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!
.. 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.
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.
Any unexpected (and everything is unexpected at some point) regulation is "somewhat unfair"; the provider might bet on you staying with them after you finished your contract because you don't want to lose your number but then number portability comes and then they can't keep you.
Fact is the provider is intentionally crippling a perfectly good phone betting there will be enough people paying for their "official" unlocking service to offset all the costs associated with these procedures and even get them some extra profit.
It's a non-zero sum game in which the "total" optimal strategy would be for the provider to just stop messing up with the phones. The problem is that market will not reach this point by itself once those 2-3 big providers sell only locked phones.
Unfair? No. Unfair is selling someone a device, telling them that they own it, it belongs to them, and if it breaks, they must pay to replace it.... and while it can technically connect to any network, its restricted to only use one. If they own it...its theirs, its unfair to make them own it AND tell them they can't use it as they see fit. Period.
So yes, it makes this particular business model untenable. Thats not unfair, it was the model that was based on an unfair practice.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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?
You're still in a contract with the carrier so they get their subsidized money back. This just means when you're done with your contract you can take your phone with you to another carrier.
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)
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.
Exactly. An Unlocked iPhone 4S costs more than an iPad 2. There is no reason for the unlocked phone to cost what it does. The price is artificially inflated to make it look like you are getting a huge amount off in subsidy.
"Con carne" communications laws.
Yum! Make mine with cheddar and onions, please!
Who did what now?
The contract already locks you in for the duration of its terms, and the carrier is protected here by contract law.
There is no reason to add the additional lock-in of a locked handset, and no reason that carriers could not offer unlocked handsets with subsidies.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
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.
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.
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".