FCC Boss Demands Carriers Speed Things Up on Cell Unlocking → If the carrier's won't move..

Then it's time to force all cell phone manufacturers to sell phones unlocked, and not allow for any phone to be locked. Period.

All Verizon 4G LTE phones come unlocked

I don't have a problem if in exchange for a subsidy, carriers want some kind of assurance that the customer will remain faithful to their obligation. However, at the end of that contract, the carrier should automatically unlock the phone and inform the customer. If a customer chooses to break their contract and pays the commensurate early termination fee, the carrier should also automatically unlock the device and inform the customer. If the customer stiffs the carrier for the ETF/other charges and forces them to sell that debt to the collection agency, the carrier is no longer obligated to unlock the phone or permit it to operate on their network. If the phone is subsequently acquired by a new owner, it should be at the discretion of the carrier as to how they would like to proceed. (They can forgive and forget, negotiate some kind of restoration fee from the new owner, confiscate it or refuse to do anything with it.)

Bottom line: It's reasonable for them to use it as assurance that new owners will fulfill their contract obligations but they should not be allowed to leverage it an anti-competitive fashion.

Final Word: Carriers should also be required to immediately unlock any phone in exchange for a full price sale.

Good but not good enough. I have a contract but travel regularly aboard and I want to use a local SIM. I am paying my monthly bill it is unreasonable for me to wait 2 years to unlock my phone.

I say either ETF or a locked phone carrier can choose which one they want.

AT&T will unlock your phone if you tell them you need to travel abroad.

I'm OK with eliminating locking codes but then the customer should foot the ETF fee up front like a renter's deposit. Then it can be refunded when the customer completes their contract or used to pay the last part of the contract.

You can say every industry wants assurance for any and every product sold that the consumer fulfills their obligation so there is no difference here beyond that fact it is electronic and can be locked.

They have plenty of means to purpose or penalize people that do not fulfill their obligations beyond locks and that should be used.

This makes no sense. You will still be paying the agreed rate for the phone and service, regardless of if it is unlocked or being used elsewhere. The network operator isn't going to lose any money.

So why should you have to pay full price or wait for the end of the contract? Fortunately this is not something the networks force upon you in other countries - you can usually get a unlock code immediately or within a month of receiving it, or you just buy the phone in an unlocked state in the first place (using quality standards like GSM/UMTS/LTE works wonders here)

I was looking for middle ground. If in exchange for a subsidy they want to use locking as an obligatory penalty for not fulfilling the contract, it's a plausible business practice. In lieu of that, asking for the ETF as a deposit has precedence (utilities and landlords).

Of course we aren't going to like it but many silly things are forced upon all of us because a fraction need repeated experience to learn the relationship between toilet hygiene and a sore anus.

All of this assumes the carrier is using locking for such purposes and not simply as an anti-competitive choke hold. If they don't care about guarantees against folks that walk around with an inflamed anus, then the FCC should regulate locking out of existence.

Well, yeah... I don't like locks either but IF they are using it for this purpose and automatically unlock it once the customer fulfills their obligation or pays an ETF, so what if technology has enabled something that's convenient for business, has real teeth and doesn't affect 99% of us who are honest consumers? However, if they are using it to simply be anti-competitive then lets get rid of them.

I'm trying to seek a middle ground on the assumption the carrier is using it to guarantee customer performance. If not, then it should be regulated out of existence.

If locking isn't a means of assurance but simply a competitive weapon, it should get the attention of the FTC and they should handle the matter. That's why I'm suggesting that locking be clearly defined as a customer performance tool with automatic unlocking rather than leave it muddy which too often leaves the customer with a brick if they want to use it on another carrier.

the SIM side is unlocked, the ESN CDMA side is not.

rradina, yes AT&T will unlock but not if it is an iPhone.