The president doesn't make the laws, he only approves them and enforces them. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean the president has the power to implement it. Not that this president cares much about that (ahem, immigration).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
White House Backs Petition in Support of Mobile Phone Unlocking
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The president doesn't make the laws, he only approves them and enforces them. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean the president has the power to implement it. Not that this president cares much about that (ahem, immigration).
wow, like the government doesn't have anything better to worry about:
- education
- energy independence
- immigration reform
- ..... thousands more
* leave the customers/consumers alone and let them do with their phones as they please!
you worry about real issues! bunch of idiots!
hey, find 100,000+ that give a crap about the things you mentioned, and get on it.
wow, like the government doesn't have anything better to worry about:
- education
- energy independence
- immigration reform
- ..... thousands more
Of those three, only immigration reform is an issue that the government should have any concern over. I imagine, probably most of the thousands more you mentioned are also things that the government can only do badly if at all. We've seen over the past couple decades what a cock up the government has made of education and energy policy.
You're definitely right but this one really was all republican. The decision was by an 83 year old Reagan appointee.
Ah, I see. Good to know. Sort of terrifying that 83-year-olds are deciding how to regulate technology.
Last edited:
I'll tell you what the problem is. We put the power of decision into a senile 83 year old man (librarian of congress).
Well, at least he won't live forever.
Well, at least he won't live forever.
You think they're going to support people unlocking phones that have been subsidized? Really?
Contracts are contracts. I'm fine with something having a subsidy lock in place until, oh, I don't know, THE SUBSIDY IS DONE.
Sheesh.
If "We The People" really did care about this we would stop buying phones that could not be unlocked today. If that happened I bet the pocy would be changed in a day. Apple could not stand to have ZERO customers.
But people don't really care so much about this.
Remember when software came on floppy disks the they were copy protected? That completely faded away when peole refused to buy the product. Could happen again if most of the trade media pushed the issue.
So all you bloggers and web site owners, tell people to stop buying locked phones
(I am talking about un-subsidized phones, ones that you actually own)
But people don't really care so much about this.
Remember when software came on floppy disks the they were copy protected? That completely faded away when peole refused to buy the product. Could happen again if most of the trade media pushed the issue.
So all you bloggers and web site owners, tell people to stop buying locked phones
(I am talking about un-subsidized phones, ones that you actually own)
But the unlock is only for non-US sims. It's still locked to a US carrier if you use it in the US. I'm on Sprint. Tried to use it in Germany with international roaming and could never find anything to connect to. Never bothered to get a european sim to try it but before I left home I put an old Italian sim in and it showed up as the carrier, so it must work (if I had been going to Italy, lol).
Not surprisingly maybe you are unaware of what the issue is. Today you can unlock your phone after the contract expires. What most people want is to be able to unlock the phone while under contract.
I say let them keep and enforce the illegal cellphone unlocking law.
Chance for Apple to introduce a budget iPhone for $299 unlocked available from the Apple Store - just add your own SIM...
Chance for Apple to introduce a budget iPhone for $299 unlocked available from the Apple Store - just add your own SIM...
Why can't we just ban provider locking to begin with, like many other countries out there? I mean seriously, provider locking is a blatant anti-competitive and anti-consumer business practice. Fix the actual problem, not adding band-aids after band-aids that only lead to confusion. Ban provider locking, done. Problem solved.
When Obama first put his feedback site up after his first election, the number one responded issue was legalization of marajuana. Obama did not respond in any way and shortly after shifted the feedback site to whitehouse.gov and turned off all 2 way communication.
I say let them keep and enforce the illegal cellphone unlocking law.
Chance for Apple to introduce a budget iPhone for $299 unlocked available from the Apple Store - just add your own SIM...
And then all the carriers will refuse to carry the iPhone. Your idea would only work if Apple had their own cell towers.
This. If someone signs a subsidized contract, they are contractually bound to either use that phone for the entire contract period, or pay an early termination fee for not doing so.
Locked phones are nothing more than an artificial roadblock to make it more difficult for peoples' telecommunication lives to be portable. The phone companies would scream and cry about the problems created by default unlocked phones, but so what? Remember when they were required to allow us to port our numbers out of their network, and they cried that the sky was going to fall in on them? Well, it didn't.
T-Mobile seems happy enough with "bring your own phone" and there must be others out there...
Umm, no. Step back and think about the market. Someone, even if it's not the Big 4 will step in to grab any meat left on the table by any petulant refusal to carry the iPhone. Then all of the hogs would come to the trough.
Not really.
The more expensive iPhones would be from the carriers with a contract.
The budget iPhone will be for the rest of us. There's already rumors of one for other countries.
Not surprisingly maybe you are unaware of what the issue is. Today you can unlock your phone after the contract expires. What most people want is to be able to unlock the phone while under contract.
You're wrong. As of the end of February, you cannot unlock any phone purchased after that date without carrier permission, ever. It doesn't matter if your contract is up or not.
However, I do believe we should be able to unlock our phones before the contract is up (or better yet, not ever have them locked at all) as long as we pay the requisite early termination fee. Just like porting your number. You can port your number out of the old carrier's network whenever you'd like, as long as you're aware that unfulfilled contracts will cause an ETF.
What does the "Library of Congress" have to do with making decisions like this? Sounds like telecom lobbyists "bought a decision" somewhere in the smoke and mirrors of DC and the decision was pinned on a clueless "librarian"....
Stipulation applies: Any phone purchased before the moratorium expired is still fair game. That would be 1/26/13. So any phone bought before then could still be unlocked while under contract without carrier permission.
I agree. And I say again: people are still missing the point, as they are only thinking about internal to the US and only 1 carrier: ATT. Again, If you are on Verizon, could you take your iPhone, that you bought before 1/26/13, to Sprint or ATT? Answer: no. it is locked to VZW. Vice versa: You also could not take your Sprint iPhone to VZW nor ATT. That unlocking would not be allowed in the US.
Overseas, Sprint and VZW have the advantage over ATT: Let them know that you are going overseas, and they'll unlock the GSM side for you. ATT: no, they won't.
Again, this will not make it onto a level playing field until every US carrier has followed the model that has been in Europe for the past 15 years: Single network type, Purchase the phone from whomever you want (carrier doesn't matter, and you could also purchase it from Apple or whomever the maker is), and use the same network. Phone could be unlocked, let alone not even locked at all, and take it to whatever carrier you choose. Better yet, have the unlock process unlock the band needed for the network in question, which could be done by the carrier.
Because of the USA having GSM and CDMA, let alone multiple bands on CDMA, we were screwed. Phone makers were at the mercy of the carrier, in having to make the same model of phone for multiple companies, and locked to their network only. The only way out of that, again, is a single network, which LTE would give.
Make the phone to support all bands on LTE, and the customer wins. It forces the carriers to innovate let alone keep their network up to date and STABLE, and come up with other ways to win their customers' loyalty instead of being forced to sit on their network until a contract expires.
So everyone, think outside of the US for a change, and see how much the world is beating us at this game. We are way far behind.
BL.