Walt Mossberg -- arguably consumer electronics' single most feared and influential tech pundit -- just unleashed poetic fury on the carrier/government cartel which has made the US "the laughingstock of the mobile-technology world." In a glorious rant dubbed "Free My Phone," Walt compares carrier tactics to those of the old Soviet Ministry while pummeling the "shortsighted and often just plain stupid" federal government for allowing itself to be "bullied and fooled by a handful of big wireless phone operators." He draws further comparison to the innovation-stifling days of clumsy, black rotary phones locked to the monopolistic AT&T wires which once strangled our homes. Then, government interaction was required to break the hold; something Walt believes might be required today in lieu of a
disruptive innovation. Now hit that read link and let the revolution begin!
posted Oct 22nd 2007 8:51AM
It's not thaaaaat bad. If you're a customer of TMobile or A&TT for over 3 months you can ask customer service to unlock your phone if you have a good excuse like if you need a phone for another country.
Yes, I would rather not deal with this but it does keep my phone prices low. The 20 minutes on the phone is worth it. Of course this doesn't work with all phones. The SideKick and the iPhone are the first to come to mind.
Not only that, but the phones offered by carriers are utterly SUCKED and they really avoid giving us great phones such as Symbian based phones. Right now, on AT&T store, they only have Nokia N75 is S60 Symbian based because they know, S60 devices can easily be flashed back to the stock firmware after the phone is unlocked... Many people has done this, asked AT&T to unlock the phone and flash it back to the regular ol' Nokia firmware to dump all the junk AT&T gave us on the phone... The process itself is super simple, involving lying to AT&T and tell AT&T you're going overseas and need an unlock code and after it's unlocked, you simply use 2 simple software (one is 3rd party and one is OFFICIAL Nokia firmware updater) to flash the software back to Nokia firmware and FREE FROM AT&T JUNK
They hate it if we do this because we will start using the abundance of S60 3rd part software and stop using their shitty crippled pay-to-use applications such as SMS-based IM as opposed to Data-based IM which should be way cheaper.
If you notice, the S60 symbian based phones that were sold from the carriers can be counted by your finger because it's not much at all. Partly because the carriers do not want us to start flashing the firmware back easily to the stock firmware and throw away all their junk branded software, and the 2nd part is mainly due to the fact that many people are just cheap and wanting a free RAZR phones.
The point is that you should not have to ask the carrier for permission to use the phone you purchased.
Imagine if your cable provider told you which TVs you could use with their service.
Or if your ISP dictated which browsers could connect to its network.
That's what we have now in cellular service.
My cable provider subsidized my monster 72inch 1080P DLP TV (with cable card, duel HDMI and PC input along with all the other goodies) and I only had to pay $989.00! The catch? I had to sign up for a 2 year subscription. Is that bad? Did I get ripped off? I don't know, I don't feel like I did. I'm just saying.
http://www.eternal-champions.com/images/den_football_madness.jpg
Oh, the 4 side 20's (with PC and AV inputs) and the HTPC with the ATI single and Matrox quad head cards that tie it all together on the PC side, I built with all the loot I saved on the TV subsidy. So I ask you who came out ahead here? You tell me ;^)...
PS Let me know if any of you (my tech pals) will be in the NYC area on a Sunday during Football season. You are more than welcomed to stop by. Just bring the Brewski...
Oh and don't mind Hannibal! He wont bite ;^), at least not that hard, lol...
I think you're missing his point. It's not so much about sim-locks as it is about how carriers restrict how you USE the network. Take, for example, AT&T's lockdown of the Blackjack ... I STILL can't use the Java GMail client because AT&T decided to lock it down.
Here's his article: http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20071021/free-my-phone/
@ Frankenstein Black
But does your TV work with other providers? If now you were to move that TV to another place with a different cable company, it would work right? It is not "locked". The complaint is not the subsidy, it's the lock. It pisses me off that I buy a phone and THEY tell me with which company I can use it...
I just wanted to respond back and say all of you changed this consumer's mind on the subject.
"Or if your ISP dictated which browsers could connect to its network."
The letters A.O.L come to mind... :-)
Mossy gets it but a lot of people just really don't. The argument that baffles me most is this one: If it weren't for subsidies, phones would be _expensive_!
So you really think that subsidies are a gift to you from father christmas? That they are free of charge? WOW! Free stuff!!
A subsidy is not a gift. It's a delayed payment plan. A subsidy is (a nearly free phone + an expensive cell plan). In the carrier's internal calculations, it's (a nearly free phone + a credit to be paid off over the length of the contract at a monthly cost + a normally priced mobile service plan).
If you take out the subsidy, you have more choice: Pay your phone upfront. Use any phone you like. Finance your phone any way you want. Choose any normally priced mobile plan you want.
The operators have a vested interest in also being the people providing the financing so they don't even offer normally priced mobile plans, thereby locking customers into their scheme. It needs to be broken up.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people is just too dense to get this. They see "NEW PHONE FOR $0" and not only do they believe it, they also see it as a shining example of what capitalism can do for them. You have just been scammed.
"The point is that you should not have to ask the carrier for permission to use the phone you purchased."
You didn't outright purchase the phone. You purchased a phone contract and a phone as part of a bundle deal. If you didn't like the contract, why did you sign it? Just buy the phone unlocked and you won't have these issues.
mossberg misses the point - as do most of those commenting here - phone service became a commodity because it had gone as far as the technology would go.
Cell phone technology has NOT gone any way near as far as it will go. Ever hear of WiFi vs WiMax? There are different technologies, cellphone via satellite, etc. Who's to say what technology we will be using in 10 years
Same with network - backbones; as applications get added each may require backbone - server applications to support a phone app. This is the core of apple iPhone's tie-ins that the apps on it and apps to come require a network with servers to support the non-phone functions.
and wait ... how long do you think it will take for HDtv on phones: you can already get an HD tuner on a USB plugin, just how big do you think it is and can it fit in a iPhone sized device?
The whole concept that phones are only a 20 or so button talk - talk only device that is a commodity is sooooooo incompetent and not related to reality. Get a clue - its not about talk-talk phones being unlocked, people are expecting services to be unlocked and that ain't happenin'
I think the days of the traditional telephone company are numbered - it is only amatter of time until VoIP forces landlines into redundancy, and with growing WLAN coverage of inner city areas, as well as WiMax et al on the horizon, soon the GSM spectrum will also become obsolete (which it pretty much is already).
The future of voice and text communications belongs to the ISPs, AT&T and Co. are just in denial).
You seem to forget that AT&T owns SBC now. I don't know about where you live but they still are the number 1 DSL provider in my area (Granted, they haven't come close to knocking out Comcast and now WOW is starting to pass them up but for DSL, they are kings)
Good luck making your VoIP calls in the wilderness.
Oh wait, you've never been out have you?
Jon: actually many camp sites now have wifi. you would know that if YOU went out.
anyways. 12 years ago I could have said "good luck finding a cell signal".
things change, you know, in the tech world? change? little bit? ya? ya? maybe a little? slowly?
I welcome our wifi liberators.
Have you ever walked more than a mile away from a camp site?
Have you cycled 50 miles off-road to places where ISPs would never ever install these sort of infrastructures?
I have and it is great being able to download my e-mails during a break in the middle of nowhere.
Meh... if you're downloading e-mails on a camping trip I think you don't understand the point of camping trips.
@Jon - there are better forms of communcation once out in the wilderness, such as radios. And doesn't WiMax have the same theoretical range as GSM? So you could make a video conference call for help, over Skype to keep the costs down.
An ad hoc P2P network is the future - similar to the way the OLPC functions. This is what Google is trying to encourage. Just as we are as a society looking to generate our electricity 'locally' then so the reliance on a central communications provider is also a concept whose demise is essential and inevitable.
Finally a voice of clear distinct reason, and of influence! Hopefully the sentiment will keep growing until we get close to the 700MHz auction...
Uh.. comparing a capitalist-oligopolistic market to communism? And then saying the Gov needs to intervene?
Sorry to be picky but it wasn't a really good subject to compare against.
That's what I'm thinking, you compare Mossberg to Lenin, and the phone companies to the Soviet Union; admittedly, there is no straight line between what Lenin wanted and the Cold War USSR, but still...
Sorry to be picky but he is correct. Locking and branding a mobile phone is the way of old.
What if your utilities company forced you to buy their branded oven?? that doesn't make too much sense either, right?
The government is ALREADY involved and we DON'T have a totally free market, so don't bring up that tired old canard.
"Sorry to be picky but he is correct. Locking and branding a mobile phone is the way of old."
It's a choice. No one is forcing you to buy a locked phone. You can buy a phone and a contract independently, and I assume you do that, right?
Walt, I believe is mistaken when he claims:
"To my knowledge, only one phone maker, Apple Inc., has been permitted to introduce a cellphone with the cooperation of a U.S. carrier without that carrier having any say in the hardware and software design of the product."
AT&T cut Apple into their revenue sharing for each phone. The lines of distinction is blurred and Apple is making money on phone contracts and locking out customers of the iPhone with restrictive software and upgrading capabilities.
Apple is one of these big meanies too, Walt.
Even as somewhat of an Apple fanboi myself (proud owner of a new iPod nano and MacBook, and I'd buy an iPhone if I wasn't in Australia), I've noticed in the past that even Walt's Apple fanwankery is too much for me.
He is an Apple fanboy so whatever he says I take with a grain of salt.
And since when was Mossberg influential?
jon: "And since when was Mossberg influential?"
for some reason I imagined right after you said that some guy dressed in black just appeared out of nowhere and just whacked you in the back of the neck and dragged off your body.
send a shout out, let us know you're still alive, I fear it might be too late. even for myself. If I don't make it, please, don't be fooled, it's a conspiracy. find the truth.....
No, keithwwalker, you've misunderstood.
What he appears to be talking about is the fact that - although the iPhone is locked to the AT&T platform along with a revenue cut - the actual design of the phone hardware and software has not been determined by AT&T.
A lot of the time phone carriers such as Orange, Vodafone and T-Mobile will "customise" the software on the phone. This typically means disabling all the interesting functionality like VoIP whilst branding the phone with their colours (garish reds or oranges) and ensuring that every single function on the phone has to somehow go online to their own services.
The iPhone, so far, seems to be Apple designed with no actual ties into a carrier bar the current contract lock-in, and I think that's what he was talking about. It doesn't make them good guys at all, but I think you misunderstood what he was trying to get across there.
You don't think the lack of Skype, third-party apps (Apple wanted this too for different reasons but you don't think AT&T wasn't requiring this), or IM was dictated by AT&T? While Apple may have designed the hardware, AT&T definitely dictated some of the software.
Ian, I think you are bit naive to think that AT&T had no control over the software. The fact that true 3rd party software lock out is a 'special' feature of the iPhone is proof positive. More proof is that Apple is constrained by AT&T to freeze up iPhone's that have been hacked and unlocked. They are doing this for a reason.
Whoa, the first time I read the headline I swear it said "Free my iPhone".
Now that is spooky!! Until you posted I thought the same thing! Hmm....
Thet's juzt stahtard conditgionning. Ydu add the "i" becuise yoe're used to seexng it on Engeoget. Your braln tends to corlkct whet you see based upon what you susdect shodld be corrkct.
@NewGalactic: Can I have some of the stuff you are smoking up?
IndiaTech...that was stupid hilarious....made the rest of my day...ohhh it’s almost finish. lol
I don't think anyone fears Walt Mossberg, except maybe the people who have to deal with him on a daily basis.
Go Walt! He's absolutely right. FREE OUR PHONES!
Ok, as someone in the UK, I've seen this guy mentioned on here a couple of time before and I just have to ask - who is he and why does his opinion matter?
His opinion does not matter. Unless it is pro-Apple then for some reason it matters. No idea why.
He's the main "gadgets" writer for the Wall Street Journal, which in theory means that the business class (myself included) will be reading his column and buying the things he recommends. In practice, I've found his articles disappointing. He dumbs down technology a little too much and doesn't give that much information about anything other than the "feel" of the technology. Feel is one thing, but there's a whole slew of other, more important factors to consider. But he's a fan of Apple, so he's suddenly important.
So, in other words, he points out the obvious and for some reason people think that he's clever?
@Jon: If I remember correctly, it is from the time when Steve Jobs quoted his review about iMac at one of those Macworld... And if Steve Jobs says he is influential then who are we to question him... I mean we are just mortals right?
Yes, but Apple is relatively new to this game, and they are a manufacturer rather than a carrier. Regardless of whether they may be positioned to become yet-another-large-monolithic corporation in this game is less relevant than the fact that at least somebody other than the big carriers is able to at least get part of the way into this game.
Regardless of how and where Apple's locked down the iPhone, they've more or less been able to produce the phone that they wanted to produce (whether you like it or not, it does represent Apple's vision and not AT&T's). Further, one must give Apple some credit for managing to get AT&T to offer an unlimited data plan for a reasonable price -- something that they did not do prior to the iPhone (and still do not do for other phone models).
Motorola, Nokia, et al can't do the same at this point, as evidenced by the number of really great phones out there that end up with half of their potential functionality because the carrier insisted that allowing it to do something would cut into their bottom line.... For example, just try and get a "real" IM client going on an AT&T/Cingular Nokia E62 with the carrier's firmware..... AT&T would naturally prefer that you use their pay-by-SMS method of instant messaging, which is both laboriously inefficient and expensive, since SMS is a non-reliable delivery mechanism, and of course they can charge for each individual message.
The only problem with Apple and the iPhone at this point is that they're the only hardware manufacturer that has been able to get away with designing a phone to their own specifications. Let the other manufacturers into that game, and you'll probably see some real innovation and new features, similar to what the European and Asian markets presently boast, rather than a market driven by carriers who want to restrict any features that they cannot directly charge pay-per-use fees for.
I do agree with him but I think even if there are 1 million Walt Mossberg writing this kind of article to stop cellular companies from branding and locking our phones, it won't matter because as long as cheapo Americans keep eating off the "omg I can get a free shitty RAZR by signing 2 yrs contract", the locking and branding is here to stay.
I do agree with him 110%. Phone companies should be treated like utilities company where they merely provided services and customers should choose their own unlocked devices. This model is great and allows more flexibility. Even if those companies subsidize the phone by asking us to sign a 2 years contract, the phone ITSELF should NOT be branded (which makes it crippled)... With this model, there will still be cheap phones by manufacturers for those people who need cheap phones but the high-end phones will also be available for those tech-junkie who needs the phone and they have no need to actually import the phone from overseas like what they are doing right now because the cellular companies are selling everything, it is very hard to find those shops that sell unlocked phones unless you imported it.
Again, I should mention that it doesn't matter how many Walt Mossberg writing this article or any other person, as long as Americans are still CHEAP and wanting free phones from carriers and they DO NOT CARE any other thing except making calls and texting, the branding and locking is here to stay
Down with Locking+Branding... FREE MY GODDAMN PHONE!!!!!
You assume that the reason that phones are subsidized is because Americans want them that way? No. It's because that's the only way to get them. You pay the same amount of money for a contract whether or not you get a phone through them. You don't have a choice in the matter. Given those constraints, the smart thing to do is to get the phone through the provider, when it's essentially free to you, rather than to go out and buy an expensive phone and pay the same for the service anyway.
I'm not defending the phone companies here. I'm defending the "cheapo American" consumers.
Zieg Heil Mossberg
I have 2 razr2s one from sprint and another from tmobile. The sprint phone with sprint software is such a dog that initially I wondered if there was really a 500mhz proccessor in it. It takes a full mimite before it can load the music player. I was dismayed and disappointed with moto. But after playing with the tmo version i saw how fast it indeed was. File transfer took 1 min (for a 50 mb file) as opposed to 20 min (I kid u not)!!!!! It is about time these bastards left our phones alone.
Mine is a similar tale, though it may not be as drastic as your own...
I have a Verizon V3m Razr and an AT&T V3xx Razr. The difference is night and day! I am sure more can be done to my V3xx but everything about it is lightspeed compared to what VZW did to the V3m.
And yes, I am one of those losers who ordered his Razr for free. I'll be redeeming myself when I can buy the Nokia N95.
Awesome. I never understood why all the European carriers were required to provide unlocked phones, while Americans are stuck with however long contracts the carriers want to push that year.
My dear American friends. You managed to avoid communism and it's little brother, socialism, but you traded your freedom for pigopolism (being ruled by pigs) instead. And as long as you allow corporate interests to control politics, you're stuck with it. All these problems from net neutrality to monopolistic phone contracts to industry bodies sueing students stem from the same thing. And that's just in the technology sphere, never mind the rest.
Yours, from a country in sick old man Europe.
I think his main point is that the pipe (carriers) should follow what the manufacturers and not the other way around. By locking and branding the phones, those pipe (carriers) tried to limit us, the customer, from benefiting fully.
When the same phone, but one is locked and branded, and the other one is unlocked and unbranded, can have two very distinct performance level, it shows how the carriers branded software deprived the customers from 100% benefiting fully.
'Just because you traded lenin for coca-cola you think the world's going to be a sweet and safe place?'
the monopolistic carrier/government cartel is just that... a monopoly, there's no 'greater good' nor a grand scheme only short-term money making for the few... compare it to the soviet union maybe, to a horrible vision of new-world order - perhaps. But communism? Nice headline, shame about the content. (although I agree with the message... y'know, its just common sense)
Free our phones cause I want to use my GSM phone on Verizon's CDMA network no matter who it cost(cough you) Face it folks we live in America not Europe or Japan
//Don't blame the Phone companies for not having ONE standard BLAME the GOV cause they let them do it
That's actually exactly what an EU directive of old back in the early 1990s did - they designated GSM as the only official technology for member states to use for mobile telecommunications. The reason for this choice over CDMA was that GSM was (and is) an open standard whereas CDMA is controlled by Qualcomm/Broadcom (nt sure which)
In India, many of the big name CDMA operators such as Reliance are now switching over to GSM/UMTS for exactly this reason.
The Government only lets the large corporations do it because they are "in bed together" so to speak. This is what lobbyists and bribes to senators are all about. It is the corporations that are the root of the cause, but it is the government that holds the actual power change - or the people, if you're an idealist (so write your senators if you are so inclined).
Anyways, let's hope Google can muster up enough courage and/or confidence in the success of the 700MHz to make a realistic bid. It seems unlikely to me that they will, since its really AT&T and Verizon's business (not to mention, they have much larger retained earnings), but a kid can dream.
My god people think about it. Different companies operating with somewhat different technologies to stay distinct from one another. Why does this continue? Be because we let it! If it truly is a big deal to go to cellular war over, then revolt and pick one company. Until then, freedom of choice is going to keep every cell service provider in operation that can compete with a decent business model.
I understand we are talking about the technology involved and the way these companies do business so let’s keep that in mind. This is not the governments fault, it is are own for making these choices. I seem to remember a time when everyone rejoiced in having the choice between the old cell co. and the new one in town. We can ask the government to intervene and help out but it is not their responsibility.
So you blame throwers that can’t sleep well at night without pointing the finger at someone for keeping your IPhone/BlackJack/Razr in the dark, look inside and shame on you. You know what you are paying for. If you want the real deal that bad then order overseas like everyone else or start your cellular revolution. Whining about the problem is an old practice, but taking action to make change, now that is the start of something new.
I'm not saying this to be a spammer (I'm not affiliated with any cell companies or anything), but there are a few smaller phone companies that are doing this. There's one, Metro PCS (http://www.metropcs.com), that is constantly advertising on the radio in my area -- rates are cheap for incredible service levels, and no contracts. Big problems? Phones are unsubsidized -- you pay through the nose for 'em, unless you've got an old PCS-capable phone -- and roaming charges if you go outside their coverage area.
Obviously, the thing to do here is support these smaller carriers, until the big carriers take the hint. I wonder if there are any GSM carriers with a similar pricing structure?
I actually JUST read this article in the WSJ before getting online. By far one of the best pieces of work I have read in a paper. I have been trying to tell people this for years but no one listens. I'm glad its going public to the national limelight. Maybe the sheep in this country will finally stand up!
Greed and greed alone has rendered America a technological backwater.
I think that guy in the picture being carried on the shoulders of his comrades is Trotsky the Communist. He was killed by an assassin (maybe one of his own loyal but overzealous members) with a pickax to the head. Maybe Mossberg would be wise to shut up about unlocking the iPhone or a similar fate might befall him. If he's unhappy then he should go complain about the other dozens of locked handsets. Leave the iPhone alone.
Unless Congress passes some bill that requires all carriers to unlock phones after a certain time period, these people might just as well keep their mouths shut or buy an already unlocked phone.
The average American wants to pay only $0 - $50 for some subsidized handset and that's what they're stuck with for two years. The suckers.
What would it take for the American people to realize that that these Carriers ( so they call them) are nothing but big hungry wolves that give a Sh*t a$$ to what customers think. I never knew so much phone control till I git here. How can people be content with this? Here you go sir, your Brand new car.You will love it
***Fine Print*****
Customer must not drive above 70 Miles/hr, Must maintain the same rims given on day of sale. And make sure to go back to no one but the seller to buy parts required. AT no time must customer be unhappy with this, or an early termination fee apples which might lead to repossession of Car.
That picture looks more like Sigmund Freud than Mossberg!
Vivo la Revolución! Energía a la gente et abajo con la máquina corporativa!
Sure they want to pay $50 or get a free phone but they end up paying for it in the end by paying more for their service. Sure you don't have to spend $300 for a phone at once...but what does it cost you in the long run?
I divide my life between living in Thailand and working in the U.S.A.
I have purchased many unlocked phones in Thailand several moths before they are available in the states (if they ever become available) to give as gifts, for less than you can get them through the cell phone companies.
You go into one of the thousands of small stores selling mobiles, buy it, buy a SIM card, and you are off. No contracts, no credit checks or background, no penalties if you want to change from 12 Call to Orange to somebody else.
Our cellular system really has gone from a world leader to a laughing stock. I dread going even from countries like Cambodia, Laos or Viet Nam to a US carrier.
And even the Apple fanboyz admit that the iPhone is just ok as a phone but the greatest iPod ever made.
This country really needs to catch up with the rest of the world in cellular and internet access.
Heres what it comes down to... are we buying our phones or leasing them?
Because if we're buying them the fact is their ours to do with as we please and we should get the support and the ability to use them as a phone regardless of carrier. Their locked for no reason beyond the companys own profit mongering.
If their leased then ya lock em but then again i've never bought a phone that said it was some form of forever lease, no it said "buy now".
Things have only got worse since the iPhone, with apple refusing to service your brand new phone if it's not activated with at&t its pathetic and europe outlawed this crap a while back i dont see why the US is still being so darn barbaric.
Never mind the damn locking of the phones. How about the locking of your bank account to the provider.
T-Mobile and Orange are pushing 18 and 24 month contracts now.
If they ever start offering 10 year contracts as a minimum, I want a free bloody house, car and other good stuff.
Free my Comcast Motorola Box! Free my V!agra, I want generic. Free my internet music, I want musicians to actually have a 2nd job. Free my phone because I want to create major consumer setbacks by reducing the incentives for companies to innovate.
Gimme Free, I want Free.
You, good Sir, are a retard. The debate is not about 'free' stuff (as you suggest with your music reference), nor is it about removing copyrights or patents (as you suggest with your "V!agra" reference).
It IS about paying FULL PRICE for a gadget (I have as of yet to see proof that AT&T subsidises the cost of the iPhone), yet being forced into a lenghty contract with fixed costs in order to use it. Go back to believing the crap they shovel on Fox.
It sucks to have to pay full price for a phone that isn't really mine. Unlock the damned phone already! Stop selling locked phones at full price! This is the biggest problem that I have with these carriers.
Now, I don't know what AT&T is afraid of. I'm happy with their service so far. I've unlocked other cell phones before and still remained with AT&T. I also do agree wholeheartedly with this move. Mostly because if cellular providers had to sell all of their phones unlocked, then they would have to constantly improve their cellular service in order to keep their customers from moving to another carrier.
I have to play devil's advocate and say the comparison to Internet/computers isn't the right one. Instead, as some have noted above, the proper comparison is television service.
I pay a lease for my DirecTV box and card. I cannot use another company's decoder box or card unless DirecTV says it's allowed. I cannot hack the DirecTV box to have different features. I cannot take my DirecTV box to Echostar and use it to tune in Dish Network, nor can I use it to get Comcast's offerings.
I do not feel oppressed by this. There's no reason I should expect my decoder box to be compatible with another satellite/cable provider, or to do things not supported by my provider of choice.
While I would like to see mobile phones open up a bit, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that they are locked to a network. I don't think it will change the user experience very much, except to make the tech support more difficult, if we allow every phone to be used on every network.
Mossberg has some valid points, but he's off-base here. He's comparing apples to oranges. Sometimes, the technology is made for the network, not the other way around.
But you forget, the price of the box is heavily subsidised or even nullified by the provider, and that at the end of the contractual agreement the box remains the property of the providor - at no point do you own the box and that is why you may not fiddle with it.
When it comes to cell-phones (with the iPhone being an extreme example) you do pay for the device (even if it is subsidised), and once you do it is your property - you are liable for repairs after the guarantee period, responsible for software updates, and for ongoing maintenance (unlike your cable/sattelite TV box).
Your comparison of the cell-phone locking issue to set-top boxes is therefore also flawed. The situation is as if you purchased a home PC from Dell, but in order to use it you are required to activate it via the internet. However, you are forced into a 2 year contract with an ISP of THEIR choice without any subsidy towards the cost of the PC. Such a situation would result in customers ditching Dell and buying their stuff elswhere, but in the case of cell-phones other operators use the same M.O. to take more of your money.
I wish I got paid to state the obvious like Walt does.
Here's a question--why don't users who purchase their own GSM phones get a discount on their monthly service plan? After all, the operator didn't subsidize their device purchase at all.
And why does a SIM card by itself cost a non-insubstantial amount ($30ish) and why do you get one free with a multitude of devices?
Perhaps if people carried the true cost of their devices--or had the option to finance them some other way than through a two year commitment (which is what the service contract ultimately ends up being--a 24 month device payment plan with voice/data service)--they'd choose otherwise.
Apple has proven that people will bear the full cost of a device, if given the opportunity and the right experience. If more users were focused on their experience rather than the cut-rate phone, perhaps the revolution would come earlier.
Completely misguided. Competition is alive and well in the cell phone industry, driving the prices down to levels unheard of in the rest of the world.
However, the same can not be said of broadband; FIOS is unavailable in most markets, and customers have the choice between overpriced cable or DSL. Where France's "Free" offers unlimited 20mbps DSL, 100 channels of TV (including HD), unlimited calling to 49 countries, and they even throw in a free SIP account and a DVR, for a mere 29 euros per month, Comcast and AT&T illustrate price fixing and collusion by offering less than half the bandwidth, basic cable and domestic calling only for $100 per month.
sorry guys for going off-topic
@ Julian Bond:
Compairing communism to socialism is one of the WORST compairsions I've ever seen. Just what is inherately wrong with Socialism. It's sad that it's courrupted so and has such a bad image when really if you study the economy it's slowly but surely creating the ideal conditions for socialism in our country. Why don't you go hear and read the facts http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/Articles/Prospects2.htm
AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE???
As an American who has until a few weeks ago lived in Europe for the last five years, I'm not really sure I see all that much of a difference between North American (read American) practices and European practices...
- Both continents offer only a handful of carriers, which monopolize the market to a certain extent
- In both situations users find themselves contractually 'locked' into relationships with carriers
- The 'lock-in' period usually corresponds to the handset price, because of claimed 'subsidies'
- On both continents handsets can be unlocked after a certain amount of time, usually three months, though the fact that the hardware is unlocked is almost irrelevant, since the user is contractually bound for another year or two anyway, and if they wanted to leave the contract, they'll end up paying a sizable 'escape-clause penalty'
So... where is the difference? Obviously I'm not speaking about regulations guiding users in East Asia, South Asia, or South America - but I can't imagine that the situation is all that different, particularly in regards to top-end handsets like the iPhone (when available).
So while Mossberg has a point, and that legislation in the US that prohibits locked devices would be nice, its more of a global issue. Moreover, such legislation would require the mobile phone industry to implement an alternative model that does not subsidize the hardware with lengthy contracts and non-transferable devices.
Thats just my two cents/pence/centimes/kroner
this mossberg person knows jack... and then again, he kisses the ass of the jobs and sticks the nose deeply inside...
I urge all of you to Digg this article so get it as much exposure as possible. Walt is exactly right. The feds need to step in to break up the mess that is the mobile cellular market in the usa.
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Walt_Mossberg_Free_My_Phone
I think there's someone we're forgetting; the cell phone makers themselves. They allow carriers to do whatever they want to their phones. Without phones, carriers can't continue the model. Much as the same way that McDonalds can't sell hamburgers if they don't have the meat. If the Nokia, Motorolla, LG, Samsung, etc decided to stand up to the carriers, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
I wish I were European, then I could get a decent phone for free, instead I get the crappiest phone ever offered to me for free. Insutling!
Realistically, I do not believe that the issue is merely the locking of phones to particular carriers, since as others have pointed out, many providers in other markets do the same.
If the issue were merely the fact that a carrier subsidizes a handset and locks it to their own network, I don't think the objections would be nearly as strenuous, and I don't really see how this stifles innovation or even realistic competition.
The real issue is the way in which North American carriers *cripple* the handsets they sell... This is the part that truly stifles innovation, since rather than bringing the network infrastructure up to the level of what many modern handsets are capable of, the providers instead choose to bring every handset they sell *down* to the level of their infrastructure. Further, they cripple network-neutral services that they have no simply way of charging specifically for, instead forcing users to pay a premium for their own services.
To use the cable provider analogy: Sure, my cable box is "locked" to my cable company's network, but my *TV* is not. I can choose to buy/subscribe to my movies or television services from my cable company, or I can choose to buy or rent DVDs, or I can get my video content from numerous other online sources such as iTunes. Further, I can just throw up an antenna and get free clear-to-air signals.
As a law student and economics graduate, this is very interesting to me. This thread would have me suppose that there is a real demand for "unlocked" cell phones. If this is so, then why is there no provider for "unlocked" phones? Is it because the consumer is just too willing to pay a much cheaper price for an exclusive deal? Or are manufacturers trying to exclude such phones from the market? If it is the latter, there could potentially be an antitrust issue here. However, it could just be free market capitalist use of contracts to decide what the consumer wants and at what price they are willing to pay. If there is such a true demand for unlocked phones, then there must be a provider somewhere willing to offer such products to the ultimate consumers. Is there?
Just a thought worth teasing out, I think.
Blake -
When you ask about a provider of unlocked phones, do you mean wireless service company the size of AT&T or Verizon which sells unlocked phones next to locked, branded phones? Or do you mean just anyone who sells unlocked phones to users, regardless of size or market? If you mean the latter, there are dozens of reputable vendors online who sell unlocked phones to end users (Tiger Direct, Amazon, Cell Hut, etc.) and the phone manufacturers themselves are getting into the act (Motorola's online store, for one). Granted, the prices are pretty high but users can flock to eBay for unlocked phones at lower prices. Overall, there are lots of customers who demand unlocked phones (like me - I own 4) and there is no shortage of places to get them. However, you can't buy them from most wireless service providers.
Guys...just feel glad you don't live in Canada. Our version of 'AT&T' is Rogers and they don't even offer data plans that are feasible. If you want to get a 10MB transfer a month its like $120 a month on top of your voice plan. So even if you did get good unlocked phones over here, what's the point when data costs more than voice....
we would too if we let the government regulate the carriers.
If the iPhone ever hits Canada, would it be a hit? I donno...I'm not sure how many of us enjoy paying $120 a month for 10MB of transfer including all emails and browsing and that crap.
Also, we are the only country in the world that pays for incoming calls.
Let's not forget that carriers cripple Bluetooth, disable features, and install crapware, all channeling consumers directly to carriers' additional revenue streams (either monthly fees or full-priced handsets while in contract) when features are desired. And let's not forget the monthly not taxes fees over and above advertised plans. 100% deceptive practices IMO.
Walt is right. Average American consumers have little knowledge about how the mobile carriers today behave just like AT&T did before the Carterphone decision and its subsequent breakup. Odd how AT&T is now comprised of a lot of the Baby Bells.
Not sure if you wathed the video of Walt on WSJ.com, but I have to comment your locked into asking the carrier to unlock your phone because the carrier paid for a portion of your phone. It's as simple as that. I bought an HTC advantage unlocked without a plan on-line to use with my T-mobile service which i've had for years. I decided I wanted to switch to ATT for their 3G network, I cancelled one plan and started another, just had to switch sims, easiest process in the world. As for phones locked from applications and the apple iPhone being the first real computer phone I'd have to disagree, I've used a pocket pc phone for 4 years now and have been able to install apps, check e-mail, switch web browsers, etc on it just fine. Walt Def has a thing for Apple products...
Oh, Walt. Why dont you get some balls & lay some blame on your beloved Apple. They sure aint helping things none to bit. Although, that would upset his boyfriend, Steve.
What about a phone that you can use with any carrier in the world no matter what network they use. CDMA or GSM. UK, USA, JAPAN, or CONGO. Why cant this happen. You can give me someone elses heart because i am fat, but you cant make a phone that i can activate on any provider i want? Why? Money. I would pay 1000-2500 for a phone that would do that
Wish Google would Killl ATT ..die die die
So many interesting points, but I want to respond to something Pep says. He said "The complaint is not the subsidy, it's the lock. It pisses me off that I buy a phone and THEY tell me with which company I can use it..." This is actually a common complaint, but I think that's because we approach the phone buying thing backwards. Here's the premise: a cell phone is a cell phone. 1st, pick the cell plan that suits you, from a carrier that suits you. 2nd, pick one of their cell phones - they all have a lot of models. This way you're not forced to use a particular carrier. You may not get the EXACT phone you wanted, but, like I said earlier (and THIS is the point everybody seems not to appreciate) a cell phone is a cell phone is a cell phone. These are good times, baby. Try to appreciate it.
And if it's the monthly bill that you hate, use a prepaid.
As much as I would like to see more advanced phones on the market, I am not sure if I would like to switch the control form a phone company to the government. Currently most people voluntarily enter into contract agreements with a phone company. With government dictating the cellular standards, that will compulsory. I have to pay the subscription fee to read the Wall Street Journal web page. I would love to get it cheaper or even for free, but that is not the reason to ask for a government intervention to “free” the content, based on the fact that other papers have no subscription fees. I pay the subscription since I believe that the content is worth my money. Similarly, you can buy a unlocked phone right now. However, they are expensive so most people rather spread the payment by entering the “locked” contract with a phone company in exchange for a lower initial phone price. So, as I see it, he is complaining that the market price for unlocked phones is not as low as he would like it to be. Should that be directed towards phone manufactures or you he would like a government official to set the price for new phones?