Unlocked iPhones - Write Your Legislators
I am currently working with my legislator to introduce legislation to stop cell phone carriers from locking cell phones. This of course would require Apple to sell unlocked iPhones to use on any compatible network, and it would bring the cellular industry in alignment with other networks (land lines, cable, etc.). Nobody buys a locked television or a locked land line telephone that will only work with one particular network, and the same should be true of cellular phones.
Since the phone industry and Apple are huge, they can easily spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on lobbyists to try to prevent such legislation from even being introduced, let alone debated.
Please write your representatives and senators to urge them to make manufacturers offer unlocked cell phones. Locked cell phones may be offered for a discount while under contract, but would require unlocking once the contract ends (maximum of 24 months for a contract). Currently locked cell phones could be unlocked once 50% of the contract duration is fulfilled (maximum 12 months). Manufacturers would be required to offer unlocked versions of cell phones for additional fees.
If enough people write their legislators, this can become a reality.
Since the phone industry and Apple are huge, they can easily spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on lobbyists to try to prevent such legislation from even being introduced, let alone debated.
Please write your representatives and senators to urge them to make manufacturers offer unlocked cell phones. Locked cell phones may be offered for a discount while under contract, but would require unlocking once the contract ends (maximum of 24 months for a contract). Currently locked cell phones could be unlocked once 50% of the contract duration is fulfilled (maximum 12 months). Manufacturers would be required to offer unlocked versions of cell phones for additional fees.
If enough people write their legislators, this can become a reality.
Comments
Keep dreaming. Maybe in 2009 you'd have a chance to get some traction on something like this.
And oh Puck , you have no idea of what fascism really is . Fascism meant that people like Maureen Dowd , Dan Rather and others of their kind would be in prison by now or worse dead , the government would take control of all the media , critics would be silenced . Since I had seen nothing of a kind , then your use of fascism seemed to stem from irrational hatred of this administration . BTW , look at Ferdinand Marcos , I grew up under his rule and compare this with the Bush administration . I have a much better chance in surviving this administration than under Marcos . And btw , the lobbyists paid real good money to Democrats as well .
As Wil said in his first paragraph, we have a choice as to what we buy. If buying a certain phone requires being locked into using a certain cell phone carrier/service for a period of time, so be it. If the consumer doesn't like it, don't buy the phone. If the other cell phone carriers/services don't like it, let them design and produce their own phones.
People should be held accountable for their own decisions, including what they purchase and what contracts they sign. Like you said, nobody buys a locked television to work with only one particular network. However, if those networks gave away free televisions people would start signing up in droves. I can see it now, “Sign up for our five year contract and for just $150 a month that includes hundreds of channels (including those like HBO), broadband internet, plus it all comes with a free 42’ plasma tv. We’ll even install it for you.”
All cellular companies want to be defined by their brand and what qualities make them better than their competition. If all phones can always be used on any network, what’s the incentive for any network to improve how phones work on it? Why should they invest money researching when it makes more sense to wait for someone else to do it then just market ways to convince those consumers to take their phones to their network?
In short, southerndoc, is anyone thinking about all the different sizes and kinds of networks out there? Some are small, some are large, some have extensive 3G coverage while others don’t. A few offer tv services, ring tones, while others don’t. Plus let’s not forget coverage plans, price packages, options, customer service, etc.. Are you so certain that all the various networks are on equal footing to both support and improve current and future features that we, as consumers, may want or need?
What’s the advantage, for any network or cell phone manufacturer, from a business point of view, to unlock any specific phone, if they don’t have to?
When I wrote AT&T with my request for an unlock code for the specific purpose of using the phone overseas where they have no established presence and where I would be using another carrier's network via international roaming, I was refused an unlock code. To AT&T's credit, I was offered a free unlocked cell phone. I cannot afford to spend $3 per minute for local phone calls while working in an African country (Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Liberia) for a month at a time. Plus, the local physicians cannot afford to dial a US number to reach me, which necessitates a local SIM card.
I can easily use a SIM card in my unlocked RAZR or an unlocked phone that AT&T has offered to provide me free of charge, but I enjoy the functionality of my iPhone. I like how it stores all my contacts and all its additional features, and it will soon include a much needed feature that I will use frequently while overseas (ePocrates medical drug database, which has been confirmed by their CEO that it will be developed for the iPhone when the SDK is released early next year).
When I travel overseas, I also take my laptop computer. Thankfully it's not locked to a particular power company, internet provider, etc. as I can use it there. Apple could easily make it one voltage type only.
My problem is with cellular companies locking cell phones at all. Land line phones, cable operators, power companies, etc. do not do this because the federal government requires interoperability. The same should be required of the cellular industry. By unlocking cell phones (not just the iPhone) it encourages competition, which is why the networks have no advantage (and actually have a huge disadvantage) to unlock cell phones. For those that want a discounted phone, they will have the opportunity to buy locked phones at a discount.
Heh. I think perhaps your accusations would hold more water if you'd said 'this capitalistic society' and 'maybe once the revolution comes'.
Anyone who considers the US to be 'fascist' should try living under an actual fascist government sometime. You know, the type where you could be jailed without trial for criticizing the government.
Whiners.
Kephisto, my motive is clear. I do a lot of international work overseas and would prefer to use an unlocked SIM card while traveling overseas in countries in Africa where AT&T has no established presence. I am a happy AT7t customer, and even if my iPhone is unlocked, I will not cancel with them. In fact, I have been an AT&T customer for about 15 years when it was BellSouth Mobility and Cingular.
When I wrote AT&T with my request for an unlock code for the specific purpose of using the phone overseas where they have no established presence and where I would be using another carrier's network via international roaming, I was refused an unlock code. To AT&T's credit, I was offered a free unlocked cell phone. I cannot afford to spend $3 per minute for local phone calls while working in an African country (Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Liberia) for a month at a time. Plus, the local physicians cannot afford to dial a US number to reach me, which necessitates a local SIM card.
I can easily use a SIM card in my unlocked RAZR or an unlocked phone that AT&T has offered to provide me free of charge, but I enjoy the functionality of my iPhone. I like how it stores all my contacts and all its additional features, and it will soon include a much needed feature that I will use frequently while overseas (ePocrates medical drug database, which has been confirmed by their CEO that it will be developed for the iPhone when the SDK is released early next year).
When I travel overseas, I also take my laptop computer. Thankfully it's not locked to a particular power company, internet provider, etc. as I can use it there. Apple could easily make it one voltage type only.
My problem is with cellular companies locking cell phones at all. Land line phones, cable operators, power companies, etc. do not do this because the federal government requires interoperability. The same should be required of the cellular industry. By unlocking cell phones (not just the iPhone) it encourages competition, which is why the networks have no advantage (and actually have a huge disadvantage) to unlock cell phones. For those that want a discounted phone, they will have the opportunity to buy locked phones at a discount.
Doc , how about using a satellite phone service , you could bring your sat. phone anywhere else in the world
. it is expensive , but at least it meets all your requirements especially in regards to your medical work in Africa and the added benefit is this , you could use it for your internet access when you are out on the field .
Doc , how about using a satellite phone service , you could bring your sat. phone anywhere else in the world
. it is expensive , but at least it meets all your requirements especially in regards to your medical work in Africa and the added benefit is this , you could use it for your internet access when you are out on the field .
Because it's expensive and local physicians must dial a US-based number that is an international call for them. Local calls are very cheap in Africa, but international calling is incredibly expensive.
At any rate, I *DO* have a satellite phone, but it's used only for emergencies when I'm in areas where there is no cellular reception.
Because it's expensive and local physicians must dial a US-based number that is an international call for them. Local calls are very cheap in Africa, but international calling is incredibly expensive.
At any rate, I *DO* have a satellite phone, but it's used only for emergencies when I'm in areas where there is no cellular reception.
The problem is this , the cellular towers are privately owned by telecom companies and unless you want the government to nationalized the telecom companies , have the government seize operational control of those towers or the most easiest way to have the telecom companies to play ball is to threaten their licenses in order for you to get what you want or merge them into one large telecom company . Cellular phone makers and their products would only work if the telecom companies would play ball and if there is an incentive for profit for both sides . If you put the Federal , State and Local to interfere in your behalf and ignore the economics of the Free market , sooner or later , the advancement in cellular phone technology would crawl down and stagnate . That is the reason why unlock phones are usually yesterday's technology and can be sold off at a loss and why state of the art phones are locked because the companies owning the towers wants a cut on the action .
The reason why cable companies and landlines are open is this , underground cables and telephone poles . It is much easier to offer interoperability when there are limits on how much you can dig or how much telephone poles you can place which force phone services , cable companies to rent and pay each other for the use of those same lines . Cell phones are not like that , their limitation stems on how far are they from the nearest ATT or other telecom company tower to receive a decent signal . Right now , Apple is doing the right thing and from the look of things Nokia is following suit . Sooner or later the telecom companies would offer high tech smart phones unlocked in order to compete in the free market because their concentration would not on the return of their money via two year contract for their phone subsidies but keeping subscribers who paid their phones full price by selling service in order to maintain healthy profit .
The problem is this , the cellular towers are privately owned by telecom companies and unless you want the government to nationalized the telecom companies , have the government seize operational control of those towers or the most easiest way to have the telecom companies to play ball is to threaten their licenses in order for you to get what you want or merge them into one large telecom company . Cellular phone makers and their products would only work if the telecom companies would play ball and if there is an incentive for profit for both sides . If you put the Federal , State and Local to interfere in your behalf and ignore the economics of the Free market , sooner or later , the advancement in cellular phone technology would crawl down and stagnate . That is the reason why unlock phones are usually yesterday's technology and can be sold off at a loss and why state of the art phones are locked because the companies owning the towers wants a cut on the action .
The reason why cable companies and landlines are open is this , underground cables and telephone poles . It is much easier to offer interoperability when there are limits on how much you can dig or how much telephone poles you can place which force phone services , cable companies to rent and pay each other for the use of those same lines . Cell phones are not like that , their limitation stems on how far are they from the nearest ATT or other telecom company tower to receive a decent signal . Right now , Apple is doing the right thing and from the look of things Nokia is following suit . Sooner or later the telecom companies would offer high tech smart phones unlocked in order to compete in the free market because their concentration would not on the return of their money via two year contract for their phone subsidies but keeping subscribers who paid their phones full price by selling service in order to maintain healthy profit .
You are wrong about the landlines. The Federal government, through the courts, forces ATT to open up their landlines to third party devices. Before then ATT prohibited any device but their own (which you rented) from being attached to their system.
I too would like to see an end to locked phones. (And this is why I do not have an iPhone.) And you are wrong about higher prices. Apple, Nokia and Motorola will compete against each other on the devices and Verizon, ATT and T-Mobil will compete on the networks. I was hoping that the iPhone was going to be unlocked and a bigger kick to the nuts of the current system than it is.
You are wrong about the landlines. The Federal government, through the courts, forces ATT to open up their landlines to third party devices. Before then ATT prohibited any device but their own (which you rented) from being attached to their system.
I too would like to see an end to locked phones. (And this is why I do not have an iPhone.) And you are wrong about higher prices. Apple, Nokia and Motorola will compete against each other on the devices and Verizon, ATT and T-Mobil will compete on the networks. I was hoping that the iPhone was going to be unlocked and a bigger kick to the nuts of the current system than it is.
Please check my post gain , didn't I stated that the landlines are rented and shared ?? I knew that ATT was forced to open their lines through the courts . So maybe I did not made myself clear .
Again, you misread my statement , I ignored the cell phone manufacturers because they were not an issue , people will buy their phones in an unlock market that will meet their needs . Look at the last sentence of my post , didn't I stated service will be an issue for telecom companies in an unlock cell phone market and that will be where their profits would come from which should be in the first place ??
In the unlocked cell phone market you can not ignore the cell phone manufacturers. It will be a two part market. First the device and then the network. -- Besides rereading the thread I found that I was reacting more to Kephisto's post then yours in my second paragraph.
When a market is free and open, Government should get out of the way and leave markets do what they do best.
But left to their own devices, markets sometimes get it wrong. Sometimes businesses mislead, monopolize, steal or extort money from customers. At that point, free market principles cannot work and the consumer needs the legislators to act.
Of course if the legislators are bought and paid for by the corporations, then you get an unholy mess.
If you believe in free markets, you sometimes need laws to protect that freedom.
C.
Enacting more laws to "protect your freedom" is stupid because the more laws you enact , the more restrictions you will have and soon people's liberties are restricted for our own good . No thanks , I rather have less laws and more common sense and personal responsibility than having the government do it for me .
Aresee
The phone companies who uses the landlines built by their competitor pays for it by helping to pay for the maintenance of the said lines , am I correct ? It's unfair for Verizon for example, not to get a small fee from ATT for the use of it's landline infrastructure unless of course you want the government pay for it using our taxes ??
I ignored the cell phone manufacturers in those posts because as you have stated , their products are worthless without the telcoms to use it . The telcoms are the most important because as Kephisto had stated in his posts , not all areas in the US are covered with same service you can expect in New York City , Chicago , LA and San Francisco . But because of the popularity of the iPhone , every telecom companies here in the US are now trying to improve their services not only to entice cell phone manufacturers to develop powerful user friendly phones to compete with the iPhone and offer it to them exclusively first , but also leaving the phones as is with no barriers and restrictions for their use . Now people can use the smart phones from Nokia as what the company envisioned it to be rather than what Verizon , ATT and T-mobile wants it to be . Thanks to Apple who have to make a deal with the devil , there is a very good chance of unlocked cellphones in the future in the US because of competition provided that we don't short circuit the process by having the government do it for those who cannot wait .
The best example of monopoly is the BBC , you guys are still paying a TV license regardless of how you use your television set until 2017 and your public officials are considering to replace the TV tax with a computer tax . http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...508650,00.html. And what's worse , there are lot of people in your Parliament that would not act against this type of blatant monopoly abuse . I always have this saying , the worse monopolies are those that comes from the government , you get the worse service , unexplainable fees and the attitude that they know what's good for you whether you agree with it or not and of course , it takes a long time to get rid of them because government bureaucrats don't like to leave their comfy benefits and the professional politicians don't want to lose their supplemental income .
Carniphage
The best example of monopoly is the BBC , you guys are still paying a TV license regardless of how you use your television set until 2017 and your public officials are considering to replace the TV tax with a computer tax . http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...508650,00.html. And what's worse , there are lot of people in your Parliament that would not act against this type of blatant monopoly abuse . I always have this saying , the worse monopolies are those that comes from the government , you get the worse service , unexplainable fees and the attitude that they know what's good for you whether you agree with it or not and of course , it takes a long time to get rid of them because government bureaucrats don't like to leave their comfy benefits and the professional politicians don't want to lose their supplemental income .
Wil, you seem to want me to defend the BBC. I am not sure I want to. I would prefer the beeb to evolve into something more like HBO.
European, American and Asian governments have all failed to fully embrace free markets and have instead introduced legislation which defends anti-competitive monopolistic companies.
In the UK, the Murdoch media empire dominates print and pay tv. It's just wrong. The US seems to have much stronger rules preventing one entity having too much influence.
At the same moment, the US seems to be passing laws which effectively outlaw all free wifi networks. Seemingly because the established networks don't like the competition.
I am not getting into a US versus EU battle because both get some things wrong and some things right.
C.
Wil, you seem to want me to defend the BBC. I am not sure I want to. I would prefer the beeb to evolve into something more like HBO.
European, American and Asian governments have all failed to fully embrace free markets and have instead introduced legislation which defends anti-competitive monopolistic companies.
In the UK, the Murdoch media empire dominates print and pay tv. It's just wrong. The US seems to have much stronger rules preventing one entity having too much influence.
At the same moment, the US seems to be passing laws which effectively outlaw all free wifi networks. Seemingly because the established networks don't like the competition.
I am not getting into a US versus EU battle because both get some things wrong and some things right.
C.
I am not asking you to defend anybody especially BBC , I am telling you the point that government based monopolies are the worst sort of monopoly ever devised by man . That's the point , legislations tend to do what you have posted , the more laws people enact , the less the country and it's government embrace free markets .
Ask yourself why do the Murdoch media empire dominates print and TV in your country , the answer is this , ,people are tired of listening , watching and reading news that have left wing biases that colors their news , their reporting and their editorial . It the media would adopt a general centrist attitude in the reporting of their news and are willing to state the facts and the truth and are willing to hear different opinions , the Murdoch media empire would not be dominant .
As for free WIFI , I don't know what they are reporting to you guys over there , here is an article that states the reason why .http://www.slate.com/id/2174858/ .
You clearly are deeply suspicious of Government, and deeply trusting of Rupert Murdoch. lol!
Why do you think that the US is passing legislation to effectively outlaw public WiFi?
a) Because Slate says it is a flop?
b) Because it is a conduit for child pornography?
c) Because telecommunications corporations have seen where it might lead and bribed the politicians to pass legislation?
So yes, I can see why you are suspicious of Government when corruption is so rife.
But do you approve of theft and fraud? Do you think having laws to make it illegal in some way infringes your civil rights? If you believe that, then we can agree to differ. Perhaps you honestly think corporations should be allowed to lie to sell their goods? Perhaps you think they should be allowed to sell goods that fail the next day?
Chant "Caveat Emptor", and everything is forgiven.
Me, I think law should be there to make the world a fairer place. Keep people free from oppression, liars and bullies, and keep markets free of monopolies, cheaters and fraudsters.
The free market can do amazing things. But just like in society, to maintain that freedom, we sometimes have to send the bad-asses to jail.
C.
A mechanism to protect the victim from the bully, or the consumer from the monopoly
Effectively outlawing WiFi , since we are out of topic , it ain' true
a) Chicago was one of the cities that wanted city wide Wifi , they put it on hold because of the cost .
b) A person who dabbles in child pornography won't care if he's using DSL , cable or WiFi , so your point ?
c) I live in Chicago where everything is possible under the table , but if the city wide Wifi was put on indefinite hold , it meant that it is not workable at this time and no amount of bribes will make it possible .
With all due respect , I understand that corporations lie to sell their products and services and make a profit and government lies to protect national secrets and what have you . The difference is this , if the corporations get caught like Enron , they not only get sued by their shareholders , they will lose their clients and they will get hammered by the government . But with the government , well , all we get are hearings and the fall guy in prison .
Laws help people as you have stated , but laws created with an agenda in mind or worse created in haste to right a wrong without long term consideration or ignored advice from knowledgeable critics ( best example ,Sarbanes-Oxley , gun laws in the UK ) are dangerous because it takes a long time for them to repealed if at all and the damage they caused is worse than the situation that created the law in the first place .
So that is the reason why I don't want the legislators involved because if they created a knee jerk legislation to unlock cellphones , we, the consumers will find out the cost out of our own pockets .