dslreports logo
 story category
U.S.: Just 5% of Phones Unlocked
Compared to 80% in Asia and 70% in Europe
In an article discussing the wireless handset market, CNET trots out this interesting stat: Unlocked phones comprise 80% of the market in Asia, and 70% in Europe. In the United States? Just 5% of handsets are unlocked. Obviously a big reason for this is that only AT&T and T-Mobile support GSM and swappable SIM cards, and both carriers enjoy making subsidized phones a priority. Carriers here also want control over devices and applications. So will things change? Sony Ericsson and Nokia would certainly like it to, and might get help from a government already investigating exclusive handset deals. At least one analyst predicts the US will evolve slowly into a market where customers pick their phone -- then their carrier -- something aided by a uniform migration to LTE.
view:
topics flat nest 

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Locked Phones

Personally, I make it a priority to get all of my GSM phones unlocked as I use SIM's from different countries. However, from observing friends and co-workers, I find that the majority of people consider the phone a throwaway device that is changed when they change carriers. Despite the fact that an unlocked 2G GSM phone will work with both AT&T and T-Mobile, switching from one carrier to another usually involves getting a new phone anyhow so why bother getting it unlocked?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Locked Phones

said by n2jtx:

Despite the fact that an unlocked 2G GSM phone will work with both AT&T and T-Mobile, switching from one carrier to another usually involves getting a new phone anyhow so why bother getting it unlocked?
Also, most people WANT a new phone after 2 years in order to get all the latest hardware & software features that keep coming out non-stop. So for most U.S. users this is pretty much a non-issue.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to n2jtx

Premium Member

to n2jtx
I unlock my phones as soon as I get them.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb

Premium Member

Re: Locked Phones

said by r81984:

I unlock my phones as soon as I get them.
Same. I even got a better signal after unlocking, believe it or not. Plus I hated that AT&T had every other freaking button assigned to connect to the Internet.

adisor19
join:2004-10-11

adisor19

Member

It will happen sooner rather then later

With CDMA providers going LTE, SIM cards will be much more common and this is good for the consumer.

Adi

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: It will happen sooner rather then later

said by adisor19:

With CDMA providers going LTE, SIM cards will be much more common and this is good for the consumer.

Adi
As was pointed out to me a week or so ago, LTE is a data-only std(unless the 4 major wireless carriers can soon agree on a voice over LTE std). Given that fact, there would still be separate phones needed for different carriers. Without some regulation DECREEING some interoperability std from the FCC, we will not reach the nirvana of picking a phone and then a carrier - at least not because of the migration to LTE.

Snickerdo3
Premium Member
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON

Snickerdo3 to adisor19

Premium Member

to adisor19
said by adisor19:

With CDMA providers going LTE, SIM cards will be much more common and this is good for the consumer.
IS-96 has supported SIM cards since the early 2000s. You sure don't see handset makers making any effort to adopt that part of the standard.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Unlocked? What???

I'd be willing to bet that only slightly over 5% of American cell users even know what unlocking is. Actually, if we were to assume that half of all users here are on GSM, then that means perhaps 10% of GSM users have unlocked phones. Sounds about right to me.

I've found a surprisingly large number of people have no idea how their phones work, that they can be unlocked, or even that they use a SIM card.

PhoenixAZ
Get A Mac
Premium Member
join:2004-01-04
Phoenix, AZ

1 edit

PhoenixAZ

Premium Member

Re: Unlocked? What???

said by ISurfTooMuch:

I'd be willing to bet that only slightly over 5% of American cell users even know what unlocking is. Actually, if we were to assume that half of all users here are on GSM, then that means perhaps 10% of GSM users have unlocked phones. Sounds about right to me.

I've found a surprisingly large number of people have no idea how their phones work, that they can be unlocked, or even that they use a SIM card.
And that is exactly what Verizon wants. They do not want thier users to know that a "SIM Card" exists.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 edit

1 recommendation

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

When phones are throwaways...

....no one cares about unlocking.

In many other countries, phones are sold full price with no contracts so people are a LOT more cognisant of which provider they use.

In this country, when many phones are free with a 2 year contract, by the time that contract is over, you get the latest and greatest for next to nothing or free. Just checking today, a Palm Centro is $10 with 2 year contract and a few others are $50 (HTC Ozone, Motorola Q (certified used.))

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: When phones are throwaways...

Agreed. Locking of phones is a non-issue in the USA because phones are so cheap.

I have to ask why does any logical, reasonable person want to force US consumers to pay the full price for a phone "just like they do abroad?" What possible good could come of forcing consumers to pay full price?

People who want to pay full price for an unlocked phone in the USA can already do so. I think we are better off having choices in paying full price for phone or not.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: When phones are throwaways...

said by pnh102:

Agreed. Locking of phones is a non-issue in the USA because phones are so cheap.

I have to ask why does any logical, reasonable person want to force US consumers to pay the full price for a phone "just like they do abroad?" What possible good could come of forcing consumers to pay full price?

People who want to pay full price for an unlocked phone in the USA can already do so. I think we are better off having choices in paying full price for phone or not.
I can tell you I work with someone who HATES cell phone contracts and is always complaining about the high cost of unlocked phones. He has a 1st generation iPhone he uses on T-Mobile and an old LG Env he uses on Verizon. He says he wants an iPhone 3G but doesn't want to pay the no contract price and he doesn't want a contract either.

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

jester121

Premium Member

Re: When phones are throwaways...

He sounds like any number of visitors to this website who moan and gripe about "evil greedy corporations" and "unfair pricing", and have no clue about how businesses run or what stuff really costs.

koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK

koolman2 to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
Tell him to offer to pay the upgrade fee for someone wanting a 3GS who currently has a 3G. That's what I did and got a barely-used 3G for $375, then unlocked it.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
Because you pay for the phone over the course of the contract. And regardless of what phone or plan you purchase, you're paying the same as everyone else. Meaning even if you don't buy an iPhone you're paying at the "subsidized", marked up price point.

Forcing consumers to pay full price for unlocked phones that can then be used with any carrier would force phone manufacturers to actually *compete* with each other, especially in terms of price and quality. Price wars naturally lead to a downward trend in overall prices. The lack of subsidized contracts *should* also result in a decrease in the amount you pay for monthly plans. Of course collusion among the 4 major carriers could prevent his from happening.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: When phones are throwaways...

said by sonicmerlin:

Because you pay for the phone over the course of the contract.
Why does this matter? It isn't like any carrier is going to give you a price break if you pay full price for the phone anyway.

There are plenty of choices in phones, both for zero cost up front and others which have all sorts of bells and whistles and which cost a lot. Why not let the customer decide which phone he wants and let price be a factor?
said by sonicmerlin:

Forcing consumers to pay full price ...
... would just cost consumers a ton of money, and force people who rely on cheap cell phones and who cannot afford to pay full price to drop the service. In most countries where you pay full price for a phone you pay roughly the same as what you pay here, so there's no point at all.

Besides, what is better if you money is a problem? Finding a provider that works best in your area and getting a zero cost phone though them or paying full price for the phone and maybe getting more than one good provider? With the latter, you just pay more, a lot more.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: When phones are throwaways...

Wow. No, really they don't. in Asia phone hardware is a generation ahead of the US. This is part of the reason the iPhone isn't particularly popular in Japan. It's very expensive relative to other phones, and the hardware isn't even that advanced.

I already explained this, but you purposely ignored every point I made, so I'll try one more time. Forcing consumers to pay full price would ultimately bring down the prices of phones, and allow them to pay less per month in wireless contracts.

Phone manufacturers would have to compete on price and quality, and wireless carriers wouldn't be able to charge hidden "subsidies" in their monthly plans to EVERYONE, regardless of the phone they purchase.

This is why locked phones are ILLEGAL in many other developed countries.

PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD

PGHammer

Member

Re: When phones are throwaways...

And why are phones in Asia more advanced? Because that so-called advanced network (DoCoMo) is tied to the carrier (in Asia, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, AKA NTT). And DoCoMo is deliberately licensed only to Asia-based handset manufacturers (both Nokia and Motorola have repeatedly been turned down). The primary DoCoMo handset licensees are Sony Ericsson and Mitsubishi (only Sony Ericsson even SELLS handsets outside of Asia!), and DoCoMo was designed directly as an Asia-specific (in fact Japan-specific) standard (Verizon and Vodaphone both made specific inquiries about licensing DoCoMo in the standard's early days and were turned down). Therefore, I have EVERY reason to believe that DoCoMo is more about lock-in than even CDMA (which VZW and Vodaphone both turned to instead of DoCoMo).

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to sonicmerlin

Premium Member

to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

This is part of the reason the iPhone isn't particularly popular in Japan.
Nope.

»www.appleinsider.com/art ··· ket.html
said by sonicmerlin:

I already explained this, but you purposely ignored every point I made...
Because they are all wrong.
said by sonicmerlin:

Forcing consumers to pay full price would ultimately bring down the prices of phones, and allow them to pay less per month in wireless contracts.
Which again is refuted by all the prevailing evidence. People abroad pay many times more for phones than they do here. The price of their service is comparable to ours. Ergo, forcing people to pay full price for their phones here will simply force them to spend more money and nothing more. Higher prices for phones will also push many people of lesser means out of the market for phones.
said by sonicmerlin:

This is why locked phones are ILLEGAL in many other developed countries.
So what? It is perfectly legal in the USA to unlock your phone if you choose to do so. There are numerous third party services who will sell you this service and some cell phone companies will even do it for you for free if you meet the criteria.

obeythelaw
Premium Member
join:2003-04-16
Warren, NJ

obeythelaw to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
exactly, you can already buy a full price phone unlocked for use on ATT or Tmobile. There are hundreds of them on the internet. It's a non issue.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to moonpuppy

Member

to moonpuppy
The thing is, these people really are paying full price--it's just that they don't realize it. The carriers recover that subsidy over the course of the contract. In many other countries, many people use prepaid service, which means they have no contracts.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: When phones are throwaways...

said by ISurfTooMuch:

The thing is, these people really are paying full price--it's just that they don't realize it. The carriers recover that subsidy over the course of the contract. In many other countries, many people use prepaid service, which means they have no contracts.
Prepaid service here is more expensive than a monthly plan and, last time I checked, there is no discount for bringing your own phone to a provider. In reality, it costs more to a wireless provider for someone to buy a subsidised phone than bring their own phone.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: When phones are throwaways...

Correct. In fact, carriers are quite happy to have folks bring their own phones, since the money that would pay off a subsidized phone is pure profit when that happens. It's a huge ripoff.

Of course, the carriers want you to bring only an "approved" phone loaded with their bloatware and locked down so no changes can be made to it.

GWB
@apollogrp.edu

GWB to moonpuppy

Anon

to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:

people are a LOT more cognisant of with provider they use.
glinc
join:2009-04-07
New York, NY

glinc

Member

Leave it

They should leave it as it is, I make enough money from walk in customers who want their phone unlocked for $25-$30 because they don't know that calling CSR can get it unlock.
miball
join:2005-08-17
Seattle, WA

1 recommendation

miball

Member

Unlocked Phone

I have had unlocked phones for the past 3 years, I don't think I would ever go back to carrier subsidized phones. I haven't been under contract in awhile. I would rather pay the cost up front for the phone.

milnoc
join:2001-03-05
Ottawa

milnoc

Member

Re: Unlocked Phone

Same here. Got my quad band phone in London, brought it back to Montreal, changed SIM cards, works just as well.

The only thing I miss is the UK prepaid service plans. Man were they ever a bargain! UK to Canada for only four cents (2p) a minute!

Of course, there was a special while I was there. The regular price was actually eight cents (4p) a minute.

Too bad Canada is rip-off heaven when it comes to data plans. Without a contract, my rate is five cents per kilobyte. That translates to FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS per ten megabytes!

The data price in London on the same pre-paid plan as the 4 cent international calls? One dollar for the first 10 MB per day, charged only on the days you actually use it.

I hate my country.
Fisamo
Premium Member
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC

Fisamo to miball

Premium Member

to miball
Why?

I'm not asking to be argumentative, but I am curious as to how you value the unlocked nature of the phone. Do you change providers often? Are you concerned about crippled features on a locked version of the phone?

FWIW, look at the LG Dare on Verizon--$410 full price (no contract), $200 with 1-year contract, $80 with 2-year contract, both contract prices also figuring a $70 online discount. If you buy it on the 2-year contract and have to terminate service early (say you move out of the country) and have to pay the maximum ETF of $175, you end up ahead in terms of total cost paid to go with the subsidized phone. Of course, if the subsidized phone is locked but the unsubsidized phone can be reprogrammed to work with a different provider that uses the same technology, there's an obvious difference in residual value of the phone...

AT&T price differential for "non-smart" phones seems to hover at about $150 vs $175 -$5/mo into contract (last I knew) ETF. Once again, assuming the phone is unlocked/unlockable upon payment of the ETF (and unlocked when purchased at 'no commitment price'), many consumers are better off with the subsidized device.

Seriously, while I am not thrilled with having to 'tie' myself to a provider for 2 years at a time, I can't say that the experience (in the 10 years I've had a cell phone) has been all that painful.

vdiv
Premium Member
join:2002-03-23
Reston, VA

vdiv

Premium Member

Re: Unlocked Phone

Here is an example. I have a Sony Ericsson T637 that is locked to the former AT&T Wireless network. When I wanted to change my data plan I was forced to get a new device/contract from the new AT&T (or get an unlocked one myself). AT&T refused to unlock it. I cannot use it on the current AT&T Mobility network, nor anywhere else.

Why not?

This is the same argument as the cable boxes in another thread. It is not good for the consumer that we continue to have this argument. The consumer wants ownership of their devices, especially of the ones that hold so much personal data.

AlexNYC
join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO

1 edit

AlexNYC

Member

Unlock

Most consumers have no idea what they are missing by having a cheap locked phone. I have always purchased my phone separately and I get is a technologically advanced phone with uncrippled software that is far superior to anything my carrier has to offer. iPhones are not selling well in Japan because they are lacking features and the people there have many better choices: »online.wsj.com/article/S ··· 023.html

I personally use Nokia phones that actually help me save money because of the feature they offer, such as VoIP, tethering, Real GPS with loaded maps that is independent of cell coverage and requires no subscription, 5MP camera, etc.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

Re: Unlock

Cingular prior to its merger with AT&T didn't really cripple its handsets much. On my Symbian and WinMo phones, pretty much any feature the hardware could offer was available. Similar phones form Verizon at the time had features locked down (bluetooth file exchange, tethering, being able to load ringtones in via usb, etc). Hell, the first Nokia phones I bought weren't even locked!

They weren't even policing which data plans went with which phone - you could buy a PDA phone and put it on a $20 unlimited MediaNet plan, no problem. Now they track the phone type by IMEI, so that's not so easy.

Given that I didn't perceive my phones as being overly restricted, why on earth would I want to spend $200+ more to get the same thing? I'm not in a hurry to leave AT&T, it's not like I have a lot of alternatives to take my phone to anyway. If all the carriers move to LTE and the handsets are actually interchangeable, this will become much more of an issue in the US.

What is curious though is that it used to be standard practice that once you had "paid off" the contract on the phone, you could call them and get it unlocked. We're well into 2 years worth of iPhones - has anybody gotten an "official" 2G unlock from AT&T/Apple in the US? If not, why isn't that available?
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Unlock

Until there's a desire from people to be able to apply their phone to different carriers, there will be no push for all carriers to adopt the same standard. The only way that desire can exist is if people are able to purchase their phones separate from the carrier. It's a chicken and egg problem.

pepe06484636211
@comcast.net

pepe06484636211 to djrobx

Anon

to djrobx
Ah, but ATT still operates this way, the iPhone is the only exception since it's the only device that requires you to have a data plan on their network. They won't provide the subsidy unlock code for iPhones but will for everything else. Just make sure your account is paid up when you ask.

-Pedro

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Well... that makes sense because

CDMA phones are locked at the carrier, not the device (ie. no SIM card), and CDMA counts for +50% of all U.S. devices.

In Europe, its GSM based or nothing for the most part. Asia is similar (except S. Korea)

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: Well... that makes sense because

Isn't Verizon's code still 000000?

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

T-Mobile

I'm so glad I have T-Mobile.

They give you unlock codes for free after 90 days of service.

You can get a new unlock code for any T-Mobile branded (and sometimes not T-Mobile branded) phones every 90 days if you wanted.

4 lines = 4 unlock codes every 90 days. It's great. I went to Canada and popped in a new SIM. Same with HK.
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA

djeremy

Member

Re: T-Mobile

Yeah. T-Mo is great when it comes to that. I've gotten unlock codes for all my phones from them after 90 days and had no trouble putting in new SIM cards in other countries.
yago_potato
join:2004-10-01
Rochester, MN

yago_potato

Member

unlocked mine

I followed this guide for my blackjack II

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· HHeUfYWY

and when i called they tried selling me a international plan and i told them no you legally have to give me the code and i was on hold for like 5 mins than the lady came back and gave me my unlock code so don't let them try selling you any crap because you don't have to do it! legally they have to give it to you in the us!
osamede
join:2009-05-08

osamede

Member

This makes sense - for the us market at least

This makes sense - the US market for mobile access is basically a bunch of monopolies and buying an unlocked phone wont get you too far. Why would you buy an unlocked Sprint or Verizon phone for example? Its not like you can use it on another carrier in the US.

With GSM phones there is ATT & T-mobile so some minor compettion, but essentially is a disfunctional "market" and this outcome of locked phones dominating shoudl be no surprise.
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO

markopoleo

Member

Not a surprise..considering most americans don't use it

Most people in the USA opt for prepaid phones than contract. Even if they do the contract route, its normally free phones to begin with.

kieranmullen
Premium Member
join:2005-12-12
Portland, OR

kieranmullen

Premium Member

Unlocking your phone

People: It is easy to unlock. The best online forums for unlocking your phones I have found are »www.mobile-files.com and »www.howardforums.com

Ben
Premium Member
join:2007-06-17
Fort Worth, TX

Ben

Premium Member

Why There Aren't More Unlocked Phones

Some of the reasons were already stated by others. That is, a lot of folks aren't aware that it's even possible to use the same phone with different carriers, or that people consider the phones to be short term devices, or "throwaway." Personally I wouldn't say "throwaway," since to be truly throwaway you'd pitch the phone when the battery ran down, or some other resource, that would quickly run out, runs out. Or that if the prepaid minutes ran out, you wouldn't purchase more minutes to use with the same phone. Think about disposable cameras when I talk about throwaway.

Although, they are "throwaway" in the sense that when people get a phone, they don't expect to be using that same phone in three years.

One reason for this behavior, is the amount of money that people are paying for the phones. Or rather, how much they think are paying. In reality, they are paying more.

An unlocked phone often costs hundreds of dollars, while a locked phone costs either a few dozen dollars, or it's even free.

Years ago, mobile phone carriers knew that if phones cost hundreds of dollars, fewer people would sign up for the service. So then they got the idea of....why not subsidize the purchase of the phones? To make the money back, make the monthly service charge higher.

The result was that the initial charge for the phones, or what people thought they were really paying, was lower. Therefore, a lot of people who may not have otherwise purchased the phones, decided to go for it.

Therefore, a paradigm in consumer expectations was created. That is, they expect that the cheapest phone would cost somewhere between $0 and $50, not $150 to $300.

The problem, is that in the case of unlocked phones, the cheapest new phone really would cost $150 or so (not sure about the exact costs, I haven't looked up any prices), and that's for a phone that doesn't have the latest, most advanced features. People who were used to being able to get something for $0 to $50, would have a hard time adjusting to paying more, even if it meant that they could use the phone with any carrier at all.

So unless people can get used to the idea of paying more for phones, at least for the next couple or few years or so, I don't see this paradigm reversing, and I don't see the number of unlocked handsets rising.

Some people may argue that business should be free to do subsidies and lock the phones, and that people should be able to buy that anyway.

The problem with this, is that in the case of an oligopoly (which describes mobile phone carriers), it's not really a free market. If the market was truly free, you'd see the following:

- No more handset subsidies.
- Monthly charges would be reduced to reflect the lack of subsidies. Currently, the monthly charge is actually service + subsidy recapture.
- While carriers would be free to sell phones, much in the same way that your local telephone company, or ILEC does, they wouldn't be allowed to prevent the use of a phone purchased from another source.
- Contracts should be no longer than month to month, and maybe, so as not to be entirely unfair to carriers, to require a deposit of one month's service, which can be used to pay for the last month of service.

To replace subsidies, consumers should then have a variety of options:

- Use a phone they had from before, and pay no subsidy recapture.
- Buy a brand new phone, pay for the phone cash on the barrelhead, and pay no subsidy recapture.
- Get a short term loan from the bank to pay for the phone, and pay a small monthly charge to pay back the loan. The charge would vary based on the amount borrowed, and of course the credit score of the borrower/consumer.

This means that a consumer should theoretically get a phone with a subsidy (or rather, a loan) and use one carrier, and if he chooses to switch to another carrier before that loan ends, he can still continue to pay that loan, keep the phone, and use the other carrier.

What I have just described, to me is much closer to a free market. It would also force carriers to be competitive, if vendor lock-in no longer takes place.
stufried
Premium Member
join:2003-10-13

stufried

Premium Member

Re: Why There Aren't More Unlocked Phones

It depends on your life style and how much the crippling bugs you. I carry an ATT branded Bold but am annoyed that they crippled my ability to force the phone to 2g (you can't hack this back in -- I've tried). My other phone is an unlocked Nokia E-66 which I use for most of my voice calls and foreign travel.

The VOIP feature is worth alot. My ability to tie the phone into my Asterisk server is important and a feature that my cell phone company must really hate. All calls go to my voip mode, then to my sim de jour, and then to Google Voice for transcription and delivery to my Blackberry (which has a global data plan).
pika2000
join:2005-10-13
Seattle, WA

pika2000

Member

LOL

wow, I thought it would be more like 0.1%.
US consumers are afraid of being confused by choice and the foreign idea of unlocked phones. They rather go into 1 store and get the device and service at the same time, even if it means being screwed. Proof? Look at how many people giving $$ to AT&T for the iPhone, even though Apple openly sell the iPhone officially unlocked in other countries. Nope, instead of demanding AT&T/Apple for unlocked iPhones, US consumers willingly go in line giving AT&T more money.

Also, US consumers have been brainwashed by the cellular providers into thinking that unlocked phones = no subsidy. Subsidy and exclusivity have nothing to do with provider-locking. I'll take Singapore for example. In Singapore, contract and subsidized phones, including all high end smart phones and iPhones (which is exclusive on Singtel), are unlocked out of the box. In contrast, in the US even prepaid phones sold in stores are provider-locked, which doesn't make any sense at all.

Provider locking is anti-competitive, and should be illegal. Note that I don't have any problems with subsidy, contracts, and exclusivity. But there is zero logical reason that consumers should be using/paying for provider-locked phones. Do you want to buy a PC that is locked with Comcast? Do you want to buy a landline phone that can only be used with QWEST? Oh wait, people are already flocking into provider-locked netbooks... Oh well.

Unfortunately, money talks, and at this point, there is no reason for the cellular providers to change their business practice. Heck, in the US, we are still PAYING for incoming calls and SMS. Go figure. We sure love being f***ed around by the telcos.