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.
Now we can CHANGE carriers.
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.
Why do I want to unlock my phone to change carriers if they all suck the same?
Anyone?
Another person asleep during the GWB years?
Or any other president in fact. All presidents are selective enforcers of the law.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you sign that contract. All of the carriers will give you a no-contract plan or sell you an unsubsidized, unlocked phone.
Maybe it's so the NSA can more easily download software to your cell phone.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
I was thinking maybe more like Obama is tying the hands of the job creators (AT&T). We'll have to watch Fox "News" to see how they put the word out to the parrots.
Unsubsidized, and without a contract, yes.
Unlocked... have a source for that?
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.
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...
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.
Who cares. If they for whatever reason won't give you an unlocked phone, get it from any electronics shop you want. That's supposed to be the main advantage that you can get your phone (unsibsidized and without contract) anywhere and then get a cheaper plan that doesn't include phone subsidies. (from any phone company you like) Just slap the SIM into the phone and you're done.
bickerdyke
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.
If it didn't matter, AT&T wouldn't go to the lengths they do to keep theirs locked. Every time an unlock is found, AT&T does an update shortly after, closing the hole.
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
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!
You mean Bush didn't just get a good tan?
W + JC + RMN = BO
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
but if you pay cash, the NSA has to find out first who bought the SIM.
bickerdyke
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.
Sorry but you're wrong.
In the good ol' US of A if you bring your phone to another company, you pay the same thing everyone else is paying. No discount for not getting a new shiney through the new company. There are very few exceptions to this (T-Mobile is the only company im aware of).
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!
That explains why I never found a simply pay-as-you-go plan for phone&data when I spent my holidays there... (which will happen again in a week from now. any ideas for a way to have mobile internet on my GSM phone for 3 weeks?)
bickerdyke
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.
Really.
I'm a pre-paid customer and I just went through a lot of hell getting a new Samsung Galaxy S4 to use with my pre-paid account. They sent me a plan phone, which already had a number in it, so had to go back, but they didn't close the plan when the phone was returned so sent collections after me. Idiots. I just wanted to buy a pre-paid phone which I could switch on premium services for a day or week and then go back to pre-paid. Also able to do wi-fi. Nothing terribly special. All this binding people to contracts is archaic.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...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
I only spent a few minutes looking last time I was in the US, but I found lots of mobile phone shops that were willing to give cheaper SIM-only deals and even more such deals were available online. Eventually I decided that since my phone had OSMAnd for offline maps and I had WiFi in the hotel (and a lot of coffee shops and so on), I didn't need to bother with mobile coverage.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I paid $200 for a mid-range Android phone (a Samsung Galaxy Victory) and now I pay $35 a month, unbound to any contract, for 'unlimited' data and 400 minutes. It's completely bound to Virgin Mobile, but most of the people around me pay twice a month what I do for capped data plans (with unlimited minutes- but I seldom use voice on a cell phone.)
I feel that I pay significantly less than others in my market are paying, but could never bring my phone to another company. I refuse to be bound to a contract.
...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.
This republican doesn't care that this idea comes from the Obama administration. In the rare case where they do the right thing, I'll agree with them.
I think that while the carrier has a claim on your device, they can lock it. Once you have fulfilled the terms of your contract and *paid* for the device, it should automatically be unlocked *without* having to ask. So this would at least be a step in the right direction. I guess having to ask is not that huge of an issue, as long as the carriers have to unlock your phone.
What we really need is a world wide "BAD ESN" registry that takes time limited entries. A carrier would simply list the ESN of their "locked" devices with a date limit. They could then provide service to that ESN, but any other carrier would not. Once the contract term was over, the "Bad ESN" record would disappear. If the contract ends early, the record is deleted. If a device is stolen, the registry would then have a non-expiring ESN record created. In this way, there would be no reason to lock cell devices.
Of course, making a world wide ESN registry would be extremely difficult so I guess this is a viable solution.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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?
Hey everyone, Glenn Beck posts on slashdot!
Hi Glenn!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
A bunch of MVNOs will allow that, too.
Try looking through this list to see if any of those companies offer what you need.
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.
Need I point out that most billionaires are democrats or independents?
Wait, I'm confused. I thought the billionaires were the job creators. Then why are the Republicans fighting so hard to keep them from paying higher taxes?
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
I always wonder about those people like you who say, "Obama is ok because Bush did the same." Do you not realize that people voted for Obama to be better than Bush? We didn't just want another Bush. We had hope.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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'
Leaks have shown that disposable SIMs don't affect the NSA much because the usage pattern and relational graph is quite unique per person. Yay, meta-data!
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.
quick, think of something to slam republicans with
okay, how about 'they sound about as retarded as you'?
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
....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.
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?
Going off topic, but -- "Obama is ok because Bush did the same" depends on the conversation and issue. If it's NSA misdeeds or something else that he should have fixed then, yes, we didn't vote for that. But if it's some ignorant right wing talking point like, "Obama issued an executive order! He's becoming a dictator!" (I've gotten plenty of those emails from my relatives), then it is legitimate to point out that executive orders are a standard action by every other president, so they can STFU on that one.
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.
Posting as an AC? Really not helping your image.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
good idea
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
The "two-party system" is a symptom of single choice voting. Multi-choice (approval) voting is a supremely simple fix but few enough people are willing to study it to the point of getting it so I guess we'll be stuck with "one man, 1/n vote" for the foreseeable future. Given all that the only response likely to make a difference is to choose the party least loathsome to your values and try and make a difference *inside* that party.
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
I asked if a carrier would sell you an unlocked phone. That you yourself can, personally, buy an unlocked phone... well, duh?
The question isn't whether you can get a SIM-only deal. The question is whether you can buy an unlocked phone directly from a major carrier.
then it is legitimate to point out that executive orders are a standard action by every other president
Which is a completely different point than "Bush did it too!"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
People supporting nontechnical friends/family who bought a phone directly through their carrier?
More to the world than just us geeks. :)
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
In the good ol' US of A if you bring your phone to another company, you pay the same thing everyone else is paying. No discount for not getting a new shiney through the new company.
If you bring your phone to another company, you are not going to get a contract with a phone, you're going to get a SIM-only plan.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes. But for those it's a real advantage if they can get support for phone AND network from the same support: their carrier.
There's nothing inheritantly bad with getting a phone through the carrier. as long as you have a choice.
bickerdyke
"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.
I'm suspecting we're in violent agreement here.