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."
I applaud it.
This will increase competition between providers as consumers can move to the best deals a little bit more easily. Hopefully other countries will follow suit, but I doubt it.
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!
Nice to see a positive South American headline.
It must be nice having a small(er) country where you can pass progressive pro-consumer legislation.
Yeah, if only all western countries followed the example...
Well that settles it. Once Trump and Palin win in 2016 I'm expatriating to Chile. No poisonous snakes either!
.. otherwise the law might have been struck as "unfair": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock#Belgium
Yes, you read this right, forcing your provider not to lock your phone is "unfair" in the EU.
must unlock free of charge all devices already sold to costumers through a simple form on their respective websites
When the phones were sold, the carriers would have used the future earnings from these phones to offset the initial discount.
Now they cannot make that money
Somewhat unfair isnt it?
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).
Over where I live (Czech Republic) I'm told it's been this way for several years now. Although even before that, the local Vodafone made a point of differentiating itself from competitors by selling only unlocked phones. Their position was always "our service is so much better that we don't need to lock you in".
I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case in a lot of the EU countries (or if it were an EU-wide directive shortly).
> 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.
...by Chile having a successful history of doing away with dictators....
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Yes. I'm sure somebody can.
If you meant to ask if AT&T will follow this Chilean law, then I'd say you'd sooner get Disney to endorse the Pirate Party.
In Europe and Australia, you are tied financially to the carrier. If after a week of a 12 or 18 month contract you want out, you can ask for them to unlock your phone and they will normally do it, you port away, they will give you a bill for the remainder of your contract.
Some carriers will ask that you pay the bill before the unlock (Change from monthly billing to pay as you go) but a lot of them will unlock first.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
cheap phones, cheaper calls, cheaper data and operators have to compete with quality too.
I really, really wish they hadn't allowed operator locking for 3g phones in Finland. it had shit to nothing impact on 3g adaptation.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I disagree,
The subsidy is clawed back by the providers by (length of the contract) x (price per month). Surely it would not make a difference to the subscription income during the course of the contract, as the monthly bills are mandatory.
What it will affect is attrition after the contract finishes. With no network lock, changing providor is just a sim card away, also could affect roaming charges, if consumers opt for a local PAYG sim when on their hols/business trips.
I agree with this 100% but I hope everyone realizes that with no ability to force customers to stick around, there will be a dramatically reduced incentive for carriers to offer subsidies on fancy phones. I think this is fine but I wonder if there will be an uproar when $600 iPhones cost $600 instead of $200 + contract and/or lock.
Just to add, even if a US judge were to block carrier SIM-locking, it would be almost meaningless in the US due to the way Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T run.
Sprint's network will literally refuse to talk to a phone that attempts to identify itself as a subscriber phone with a MEID that isn't in Sprint's official database of Sprint-branded phones.
Verizon authenticates EVDO via firmware extensions that don't exist in Sprint phones, so Verizon's network will refuse to negotiate EVDO connections with a theoretically-unlocked Sprint phone.
T-Mobile's frequency bands aren't supported by default in most GSM phones (most new chipsets can do them, but few phones have support for 1700MHz uplinks enabled, the Samsung Galaxy S i9000 sold internationally is one of the very, very few exceptions).
Most European phones can roam on AT&T, but AFAIK, HSUPA is a semi-proprietary extension to UMTS that's mostly unique to AT&T and not used in Europe(?), so even European phones capable of doing 3G on AT&T will be limping along at less than the max data rate (not 100% sure about this one, but I've seen it widely reported that only AT&T-branded phones can achieve the maximum HSUPA data rates)
Since at any time during the contract the phone belongs to you then I don't really see why they should be allowed to lock it to their own network. If you want to use the phone with another network it is none of their business, surely? It's your phone after all and no matter what you do with it, you are committed to paying them the full monthly amount your contract states for the remaining contract duration or until you arrange to cancel it (this will likely involve a buy out, on their terms).
The network lock is gravy for them, since they can freely sting you for any extra calls you make outside your contract terms, and you have no easy way to avoid that. Further, since they have so much power that they are offering contracts with no way for you to negotiate the terms, it certainly makes sense that the government should prevent them from abusing it in this way.
If you people would just leave cell phone companies alone, they would naturally all do the right thing by their customers!!!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
I wonder if I can get phones that work with TMobile-USA's network from Chile. Seems like the best way to buy a new phone.
Okay, we say "free as in freedom" and "free as in beer." Can we now say "free as in Chile" and "free as in chilli"?
Your post clearly precludes any iphone 4S information which has all the radios to be a 'world phone'. Verizon requires a 60 day cooling period before you can unlock the micro-sim in the 4S, but im sure you could get it rushed if needed. Other then that there is nothing stopping you from popping a micro-sim in it and start calling right away.
P.S. ON 4G Sprint CANNOT refuse your device in the US, in theory at least.
Good-bye
Maybe in some european countries, but in Sweden, all phones except the iPhone(unless they've changed that, haven't really paid attention to it) are unlocked, meaning you don't have to pay or even make a phone call to have it unlocked, you just swap SIM and off you go. You're still tied to the contract to pay for the phone, but no need to unlock it.
Point in case, one of my phones is tied to a carriers contract, yet when I go abroad, I just buy a pre-paid SIM in that country and use that to call or surf without roaming charges.
Summing up, european countries aren't the same homogenous market that the US is.
I'm in Israel, and we have the same law - no network locking.
Our Operators are also not allowed to charge "exit fees" if you terminate the plan early, and if you terminate your data/calls contract but want to keep your phone (and finish paying for it according to the original contract) the operator can't prevent that either.
Oh yeah, and starting from this year, using "fine print" in advertising material is a crime! I love this country :)
"Con carne" communications laws.
Yum! Make mine with cheddar and onions, please!
Who did what now?
[..] so even European phones capable of doing 3G on AT&T will be limping along at less than the max data rate (not 100% sure about this one, but I've seen it widely reported that only AT&T-branded phones can achieve the maximum HSUPA data rates)
Could well be - but Europe DOES have HSPA+, if that is what you meant. Vodafone Germany, for example, currently offers 21.6/5.7 MBit packages. Though I do admit I'm getting confused with all the abbreviations and their different uses and meanings.
We should adopt this law, and make it a death sentence law as well for any carrier to do this. That would get the point across!
The thing is that it would be silly to buy a phone for $500 when you can get the same one for $99, considering the fact that your plan cost will be the same and you're certain to need 2 years of service from _someone_ anyway. Sure, you can change providers within 2 years. I guess you have to decide whether that flexibility is worth $400 or more.
If you don't mind reading in Spanish:
http://www.emol.com/noticias/tecnologia/2012/01/02/519679/desde-hoy-companias-desbloquearan-gratis-celulares-por-internet.html
http://www.guioteca.com/tecnologia/desbloquear-el-celular-que-significa-y-como-se-hace/
how does the law handle those?
Because if carrier lock down is not permitted for subsidized phones then that market will end very quickly. As such it would not be something I would want to come to the US. One of the reasons for the explosion in smart phone popularity other than marketing is that buyers never had to pay for the phone up front.
How is this handled in Chile? Was there ever a subsidized market? If so, what happens to it?
Never applaud a regulation quickly as side effects are not always known or improperly dismissed.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Most European phones can roam on AT&T, but AFAIK, HSUPA is a semi-proprietary extension to UMTS that's mostly unique to AT&T and not used in Europe(?), so even European phones capable of doing 3G on AT&T will be limping along at less than the max data rate (not 100% sure about this one, but I've seen it widely reported that only AT&T-branded phones can achieve the maximum HSUPA data rates)
HSUPA is a standard 3GPP feature, added in release 6 and widely deployed in Europe. Whenever you see "HSPA", it does include both HSDPA (Downlink) and HSUPA (uplink). Now maybe AT&T has some special extensions or deviation from the standard there, I couldn't know. The only time I was on AT&T with a European phone, I never got better than EDGE anyway ;)
Phones remain locked, depending on the model it can be relatively expensive to unlock it (unless you engage a shady unlocker in places of London that are best not visited often )
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I would like to see the credit payments for the phone and payments for service legally separated. To make sure there's no cheating, legally cap the termination fee to be whatever remains on their declared portion for the phone itself (so they aren't out anything if you terminate). Require them to allow the customer to take one without the other for any offered contract.
Most phones are sold below cost and the difference is recouped because the customer is obligated to stay with that provider for some period of time.
Their are two incentives for the customer to stick with that provider -
1) Locked phones - their phone becomes useless on another provider
2) Early termination fees - the customer has to pay a fee to leave
If you take away one of these, expect either the other to go up or the subsidized phone pricing to go away or at least go up.
Whether you think this law is a good idea or not, just remember that there will be consequences.
Kiwis are more liberal, they are conscious they are an small country and don't tend to comit the same arrogant mistakes of bigger countries.
I concur about Australia, the shine goes after one week there, for example I was actually racially abused 3 times while there for a couple of weeks, the same amount of abuse I have received in the UK in 15 years.... that says it all really.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Unless, of course the judge also required them to interoperate tho the maximum extent technically possible. That is, the radio firmware must also be unlocked and freely updatable. Sprint will just have to enter your MEID into their database if you want to bring your own, etc.
... abusive contracts are deemed unenforceable.
Locking phones to stop costumers to use them as the please is anticompetitive, immoral and abusive.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well the obvious thing would be if the laws int he US were changed to forbid carrier SIM-locking, that those same laws should also enforce that a phone that is compatible frequency wise simply can not be denied by a carrier. In fact, it probably should have been a FCC requirement for the past decade that any cell phone sold would simply work on any and all US carrier frequencies.
But it's a moot point, because these rules don't look to be changing anytime soon in the US.
There is no such thing as a free phone, you will pay for it either way. The difference is that a subsidized phone hides the price. As consumers are not paying directly for the phone, there is far less competition on price.
The network-operators will not pay the list price anyway. They'll get a massive discount and then use the inflated list price to justify their high prices.
Well, by North America, I cannot speak to the situation in Mexico.
But in Canada & USA, one can take their unlocked phone to another carrier after a contract is over, but there is a price disincentive against doing so.
If the new carrier offers either 1, 2, or 3 year plans, all with a new phone, or PAYG, then the incentive is to take the "free" new phone, not bring the unlocked one along. PAYG being a rip-off for anything but the most casual usage, of course.
Until carriers in NA are forced to have plans with different prices for "free" phones vs bring-your-own phones, there will not be much incentive to switch carriers and continue using the previous phone.
BTW, Wind Mobile in Canada will give you - for free - your network unlock code after 3 months of service. I've unlocked 2 Android phones that way. Now we can travel internationally and just plug in any cheap SIM, or switch to competition and simply get a SIM.
Depending on the contract, while you might be in physical possession of the device, if you have just walked out of a store without paying for it (Signed a contract though) I can't think of anywhere in the western world where a court would consider it "Your property".
If you cancel the contract then you are basically doing a "buy out" as you mention. This is what I'm referring to in your quote of my post. Until you have "bought out" your contract, then you haven't completely paid for the device.
You do read your contracts don't you? If you are willingly making calls outside of your contract and this is a problem, simply, don't! If this is such an issue for you, lodge a complaint with the carrier and ask for it to go to dispute resolution. At this point, they would normally settle then go through that as it will cost too much or complain to whatever Government based consumer rights group you have in your country. Looking at your previous posts, you're in the UK:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/Yourconsumerrightswhenbuyinggoodsandservices/DG_195147
A complaint to the Ombudsman (CICAS) costs the carrier money; they will go to dispute resolution and drop rates to prevent you from doing so.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
The carriers make WAY too much money out of it as they know that the price of providing you that service in 18 months time is going to be less than half what it is when you sign your contract. At the end of the contract is the time that they make the most money out of you, not at the beginning of the contract when you are paying for the handset + airtime, aside from it being cheaper for them to provide you the service at the end of the contract (Moore's law and all that)
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
While not a huge selection, there are 3 unlocked quad GSM/pentaband HSPA smart phones on Newegg that fully support just about every GSM carrier including both T-mobile and AT&T. Two Nokias (N9 & E7) and the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. There are also many quad band GSM dumb/feature phones that are portable between networks if internet access on your phone isn't a major concern.
Sprint and Verizon's networks are still a problem, but at least there are some options for nationwide/global portability on the GSM carriers.
Knowledge Brings Fear
In Europe, I haven't had problems with that in the past. A lot of the phones I've had on contract have come unlocked, others will be unlocked with a call to the carrier (Usually when I'm going away for a month or two and don't want to roam). I still owe them for the contract, but unlocking the phone hasn't been an issue for them.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
.. manage all of their costumes on a device of their choice. I wonder how this change will affect the customers at large though!
Not super funny, but definitely not a troll and worth pointing out. I would have probably gone with something like, "So only people wearing costumes or people that make costumes get unlocked phones?"
The editors should be able to pickup the difference between costumer and customer. Reading it once should be sufficient.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
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.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
And thus the phrase popular outside DC, when referring to federal government - "those people are living in their own little bubble".
... where it would be really nice if I could trot out that nationalistic cliche only in America..., but I can't, can I? This brings to mind the belated Federal legislation last year to put the brakes on disproportionately loud commercials, something that was addressed in some Old World countries a long time ago. The United States isn't quite the leader it imagines itself to be.
What good is an unlocked phone...if you can't use it on any other carrier? None of the semi-modern services (3g or up) are compatible across the carriers, and all of the voice systems are at least partially segregated.
Even LTE will be similarly hampered because "free market" dictates that every carrier use different frequencies for the same service.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Sprint's network will literally refuse to talk to a phone that attempts to identify itself as a subscriber phone with a MEID that isn't in Sprint's official database of Sprint-branded phones.
Which is not a technical restriction, but a self-imposed whitelist. Think of it as a gentleman's agreement between Sprint and Verizon not to activate the others' phones. It's very likely that if a law was passed requiring phones to be sold "unlocked" that the government would also take a rather close look at carriers attempting to skirt around the law with ESN/MEID/IMEI whitelists. It's worth mentioning that Verizon allows their MVNOs to activate non-Verizon CDMA phones - Sprint is simply choosing to be a dick.
Verizon authenticates EVDO via firmware extensions that don't exist in Sprint phones, so Verizon's network will refuse to negotiate EVDO connections with a theoretically-unlocked Sprint phone.
Plenty of people use Sprint phones flashed over to Page Plus, a Verizon MVNO. As long as you have a means to obtain the correct M.IP profile 0 data (which consists of some IP configuration, your NAI and HA and AAA passwords), your EVDO will work. Conversely, people successfully use Verizon phones on Sprint's Boost Mobile prepaid service by means of cloning. (Which is actually rather commonplace, if you look on eBay and Craigslist.)
T-Mobile's frequency bands aren't supported by default in most GSM phones (most new chipsets can do them, but few phones have support for 1700MHz uplinks enabled, the Samsung Galaxy S i9000 sold internationally is one of the very, very few exceptions).
Yes, the biggest example of this is the iPhone - which can be purchased unlocked but will only connect at EDGE speeds on T-Mobile. Keep in mind that it might be more common to see multi-band phones if carrier locking wasn't the norm.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I live in Canada. I bought an unlocked phone and I have a pay-as-you-go plan. The only complain about this system is the "steal" of the leftover money in my account. When I put $10 in it, it last for 30 days. If I had some unused credit in my balance, it "magically" disappears....I thought this was "stealing".....
Are you sure you got this right. This makes too much common sense, and for the public none the less.
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.
Can I ask why? I've taken a UMTS850/2100 handset with E-DCH & HSDPA to the US and used it fine on AT&T prepaid? Are you saying I was only using a Release 99 channel in the uplink, not a HSUPA channel?
I haven't bought a locked phone since the '90s (the SUPREME IS will forgive my capitulation in contributing to the never-to-be-sufficiently-ridiculed purchase of my daughters I-phones... I hope...) The truth is, we are all complicit in our greedy acceptance of the benefits of 'locked' whether it be SIM, DRM, or other... We all need (to put it mildly) to wake the fuck up - and understand the big picture. Until that happens - it sucks to be a consumer! STOP buying locked phones. STOP buying DRM'ed media, STOP believing good = cheap... and watch the world change!
Furthermore, if tried elsewhere, all of the above, plus stealth bombs from the heavens. Looks like Chile has fallen off the ratification truck. They'll be made to regret this soon enough.
How can a GSM phone be denied by the carrier, in general? You just pop the SIM card in and off you go. I've been using unlocked phoned from Europe (Galaxy Nexus currently) that way on AT&T in U.S. for over a year now.