In other words... Another nail in the coffin for carrier phone subsidies. More up front cellphone cost for the consumer might be bad for a consumer on the fence about buying a premium phone. I am not sure if that is good or bad for the cellphone maker (like apple) as opposed to the carrier.
I don't see why. The subsidized phone has everything to do with signing a 2 year contract and nothing to do with the phone being locked. ATT will unlock your phone, after the contract, if you ask them to. (Maybe even after 18 months when you upgrade and sign a new 2 year contract.) I don't know if they will unlock your phone if you terminate your contract early and pay the Early Termination Fee. I don't see why not, as the fee will cover the cost of the phone. But it does state that your account must be in good standing when you request to have your phone unlocked.
My nephew upgraded to a iPhone 5s recently and when he did i told him to request ATT to unlock his old iPhone 4 and his older iPhone 3G, so he can use his old iPhones with a prepaid SIMs, if he travels overseas. Plus they will have a higher resale value when unlocked. He went online, made the request and ATT eMailed the instructions and unlock codes. No problem.
does this mean that AT&T will have to unlock phones like the amazon kindle fire phone ? or a playstation vita ? or does this just give me legal protections to jailbreak my amazon kindle fire phone / playstation vita to be used on a different carrier?
ATT will already unlock your phone, when you request it, after your contract. Will they have to unlock your phone while you're still under contract is another matter, as it can be argued that you don't yet own the phone. But it doesn't really matter as you're still obligated to pay for the 2 year contract. Even if you take the unlocked phone to use with another carrier. What this will allow is someone to buy a new unlocked subsidized phone for $199 and sell it for $500 and then keep his using old phone for the next 2 years under the new contract. But the carrier shouldn't really care, as you will eventually pay for that subsidized phone with the contract.
Isn't this just feel good nonsense? AT&T & T-Mobile will already unlock your phone when you fulfill your contract (and I assume that Verizon and Sprint do the same (otherwise you need to switch carriers))
So what has this achieved? It allows you to take a phone that doesn't actually belong to you to another carrier. This will doubtless cause the carrier to much more carefully scrutinize creditworthiness before issuing a subsidized phone. (as they no longer have the phone locked on their network as collateral) As a result it will be much more difficult for those without stellar credit to get a subsidized phone. Students, Youth and those who have fallen on hard times will now be required to buy a iPhone outright at ~$500 rather than getting it at ~$100 (or free) and paying it off during the course of the contract
This really doesn't change much going forward (except to change the terms of credit of subsidized phones to "loans" which apparently t-mobile is already doing and AT&T is moving to) Just more worthless "feel good" legislation that in reality is more likely to hurt the financially struggling than help them.
In other words... Another nail in the coffin for carrier phone subsidies. More up front cellphone cost for the consumer might be bad for a consumer on the fence about buying a premium phone. I am not sure if that is good or bad for the cellphone maker (like apple) as opposed to the carrier.
Yes and no. If you look at the "subsidized" plans, all they do is include the cost of the device in the plan. A plan with no device subsidy costs less for the same features. The consumer doesn't actually save any money.
What the consumer does get is the ability to spread out the cost of the device over time. In Canada some of the smaller, low-cost carriers have implemented a "tab" plan to provide that benefit without artificially inflating the cost of their plans. The cost of the device is a separate line item on the bill, and the user pays a certain percentage of the total each month. The net result is the same, but in a much more transparent and honest way, with the added benefit of allowing the user to pay off the device early if they want to.
What wasn't clear to me from this article about the American plan is whether or not the carrier can impose a charge for unlocking. In Canada there are rules about when a carrier must provide unlocking on request, but they charge $50 to $75 to do it. Even if I buy a phone outright with no subsidy, it's delivered locked to the carrier from which I bought it and I have to pay to unlock it! How Canadian legislators decided THAT is reasonable completely eludes me.
Thankfully with Apple I have the option of buying directly from them, unlocked.
Could you not buy an unlocked phone before? And any locked phone was one purchased via a 2-year contract which reduced the up front cost of the phone. Now, if anyone can unlock their phone at any time, what incentive does the carrier have to subsidize the phone?
Not true iaeen. If you pay the full price of the handset, it does not have a two year contract attached to it. Taken straight from Apple's website, "The unlocked iPhone includes all the features of iPhone but without a wireless contract commitment. You can activate and use the unlocked iPhone on the supported GSM wireless network of your choice, such as AT&T or T-Mobile in the United States. The unlocked iPhone will not work with CDMA-based carriers, including Sprint and Verizon Wireless.
If you don’t want a multiyear service contract, or if you prefer to use a local carrier when traveling abroad, the unlocked iPhone is the best choice. If you choose T-Mobile, your iPhone comes with a T-Mobile SIM card already installed. You will need to contact T-Mobile or visit an Apple Retail Store to activate your iPhone.
Otherwise, the unlocked iPhone does not come with a micro-SIM card for iPhone 4s, or a nano-SIM card for iPhone 5c or iPhone 5s so you’ll need to get one from any supported GSM carrier worldwide. To start using your iPhone, simply insert the SIM card into the slot and turn on iPhone by pressing and holding the On/Off button for a few seconds. Then follow the onscreen instructions to set up your iPhone.
Purchasing an unlocked iPhone means you will not qualify for the lower iPhone price associated with a contract. The unlocked iPhone 5c model is A1532 (GSM). The unlocked iPhone 5s model is A1533 (GSM).
To help decide whether the locked or unlocked option is right for you, compare wireless service plans. Or call our iPhone Specialists at 1-800-MY-APPLE."
ATT will unlock your phone, after the contract, if you ask them to. (Maybe even after 18 months when you upgrade and sign a new 2 year contract.)
No longer true on the 18 months. That ended over a year ago. ATT now requires the full 24 month contract to be fulfilled before an unlock request will be granted. I just had ATT unlock my two-year old iPhone 4S so I could sell it on eBay when the new iPhone 6 comes out. I don't know what this law does since the phones can be legally unlocked by the carrier once you satisfy your subsidy/contract requirement. If you want to buy an unlocked phone, you still can, but you pay full price for the handset. Nothing illegal about that.
Isn't this just feel good nonsense?
AT&T & T-Mobile will already unlock your phone when you fulfill your contract (and I assume that Verizon and Sprint do the same (otherwise you need to switch carriers))
If I'm not mistaken the GSM portion of a Verizon iPhone comes unlocked from factory. I distinctly remember seeing a video in which a guy pops a AT&T SIM into his brand new Verizon iPhone, and the phone worked immediately on AT&T's network.
Could’ve sworn they changed that to be impossible.
“Meaningful” is subjective; you can’t use that as a determination.
Sadly, no. They put some limits on the use of the filibuster under very specific conditions only (I think it had to do with cabinet appointments or some such). It hardly made using it impossible. On the contrary, the use of the filibuster as a simple tool of obstruction increased after that. Part of the reason Reid has started threatening more draconic measures against the filibuster.
Meaningful isn't that subjective really. The ACA and the Economic Stimulus were meaningful. "A 'sense of congress' regarding the flight of the african mullet" (and a preponderance of equally ridiculous-sounding but actually-real bills), are not so meaningful. If you get my meaning.
I think, to be honest, you are over-parsing my comments here. Picking at individual words instead of overall intent... I'm not trying to write heavily vetted and perfect literary gems here. Just on the fly comments.... I'll do my best to get my intent across (I think I've done alright for the most part), but I'm not into nit-picking every nuance of my semantics. ok?
Not true iaeen. If you pay the full price of the handset, it does not have a two year contract attached to it. Taken straight from Apple's website, [...]
Of course I do... I went to school before they all but removed Social Studies (aka "how our Constitutional Republic works") from the curriculum...
I'll be more specific just for you: "the do nothing (Republican-majority) House, and obstructionist do-nothing Republican minority in the Senate", collectively referred to as, "The Do-nothing Congress".
I'm pretty sure you already understood all that, but I thought I ought to clarify nonetheless.
Claro?
yeah, perhaps you should look at the Senate as there are plenty of bills sitting on Reid's desk from the House.
I'm pretty sure you already understood all that, but I thought I ought to clarify nonetheless.
No, because some rule-making body had made it illegal to unlock your phone by declaring it a violation of the DMCA or something. This overturns that.
I don't think you grok the reality of the situation... you are so getting wrapped up in the details you can't see the big picture.
Let me explain it this way:
If they make (congress) it impossible to lock a phone then carriers simply won't be able to offer a subsidized phones. All the consumer will be offered is to "finance" the phone (which was already available at AT&T and T-mobile (and I bet at verizon and Sprint as well)) on a credit plan (and pay ~$25-$50/month in payments for the phone plus your Cell and data fees) You cell plans are cheaper but you must buy your phones outright or finance them through the carrier(for instance, I pay $160 for 4 iPhones on an unlimited text & talk plan & 10Gb data w/ full tethering privileges)
You seem to see this as some kind of "win" for the consumer, it isn't. Unlocked phones (and low rate plans for unlocked (i.e. unsubsidized) phones) were already available. All this will do is remove the option of a subsidized phone (which will primarily affect those with no, or poor credit, as they likely won't qualify for the "credit" plans where they might have qualified for a subsidized (locked) phone as the locked phone serves as collateral.
So... Theoretically, Apple could stop with all the SKU's they have of different carrier phones... and essentially provide completely unlocked phones across the board? I mean... Even though you're buying an unlocked phone from AT&T, Verizon, Etc.. You're still locked into a contract... So the carriers have nothing to lose.
Makes Apples inventory much cleaner. Or am I wrong?
Nope. There isn't enough space in the current iPhone for Apple to fit support for all LTE bands into a single SKU. Apple does this in the iPad because it has more room.
yeah, perhaps you should look at the Senate as there are plenty of bills sitting on Reid's desk from the House.
I'm pretty sure you already understood all that, but I thought I ought to clarify nonetheless.
Do you know what those "plenty of bills sitting on Reid's desk" are? I think it's a fiction, but ok... I'm open minded. Some examples, maybe?
Meanwhile, what I get that you're saying, basically, is that there's a MAJOR backlog of really important, meaningful, major problem-solving solutions gathering dust on Reid's desk because, you know, that hard-working, deeply-caring and amazingly productive Republican House has clearly sent him a tsunami of MAJOR legislation and our entire government is clearly grinding to a halt because, well, that Reid guy just won't do his job........ Or something? Am I getting that about right, or...?
I'm sure the more than FIFTY times the House has voted to yet again waste the Senate's time (and taxpayer dollars) sending along yet another "repeal the ACA" bill that they know is dead before it starts (and unpopular with the majority of citizens), has nothing to do with it, and is something we should call Reid out on when he lets them stagnate...? I'm not so sure...
I don't think you grok the reality of the situation... you are so getting wrapped up in the details you can't see the big picture.
Let me explain it this way:
If they make (congress) it impossible to lock a phone then carriers simply won't be able to offer a subsidized phones. All the consumer will be offered is to "finance" the phone (which was already available at AT&T and T-mobile (and I bet at verizon and Sprint as well)) on a credit plan (and pay ~$25-$50/month in payments for the phone plus your Cell and data fees) You cell plans are cheaper but you must buy your phones outright or finance them through the carrier(for instance, I pay $160 for 4 iPhones on an unlimited text & talk plan & 10Gb data w/ full tethering privileges)
You seem to see this as some kind of "win" for the consumer, it isn't. Unlocked phones (and low rate plans for unlocked (i.e. unsubsidized) phones) were already available. All this will do is remove the option of a subsidized phone (which will primarily affect those with no, or poor credit, as they likely won't qualify for the "credit" plans where they might have qualified for a subsidized (locked) phone as the locked phone serves as collateral.
Forgive my possible ignorance about how subsidisation works, but how does this change make subsidisation impossible? What about subsidisation depends on the device being locked? Surely the phone being locked or not makes no difference to the contract being signed to pay for the phone and service? If what you say is correct and this change would necessitate a move to a markedly different finance arrangement, then what real difference would this make to the consumer? Would service + finance costs exceed the subsidised contract price? Why? Do you really not have credit checks for subsidised phones over there? Why is a locked phone effective as collateral, but an unlocked phone isn't?
I can only compare this to the situation in the UK, where a similar principle has been in place for a while, where carriers offer an unlocking service on handsets. We still have a form of subsidisation as an option when purchasing a new handset, where you enter into a multi year contract (subject to credit check) and pay off the large part of the cost of the phone (there may be a relatively small upfront cost) in a higher monthly cost that includes service and a call/SMS/data package. Maybe the US deals work differently, but phone unlocking being a requirement hasn't had an major effect on the availability of what we call subsidised phones over here.
Comments
In other words... Another nail in the coffin for carrier phone subsidies. More up front cellphone cost for the consumer might be bad for a consumer on the fence about buying a premium phone. I am not sure if that is good or bad for the cellphone maker (like apple) as opposed to the carrier.
I don't see why. The subsidized phone has everything to do with signing a 2 year contract and nothing to do with the phone being locked. ATT will unlock your phone, after the contract, if you ask them to. (Maybe even after 18 months when you upgrade and sign a new 2 year contract.) I don't know if they will unlock your phone if you terminate your contract early and pay the Early Termination Fee. I don't see why not, as the fee will cover the cost of the phone. But it does state that your account must be in good standing when you request to have your phone unlocked.
My nephew upgraded to a iPhone 5s recently and when he did i told him to request ATT to unlock his old iPhone 4 and his older iPhone 3G, so he can use his old iPhones with a prepaid SIMs, if he travels overseas. Plus they will have a higher resale value when unlocked. He went online, made the request and ATT eMailed the instructions and unlock codes. No problem.
does this mean that AT&T will have to unlock phones like the amazon kindle fire phone ? or a playstation vita ? or does this just give me legal protections to jailbreak my amazon kindle fire phone / playstation vita to be used on a different carrier?
ATT will already unlock your phone, when you request it, after your contract. Will they have to unlock your phone while you're still under contract is another matter, as it can be argued that you don't yet own the phone. But it doesn't really matter as you're still obligated to pay for the 2 year contract. Even if you take the unlocked phone to use with another carrier. What this will allow is someone to buy a new unlocked subsidized phone for $199 and sell it for $500 and then keep his using old phone for the next 2 years under the new contract. But the carrier shouldn't really care, as you will eventually pay for that subsidized phone with the contract.
No, that's not the reality here. Government created the problem to begin with by passing the DMCA.
AT&T & T-Mobile will already unlock your phone when you fulfill your contract (and I assume that Verizon and Sprint do the same (otherwise you need to switch carriers))
So what has this achieved? It allows you to take a phone that doesn't actually belong to you to another carrier. This will doubtless cause the carrier to much more carefully scrutinize creditworthiness before issuing a subsidized phone. (as they no longer have the phone locked on their network as collateral) As a result it will be much more difficult for those without stellar credit to get a subsidized phone. Students, Youth and those who have fallen on hard times will now be required to buy a iPhone outright at ~$500 rather than getting it at ~$100 (or free) and paying it off during the course of the contract
This really doesn't change much going forward (except to change the terms of credit of subsidized phones to "loans" which apparently t-mobile is already doing and AT&T is moving to) Just more worthless "feel good" legislation that in reality is more likely to hurt the financially struggling than help them.
In other words... Another nail in the coffin for carrier phone subsidies. More up front cellphone cost for the consumer might be bad for a consumer on the fence about buying a premium phone. I am not sure if that is good or bad for the cellphone maker (like apple) as opposed to the carrier.
Yes and no. If you look at the "subsidized" plans, all they do is include the cost of the device in the plan. A plan with no device subsidy costs less for the same features. The consumer doesn't actually save any money.
What the consumer does get is the ability to spread out the cost of the device over time. In Canada some of the smaller, low-cost carriers have implemented a "tab" plan to provide that benefit without artificially inflating the cost of their plans. The cost of the device is a separate line item on the bill, and the user pays a certain percentage of the total each month. The net result is the same, but in a much more transparent and honest way, with the added benefit of allowing the user to pay off the device early if they want to.
What wasn't clear to me from this article about the American plan is whether or not the carrier can impose a charge for unlocking. In Canada there are rules about when a carrier must provide unlocking on request, but they charge $50 to $75 to do it. Even if I buy a phone outright with no subsidy, it's delivered locked to the carrier from which I bought it and I have to pay to unlock it! How Canadian legislators decided THAT is reasonable completely eludes me.
Thankfully with Apple I have the option of buying directly from them, unlocked.
They still get you locked into a 2 year contract.
Could you not buy an unlocked phone before? And any locked phone was one purchased via a 2-year contract which reduced the up front cost of the phone. Now, if anyone can unlock their phone at any time, what incentive does the carrier have to subsidize the phone?
Not true iaeen. If you pay the full price of the handset, it does not have a two year contract attached to it. Taken straight from Apple's website, "The unlocked iPhone includes all the features of iPhone but without a wireless contract commitment. You can activate and use the unlocked iPhone on the supported GSM wireless network of your choice, such as AT&T or T-Mobile in the United States. The unlocked iPhone will not work with CDMA-based carriers, including Sprint and Verizon Wireless.
If you don’t want a multiyear service contract, or if you prefer to use a local carrier when traveling abroad, the unlocked iPhone is the best choice. If you choose T-Mobile, your iPhone comes with a T-Mobile SIM card already installed. You will need to contact T-Mobile or visit an Apple Retail Store to activate your iPhone.
Otherwise, the unlocked iPhone does not come with a micro-SIM card for iPhone 4s, or a nano-SIM card for iPhone 5c or iPhone 5s so you’ll need to get one from any supported GSM carrier worldwide. To start using your iPhone, simply insert the SIM card into the slot and turn on iPhone by pressing and holding the On/Off button for a few seconds. Then follow the onscreen instructions to set up your iPhone.
Purchasing an unlocked iPhone means you will not qualify for the lower iPhone price associated with a contract. The unlocked iPhone 5c model is A1532 (GSM). The unlocked iPhone 5s model is A1533 (GSM).
To help decide whether the locked or unlocked option is right for you, compare wireless service plans. Or call our iPhone Specialists at 1-800-MY-APPLE."
ATT will unlock your phone, after the contract, if you ask them to. (Maybe even after 18 months when you upgrade and sign a new 2 year contract.)
No longer true on the 18 months. That ended over a year ago. ATT now requires the full 24 month contract to be fulfilled before an unlock request will be granted. I just had ATT unlock my two-year old iPhone 4S so I could sell it on eBay when the new iPhone 6 comes out. I don't know what this law does since the phones can be legally unlocked by the carrier once you satisfy your subsidy/contract requirement. If you want to buy an unlocked phone, you still can, but you pay full price for the handset. Nothing illegal about that.
Could’ve sworn they changed that to be impossible.
It's amazing how few meaningful bills are being passed... thus the 'do nothing' label...
“Meaningful” is subjective; you can’t use that as a determination.
Isn't this just feel good nonsense?
No, because some rule-making body had made it illegal to unlock your phone by declaring it a violation of the DMCA or something. This overturns that.
If I'm not mistaken the GSM portion of a Verizon iPhone comes unlocked from factory. I distinctly remember seeing a video in which a guy pops a AT&T SIM into his brand new Verizon iPhone, and the phone worked immediately on AT&T's network.
Could’ve sworn they changed that to be impossible.
“Meaningful” is subjective; you can’t use that as a determination.
Sadly, no. They put some limits on the use of the filibuster under very specific conditions only (I think it had to do with cabinet appointments or some such). It hardly made using it impossible. On the contrary, the use of the filibuster as a simple tool of obstruction increased after that. Part of the reason Reid has started threatening more draconic measures against the filibuster.
Meaningful isn't that subjective really. The ACA and the Economic Stimulus were meaningful. "A 'sense of congress' regarding the flight of the african mullet" (and a preponderance of equally ridiculous-sounding but actually-real bills), are not so meaningful. If you get my meaning.
I think, to be honest, you are over-parsing my comments here. Picking at individual words instead of overall intent... I'm not trying to write heavily vetted and perfect literary gems here. Just on the fly comments.... I'll do my best to get my intent across (I think I've done alright for the most part), but I'm not into nit-picking every nuance of my semantics. ok?
I'm just surprised that a piece of legislation came out of the House.
Harry Reid has over 200 bills from the House waiting for him to take to the floor.
Know what you're talking about before spitting it.
The reflexive avoid the problem of passing things through the cerebral cortex by calling up a talking point and clicking....
Well there is this... Which is what I immediately thought of.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=maroon
I guess it's who's ox is being gored...just one quick example-
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/republicans-legislation-obama-dccc-event-106481.htm
Long as you're being the grammar and syntax corrector for others, I'll gore your ox as well: You meant "whose"....
That's not at all what we are talking about...
omg do you really not recognize a classic bugs bunny quote when you see one? "What a maroon!"
guess you should be the one looking in the mirror?
Both the House and Senate send each other bills all the time. They promptly set the bills from the other house on fire.
But that's normal and proper, I like slow government. Fast government gives us bad stuff.
All I would have wanted is that you be allowed to unlock the device after the contract is up, seeing as you've paid for it...
That's exactly what the bill does. If you buy a subsidized phone on contract, when the contract is up you can unlock the phone.
Of course I do... I went to school before they all but removed Social Studies (aka "how our Constitutional Republic works") from the curriculum...
I'll be more specific just for you: "the do nothing (Republican-majority) House, and obstructionist do-nothing Republican minority in the Senate", collectively referred to as, "The Do-nothing Congress".
I'm pretty sure you already understood all that, but I thought I ought to clarify nonetheless.
Claro?
yeah, perhaps you should look at the Senate as there are plenty of bills sitting on Reid's desk from the House.
I'm pretty sure you already understood all that, but I thought I ought to clarify nonetheless.
No, because some rule-making body had made it illegal to unlock your phone by declaring it a violation of the DMCA or something. This overturns that.
I don't think you grok the reality of the situation... you are so getting wrapped up in the details you can't see the big picture.
Let me explain it this way:
If they make (congress) it impossible to lock a phone then carriers simply won't be able to offer a subsidized phones. All the consumer will be offered is to "finance" the phone (which was already available at AT&T and T-mobile (and I bet at verizon and Sprint as well)) on a credit plan (and pay ~$25-$50/month in payments for the phone plus your Cell and data fees) You cell plans are cheaper but you must buy your phones outright or finance them through the carrier(for instance, I pay $160 for 4 iPhones on an unlimited text & talk plan & 10Gb data w/ full tethering privileges)
You seem to see this as some kind of "win" for the consumer, it isn't. Unlocked phones (and low rate plans for unlocked (i.e. unsubsidized) phones) were already available. All this will do is remove the option of a subsidized phone (which will primarily affect those with no, or poor credit, as they likely won't qualify for the "credit" plans where they might have qualified for a subsidized (locked) phone as the locked phone serves as collateral.
So... Theoretically, Apple could stop with all the SKU's they have of different carrier phones... and essentially provide completely unlocked phones across the board? I mean... Even though you're buying an unlocked phone from AT&T, Verizon, Etc.. You're still locked into a contract... So the carriers have nothing to lose.
Makes Apples inventory much cleaner. Or am I wrong?
Nope. There isn't enough space in the current iPhone for Apple to fit support for all LTE bands into a single SKU. Apple does this in the iPad because it has more room.
yeah, perhaps you should look at the Senate as there are plenty of bills sitting on Reid's desk from the House.
I'm pretty sure you already understood all that, but I thought I ought to clarify nonetheless.
Do you know what those "plenty of bills sitting on Reid's desk" are? I think it's a fiction, but ok... I'm open minded. Some examples, maybe?
Meanwhile, what I get that you're saying, basically, is that there's a MAJOR backlog of really important, meaningful, major problem-solving solutions gathering dust on Reid's desk because, you know, that hard-working, deeply-caring and amazingly productive Republican House has clearly sent him a tsunami of MAJOR legislation and our entire government is clearly grinding to a halt because, well, that Reid guy just won't do his job........ Or something? Am I getting that about right, or...?
I'm sure the more than FIFTY times the House has voted to yet again waste the Senate's time (and taxpayer dollars) sending along yet another "repeal the ACA" bill that they know is dead before it starts (and unpopular with the majority of citizens), has nothing to do with it, and is something we should call Reid out on when he lets them stagnate...? I'm not so sure...
I don't think you grok the reality of the situation... you are so getting wrapped up in the details you can't see the big picture.
Let me explain it this way:
If they make (congress) it impossible to lock a phone then carriers simply won't be able to offer a subsidized phones. All the consumer will be offered is to "finance" the phone (which was already available at AT&T and T-mobile (and I bet at verizon and Sprint as well)) on a credit plan (and pay ~$25-$50/month in payments for the phone plus your Cell and data fees) You cell plans are cheaper but you must buy your phones outright or finance them through the carrier(for instance, I pay $160 for 4 iPhones on an unlimited text & talk plan & 10Gb data w/ full tethering privileges)
You seem to see this as some kind of "win" for the consumer, it isn't. Unlocked phones (and low rate plans for unlocked (i.e. unsubsidized) phones) were already available. All this will do is remove the option of a subsidized phone (which will primarily affect those with no, or poor credit, as they likely won't qualify for the "credit" plans where they might have qualified for a subsidized (locked) phone as the locked phone serves as collateral.
Forgive my possible ignorance about how subsidisation works, but how does this change make subsidisation impossible? What about subsidisation depends on the device being locked? Surely the phone being locked or not makes no difference to the contract being signed to pay for the phone and service? If what you say is correct and this change would necessitate a move to a markedly different finance arrangement, then what real difference would this make to the consumer? Would service + finance costs exceed the subsidised contract price? Why? Do you really not have credit checks for subsidised phones over there? Why is a locked phone effective as collateral, but an unlocked phone isn't?
I can only compare this to the situation in the UK, where a similar principle has been in place for a while, where carriers offer an unlocking service on handsets. We still have a form of subsidisation as an option when purchasing a new handset, where you enter into a multi year contract (subject to credit check) and pay off the large part of the cost of the phone (there may be a relatively small upfront cost) in a higher monthly cost that includes service and a call/SMS/data package. Maybe the US deals work differently, but phone unlocking being a requirement hasn't had an major effect on the availability of what we call subsidised phones over here.