and they don't want to open that door.
lylebarrere 13y ago
Because locking the phone to their SIM card means that the carriers can charge international travelers enormous rates for minutes and data rather than just putting a local sim card into the phone in each country.
- Osiris 13y ago
  It is interesting that T-mobile U.S. has decided to provide free international roaming (with a data cap). That certainly removes one problem with traveling with your phone. I also believe that carriers shouldn't be allow to lock phones. I don't think carriers should be in the business of selling phones in the first place.
  - lylebarrere 13y ago
    T-mobile has been doing a lot of interesting things. They don't default to 2 year contracts anymore, they offer 200 mb free data per month for tablets, and their phones are SIM unlocked. It appears that most of these things aren't actually necessary and T-mobile is pulling back the curtain to show what ATT/Verizon are doing.
- raverbashing 13y ago
  And that's why I don't care in the least to get a "contract phone" Really, why? I don't care for the latest overhyped bells and whistles, my current phone is an SIII Mini which I bought for an affordable price, and even better, I put whoever SIM card is best for me at the time
ics 13y ago
The comment on the article page asks the same question with a different sentiment: > Instead of proposing that unlocks be allowed, how about pushing for subsidy locks to be made illegal instead? There's no need for them; if you've received a subsidy on a phone, you've already signed a contract by which you're legally bound until its expiration, so there's zero need for the phones to be locked in the first place.
viraptor 13y ago
Because it's fairly easy to get out of such contract of you want to. At least in some parts of Europe the magic phrase is "moving out of the country". If you're going to close your bank account they won't be able to charge you anyway, so that's one way to finish the contract early with no extra charge.
- jevinskie 13y ago
  I don't think many Americans are moving out of the country. If you close your bank account, they will send you to collections and damage your credit.
mtgx 13y ago
In my country people have a contract and get a prepay SIM, too, all the time. They don't even ask the carrier to unlock it. They just go to 3rd party service vendors who can unlock it. Here it's because you get like 10x or unlimited minutes in the same network compared to 100-200 you get with other networks, so that's why people want to be able to use at least 2 SIMs with their phones. Not sure how it is in US regarding the minutes you have with other networks, but I assume it's similar since carriers want to lock you in through that, too.

shmerl 13y ago

That referenced bill there is pretty weak and shouldn't be used as an excuse that "something was done". What happened to the bill by Rep. Zoe Lofgren that was supposed to break the teeth of DMCA 1201 by allowing circumventing DRM for non infringing purposes? That was the real thing. UPDATE: It doesn't seem to move anywhere: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1892 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1892

TallGuyShort 13y ago

I really like the FCC, and I don't like government agencies very often. I've interfaced with them when reporting illegal telemarketing and when getting an amateur radio license. They've always struck me as very accessible, responsive, efficient, and transparent. Although most of their job is regulation, it always seems like they approach the task with a sincere goal of actually serving the citizenry and making communication work well and fairly. General kudos to them.

dantheman 13y ago
You mean stuff like this? http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity or when the FCC in 2006 declined to investigate whether AT&T et al were breaking the law by sending data to the NSA? ... The FCC may do some good things, but it's history isn't near as nice as you suggest.
- stretchwithme 13y ago
  ah, what choice do they have? The NSA has the goods on them too.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>They've always struck me as very accessible, responsive, efficient, and transparent. Are you talking about some FCC in another country that isn't the United States? Try applying for a LPFM or LPTV license. My experience with them is exactly opposite of what you report.

pdelbarba 13y ago

I think that this is important, but what about locked bootloaders and restrictive user privileges (rooting)? I truly do not understand how it appropriate to sell consumers a computing device that they don't have the right to run arbitrary software on. If I worked at [big box store] and tried to sell anyone here a desktop that was locked down harder than a high school computer lab from hell, someone would punch me...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wlesieutre 13y ago
The people who lined up outside said big box stores to buy PS4s might not feel the same way
ISL 13y ago
I've bought plenty of locked-down hardware. What manufacturers haven't yet capitalized upon is that I'll pay more for unlocked hardware.
- saryant 13y ago
  One instance of this would be the Linksys WRT54GL wireless router which Linksys specifically sold as unlocked so users could install OpenWRT and other alternatives. Worked on me, I've bought a few of that model.
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  I suppose there are not enough of us to make that worthwhile? I quit buying Apple and complain bitterly in any thread about them in hopes of creating more open computing advocates.

mikestew 13y ago

Seems kind of ho-hum in that it reads a lot like AT&T's current policy for unlocking. Perhaps other carriers are different, and hence the reason this would be a big deal. But read it, it's not saying the carriers would have to unlock two days into a two year contract. No, the contract must be fulfilled or the ETF paid. They wouldn't have to unlock just because you say so. As always, if you want an unlocked phone, then buy an unlocked phone. Plenty of places sell them.

alayne 13y ago

This falls short. Phones should never be locked, even if there is an open contract.

venomsnake 13y ago

Remove the subsidies for the phones and long term contract lock in-s, enforce the ability for carrier switch while keeping the phone numbers - that is the best a person could do to protect the consumers. No one loses anything.

tcbawo 13y ago

I was amused to find discover that Steve Largent (CEO of the CTIA) is the former Seattle Seahawks wide receiver. Apparently, he was a U.S. congressional representative for Oklahoma before losing a race for governor in 2002.