Slashdot Mirror
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."
Legislation which actually benefits consumers instead of large corporations, very good...
Locked cellphones are abusive and totally unnecessary, you already have existing contract laws to ensure that someone continues paying their bill for the duration of the contract term so there's really no reason to try and lock handsets too.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Since I was a boy, Chile has always been known for being a leader in telecoms in Southamerica. It seems now that we are also leading in matters of technology rights. We also have Net Neutrality http://www.neutralidad.cl/ by law, ISPs can't block content nor censor it. Traffic shaping is also forbiddin (although it is still in use, since the Net Neutrality law is new). Our Minister of Telecommunications have said that the next goal is more competition and better prices both for Internet en cell phone communications. Also, in topic to this article. We have 3 major cell phone providers, and there are 2 more providers in the way. We also have more cellphones than citizens (20 million cells, in contrast to 17 mill citizens).
> Can someone unlocked a US-based iPhone in Chile?
You'd be wasting your time, if the intent is to use it in the US.
A non-Sprint iPhone will never work on Sprint as a customer phone (but can roam on Sprint if your carrier has agreements with them). Sprint just won't allow it, period.
A non-Verizon iPhone will never do EVDO on Verizon, even if you can get it to limp along with CDMA2000 voice and 1xRTT.
A non-AT&T iPhone will almost certainly never do HSUPA on AT&T, and would almost certainly cost way more than just buying an AT&T iPhone.
In theory, an unlocked iPhone could be used with T-Mobile, but (drumroll, please) will never do anything better than EDGE. There's no hard technical reason why an AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon iPhone can't do 1700/2100 HSPA+ on T-Mobile (their MSM6600 chipset is certainly capable of it), but an an end user you'll never, ever get it to work because the radio firmware is separate, with its own heavily-encrypted bootloader, and no iPhone sold anywhere on earth has 1700/2100 HSPA+ enabled in its radio modem firmware.
It's sad. Apple basically has one hardware design for all of its iPhones, but the three US models are intentionally as non-interoperable with each others' networks as their firmware can make them be.
sometimes fortunes are lost when markets are simply ended by decree. There was a point in US history where President Lincoln said (and i paraphrase), "i don't care how much you invested in your farming equipment. it's not yours anymore and you don't get to recoup anything."
Obviously locking people into a cellphone contract is not comparable to slavery (despite what some here might claim), but i suspect the economic impact of simply declaring those contracts null is also less significant.
I'm sure there are other examples of laws being passed to end a previously lucrative but legal way of business that incorporate less hyperbole.
Never happen in the US.
Every carrier would claim how this would stifle innovation, reduce competition, prevent them from expanding or upgrading their networks, force telcomm and layoffs of about 100K jobs and a loss to the US economy of about 100billion dollars a year. In addition, it would be unfair to minorities and illegal immigrants, those living in the inner city, cause an increase in child molestation incidents, raise prescription drug costs, and make illegal drugs more readily available to teenagers, further reduce the quality of our public schools and force the federal and local governments to raise taxes.
Don't push for this in the US unless you want all of the above to happen.
I live near DC. I hear TV and radio commercials related to some upcoming government policy change or decision all the time and they all follow that exact theme.
Getting off topic but for those outside the DC area.. It is surprising the number of commercials that are played on local radio and TV for the joint strike fighter, Boeing, health care, telecomm, network neutrality, cleaning up the hudson, etc. I guess if you can't lobby the pentagon and government officials directly, catch them in their commute waiting in traffic listening to the radio.
This is a big peeve of mine. The carriers are ripping you off here too. The ETF (early termination fee) handles the loss they would take on the subsidized phone if you jumped ship before your contract expired. But once your contract expires, there is no more subsidy. They've recouped the subsidy cost through your monthly payments over 2-3 years. So once you are off-contract, they should drop your monthly fee an appropriate amount.
T-Mobile is the only carrier which does this. All the other carriers continue charging you the same monthly fee as if you have a subsidized phone. In effect, they are stealing from you by charging you the subsidized monthly fee even though your phone is no longer subsidized. I am generally against regulation, but anti-regulation is just a means to an end. The end is the free market, and hiding charges like this is not conducive to a free market. So regulation which prohibits these hidden charges which can be abused in this manner is a good thing.
At this point, we need legislation to force carriers to break out phone subsidies into a separate charge. If you don't want to pay full-price for your phone, you can get it at a discount. But rather than characterize it as being subsidized via your monthly fee, it should be structured for what it really is - a loan. The carrier loans you the purchase price of your "$0 down" phone. The monthly loan payments get added onto your monthly service bill. When your loan is paid off, you have only service charges left to pay. If you jump ship before repaying the loan, the full amount of the loan becomes due. No ETFs. The way they currently do it is so obfuscated it's rife with abuse and cheating.
We have the same law, and have unlocked phones, and have number portability, and yet ... surprise, surprise, the most popular plans and phones are those subsidised phones on contract plans. We also have cheaper plans and mobile internet that you can only dream of (on contract, I get 10G for about 25 USD. Off contract it's 3G for about 18 USD)
It really is sad when people buy into the propaganda and actively work against their own interests, such as when they oppose regulations that protect them from big corps. A moments thought on your part would have made you realise that most countries have regulations to prevent the cell providers from locking phones to networks, and they have a healthier cell ecosystem than the US.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.