White House Backs Petition in Support of Mobile Phone Unlocking

[bencjedi]

So I did DFU restores to iOS 6.1.2 yesterday, one on my 64GB iPhone 5 subsidized by AT&T and my wife's 32GB iPhone 5 bought straight-up out of contract, but set to AT&T service from apple.com...

My phone came up just as expected in iTunes after the new iOS loaded all the way, but my wife's came up with this message when iTunes recognized the newly-loaded phone:

Does it mean my wife can take her iPhone to other carriers besides AT&T?

 

[applesith]

Let's get an executive order then!

 

[bradl]

So I did DFU restores to iOS 6.1.2 yesterday, one on my 64GB iPhone 5 subsidized by AT&T and my wife's 32GB iPhone 5 bought straight-up out of contract, but set to AT&T service from apple.com...

My phone came up just as expected in iTunes after the new iOS loaded all the way, but my wife's came up with this message when iTunes recognized the newly-loaded phone:

Image

Does it mean my wife can take her iPhone to other carriers besides AT&T?

Affirmative. Additionally, let's say you decided to take her phone to T-Mobile. If your wife went overseas, she could pop out that T-Mobile sim card, drop in a PAYG sim card from a local carrier in that country, and pay local rates instead of international rates offered by T-Mobile.

That's the advantage to unlocked phones.

BL.

 

[neuropsychguy]

You're definitely right but this one really was all republican. The decision was by an 83 year old Reagan appointee.

Don't make the fallacy of equating Republican with conservative. Many Republicans are not conservative.

 

[damir00]

If someone wants an unlocked phone, they can buy an unlocked phone.

Nothing meaningful has changed.

 

[nutmac]

Ideal outcomes:

1. All phones out of contract should become unlocked by the carrier and/or phone manufacturer WITHOUT subscriber's involvement.
2. All phones in contract should accept foreign SIM card for 30 days when not in the home country.
3. Once the phone is out of contract, carriers should be required to offer discount equivalent to monthly subsidy.

 

[smithrh]

Ideal outcomes:

1. All phones out of contract should become unlocked by the carrier and/or phone manufacturer WITHOUT subscriber's involvement.
2. All phones in contract should accept foreign SIM card for 30 days when not in the home country.
3. Once the phone is out of contract, carriers should be required to offer discount equivalent to monthly subsidy.

Good stuff.

However, getting that legislated is an uphill battle.

 

[bencjedi]

Affirmative. Additionally, let's say you decided to take her phone to T-Mobile. If your wife went overseas, she could pop out that T-Mobile sim card, drop in a PAYG sim card from a local carrier in that country, and pay local rates instead of international rates offered by T-Mobile.

That's the advantage to unlocked phones.

BL.

Thank you! Spent like $912 after AppleCare and whatnot for her iPhone 5, so for it to come locked to AT&T for all that expense didn't make sense to me (sold all our old iPhones to compensate for the cost). Glad I did a DFU restore as when I put iOS 6.1.1 as a straight update on her phone iTunes didn't do the unlock message.

 

[bradl]

If someone wants an unlocked phone, they can buy an unlocked phone.

Nothing meaningful has changed.

Wrong.

If you bought your phone prior to 1/26/13, you can unlock it without carrier's permission.

You obviously are not understanding the lack of choice we have regarding this. We are missing choice in true and fair competition. ATT is not unlocking their phones for use elsewhere (read: outside the US), while VZW and Sprint are. Sprint and VZW's policies both state that they will not unlock their phones for GSM use inside the USA. They expressly prohibit that. However, they will unlock it for overseas use.

ATT will not unlock it period until the contract ends; Domestic use, International use, or otherwise. We should not have to buy an unlocked unsubsidized phone for that privilege. Nor should we have to be at the whim of the carrier to dictate how we could use our phones overseas.

Competition is supposed to be fair to the consumer, not limited by terms and conditions to a contract that can be arbitrarily set by the carrier.

BL.

 

[kas23]

I disagree with the WH here. One should be able to unlock and use their cellphones on alternate carrier networks even during their contract. Doing so still would not result in loss revenue from your original carrier because you'll still have to pay your monthly bill.

----------

If someone wants an unlocked phone, they can buy an unlocked phone.

Nothing meaningful has changed.

Um, that's the whole reasoning behind this petition. People shouldn't have to. Why must you think so concretely?

 

[rdlink]

So what is this then:
https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/client/en_US/termsAndCondition

That is you asking AT&T's permission to unlock your phone. If they say no you have no recourse. Also, if you go around them and get it unlocked by a third party you will have violated the DCMA. This is for any phones purchased after the end of January.

----------

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 stated in my original post that anything purchased after the date was illegal. However, I mistakenly said the end of February instead of the end of January. Thanks.

 

[bradl]

I disagree with the WH here. One should be able to unlock and use their cellphones on alternate carrier networks even during their contract. Doing so still would not result in loss revenue from your original carrier because you'll still have to pay your monthly bill.

That would rather be implied, but I'd be game with that. Like I said earlier, it is assuming all carrier networks are equal, and it would be up to the carrier to unlock that band for you while not locking any other band.

That honestly couldn't happen until VZW and Sprint are off of CDMA, and ATT is off of GSM. Everything would need to be LTE; even the networks they would fall back on in case of no coverage.

Um, that's the whole reasoning behind this petition. People shouldn't have to. Why must you think so concretely?

Agreed. Though this isn't the first time he's said this; I'm wondering if he might work for one of the carriers...

BL.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Steve wouldn't sign this petition.

 

[inkswamp]

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!

Not sure what country you're in but in the U.S. the government represents the people and the will of the citizenry. When the people shout loudly enough about something, they're supposed to be heard and the government is supposed to respond. (I readily admit that it too often doesn't happen that way, but that's the ideal.)

I'd prefer that the government respond to this issue--regardless of how trivial it looks by comparison to other things--than to ignore it and marginalize people and their concerns.

 

[rdowns]

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!

Yes, the government can only do one thing at a time.

 

[damir00]

Wrong.

Did you even read the post you responded to before pounding out a page-long slab of off topic tl;dr?

If you want to buy an unlocked phone, you can. There is nothing "wrong" about that statement.

----------

Steve wouldn't sign this petition.

You are correct, Steve Jobs most certainly would NOT have signed this petition.

----------

Um, that's the whole reasoning behind this petition. People shouldn't have to.

Yes, they *should* have to.

If someone wants an unlocked phone, the logical way to get it is to buy an unlocked phone.

 

[rdlink]

Did you even read the post you responded to before pounding out a page-long slab of off topic tl;dr?

If you want to buy an unlocked phone, you can. There is nothing "wrong" about that statement.

----------



You are correct, Steve Jobs most certainly would NOT have signed this petition.

----------



Yes, they *should* have to.

If someone wants an unlocked phone, the logical way to get it is to buy an unlocked phone.

No, the "logical" way to get an unlocked phone is for there not to even be locked phones. But beyond that, there is no reason why a carrier needs my phone to be locked to their network in order to provide service. It doesn't cost them anything more to provide service to me on an unlocked phone than on a locked phone. For subsidized contracts I have a contractual obligation to keep my phone on their system until the contract is up. There is an ETF that protects the carrier built into that contract.

Since the only benefit that a carrier gets to my phone being locked on their network is that it makes it harder for me to move away from them, there is no real legitimate reason for them to have control over whether I can unlock my phone.

After I have paid Ford for my car, they can't legally prevent me from dropping a Chevy engine into it. Why? Because it's my car.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Heheh! These are good news. It wasn't for nothing that we signed up the petition.

We got heard, now lets see where this takes us.

 

[Codyak]

Don't make the fallacy of equating Republican with conservative. Many Republicans are not conservative.

I'm aware that those two aren't always connected but I am more than comfortable stereotyping it . Also in this case it was very true of both Reagan and Billington.

 

[bradl]

Did you even read the post you responded to before pounding out a page-long slab of off topic tl;dr?

If you want to buy an unlocked phone, you can. There is nothing "wrong" about that statement.

And if you read the original post in this entire thread, you would realize that no-one here is talking about buying an unlocked phone. You want to buy one? fine. Leave the thread and go buy an unlocked phone, while the rest of us debate the merits of the WH and POTUS agreeing with us that phone locking should be illegal.

As for offtopic, please show me that it is. Show that what I've described as the advantages of unlocked phones, as well as the disadvantage of being locked to a carrier is not relative to this thread. It is relevant, and funnily enough, you are the only one that doesn't get that.

So again, why be so myopic and concrete about it, unless you don't understand what we are talking about? If the latter, I suggest you start over and re-read this thread. Wash/rinse/repeat until you understand it (though I doubt you will).

You are correct, Steve Jobs most certainly would NOT have signed this petition.

Steve Jobs is in a much better place than us right now to have to worry about petty things as unlocking phones.

Yes, they *should* have to.

No, they shouldn't. But again, it's way too far over your head to understand that.

If someone wants an unlocked phone, the logical way to get it is to buy an unlocked phone.

Seeing that 75% of the world doesn't have a problem nor deals with locked phones as we do in the US, they would seem to disagree with your logic.

Your logic, as well as those inline with the carriers' logic, is flawed.

BL.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Conservatives are the ones backing making unlocking illegal. Serving their corporate masters.

You need a lesson on the history of U.S. Copyright Law. Who do you think gave Disney an effective perpetual copyright on Mickey Mouse just as he was ready to become public domain? (Hint D's held Congress at the time.)

The DMCA is POS legislation, but it was passed with support from both parties AND Bill Clonton.

You're definitely right but this one really was all republican. The decision was by an 83 year old Reagan appointee.

Seriously? You do know that no U.S. president has any authority over the Library of Congress, as its a branch of Congress, not part of the executive branch. Congress appoints the Librarian. Also the LOCs Copyright Office that made the determination, as required in the DMCA.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Kangaroo Court!



I just wanted to get on the shouting.

 

[laurim]

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.

Don't you think the carriers would punish Apple for providing a way around their contracts? These agreements are a two way street.

 

[pika2000]

And then all the carriers will refuse to carry the iPhone. Your idea would only work if Apple had their own cell towers.

Carriers won't do that. Heck, Apple is the only manufacture that don't have carrier branding on their phone. Although there are things where Apple had given in to the carriers' demand (AT&T's fake 4G icon, tethering, facetime over cellular, etc), compared to the other OEMs, Apple carries so much brand recognition that it would be stupid for carriers to drop the iPhone.

Besides, it won't stop people to use unlocked iPhones on GSM networks.

 

[iphoneclassic]

Not going to happen. Anything WH supports, House Republicans will block. They blocked veterans jobs bill and violence against women bill(now passed), this is no brainer.