Mossberg howls: "Free My Phone"

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!

[N30 G30 @ Oct 22nd 2007 5:51AM]

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.

[illutionz @ Oct 22nd 2007 8:01AM]

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.

[Paul @ Oct 22nd 2007 8:34AM]

The point is that you should not have to ask the carrier for permission to use the phone you purchased.

[Jason @ Oct 22nd 2007 9:37AM]

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.

[Frankenstein Black @ Oct 22nd 2007 10:22AM]

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...

[Frankenstein Black @ Oct 22nd 2007 10:32AM]

Oh and don't mind Hannibal! He wont bite ;^), at least not that hard, lol...

[mike @ Oct 22nd 2007 10:40AM]

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.

[Mark @ Oct 22nd 2007 12:37PM]

Here's his article: http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20071021/free-my-phone/

[Pep @ Oct 22nd 2007 1:07PM]

@ 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...

[N30 G30 @ Oct 22nd 2007 1:08PM]

I just wanted to respond back and say all of you changed this consumer's mind on the subject.

[Costas @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:19PM]

"Or if your ISP dictated which browsers could connect to its network."

The letters A.O.L come to mind... :-)

[nikster @ Oct 22nd 2007 8:10PM]

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.

[Jeebus @ Oct 23rd 2007 12:51PM]

"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.

[str8talker @ Oct 23rd 2007 5:10PM]

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'

[Twitchy @ Oct 22nd 2007 5:54AM]

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).

[Josh @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:42AM]

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)

[Jon @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:15AM]

Good luck making your VoIP calls in the wilderness.

Oh wait, you've never been out have you?

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:53AM]

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.

[Jon @ Oct 22nd 2007 8:52AM]

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.

[Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 22nd 2007 10:21AM]

Meh... if you're downloading e-mails on a camping trip I think you don't understand the point of camping trips.

[Twitchy @ Oct 22nd 2007 5:33PM]

@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.

[Wonderkid @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:06AM]

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.

[keithwwalker @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:05AM]

Finally a voice of clear distinct reason, and of influence! Hopefully the sentiment will keep growing until we get close to the 700MHz auction...

[ph8ory @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:06AM]

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.

[Andrew @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:33AM]

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...

[illutionz @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:53AM]

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?

[Mark @ Oct 22nd 2007 12:04PM]

The government is ALREADY involved and we DON'T have a totally free market, so don't bring up that tired old canard.

[Jeebus @ Oct 23rd 2007 12:54PM]

"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?

[keithwwalker @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:11AM]

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.

[Taylor @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:41AM]

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.

[Jon @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:11AM]

He is an Apple fanboy so whatever he says I take with a grain of salt.

And since when was Mossberg influential?

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:59AM]

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.....

[Ian @ Oct 22nd 2007 8:59AM]

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.

[Joey Geraci @ Oct 22nd 2007 10:15PM]

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.

[keithwwalker @ Oct 22nd 2007 11:53PM]

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.

[michas_pi @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:02AM]

Whoa, the first time I read the headline I swear it said "Free my iPhone".

[Warhorse @ Oct 22nd 2007 11:08AM]

Now that is spooky!! Until you posted I thought the same thing! Hmm....

[newgalactic @ Oct 22nd 2007 12:38PM]

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.

[IndiaTech @ Oct 24th 2007 12:57AM]

@NewGalactic: Can I have some of the stuff you are smoking up?

[or_alfred @ Oct 25th 2007 7:26PM]

IndiaTech...that was stupid hilarious....made the rest of my day...ohhh it’s almost finish. lol

[John @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:28AM]

I don't think anyone fears Walt Mossberg, except maybe the people who have to deal with him on a daily basis.

[Craig @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:36AM]

Go Walt! He's absolutely right. FREE OUR PHONES!

[Iain @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:39AM]

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?

[Jon @ Oct 22nd 2007 8:41AM]

His opinion does not matter. Unless it is pro-Apple then for some reason it matters. No idea why.

[thenino85 @ Oct 23rd 2007 1:23PM]

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.

[Iain @ Oct 23rd 2007 5:12PM]

So, in other words, he points out the obvious and for some reason people think that he's clever?

[IndiaTech @ Oct 24th 2007 1:03AM]

@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?

[Jesse David Hollington @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:40AM]

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.

[illutionz @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:47AM]

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!!!!!

[thenino85 @ Oct 23rd 2007 1:17PM]

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.