Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(118,334 posts)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:33 PM Mar 2013

White House: You have a right to unlock your cell phone

Obama administration says consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones, but that doesn't mean it's OK yet.
by Josh Lowensohn
March 4, 2013 10:24 AM PST

... "The White House agrees with the 114,000 plus of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties," Edelman wrote. "In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smartphones."

Edelman added that the issue falls within the realm of the Federal Communications Commission, and to some degree mobile device manufacturers to make sure "customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices."

"It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs," Edelman said ...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57572391-94/white-house-you-have-a-right-to-unlock-your-cell-phone/

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
White House: You have a right to unlock your cell phone (Original Post) struggle4progress Mar 2013 OP
What I don't get.... jberryhill Mar 2013 #1
Early Termination Fees Rosco T. Mar 2013 #2
Right... that's the situation I have jberryhill Mar 2013 #5
Actually that's the reason they SHOULDN'T be locked... brooklynite Mar 2013 #3
By "locked"... jberryhill Mar 2013 #4
Yes, exactly my point... brooklynite Mar 2013 #6
Built into the reduced price jberryhill Mar 2013 #7
I would support this if the consumer paid for the phone. LiberalFighter Mar 2013 #8
You do pay for it... Rosco T. Mar 2013 #9
Exactly! LiberalFighter Mar 2013 #10
and as long as I have to pay the 'fee' Rosco T. Mar 2013 #11
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
1. What I don't get....
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:40 PM
Mar 2013

I can understand keeping them locked for the contract period. The deal was that the device is sold at a reduced price with a service contract term committment.

What I don't get is that you ought to be able to get them unlocked after the service contract is terminated.

Rosco T.

(6,496 posts)
2. Early Termination Fees
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:43 PM
Mar 2013

you unlock it, you go to another carrier, you'll terminate your account with that carrier, you pay an ETF.

HOWEVER, let's say you get a newer phone (from another source), keep your existing carrier, hence you are still paying premium for the original phone till the end of that contract. I should be able to unlock the older phone so I can sell it and recoup some of my costs...

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
5. Right... that's the situation I have
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:08 PM
Mar 2013

I upgraded my old contract phone, which I'd like to be able to sell to someone who wants to use it on a pre-paid plan.

brooklynite

(94,727 posts)
3. Actually that's the reason they SHOULDN'T be locked...
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:04 PM
Mar 2013

...because you're under contract. You're obligated to pay for the service for two years (or pay the requisite early penalty), so why shouldn't you have full use of the phone during that period?

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
4. By "locked"...
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:07 PM
Mar 2013

...it means locked to using that carrier's service. At least that's my understanding. That is distinct from jailbreaking - i.e. removing restrictions against unauthorized software. Those are two different issues. The locking issue deals with what networks it uses as a cell phone.

What people have done, again as I understand it, is to buy a contract phone, unlock it, and then default on the service contract.

brooklynite

(94,727 posts)
6. Yes, exactly my point...
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:10 PM
Mar 2013

The phone doesn't need to be technically locked to the carrier, because I'm legally locked to the carrier. I'm obliged to make 24 payments, covering both service and the residual cost of the phone. How I choose to use the phone is irrelevent.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
7. Built into the reduced price
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:23 PM
Mar 2013

...is the commercial expectation that you will be using the carrier's service. They live for you going over your limits, but that's part of the calculation.

LiberalFighter

(51,084 posts)
8. I would support this if the consumer paid for the phone.
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:12 PM
Mar 2013

But when the price of the phone is based on the value of the contract then in all fairness it wouldn't be right. Those phones aren't cheap if you bought it straight out. I don't understand why they are so expensive and maybe that is an issue that needs to be resolved. I just don't see how they can be worth $200, $300, or even $700.

Years ago, I bought my own landline phone because I had figured it was cheaper than paying the monthly fee.

Rosco T.

(6,496 posts)
9. You do pay for it...
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:20 AM
Mar 2013

Between 20 and 30 of your bill pays for the phone while under contract.. Hence "early termination fee"

LiberalFighter

(51,084 posts)
10. Exactly!
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:24 AM
Mar 2013

They offer the phone at reduced price or free by providing what appears to be a palatable monthly fee.

Rosco T.

(6,496 posts)
11. and as long as I have to pay the 'fee'
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 06:27 PM
Mar 2013

either by monthly installment or by an ETF.. I can do what I want with the phone

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»White House: You have a r...