Mossberg howls: "Free My Phone"
By Thomas Ricker 
posted October 22nd 2007 8:51AM
posted October 22nd 2007 8:51AM
posted October 22nd 2007 8:51AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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?