DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Just FYI: Saturday Jan 26th It Will Be Illegal in the US to Unlock Your Phone
- Thread starter dgstorm
- Start date
And yet I am sure there are still people that are on the old America's Choice plan and are using data under MOU, and Verizon hasn't gotten around to kicking them off. Verizon's track record is that they don't kick people off who are grandfathered. The only instance that I am aware of is with the unlimited international data plan, and that was because there was a real financial impact to the company (i.e. Verizon's international data roaming costs were probably higher than the money they charged the customer).
Right....my father in law is on the America's Choice plan of yesteryear and it is still serving him fine. The only way I will have a smartphone is if i have unlimited data. I don't like the fact having to always check how much data I have used and have to limit what I do so I don't go over by checking an email or reading engadget....ect. VZW pushes apps that use alot of data and personally as i just stated.....I don't need the headache and worry of if I am going to go over a cap while one of my kids watch youtube or netflix ect.
If Verizon extinguishes the unlimited totally I can hook up to wifi everywhere I go with a tablet. Time will tell
by the time verizon kills off unlimited data, there will be other unlimited data cellular alternatives. just wait till google gets in on cellular and cable action. verizon and comcast will have to rethink their milking strategies.
I sure hope that's how it works. I'd really love for someone to give me a quality alternative to Verizon.
:smile-b: Check this out: Petition to decriminalize smartphone unlocking gains steam | Crave - CNET
cobravnm13
Senior Member
Nice. I'll have to give that a good look once I get home.
Correct, and if you pay them the ETF, then you have fullfilled your obligation to them and repaid them in full, so they should release the phone. The fact that they do not, means that the reason they gave for wanting this law, had nothing to do with recouping subsidy costs. It has to do with making it as painful as possible to go to another carrier, to they purchase legislation in order to do that.
I agree that the ETF allows them to recoup their losses, but by then unlocking the phone and taking it to a competing carrier, you are effectively helping the new carrier to benefit from the proprietary software development that the initial carrier contributed to, so this goes back to copyright and trade secrets, etc. If I developed a product for my network, I wouldn't want my work to be used to increase my competitor's profitability - even if I've recovered all my up-front costs and received fair compensation for the product (visa vie the ETF). I would want to protect my marketshare and my competitiveness and prevent my work from benefiting my competitor unfairly.
Correct, and if you pay them the ETF, then you have fullfilled your obligation to them and repaid them in full, so they should release the phone. The fact that they do not, means that the reason they gave for wanting this law, had nothing to do with recouping subsidy costs. It has to do with making it as painful as possible to go to another carrier, to they purchase legislation in order to do that.
I mostly agree...but it's not to make it painful to go to another carrier...it's to make it painful to take their product and use it on another carrier. Nothing (other than the ETF), is stopping you from going to another carrier, but you WILL have to purchase another phone that's locked to that carrier.
The ETF doesn't TRULY recover all costs and profits...this is why in France the phones were so much more expensive than the same phones in Germany. They had to find a way to make the phones profitable for the manufacturer without any promise of collaboration with a specific carrier and without any subsidy therefrom. This is yet another argument for, not against preventing unlocking of phones.
Don't get me wrong guys and gals, I am all for unlocking of phones just like in France, but it does have a cost...higher initial purchase prices for the devices. By keeping the phones locked to one network, the cost of the phone is less and that means more people can afford them. There is something to be said for mass marketing and reduced end-user cost. If the phones weren't locked to one network ALL phones would likely be more expensive simply because less would likely be sold.
What value is in the bloatware a carrier installs on a locked phone? The carrier has a fixed price to get into the phone, for my phone which is the Note2, of $300. Plus $100/month for 2 years plus taxes. Ignoring taxes, that's $2700. I bought my unlocked Note2 for $630. I am currently with ST at $48/month unlimited. $1782 total for 2 years. Depending on usage I am ABLE to drop down to $30/ month plan if I choose. I am able to go to another carrier whenever.
It's way more expensive and limiting to own a locked phone. "If the phones weren't locked to one network ALL phones would likely be more expensive simply because less would likely be sold", that IMO is not a valid argument.
It's way more expensive and limiting to own a locked phone. "If the phones weren't locked to one network ALL phones would likely be more expensive simply because less would likely be sold", that IMO is not a valid argument.
What value is in the bloatware a carrier installs on a locked phone? The carrier has a fixed price to get into the phone, for my phone which is the Note2, of $300. Plus $100/month for 2 years plus taxes. Ignoring taxes, that's $2700. I bought my unlocked Note2 for $630. I am currently with ST at $48/month unlimited. $1782 total for 2 years. Depending on usage I am ABLE to drop down to $30/ month plan if I choose. I am able to go to another carrier whenever.
It's way more expensive and limiting to own a locked phone. "If the phones weren't locked to one network ALL phones would likely be more expensive simply because less would likely be sold", that IMO is not a valid argument.
I agree with your argument I would like to point out that we'll never see the French standard for unlocked phones because we have two competing phone systems (cdma/gsm) and as long as these systems are in place we'll never have a chance because cdma will cry monopoly it's against competitive pricing etc.
Except that...
When I purchase a phone from, say, Verizon, and its cost is subsidized, Verizon makes me sign a two year contract in exchange. If I want the phone without the contract, I pay full retail. Also, if I purchase with a contract to get the subsidized price, I'm agreeing that I will continue with that contract for the full two years and that if I cancel the contract before expiration, I agree to pay them the cost of the subsidy which is typically about $350.
The point is, wherever I purchase the device, it's MINE. The carriers get their subsidy money back by way of contract. This makes it no different whether I paid full retail or carrier subsidized pricing.
Time for a campaign against this bogus law and mass civil disobedience.
Not even close. You don't pay Ford to use the car on their "network" (read road). You can drive the car anywhere and on any road that the local community and local laws allow. The main reason is that Ford has recovered all their costs, plus the targeted profit at the time of your purchase, all wrapped up into the price paid by the dealer to place it into their inventory, or into the purchase price that you the consumer pay if the dealership is a factory dealership.
Similarly, to use your example since AT&T is technically a co-author/co-owner of the software on the phone, they have the right to recover their costs for the development of the software that runs on the phone, and also to make a profit therefrom as well. However, in contrast to the car example if you take the phone which is designed to run on "their proprietary operating system", and use it to communicate on Verizon's network instead, you are benefiting from the programming that AT&T co-authored/co-owns without fully paying for it (as in purchasing a license rather than being leased). Also, you are eliminating AT&T's primary source of future revenue effectively costing them money that they now have no way of recovering, not to mention removing them from any potential for profit.
If you buy an "unlocked" phone (which has the cost recovery already worked into the higher price), or pay AT&T *(or Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.), whatever fee they deem appropriate in order to release the software lease to you, then you are free to take that phone to competing networks.
Not that I agree with it completely - though I see the reasoning (I think this is where it gets sticky since it's a joint venture btw the phone manufacturer and the network it's designed for), but if I wrote the program and was relying on the service revenue to pay me for my time and skills, and then you took it to use it on another network, I would be ready to protect and exercise my rights to be able to recover my expenses and lost profit.
Sent from my A210 using Tapatalk HD
When I purchase a phone from, say, Verizon, and its cost is subsidized, Verizon makes me sign a two year contract in exchange. If I want the phone without the contract, I pay full retail. Also, if I purchase with a contract to get the subsidized price, I'm agreeing that I will continue with that contract for the full two years and that if I cancel the contract before expiration, I agree to pay them the cost of the subsidy which is typically about $350.
The point is, wherever I purchase the device, it's MINE. The carriers get their subsidy money back by way of contract. This makes it no different whether I paid full retail or carrier subsidized pricing.
Time for a campaign against this bogus law and mass civil disobedience.
Not really
It's more like getting a Ford at half price, but being required to only buy Chevron gas. If the oil company paid for half of the car, they still own half of the car, and control the brand of gas you can use.
This is dumb. This is like telling people that if you buy a Ford, you cannot drive on Chevy roads. I should be able to take my device and go wherever I want for service. If I want to pay ATT for a phone, once my contract is up I decide to unlock it and take it to VZW, why should the government be involved and telling me I can't?
Oh, because the carriers paid a lot of money in lobbying and campaign contributions...
It's more like getting a Ford at half price, but being required to only buy Chevron gas. If the oil company paid for half of the car, they still own half of the car, and control the brand of gas you can use.
I agree that the ETF allows them to recoup their losses, but by then unlocking the phone and taking it to a competing carrier, you are effectively helping the new carrier to benefit from the proprietary software development that the initial carrier contributed to, so this goes back to copyright and trade secrets, etc. If I developed a product for my network, I wouldn't want my work to be used to increase my competitor's profitability - even if I've recovered all my up-front costs and received fair compensation for the product (visa vie the ETF). I would want to protect my marketshare and my competitiveness and prevent my work from benefiting my competitor unfairly.
I tend to agree with your statement but there is a reversal agent......
Comcast offers subsidized Netbooks for their customers that cannot afford internet......but.... they can still take it anywhere they want and use wifi on someone elses internet service. Think about it...... its a catch 22 scenario.
zomnomnombie
Active Member
So, what they are saying "anytime you purchase any item on sale" it is not completely yours? So, if I purchased choclate on sale. I could not say use it to make chocolate milk with it until the 30 day warranty is over? 2 words, Blow ME!!!!!
-A sale is not a subsidy.
-A sale is an item sold at a lower price for the purpose of selling the item.
-A subsidy is an item sold at a lower price for an explicit purpose (extend contract times).
-Usually with certain regulations and conditions that must be met in order to qualify for the reduced price.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 4K