U.S. House Approves Bill Making Smartphone Unlocking Legal, Obama Pledges to Sign it Into Law

[kevink2]

At least for AT&T and Verizon, the bills are a little lower now if you have an unsubsidized device. Before the Next/ Edge programs came out (and in the early days of the programs) there was no discount for paying off a subsidy.

But I noticed that most of the plans that allow unsubsidized phones for a lower cost are higher end plans anyway. I still have an old plan of 450 minutes. 200 text messages. And 3GB of data. With FAN discount, about $73/month. ATT Mobile Value plan (2GB, unlimited text/talk) would cost about $65/month if I bring my phone. Adjust for discount and taxes. So, over 2 years it would save me maybe $240 if I didn't plan to buy another phone in that time. But since average discount is $450+ tax, and what with iMessage and M2M calls, I don't need the unlimited talk/text, it would personally cost me more. So I may as well keep my existing plan. Which you can't get the text plan anymore anyway.

If I was to go to one of the pre-paid services like ST, for around $45/month, it would save me a little money.

The downside of my existing contract is that, if I DIDN'T want to upgrade after 2 years, the rate doesn't go down. But last time I upgraded, I gave my phone to my brother-in-law who uses ST for free. When I upgrade this fall, I'll give my phone to someone else. So it isn't like it is going into a drawer like my old Palm Treo.

----------

Looking at the news reports about the differences between the 2 houses bills before it was reconciled was that the senate one allowed bulk unlocking. Which has 2 main usages. One, places that accept donations of phones might want to unlock them to make them more usable for more people. The other is for people who buy them with the intent of selling them in other countries (gray markets). Companies establish distribution agreements in other countries to sell phones officially in different markets. What with currency fluctuations, it can lead to phones being priced higher in a market than the international price. Just from published reports of prices, it can be hard to tell whether the listed price is gauging. Or high import tariffs. VATs. Or just fluctuations.

And of course published prices in the US don't normally include the sales taxes. Which has to be factored in when comparing prices.

 

[the8thark]

I love how anything involving politics around here instantly gets shoved into PRSI.

- The slightest hint of anything political
- The word gay (even if the article is not gay in subject matter
- The slightest hint of anything religious
- etc etc you get my point.

It's all in PRSI. I think that's a good thing, if there was no PRSI these kinds of articles would never be on MR. In the PRSI or nothing debate I'll take PRSI.

And now about the article here, I actually agree. unlocking your phone should be legal. I'm glad it soon will be in the USA.

 

[CPx]

Congress still passes bills these days? Who knew.

 

[QCassidy352]

There are of course other options as well, but not AT&T, Verizon or Sprint.

Both verizon and AT&T (and maybe sprint, I don't know) now offer plans that do take into account whether you got a subsidy or bought the phone outright. My family plan is on AT&T, and we used to pay the same high monthly price whether we had gotten a subsidy and were under contract, had gotten one but were out of contract, or had never gotten one. That's not the case under the new plans. Now, if you get a subsidy, you pay more per month for the life of the contract, but it drops once the contract is up (if you don't take another subsidy of course). And if you don't ever use a subsidy, the per-month cost is far lower than it used to be (our 4 person bill is about $70/month less than it used to be when we took subsidies).

 

[topmounter]

People still buy locked phones? Wow.

 

[Enabledobject]

I love how anything involving politics around here instantly gets shoved into PRSI.

What's more is that you have to have 100 posts to post anything in the PRSI section. What's even crazier than that, is needing 500 posts just to be able to use an avatar.

 

[tennisproha]

How does this hurt business? I know that republicans usually don't make sense when they have to try to explain their corporate wealth favoring agenda to the commoners, but your comment here is rather odd.

Sarcasm. Im surprised the GOP didnt make some outlandish claim like this just to make no point whatsoever.

Sorry, shouldve made it a bit more clear.

 

[Parasprite]

What's more is that you have to have 100 posts to post anything in the PRSI section. What's even crazier than that, is needing 500 posts just to be able to use an avatar.

Around 100 posts I was heavily looking forward to getting an avatar. Next thing I knew, I was at ~800 before I noticed I had already met the requirements. I think it probably prevents people from being obnoxious or otherwise spammy with their avatars, since most would probably feel like part of the community after making 500 posts and feel more like they would have something to lose.

The 100 for PRSI thing probably has more to do with people making multiple shill accounts to attempt to push particularly controversial things (or flame people without damaging their own reputation).

Mind you I'm just speculating here.

 

[Lankyman]

I had to look twice to make sure this wasn't some sort of spoof. You mean in the home of capitalism and the free market it's been illegal to unlock your smartphone

That law would never fly in the U.K.

 

[C DM]

I had to look twice to make sure this wasn't some sort of spoof. You mean in the home of capitalism and the free market it's been illegal to unlock your smartphone

That law would never fly in the U.K.

none of those things really mean much for the freedom and fairness for the general public. Money rules, which means those with more get to have more freedoms and dictate more to those with less.

 

[Lankyman]

none of those things really mean much for the freedom and fairness for the general public. Money rules, which means those with more get to have more freedoms and dictate more to those with less.

That's a universal law I'm afraid. It's very similar to the one that goes - do as I say not as I do. The more you have the more you're allowed to use it.

 

[thekev]

- The slightest hint of anything political
- The word gay (even if the article is not gay in subject matter
- The slightest hint of anything religious
- etc etc you get my point.

It's all in PRSI. I think that's a good thing, if there was no PRSI these kinds of articles would never be on MR. In the PRSI or nothing debate I'll take PRSI.

And now about the article here, I actually agree. unlocking your phone should be legal. I'm glad it soon will be in the USA.

...and of course anything involving apocalyptic scenarios and zombies.

 

[wxman2003]

Probably was not mutually agreed on by carriers, but forced upon them. Congress and administration probably told them to unlock the phones, or NSA will keep snooping.

 

[aforty]

Look guys, petitions work!

 

[paulsdenton]

Will this really make much difference? I have an AT&T phone but I can't switch to Verizon for better rates since the phones operate on entirely different technologies, right? CDMA vs GSM. I can see that it will help me when traveling in Europe, anyway.

 

[winston1236]

So what does this mean for the consumer? Does AT&T / verizon have to unlock our phones from day one? Even if purchased on subsidy?

Once your contract is over, yes.

 

[ghostface147]

Doesn't mean Verizon has to accept sprint phones and vice versa. AT&T phones won't work on CDMA providers either. Unlocking is welcome, but the use of it is limited in the US.

 

[hudson1]

This makes America behind the rest of the world surely? Because I can't remember it ever being illegal to unlock a phone in the UK? How can America bring iOS and Android to the world, and Windows mobile, but still have archaic laws like this one until now?

And speaking of this law, can they not simply scrap the existing one rather than go to all the expense of writing the opposite into law?

But then again, I think it still is, or was until recently still lawful for a pregnant women to pee into a Policemans helmet in the UK! The tall hats they wear. I think it was supposed to be out of respect for expecting mothers and they can't always squat down if they are pregnant. Yeah there are some funny laws in our various lands.

I don't believe the USA ever had a law that specifically declared mobile phone unlocking to be illegal. What we had was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which covered all sorts of things. IIRC, the Library of Congress was left in charge of determining what the DMCA applied to and they somehow reasoned (I'm sure they think they had good reasons) that cell phone unlocking was in violation of the DMCA. This new law formally declares that the DCMA does not apply to cell phone unlocking. Hope that helps.

----------

How does this hurt business? I know that republicans usually don't make sense when they have to try to explain their corporate wealth favoring agenda to the commoners, but your comment here is rather odd.

You should look up how much corporate money goes to each party. You might be shocked by the results.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Whoa. Wait a second! Congress actually AGREED on SOMETHING? Holy freaking Moses! The world must be ending! Either that or I must be in a coma and dreaming this reality right now!

 

[ellsworth]

Best thing I've heard in 5 years....

 

[Chazz08]

My question is, does this mean Verizon will have to have an open network now? As of now, no phones work on their network unless it's a phone that came from Verizon.

 

[C DM]

Doesn't mean Verizon has to accept sprint phones and vice versa. AT&T phones won't work on CDMA providers either. Unlocking is welcome, but the use of it is limited in the US.

It probably should mean that as well as there isn't much of a reason for that not to be included.

 

[pika2000]

Doesn't mean Verizon has to accept sprint phones and vice versa. AT&T phones won't work on CDMA providers either. Unlocking is welcome, but the use of it is limited in the US.

That's the problem. Instead of allowing unlocks, the law should ban provider locking in the first place. With most current devices have multi-radio and support for multi-bands, there is no technological setbacks that can prevent interchangeability between all the US carriers. Simply look at the iPad Air/retina mini with cellular that supports pretty much all cellular radio and bands in the world (exception would be China). The technology is here already.

This law is just a tiny concession that won't really affect the market much. Most people in the US, including the geeks and carrier-sponsored tech bloggers, don't even have any clue about the technology and the concept of multi-carrier compatibility of handsets. Most people will continue pay for locked phones, as that is the default. Even Verizon never advertise that their world handsets are unlocked, leading people to believe that they cannot use their world Verizon phones on GSM carriers.

 

[tdale]

They don't really need to do that because they can still lock you into a contract that covers the cost of any subsidy, so even if you take your phone and go elsewhere, you're on the hook for either the monthly charges or the ETF (which will, again, cover their subsidy).

All of that said, I now buy my phones cash up front at full price and get:
- lower monthly bill, sufficient to make the two year cost of ownership lower than with the subsidy
- as a sub point to the above, with a subsidy, you keep paying the same high monthly cost even after the contract is up and the subsidy is "paid off," which means if you ever keep a phone longer than 2 years, you're REALLY getting ripped off
- no contract
- unlocked from day 1, even before this legislation

So all in all, I'm a big fan of cash up front with no contract. Provided of course you have the cash in hand up front.

You got it n one.

There is no need to unlock as your under contract for the monthly fee or ETF. To get the free or near free phone. many users are then paying for a plan that is more than they need.

Beware if the phone does not support all the providers frequencies though.

----------

My question is, does this mean Verizon will have to have an open network now? As of now, no phones work on their network unless it's a phone that came from Verizon.

I doubt that, why would a provider support others, unless they have a joint agreement to roam. The sim will work on the providers network, what phone it is should not matter, thats the case in NZ

 

[globalhemp]

Say Goodbye to Carrier Subsidies

What this really means is that instead of AT&T, for example, subsidizing your iPhone, you'll get to pay full-price.

In the past year, AT&T already announced that they were looking at stopping their subsidy for iPhone.

Does this mean "we the people" are "winning" ... or that the carriers (AT&T, Verizon, etc) are?