NDP wants to unlock cellphones

[BlackEleven]

The bill proposes three rules: cellphone carriers would be required to notify customers at the point of purchase whether a phone is locked to work only on their network; they would have to remove such a lock free of charge at any point after the conclusion of the customer's service contract; and they would have to remove it if the customer does not enter into a contract within six months of buying the device up front.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...cked-bill.html

Nice to see some proposed legislation that helps consumers for once, rather than industry. Of course, I can't really see the Cons/Libs getting behind this one.

[photon]

This would be nice, though I wonder if it would be doable.. would Apple for example provide the carriers with a tool to do this? If not does the law then prevent the carrier from selling the product?

[Slava]

Those damn commies!!

I thought that apple was going to bring unlocked iPhones to Canada. In fact I thought that I read that this past week?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by photon

This would be nice, though I wonder if it would be doable.. would Apple for example provide the carriers with a tool to do this? If not does the law then prevent the carrier from selling the product?

Yep. In fact, in Canada you'll be able to buy the phone unlocked already (at a premium).

It's just something in the carrier settings. So a file could be updated on the phone that unlocks it from your carrier.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Slava

Those damn commies!!

I thought that apple was going to bring unlocked iPhones to Canada. In fact I thought that I read that this past week?

They are but you have to buy them from Apple, at full price, whereas the carrier will sell them cheaper because they get your $$ from the contract.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by photon

This would be nice, though I wonder if it would be doable.. would Apple for example provide the carriers with a tool to do this? If not does the law then prevent the carrier from selling the product?

Why wouldn't Apple provide the tool? Good question about preventing carriers from selling products, I'm not sure what would happen. I imagine all the big phone manufacturers could provide unlocked phones though. Most of the rest of the world outside North America (Europe in particular) has much more restrictive laws already regarding locking of phones than what this legislation is proposing.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Nice to see some proposed legislation that helps consumers for once, rather than industry. Of course, I can't really see the Cons/Libs getting behind this one.

Agreed. Both the Cons/Libs are bent towards helping their friends in industry rather than doing what is right for Joe Q. Public. This will never pass.

[jar_e]

Even if this does pass, bye bye subsidized contracts/phone prices.

Than people would bitch and moan about $600 iphone prices.

[Devils'Advocate]

It would never be that crazy since they would never sell a phone. And besides, they are fully aware that people wanting to switch are going to get their phones unlocked one way or another. The subsidization is because you signed onto a 3 year contract, not because you bought a locked phone.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It would never be that crazy since they would never sell a phone. And besides, they are fully aware that people wanting to switch are going to get their phones unlocked one way or another. The subsidization is because you signed onto a 3 year contract, not because you bought a locked phone.

Its because you bought a 3 year contract with a locked phone that there is subsidazation. Carriers make money hand over fist if you use a locked phone in any international setting. If you have an unlocked phone, still pay your monthly fee, but use an international SIM card while out of country, they lose out on huge money.

So its definitely a significant reason why they sell locked phones. It benefits them, and ultimately, as a buisness, that's what they care about.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Why wouldn't Apple provide the tool? Good question about preventing carriers from selling products, I'm not sure what would happen. I imagine all the big phone manufacturers could provide unlocked phones though. Most of the rest of the world outside North America (Europe in particular) has much more restrictive laws already regarding locking of phones than what this legislation is proposing.

Word on the street has it that Apple has wanted to sell the iPhone here unlocked since day one. They already do it in every other country in the world. It's just that the carriers here wouldn't allow it.

Now that the iPhone is pretty much everywhere and is only going to get even more market penetration with iPhone 4, Apple no longer cares what the carriers want... and are going ahead with their original plan of unlocked phones.

The other theory I've heard is that Apple deciding to sell unlocked iPhones in Canada is in response to the Canadian Carrier Coalition refusing to alter their contract terms from 3 years down to 2 years, like many other carriers do. Apple has always hated the Canadian three-year contracts, and they finally just said, "Enough. If you won't go to two-year contracts like everyone else, then we'll just sell it unlocked and you guys can fight over whether or not you even get a one-year contract from people."

I guess it depends on who you talk to... As I'm sure everyone already knows, the Apple higher-ups (the ones who would actually know the details) are pretty tight-lipped.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The subsidization is because you signed onto a 3 year contract, not because you bought a locked phone.

Actually it is. You know when you walk into a store and can buy a flip phone for $250 without a contract, well that phone still cost the carrier $400-500 but they know you will be forced to use their service for the phone so they can afford to offer them at a discount. If the carrier was forced to leave it unlocked there would be zero incentive for them to offer that low pricing if you are just going to walk down the hall and hook it up with another company. This will prove very costly for consumers if this bill passes.

[photon]

You'd still be locked into the carrier for the term of the contract, this unlocking would only be for after the contract expired.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Actually it is. You know when you walk into a store and can buy a flip phone for $250 without a contract, well that phone still cost the carrier $400-500 but they know you will be forced to use their service for the phone so they can afford to offer them at a discount. If the carrier was forced to leave it unlocked there would be zero incentive for them to offer that low pricing if you are just going to walk down the hall and hook it up with another company. This will prove very costly for consumers if this bill passes.

CONTRACT, CONTRACT, CONTRACT. You have to sign a CONTRACT. Oi. The NDP are not for banning these contracts.

If the reason for the subsidies is for the locking and NOT for the contract, then why can't I walk into Rogers and get a subsidized locked no-contract phone?

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Even if this does pass, bye bye subsidized contracts/phone prices.

Than people would bitch and moan about $600 iphone prices.

The proposed legislation says carriers can still sell discounted phones and lock them. They just have to unlock them (for free) when the contract is over.

[FanIn80]

On average, iPhone users spend between $80-$100 per month on their phone bill. Over the length of a 36 month contract, that's $2880-$3600. $800 of that is for a tangible product (the phone), the rest is for an intangible service (access to their voice and data system).

Cell phone contracts (for the most part) are not about the subsidized phone. That's just the line they use when people complain about it.

Apple selling unlocked phones here will make things real interesting. If the carriers decide to get competitive with their plans to try to entice people to user their service, then the consumers will win. If it goes the other way and they all decide to carry the same plans and force people to continue to pay huge fees, then we'll finally see if the Government has enough balls to investigate them for collusion.

Personally, I think smaller companies (Wind Mobile, etc) have a chance here to really win some of the market.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

The proposed legislation says carriers can still sell discounted phones and lock them. They just have to unlock them (for free) when the contract is over.

Exactly. That has always pissed me off. It's one thing that they won't unlock the phone while I'm still under contract, but it's quite another when they tell me they still won't unlock it after the contract is finished and I own the phone outright. Canadian carriers are the biggest crooks on the planet. The practices they get away with are just mind-boggling to me.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

CONTRACT, CONTRACT, CONTRACT. You have to sign a CONTRACT. Oi. The NDP are not for banning these contracts.

If the reason for the subsidies is for the locking and NOT for the contract, then why can't I walk into Rogers and get a subsidized locked no-contract phone?

If you walk into a Bell store and buy a pay as you go phone for $50 and activate it on your account and you do not need a contract. That same phone costs $200, or free with a 3 year contract.

That doesn't make you wrong, in fact the subsides is certainly because the contract exists. The locking isn't irrelevant though, because the contract is further strengthened it being there. The locking makes it less likely you can go to a new carrier and not having a contract once your contract is over, further increasing the odds you will stay with that carrier.

It also reduces the chances people might get pissed at carrier A, and pay to buy out the contract (or don't pay if the phone isn't in their name, or they don't care about their credit), since they would be able to walk over to carrier B and not have a contract.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

CONTRACT, CONTRACT, CONTRACT. You have to sign a CONTRACT. Oi. The NDP are not for banning these contracts.

If the reason for the subsidies is for the locking and NOT for the contract, then why can't I walk into Rogers and get a subsidized locked no-contract phone?

CAPS DON'T HELP YOU PROVE YOUR POINT WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

Maybe this will help you. Bell actually buys a Blackberry for $800, Bell will then sell that phone with NO CONTRACT for $599 but will also give you the option of signing a contract for 3 years with a data plan to get that Blackberry for $150 (or cheaper).

So no matter if you are signing a contract or not you still are still getting a subsidy on the phone. What I’m saying is if you lose that precious Blackberry or just want to replace it you will be forced to pay the $800 instead of the $599 consumers currently pay for the ‘retail’ price because Bell doesn’t want a Rogers customer coming in, buying that Blackberry for $599, running over to Rogers with the phone with an instant loss of $200+ to Bell.

Now if you actually read my last post you would realize I wasn't disputing your claim about people getting subsidy with a contract, I was disputing that this was the only way a carrier was subsiding your phone when you purchase one.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by HOOT

This will prove very costly for consumers if this bill passes.

Not really, it'll just shift the payment structure to one that leads to more customer choice. I for one support banning anti-competitive, anti-consumer business practices like locked phones. (Not only should I be able to unlock my phone, I should be able to unlock my CDs/DVDs/BRs/MP3s as well. ) Now if only the NDP would really that the unions are also anti-competitive and anti-consumer, they'd be a party worth considering voting for.

[Vox]

If the goal is to improve value for the consumer the issue isn't locked/unlocked phones anyway. It is competion. Until the CRTC and Industry Canada make it easier for more competion to exist, whether it be domestic or foreign, consumers in Canada will continue to pay extremely high rates.

I'll predict now that of the new spectrum sold to Wind, Shaw, MTS Allstream you will see either niche services provided (Shaw), enhanced services in already dominant markets (MTS), and the future acquisition of bandwidth and subscribers by the big three carriers (ie Wind will be aquired by Rogers, Bell or Telus).

As well, the existing carriers are incredibly adept at swaying the CRTC, and where they can't sway them simply ignorning or circumventing the rules. For example, we have class action law suits in Canada trying to stop the carriers from charging the 'system access fees' that the CRTC has made illegal, rather than the CRTC enforcing the rules.

I actually have no problem with the locked phones - the carriers need to make money and deserve to know they are going to make money if they subsidize my phone. Just give the consumer more choice of carriers to keep the rates competitive.