Chile Forbids Carriers From Selling Network-Locked Phones

An anonymous reader writes "As from today, network operators in Chile are no longer allowed to sell carrier-locked phones, and must unlock free of charge all devices already sold to costumers through a simple form on their respective websites. The new regulation came into effect in preparations for the rollout of Mobile Number Portability, set to begin on January 16th. This is one among other restrictions that forbid carriers to lock in the customers through 'abusive clauses' in their contracts, one of which was through selling locked devices. Now if a customer wishes to change carriers he/she needs only to have the bills up to date and the process of porting the number should only take 24 hours."

Comments

An outbreak of common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I applaud it.

Re:An outbreak of common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be able to do this in the U.S, but first you would have to unlock all the paid-for federal politicians.

Based on the chances of that happening, I guess not.

Re:An outbreak of common sense

[sjames]

Yes. I absolutely applaud it, and so should anyone who wants a healthy market.

As near as I can tell, the claim is that any kind of regulation, including forbidding businesses to mug people in the park to cover shortfalls is claimed to "discourage investment".

Sometimes the public interest calls for less muggings even at the cost of less investment.

Re:An outbreak of common sense

[Grishnakh]

You can't do something like this in the US. All the teabaggers and their Republican allies will say it's Communism and that government regulation is wrong. The Democrats will say a few weasel words that appear to support this, but then will either not bother to do anything at all, or will make a lame attempt at passing a law, but when a few Republicans object they'll change the law so that it looks like it's supporting this at first glance, but in reality is actually making things worse and giving giant advantages to the incumbent carriers, while also throwing in a bunch of other unrelated stuff that Republicans want. When people complain, the Dems will say they were "forced" to "compromise".

Re:What about subsidized phones

[slinches]

I think they'd likely handle subsidized phones the same way the carriers do now, early termination fees. The reason they put the lock on the phone has nothing to do with the subsidy. It's to prevent switching to a more competitively priced plan once the contract expires.

Re:Great

[mbkennel]

"Then why are privately owned toll roads in such good repair?"

Generally, it's because they are new and are only in good shape when they have to compete directly against non-toll roads going to the same destination.

in sum: works well when there is strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.

"Why does our privately owned worldwide system of trade networks work so well?"

Because they are in an industry which has strong competitive substitution, there are universal non-proprietary technical standards, and
foremost, they are beneficiaries of huge government investments in regulated infrastructure like ports, roads, rail and airports. One tanker or container ship is as good as another.

in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.

"Why does the internet work so well?"

Brutal competition, and the inability to apply proprietary standards, like with shipping carriers. This is a historical artifiact of the initial investment & technology being developed by government.

in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.

"Why does cellphone service work so well?"

It doesn't, except where there is strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.

"Why do private urgent package delivery services work so well?"

Because they aren't providing infrastructure, they are beneficiaries thereof.

in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.

When the infrastructure does not offer competitive substitutability or there is technical lock-in, it is very lucrative and undesirable for private entitites to run it, without intrusive and constant regulation.

Re:What about subsidized phones

[tgeek]

IMHO, subsidized phones ought to go away. Hiding the true price of the phones behind carrier subsidies frees the phone manufacturers from having to price their phones openly and competitively.

Imagine if there were no subsidized phones. Would we still have iPhones, Samsung Galaxies, HTC whatchamacallits and whatever else? I think so. Would they cost $500 or more? I doubt it - I think market competition would drive the prices down. Plus we might actually have some reasonably priced contract terms for service.

Instead we have manufacturers who set whatever exorbitant price they like and conspire with the carriers to hide that price into locked-in contracts. PT Barnum, wherever he is, must be smiling!

why the fuck you want subsidized phones?

[gl4ss]

why the fuck you want subsidized phones?

really? if you're poor and short on cash - then buy a fucking 40 bucks phone - they do exist, they work as phones really well. or spend 120 bucks and buy something that can run angry birds. if you can afford an expensive smartphone buy it upfront.

OR do a proper partial payment plan for it. doing long contracts with carriers is stupidity, doing long contracts that you don't even know the terms for is greater stupidity and that's what carrier locked subbed phones are.