18 ms·

"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

"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.

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.