Slashdot Mirror
Bill Proposes Canadian Cellphone Unlocking Rights
SJrX sends in a CBC report that the Canadian New Democratic Party has tabled a bill requiring all cellphone companies to provide unlocked cellphones. (Wikipedia notes, "The party is regarded as falling on the left in the Canadian political spectrum.") This reader adds, "The fact that there is a minority government currently should help this bill's chances of getting passed." "The bill proposes three rules: cellphone carriers would be required to notify customers at the point of purchase whether a phone is locked to work only on their network; they would have to remove such a lock free of charge at any point after the conclusion of the customer's service contract; and they would have to remove it if the customer does not enter into a contract within six months of buying the device up front."
"Sure you're free to take this phone to another carrier, just don't circumvent the DRM to do it"
Between laws like this, universal healthcare, low crime, etc. I'm considering hiring a coyote to smuggle me and my family across the border. All of the advantages of modern America without all the ultra-right-wing bullshit and wars. I'd pay higher taxes and put up with more snow for that.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
While I agree with the premise here, I'm not sure I like the idea of forcing companies to do this. I mean, the advantage of an unlocked phone is only apparent if there are other networks in the country that phone can run on.
Maybe this isn't a problem in Canada like it is here in the US...?
Living With a Nerd
This is already required if not in all of the EU, then in most of the northern European countries. Cell-phones are instead sold with minimum-time subscriptions, so you may change operator but you still have to pay for the old subscription until the minimum time runs out.
I'm a Liberal and have been since I started voting. For the most part, I sympathized with the NDP (since they are a left party and I am similarly left in most of my views) but just didn't think most of their agendas were in line with my interests and goals. Of late, however, they have taken new "modern" issues very seriously and are coming out on the side I support, which is to say the side of the populace rather than corporate overlords. As the Liberals languish in a bygone era and the Conservatives drive further towards a system that I loathe (and all other options simply not worth considering unless I've already put a bullet in my head), I find myself becoming increasingly inclined to vote NDP in upcoming elections. Kudos to them and I hope they keep forcing the other parties to seriously consider consumer rights as various subjects are discussed and debated.
Keep in mind that the Neo Democrats (NDP) are a minority party. As long as the ruling conservatives get the backing of the liberals (the main opposition party), they can beat the project and kill it outright. Stephen Harper has shown time and again to be a shill of the MPAA and RIAA, so this outcome is the most likely one.
I live in Texas. And god damnit, the only thing we really have besides cattle, space, and oil industries, is really low taxes. I was somewhat unnerved when I visited Vancouver.
Phone company sympathizers that will claim it hurts business...
wont someone think of the rich CEO's!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Over here in Sweden, 3rd party unlocking of phones is legal. (or at least has been, haven't seen much advertising for that lately, come to think of it.)
You could pay the equivalent of $50 or something to some bozo with a computer and a cable to crack the operator lock.
Obviously, if you signed a contract with monthly fees for a number of months, you'd still have to pay those, but there were some marketing stunt where you could get a locked phone without monthly fees virtually for free. You could then unlock it and sell with a nice profit.
That kind of deals obviously don't come often. Maybe there was just the one.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Ted, however, is against it on the grounds that it's totally bogus.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Previously I'd say the differing network technologies were a concern. Bell & Telus operate mostly on CDMA while Rogers runs on GSM. Most of the smaller carriers operate piggybacked onto these networks, or are owned outright by these three carriers. Wind Mobile is the exception (using AWS).
More recently however, all three of the major carriers have been implementing HSDPA+ (Wikipedia link) on UMTS 850 / 1900MHz. So if you're buying a Smartphone that's a "world phone", chances are you can use it in on all of the major carriers. Google's Nexus One for instance. Right now, you can get an HTC Legend for a great non-contract price of $350 from Virgin Mobile (operated by Bell), unlock it and use it in most major cities.
Myself, I just purchased a Samsung Galaxy Spica branded for Rogers and unlocked it to use on Bell. I had to get the unlock code via eBay (and buy a Bell SIM), but I would have preferred to just get it unlocked in the first place, or unlocked by request. There have also been problems with carriers being stubborn over allowing unlocked devices (Bell is still pretty picky, but currently allowing it), so this bill is something I'd like to see passed.
These carriers may change back to different technologies when they get to 4G, but from press releases so far they've all put the brakes on LTE, etc. for now and are planning on pushing HSPDA+ to its max potential first.
I am writing you due to my concern and displeasure with what I feel are unacceptable, anti-competitive practices in Canada's mobile phone industry.
Foremost among my concerns is the practice of "Cell Phone Network Locking". Cellular phones are expensive pieces of equipment. Consumers nowadays can expect to either pay hundreds of dollars or be required to lock themselves in to a three year contract in order to get a handset subsidized by their network provider.
I understand and respect the network's need to protect their investment in terms of the "minimum contract time", but my problem arises at the end of the contract term (or immediately, in the case of the consumer who purchases their hardware outright).
Networks sell their hardware in a "Network Locked" state. This means that a phone purchased from Rogers will only work on Rogers owned networks, Bell only with Bell and so on... If a consumer who owns their phone outright is in any way unsatisfied with their service or have to switch providers for any reason, they are forced to abandon their hardware and "start again" with a new and expensive handset or enter another long contract.
Modern cell phones will typically cost $500 but can climb to almost $1000 for top-of-the-line hardware.
A recent article in the news cites Canada's cell phone rates as being amongst the world's most expensive (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/08/11/canada-cellphone-rates-expensive-oecd.html).
Though many countries do not have laws regarding the practice of SIM locking, a number of countries do seem to have been able to strike a fair balance between consumer protection and corporate profits.
I would urge you to consider pursuing Canadian regulations like those described in the following countries: Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore and Spain. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock) All of these countries have regulations that in one way or another allow the consumer to freely own their handset after they have paid for it. Often there is some fair and reasonable period of protection for the company.
Whether it be like Hong Kong's "until the phone is paid for", or Denmark's "Six Months" isn't really an issue for me, but for the time being it seems that relying on Canadian providers to voluntarily provide unlock codes to consumers is not working. I believe a legislative implement will be what is best for Canadians.
Competition is good for the consumer as is choice, allowing customers who have paid for their hardware to choose which provider to get their service from will hopefully improve our situation.
A second issue which seems to be getting coverage elsewhere is the move to charge consumers for receiving text messages. I am strongly against this as it opens the door for consumers to be forced into paying "Junk Mail".
Although I'll admit that I'm not necessarily an NDP supporter regularly, I am certainly in agreement with their current "I'm Against The Text Message Cash Grab" campaign that they seem to be running (Even if the language is a bit inflammatory for my tastes, the message is clear). Should you find yourself in a position to suppourt a bill on this issue, I would be pleased if you did.
Thank you very much for your time,
And here we are nearly 10 Months later and they're introducing a bill?
Could it be possible that the political system actually works? Surely there's some other explanation. Please, Oh Please, let there be some other explanation... I'd hate to be forced into voting for the NDP as the only party that isn't completely incompetent.
There is only one small/minor/insignificant problem; our 3 primary carriers (Bell, Telus, and Rogers) have incompatable networks!
This has improved slightly thanks to the recent Vancouver Olympics, but still the lions share of the phones are incompatable.
Rogers: GSM -850MHz & 1900MHz
Telus: CDMA and limited HSPA -800MHz & 1900MHz
Bell: CDMA and limited HSPA -850MHz & 1900MHz
Unless you have an awesome phone that supports 800MHz and 850MHz you are SOL for voice communication and have to buy a new phone if you wanted to hop from one carrier to another.
Another fly in the ointment, even if your phone is capable (i.e. Nokia N900)Bell & Nokia do not operate on 'SIM' cards like the GSM based world+dog do, so you are SOL again.
They should have been mandated to all jump straight to LTE and drop this incompatable bullshit.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
oops... ha ha - that's the one I sent to my Conservative rep. There was another one I sent to my NDP rep when I moved to a different district.
This is a really good idea. The company's wont lose out on any money by unlocking the phone and physically the performance on the cellular network will increase. The only real question is why hasn't this been done already.
I sent this letter to my local NDP representative 8/25/09
And here we are nearly 10 Months later and they're introducing a bill?
Could it be possible that the political system actually works? Surely there's some other explanation. Please, Oh Please, let there be some other explanation... I'd hate to be forced into voting for the NDP as the only party that isn't completely incompetent.
That's all fine and good. But just remember one thing. Windows 7 - That was MY idea.
I was disappointed to see that the dog wasn't holding a gun. Clearly that family is not fully committed to being armed.
Putting moderation advice in your
I use T-Mobile in the US and when ever I needed a phone unlocked I simply asked them, and they did it for me. No fuss, no bother. Generally they would ask me why and I would say because I am traveling overseas and want to get a local SIM card. At one stage I had considered switching to AT&T (because T-Mobile coverage in my own house sucks) and unlocking was an issue for me. The AT&T rep I spoke with assured me that that was possible - however I have not put it to the test.
It may be a case of YMMV, but so far I have no complaints.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I mean come on ... the company obviously has a business interest in locking the phone, or they wouldn't bother. So saying that there's no cost associated with unlocking the phones -- not even including the customer service costs to be incurred at the point of unlocking -- is silly.
Business interest is rather vague, so let's be a little more specific and call it what it is: A business interest in reducing competition. This is about phones that are bought and paid for, either via contract or outright.
You're actually arguing for free market principles in favour of an anti-competitive practice? Seriously? You don't see the paradox in that? You actually believe that this particular behaviour reduces prices to the consumer?
On the side point, have you unlocked a phone recently? I did a few days ago and all it took was a code entered via the phone's own keypad. No extra hardware, no expertise required.
Currently, Canadian carriers are seriously gouging customers. Consumer Reports and the BBB have both written reports recently regarding the high volume of complaints toward cellular services, specifically about pricing. These are the guys you think should not incur the infinitesimal costs of unlocking phones for customers-- phones they have locked themselves to begin with.
A bill is 'tabled' (put off until a later date) when either there are more pressing issues, or there are not enough votes to get it passed. They did not 'table' this bill, they introduced it.
If I'm reading this right, this has awesome implications for homebrewers. Not just homebrew software, but homebrew hardware as well.
unlock the owned cable boxes as well so any cable system in Canada can use any Owned cable box there.
And besides, the snow is just an insulator. The ice cream isn't producing heat so it will end up at the same temperature as the snow.
Ted, however, is against it on the grounds that it's totally bogus.
Dude. Ted died 2 years ago. So he, like, didn't say anything.
That dog is a socialist communist fascist who hates our freedoms. He must be put down!
This almost makes up for Giving the Feds emergency powers to control our internets.
But I've still got my eyes on you.
Or just give us Cablecard...
So like, that's what the time-traveling phone booth is for, eh!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
problem with that is that in most major centres, although there are usually at least 3 TV providers, they use completely different technologies to get the signal there, so an unlocked box will still only work on the one system.
eg. in BC and Alberta you can get service from:
- Shaw (Cable/Satellite)
- TELUS (IPTV/Satellite)
- Bell (Satellite)
Even the satellite systems aren't compatible though (ok, the TELUS and Bell satellites are, but the shaw direct (formerly "starchoice") satellite is different)
So what exactly would you DO with your unlocked Shaw cable receiver? it isn't capable of working as a satellite or IPTV receiver...
At least in the US such a law would be nearly pointless since these "locks" are easily uncircumvented and most carriers either don't lock their phones (Verizon) or have a similar unlocking policy anyways (notable exception the iPhone).
So the real "lock" (obstacle) to using a given phone on another carrier are all the other forms of non-interoperability, intentional or otherwise, especially 1) use of different frequency bands particularly for data (e.g. AT&T vs Tmo 3G bands), 2) the use of incompatible authentication protocols (e.g. Verizon vs Sprint), 3) use of different MMS systems (e.g. Sprint), and the refusal of many carriers to activate non-branded phones (e.g. Sprint, Verizon). The upshot is that in most cases even if a phone is "unlocked", moving it to another carrier that *should* be compatible (CDMA vs GSM), nevertheless almost always results in nothing working but voice and maybe simple SMS, unless one does major hacking and flashing. This then obviates the whole point since any $20 phone can do voice and SMS.
I wonder where roaming phones are on that list (for example a tourist with an T-Mobile or AT&T phone)?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
This bill is good intentioned, but practically useless, given the state of affairs of the cell phone market reality in North America (yes, USians, you too!)
In Europe, Africa and most of Asia, everyone standardized on GSM. You ask the network for a phone number, and they give you a SIM card, you go to any shop and buy any phone and it is guaranteed to work with any network you choose. Not only that, but phones work everywhere from Hong Kong to Dubai to Spain to Johannesburg. Nothing special, other than getting a SIM card if roaming is too expensive.
In the USA and Canada, we the consumers, have accepted things that are never acceptable elsewhere. For example, we had CDMA, which is used only in the USA, Canada, Japan and perhaps another one or two smaller countries. CDMA does not have a SIM card. The phone is made by the manufacturer and locked to a certain network that sells you the phone.
Even when GSM came to North America, it was done in bands that were not the standard ones used elsewhere in the world, which was circumvented when quad band phones were put on the market. Meaning they work in Europe and Canada/USA, but they have a higher price and have more silicon inside to handle this fragmentation.
When 3G came by, more fragmentation occurred. The governments started selling "spectrum", and companies like Google and Cricket grabbed certain bands (WINDMobile, Mobilicity and Public Mobile in Canada did the same). AWS was invented.
This means that a phone from Rogers will not work with WINDMobile and vice versa.
So what use will the bill be if they are operating at different frequencies?
Not only that, we see industry lobbyists asking for "more spectrum". The excuse is that spectrum is too crowded, but the real reason is more fragmentation and balkanization so they can lock in customers more and more. Why does Europe which is more densely populated, or Egypt have more carriers, yet all handsets work on all networks?
See this article I wrote earlier: Mobile phone carriers lobby for more balkanization by asking for more spectrum as well.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
| "The party is regarded as falling on the left in the Canadian political spectrum."
The party is regarded as the Communist Party of Canada. "Falling on the left" is a gross understatement.
Be aware that in a Parliamentary system, only bills tabled by the governing party are treated seriously. It's very, very rare that a "private members'" bill such as this ever gets any traction. These are usually political exercises by opposition parties who hold no real hope of having it passed.
Canada has 25 months now?
Virtually no snow, less rain than Seattle, on the Pacific coast. There's a ski-hill nearby and we get the best weather in Canada. We have snow for a few days to a week in the winter, no more. And by snow I mean half an inch to a few inches. The City of Victoria doesn't even own its own snow removal equipment.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
In related news, Apple plans to sell iPhones unlocked in Canada. The Canadian cell-phone market has started becoming competitive this year, with Bell/Telus deploying HSPA networks compatible with the Rogers/Fido network. (They wanted to cash in on roaming visitors during the Olympics and the iPhone fad, no doubt.) Factory-unlocked iPhones are also available in Belgium, France, Italy, the UK, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand. We laugh at you Americans who are stuck with AT&T, and who keep wishing for a Verizon iPhone. You don't seem to realize that Apple doesn't care to produce a special CDMA model just for one carrier in one country, when it is already selling one GSM phone worldwide faster than it can make them.
FPGA=Field Programmable Gate Arrays
A type of chip. Logic gates (AND, XOR, NAND etc.) can be reprogrammed on the fly. (As opposed to PGAs, Programmable Gate Arrays, which you can order from the manufacturer, program the way you want them, but then once you install them in the circuit you can't change it. (As opposed to GAs, Gate Arrays, for which you specify the logic and they come from the manufacturer this way.))
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
As a Canadian this angers me. The real reform we need is to allow outside cellphone carriers to compete in our market because we are tired of paying $35 dollars per month for 500 minutes and zero features. (Yes I know they are advertised as $20-$25 on their sites but just wait till you receive your first bill with all the "service" charges.) This is just some political move to look good all the while avoiding the real issue.
Same experience. When we bought our T-mobile phones (with contract), they said that we could have the phones unlocked after 3 months. So we asked them after 3 months (said we were travelling oerseas, needed a local SIM card), and they provided the codes to unlock. After a year or two, we got new phones at subsidized cost from T-mobile, and could have it unlocked right away (since we had already been T-mobile customers for more than 3 months).
Once, we were overseas and found out that one of the phones was still locked. (We thought the guy said that it came unlocked, but I guess he really meant we could have it unlocked right away.) We phoned long-distance to Tmobile, and they gave instructions on how to unlock the phone. We got it unlocked and were able to use a local SIM card.
Btw, Tmobile has several different call centres in the USA, and at least one of them is staffed with totally clueless people. If you find yourself wasting time with the person, just say you have to end your call because of some emergency, and then call back to get a different call centre.
For example, I asked how to contact Tmobile from overseas if I have trouble with roaming, and the staff said, "1-800-937-8997". I asked, "Does that 1-800 number work overseas?" and she said (after a long pause) "I don't know. Let me check." (pause of 1-2 minutes) "No, it doesn't." I asked, "So how do I contact you from overseas?" (long pause) "You can't."
But I was asking just to verify a number I had already written down from before (you see, I had *already* contacted them from overseas a few years before). I asked, "If I call +1(505)998-3793, would that work?"
(long pause)
"Yes, that would work."
Someone should really look into the training program for these Tmobile phone receptionists. Anyway, there's the phone number if you need to contact T-mobile overseas.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Of course.
Dividing the year into 25 months instead of the customary 12 is very convenient.
That way we can still claim that we have 3 full months of summer.
I wrote a letter to my local NDP representative about Bill C-32.
They invited people who were interested in discussing the Bill to the opening of an art show. :)
Ted Rogers?