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.
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).
Europe already has this, and has done since the beginning. You buy your phone and put in a SIM for your chosen network, if you want. You can even use PAYG SIMs that don't expire straight into the latest and greatest devices. Where people come unstuck is believing they're getting a "free" latest version iPhone/Nexus/Whatever when locking into a contract. You want choices? You ain't getting a "free" phone.
> 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.
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)
Not in my country, Portugal. Here, locked phones are the norm. Paradoxically, one of the earliest adopters of mobile phones and one of the countries in the world with more mobile phones per person.
The explosion of mobile phones in Portugal can in part be explained by locking. Being able to sell locked phones, the operators gave the phones almost for free and made money on calls. This made it possible for every cat and dog to buy a locked mobile phone really cheap. If calling between operators is too expensive, no problem. Buy more phones locked to the other operators.
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.
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.
From now on carriers are allowed to sell both locked and unlocked phones, but they have to clearly state which is the case, and what are the conditions of the lockdown (e.g. monthly discount, preferential prices). Also, the phone lease contract must be independent from the line contract. And the phone lease contract must provide a way to get the phone unlocked. The typical case will be something like "I give you this phone if you pay $X upfront and $Y monthly for Z months. If you have a voice plan with us, we'll discount you $Y for the first Z months".
I agree that changing previous contracts is somehow abusive against carriers, but IMHO it's the only way to encourage the first big wave of people switching. The market appears to be OK with this so far, and carriers already started aggressive marketing campaigns to steal each others' customers.
(Yes, I live in Chile. Sorry for suboptimal english ;) )
That's not really related to having locked phones - that's because he has a CDMA phone. You could have a GSM phone with SIM card and still have it be locked.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
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.
Knowledge Brings Fear
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.