Slashdot Mirror
Obama Asks FCC To Make Carriers Unlock All Mobile Devices
New submitter globaljustin writes "According to a Washington Post report: 'Several months after calling for legislation to unlock cellphones, the White House filed a petition (PDF) with the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday asking that all wireless carriers be required to unlock all mobile devices so that users can easily switch between carriers. ... the National Telecommunications and Information Administration said that allowing unlocked devices would increase competition and consumer choice, while also putting the burden of changing networks on companies rather than consumers.' This move should be met with universal acclaim from cell phone users, right?"
There is still the whole GSM vs CDMA issue.
Are they just going to change the terms of the contracts to find another way to screw people over? I really just want the price on unlocked devices to come down.
Now we can CHANGE carriers.
isn't the outrageous 5-year prison sentence, but that the "solution" is to officially ignore the law, rather than to repeal it.
Republicans will somehow find a way to criticize this. Like "Obama gives stimulus for brain cancer" or something.
Even if the phone is unlocked you cannot take a Sprint phone and use it with AT&T one is CDMA and the other is GSM. And in some cases GSM to GSM the Internet access will not work but the phone will.
Let's look at some potential headlines:
Obama Bans Cell Phone Subsidies
Apple stock plummets as iPhone is no longer affordable
Is this the beginning of a national cell plan?
Antichrist makes power play in mobile sector
Had to throw in one from FauxNews. Anyway, there's lots people could complain about here. Some of it might even be reasonable.
Doesn't matter if the phone is unlocked if you are bound by a contractual agreement that you can't wiggle out of without paying usurious fees.
Why do I want to unlock my phone to change carriers if they all suck the same?
Anyone?
Although my phone is unlocked, if it weren't, and it got unlocked, my choice of a wireless carrier will increase by exactly one carrier. As Benny Hill would've said: biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig ...deal.
I'm just curious if anyone in the administration actually knows that US wireless companies use different, incompatible technologies. A phone that works on one carrier would, at most, have a chance of working on only one other carrier, and would, most likely, lack the ability to take advantage of the additional carrier's full spectrum, resulting in degraded service.
We need to be able to mod/root/vaporize our phones if we so desire. Especially if we want to take advantage of things like this.
Of course, this is going to affect the subsidized business model that has been prevalent in the US, but I think we'll be happy to trade "you're fuckin' stuck with us" for "I'll pay for my own, thanks".
Look for a new group of "cell phone loan provider" companies that allow people to still buy a phone with little down but be independent of the carriers.
Verizon's smartphones are already unlocked... ATT will unlock as soon as we've paid for the devices in full.
I'm probably over-generalizing.... A mandate like this is going to prompt them to find a way to screw us over. Remember what happened with the portable numbers? We all ended up with a $1.75 "regulatory recovery fee" on our bills for quite a while.
I had a sucky sig.
As long as people have to sign 2 year contracts to get subsidized phones carriers don't care if your phone is unlocked or not.
It would mean the end of cheap phones, and possibly the end of long term contracts.
Of course not. People will complain when their bundled phones become more expensive. Never mind that the weird bundling schemes are suppressing competition both in the carrier and phone markets.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130311/01344922277/government-might-want-to-legalize-phone-unlocking-unfortunately-it-signed-away-that-right.shtml
:/
The interesting part is treaties can (and do) override what the US federal government can do.
da w00t. mtfnpy?
Just make unlocking phones legal under all circumstances. We already know the 'unintended consequences' of that. Making unlocking always legal gives us a market based approach versus a legislative approach and if done correctly (yea right) the law could be made simpler not more complex then current law.
Carriers must sell you an unlocked phone upon request. They are also required to allow you to BYOD. And, indeed, they all do so.
If you want to voluntarily agree to a carrier lock in exchange for a discount on the phone, that's between you and the carrier and the government has no right to interfere with that.
inb4 people all the hate on America's cell service
You can already get devices unlocked.
They just have a price tag which reflects the real cost of the hardware.
No sane person with any math capabilities will take a "locked" phone as you end up paying far more for the hardware (and have no flexibility as to replacing it during the contract period). That $700 phone will turn into $1000-1200 phone when you add up all the monthly charges for the contract period even after you first take out the costs of the same carrier services when bought for unlocked phone.
Luckily for the carriers in the US, the country is full of people who are bad at math.
Thus why they are all switching to no contract upgrade any time terms. Removing the burden of subsidizing the phone from them and just financing it on to you.
This is silly... How can Obama ask for the phones to be unlocked but overlook the monopolies given to wireless carriers with regard to spectrum (FCC). If you truly want competition in the wireless market you can't have Verizon with a lock on 700 mhz (LTE) competing againts sprint at 2.5 ghz (LTE). 700mhz propagates significantly further and requires less infrastructure to implement vs 2.5 ghz. The feds should legislate the RF spectrum with appropriate co-existence mechanisms without granting winners in losers in the physics of wireless.
Pretty soon you'll be able to go into a 7-11 and buy a new SIM card for your phone for whatever carrier you like. You have no idea what's on a SIM card. Or who programmed it. Deregulation of the cell phone network is the best thing that could happen for the NSA.
The contracts that the rest of the world think are a ridiculous and counter-productive system?
Besides, this would have nothing to do with contracts. It just means that if you want to change carriers, you would be able to take your phone with you. IF you hadnt yet paid off the subsidy, they would probably bill you for that when you left, not force others to pay for it. And if they stiff the company on a contractually obligated fee they will most likely find themselves in court or have bill collectors harassing them, just like with every single monetary contract in the country.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
He just asked?
And if they say NO?
Are Obamaphones already unlocked? If so, what is "the government" paying for the phones? The associated service?
It is highly unlikely that the new system would allow you to break the law. If you sign a contract, you are still beholden to that contract. The idea is that carriers should no longer be able to force you into signing that contract through lack of alternatives (and no, it is no longer possible to abstain from a cellphone if you wish to have a job).
Think 10 years into the future, how will the system look? With the proposed changes, chances are you will have several carriers to choose from.
It's a contract, and should be sufficient. It's why there are courts and laws.
Have you ever seen a large corp like this go after you for money? If you stiff a phone co on their fees, no other phone co will ever let you sign up again because they'll look at your credit rating and laugh so hard tears will start running down their faces. I don't fee sorry for the carriers one bit as they get to write all the terms of the contract.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You say that as if the US didn't feel free to violate treaties and international law whenever it wants.
...he's throwing the masses another bone to help get their poor stressed minds off of the burdensome issue of the NSA, the 2nd amendment, and Syria.
If this goes ahead, carriers will not "unlock" phones. Rather, carriers will not "lock" phones. There is a difference between inherent restrictions and artificial restrictions.
All this does is weaken the ability of a carrier to enforce a contract which a paying customer willingly entered into
And which the carrier willingly wrote in an exit clause where you pay $x to get out. If they're having trouble enforcing the contract they wrote, maybe they should write a better one rather than crying to mommy government to make them stahp.
What you are suggesting is like telling two lunch truck vendors they can have the same parking space.
Anytime Obama does something, You have to wonder, How does this help the government, and hurt me ?
I'm wondering what the /. community would do differently on this issue...if you were president, in charge of the FCC & whatnot, what would your policy be on this issue?
Thank you Dave Raggett
"for the past 8 years the R's have had a monopoly on moron behavior."
Oh really. Because Obama's done such a good job getting us out of debt (oh wait a minute...we're in more debt than ever), getting us out of wars (what's this Syria all about now?), oh and everyone raise their hand if they love what he's doing with the NSA! Anybody? Hmm...
But to answer your question, the reason all those idiots act like bought and paid for spoiled brats is because they ARE bought and paid for spoiled brats. It's sad. Really it is.
The price tag for an unsubsidized phone reflecting the "real cost of the hardware" is much like the sticker price on the car or the MSRP on a piece of electronics. Both are artificially inflated to make the dealer claim they are bending over backwards to give you a great deal.
Great Idea, however, I don't think Obama understand cell phone technology in America. There are only two carriers that conform to global standards, T-Mobile and AT&T. There are MNVOs that piggy back off of those two carriers, Simple Mobile for example, but they are the only two that use GSM technology. Verizon, Sprint, Virgin Mobile, etc all use a nonstandard cellular technology that is US specific. You could unlock an AT&T phone but the only other network you could use it on in America is T-Mobile's. Good luck using a phone made for Sprints network on GSM technology or on Verizon's network.
I wonder what the fuss is about. When you're agreeing on a cell phone + contract, the contract has a subsidy in it. So, Obama is actually forcing a seperation of both parts. I still think companies should be able to lock the phone for the initial 2-year duration of the contract. If you don't want that, buy your phone somewhere else and get a bare contract, like I've been doing for years, or PAYG.
I usually buy my phones whenever I want a new one, where it's cheapest. Then I go and find a contract where the guy selling it hands me part of his commission, or I use PAYG. I'm usually better off than with a contract+phone.
But usually the long range at lower frequencies comes for a price: lower bandwidth.
bickerdyke
is anyone else as tired as I am of the government getting around the legislative branch by going through unaccountable agencies issuing "regulations" with the force of law? We have a constitution to prevent this nonsense.
Separation of powers. Good stuff.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I think that he actually thinks unlock means the NSA can spy on it
Are the companies that sell subsidized prepaid phones that are network locked and the users who buy and use those prepaid phones.
The interesting part is treaties can (and do) override what the US federal government can do. :/
Treaties are only valid until they are not. Any country can pull out of a treaty at any time they choose. It's an agreement. The downside is that they also lose whatever benefits enticed them to sign the treaty in the first place.
I think the more important issue is preventing a carrier from forcing a data plan on you even if your phone *is* branded to their network.
There's is a part of me that wants the FCC to treat Obama's petition the way he responds to all those citizen petitions on WhiteHouse.gov... which is to say, the FCC ignores him completely or else responds with a watered down statement that says nothing.
Except I sort of like the idea of the FCC enforcing an unlocked-phone/BYOD policy for the carriers...
Hmmm, petty and pointless dreams of third-party revenge vs. naive hopes of an unlikely outcome brought to pass. Choices, choices!
What Obama/FCC needs to do is force the revelation that data is data, no matter how it is used. On my current contract I get 4gb of data for $50, I'm tired of having Verizon keep telling me that I need to get a "better" shared plan which is 1gb of data for $90 plus $10 for each additional device. HOW IS THIS BETTER (except for their profit margin)?
So what if I decide to operate a mobile hotspot and share it with my friends? I should not have to pay Verizon any extra fees for this. I currently pay for 4gb of data, it should be none of their business how I use it.
we are not in a war with Syria dumbshit, and the NSA problems was from your precious patriot act protecting us innocent mericans from the evil rost
...not to carp, doesn't the president have a few more IMPORTANT things on his plate right now?
Or is this just tossing technological bread and circuses to the masses, in the hopes we won't notice all the other stuff that's going wrong?
-Styopa
...could somebody figure out how to unlock Washington so that the electorate could switch carriers more easily? The two we carriers seem to be stuck with also need more competition!
Shoulda just told the NSA.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Welcome to the wonderful world of paying $600 up front for the bleeding-edge stuff.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
2) Sell wireless SIP phones that connect to a massive VOIP server.
3) Profit.
Even if you only had service within city limits, you'd already be much more reliable than any cellular carrier I've ever tried. My android phone can run a SIP client and I've been kicking around the idea of just dropping the cellular contract and rolling my own solution with an asterisk server on a cloud service and a local wifi provider.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yer not sposed to say that round here. It makes some of the natives angry.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
IMHO, Obama would get better support by requiring wireless providers to allow you to use your data plan on any device without having to cough up a monthly fee for each one.
You say that as if the US didn't feel free to violate treaties and international law whenever it wants.
The phrase "International Law" is an oxymoron when taken at face value. You cannot have a law unless there is a government, and last I checked there was not a One World Government making laws. And if there were, then the laws would, by definition, no longer be "international", but simply "national".
The phrase is used loosely to refer to various treaties, agreements, and policies which sovereign nations have with each other. Sovereign nations do not hold the power to enact laws over other nations, these are just agreements which any nation can choose to ignore if they want to. All sovereign nations are free to violate any treaties they want, any time they want. That's what being a sovereign nation means.
The parent is also not correct when he stated this: "treaties can (and do) override what the US federal government can do".
No, they cannot. Treaties only hold legal weight if Congress passes a law which mirrors the treaty. So it's not in fact the Treaty itself which can restrict actions of Federal agencies, but rather the law passed by Congress. And Congress can choose to change those laws any time they want.
You do realize that unlocked phones means we'd pay European style (higher) prices on the hardware. I personally don't think that's a bad deal, but just saying' it'd likely mean the end of "free phones" and heavily subsidized (cheap) phones. It *should* also mean cheaper service, as a portion of the cost of the phone isn't paid through the service, but I'd not bet on that. Service costs tend to be upward-sticky.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
really? can you list 2-3 examples?
here's an example of what i'm wanting you to provide: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4227219&cid=44882981
that's a comment from this very thread, and it includes an actual policy suggestion...that's kind of what you're claiming the comments section is 'full of'
it's weird that you took the time to type out your comment
Thank you Dave Raggett
4G is coming and phones will be increasingly cross-network compatible as time passes. Even if it's only a minority who will benefit at the moment, it's important to establish the principle early.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
OR... you could buy the phone WITHOUT the subsidy and choose your carrier right away.
Lemme get this straight... if I want a shiny new iPhone 5S or Galaxy S4, and solid nation-wide coverage with 4G data that permits me tether then I can do one of the following:
1) Pay out of pocket $650-700 for the unsubsidized phone and then pay $110-120 month-to-month for the voice/data/sms/insurance plan for however long I wish to remain with the carrier... (and I've been with my current carrier for 6 years, the previous one for 7 years)
or
2) Sign a 2-yr contract and pay the $200-300 subsidy price of the phone, and still pay the exact same $110-120 per month for the voice/data/sms/insurance plan but know that I'm contract-locked to that carrier for minimum 24 months.
Since I typically stay with a carrier for multiple years, it seems to me that with #2 that after 24 months, I'm ahead at least $300 or more depending on the particular smartphone I get.
Since you get no price break on the service plans when you pay full retail for the unsubsidized phone, how exactly does that help me?
Yeah, I get it if you choose a cheap MVNO like Straight Talk where the monthly unlimited plan is only like $45 plus tax/fees/whatever, but with ST and their ilk, the quality of service can be shit... voice is using such a highly lossy-compressed codec that it sounds tinny and warbly as hell, and the data is heavily throttled and tethering is forbidden. About all they're really good for is the unlimited texting, which is an extremely minor usage of my phone. I need voice calls that are clear and no drops and I need solid and fast data that I can tether with. Around here that means Verizon is first choice and ATT is 2nd choice.... and I hate doing business with either of them, but sometimes you just have to deal with the devil.
it makes no sense for the phones to be unlocked for moving to another carrier when the ROM on the phone is stuffed with Carrier Aps (and Carrier PARTNER aps).
Slashdot Challenge can somebody tell me how to ROOT an HTC thunderbolt with the 1.08 hboot without doing a full reload and wipe (or how to backup the ap settings without root)?
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Thank Congress for selling the spectrum and not setting standards in the publics best interest. The carriers are in debt up to their eyeballs - the consumer pays - there is no real competition.
....need to be a single, highly regulated monopoly, or at least a mandatory cellular radio spec that provides universal compatibility with all handsets.
It is absolutely nuts that we have *four* major competing carriers in the US (and probably more regional ones I don't know about) all building towers, installing radios, building backhaul networks, and implementing basically the same technology with wide geographical overlap.
Instead we should have a SINGLE highly regulated entity running the towers and providing the cellular radio service and running a nationwide tower-tower backhaul to IP data networks and switched voice (aka landline) networks. What we call cell carriers would then provide the voicemail and value-add services that span beyond voice connections and data connectivity.
The regulated network entity would get a legislated maximum profit margin of N% and have network expansion and modernization as mandatory percentages of profits. Whatever profit left would be avaialable for executive compensation and other employee incentives. No jets, no company supplied Mercedes.
Network Access would be sold wholesale at operating cost to anyone wanting to be a cellular carrier.
This would provide us a single nationwide cellular standard and eliminate executive gluttony at the expense of network modernization. Universal device portability to any "carrier". It would enable startup carriers to get access to a nationwide network to offer more unique, niche products that existing carriers won't sell now or charge a bundle for.
I'd be more than willing to buy a cellular enabled modem with hard-capped data rate and data volume I could use for, say, a remote camera that send a JPG every 60 seconds. Doing this now requires "a plan" and overpriced network access at speeds I don't need or want and its impossible for me to buy more limited access because it doesn't fit into the big-company spreadsheet.
Trying to get the fanboi vote to stay with the party.
Just another first world problem to tackle and distract people away from treasury heist perpetrated by Wall Street.
No other administration has circumvented the three branches or government and/or the constitution with the abuse of executive power worse than the tyrant known as Obama.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Yeah cause the U.S. is the only country evvver who has violated treaties. By the way which democratically elected legislative body passes those international laws?
So we can listen in...
I don't really understand the so-called "problem" that is trying to be solved. If you buy a phone from your wireless carrier at a subsidized price, the carrier starts that relationship in the red because they've absorbed the full cost of your phone while you've only paid a fraction of it. So take the iPhone for an example. The carrier buys the device at $650 or so and you pay them $200. So right off the bat, the carrier is $450 in the red.
Now let's say you sign up for service with AT&T on January 1st and buy a new iPhone from them for $199 and on January 2nd you take that device and unlock it and switch to T-mobile. AT&T will charge you an ETF to recoup the rest of their costs, and then after you pay the ETF, they'll unlock the phone for you. If you don't pay AT&T the ETF and try to stiff them out of the rest of the price of the phone, they don't unlock it for you.
Maybe I'm being naive, but where is the problem with this arrangement?
If you complete your contractual obligatons (or if you pay full price for your device), your carrier will unlock it for you and you can go use it on whatever network you want. It sounds like folks are asking for a loophole to be able to get a cheap subsidized device AND not have to pay the ETF if they decide to break their contract. This (a private contract between two entities) is not something the government should be involved with.
The only people a change like this would benefit are those folks that want to get a subsudized phone, break the contract (or use the service until it gets shut off due to non-payment) and then jump to another carrier. I know America is turning into the land of the government providing everything to you for free, but this is a bit ridiculous. If this passes, the ONLY thing that will change is carriers will stop offering subsidized phones and all phones will come unlocked by default. If that's what you want, then why do 99% of people buy subsidized phones when they already have the option to pay full price for a phone and get it unlocked on day 1?
Solution: get rid of CDMA.
CDMA also has much better sound quality and security from eavesdropping than does GSM.
In fact, no. CDMA can be eavesdropped.
"CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) is the digital telephone standard that was developed by Qualcomm and deployed by Sprint PCS and by Verizon. CDMA used RC4 encryption but the protocol doesn’t keep the keys secret, so in practice CDMA communications can be eavesdropped by a motivated attacker. In practice, though, it’s must easier to wiretap a CDMA telephone on the provider’s network. Today CDMA is used by the Sprint part of Sprint/Nextel and by Verizon."
http://simson.net/ref/security_cellphones.htm
Just use the same reasoning used for copyringht. Implement a 10,000 year temporary requirement to unlock cellphones. The treaty only disallows permanent exceptions.
ahhhhhh.... ah.... I want your data bitches. Ahhh .... we're all in this together... ahh ... ahhh ... ahhhh no more questions.
This is likely the result of the NSA complaining locked phones are harder to place backdoors in.
There is still the whole GSM vs CDMA issue.
The thing that I'm interested in is - would a Verizon phone be usable on Sprint, if the subscriber wants to switch? Or Sprint on Verizon? B/w the GSMs, it's just a case of swapping out the SIMs, but since on the CDMA side, Verizon & Sprint don't use RUIMs, doesn't matter whether their phones are locked or not - they're just not usable outside their networks
http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Unlocked-Recording-Navigation--U-S-Warranty/dp/B0046RE9D2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379541729&sr=8-1&keywords=nokia+c6-01
Nokia C6-01 unlocked $150.00 I have had one of these for 2 years. $6 per month on ATT paygo, unlimited Skype unlimited bluetooth transfers unlimited WiFi web browsing.
wonderfully readable polarized gorilla glass screen, and small enough to be pocketable
c'mon sport, you're not even trying.
He asked for people that were not Republican Foam at the mouth Tards. Come on back when you have something Coherent to say.
They're "not deliberately collecting" all your phone traffic anyway, might as well have them do something useful while they're there.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"Maybe I'm being naive, but where is the problem with this arrangement? "
What you are talking about -- phone subsidies, is primarily, dealt with via "early cancellation penalties". Carriers also check your credit before "advancing you" the cost of a phone to verify that you are an acceptable credit risk.
Phone locking allows companies like Verizon to lock out features of the phone. Example: not being able to transfer [music] files from my computer to the device.
My phone had the capability to transfer music files over USB, but Verizon locked out this ability, to encourage me to use "air time" and "data minutes" to download my own music to the device as well as paying per-song charges at the time.
Then comes the issue of being able to take my phone with me -- AFTER any contractual-obligation period, to a new carrier. This was (and with lock-in, still is) doesn't allow me to use a phone I've, *long since*, paid for.
Phone locking has little to nothing to do with something that is already dealt with via early cancellation penalties and Obama didn't ask that early cancellation penalties be abolished.
Phone locking disallows consumers bringing their own device to a network (presuming the device is network compatible) and is used to artificially inflate the costs of services and features long after any contractual-obligation period.