Does it seem like "consumer groups" don't know what they're talking about?

If this practice is so egregious, then I guess that all the US GSM providers should stop their handset subsidies.

What this attorney, and FTCR are missing is that GSM service providers really charge you for the SIM card, not the phone. The SIM card is indeed phone independent, and can be used in any GSM phone with the 850/1900 MHz frequencies. The SIM card is not locked.

This is muddled logic on the part of the attronies hanlding FTCR's case. Handset locking does not lock customers into any networks, however, ownership of a contract SIM card does do that.

 

Not exactly correct. As long as the phone is unlocked, you can take a T-mobile SIM and put it in an AT&T phone. I have put AT&T SIM cards in my Cingular V400 and Cingular T616 because they already came unlocked from Cingular. Of course, the lawsuit ignores that Cingular and T-Mobile are the most flexible when it comes to the phone locking issue.

But if we are going to play the lawsuit game, why not sue Sprint and Verizon? Their phones are compatible with each other but are also locked.

 

In Europe many phones are locked, just as in the US. However, you can also buy the same phone unlocked (for a higher price).

In East Asian GSM countries the phones are unlocked, and provider subsidies are much smaller than those in the US.

 

Which is why I don't want anyone to prohibit phone locking. The cost of unlocking a phone is very low compared to the added cost of an unsubsidized phone.

 

But are they really compatible? Don't Verizon's phones have software that's a lot different than Sprint's? I know the data software is different on both of them.

 

As long as they are CDMA, they are compatible for voice calls which is most of the functionality people really care about anyways. The data portion just takes some tweaking to get it to work because of the settings, but it is still compatible.

 

In response to the question about TDMA users being included, the crux of the matter is the removable/transportable card. While the card has account info, the phone itself (apart from the card) can be homed or locked to a specific carrier, thus somewhat defeating the purpose of the card. (TDMA phones do not use this card nor do CDMA phones.)

The sueing GSM owners are arguing that the security of the card should be sufficient. As Bobolito so aptly observed, the subsidies on American phones is heavy enough to warrent use of the locks.

It will be interesting to see if this gets settled by way of more clarification and dissemination of informaiton (mandatory notification) to new buyers....

"I need you to sign this form that you have been advised that this phone is locked because of the reduced price you paid for the phone."

"I need you to initial here that you have declined the option to pay full price for the phone and thus receive an unlocked phone."

"Please provide a thumb print here, here, and here."

"We'll need to extract some blood......" :lmao:

 

Don't forget the stool sample also.

 

I have no problem with subsidy locking per se. What I *DO* have problems with are carriers who refuse to unlock phones period (AT&T) or who have onerous requirements such as moving out of the carrier's service area even after a contract is up (as Cingular used to do in some areas; AIUI, Cingular will currently not unlock phones period UNLESS they are "world" phones.) Carriers should provide unlock codes for free after a customer's contract is up, period. (T-Mobile is even better: they now provide unlock codes for free after the initial return/buyer's remorse period is up.)

As for CDMA, it's really a different kettle of fish: VZW and ALLTEL do not lock phones, but nearly all other CDMA carriers (SPCS, USCC, Cricket, Metro PCS, etc.) do; there are significant differences in firmware for phones sold for VZW vs. SPCS vs. other carriers, but most do relate to data and features (BREW vs. J2ME, differences in data/SMS/PTT/etc. functionality, etc.); many CDMA carriers (such as SPCS and Metro PCS -- but again, *not* VZW and ALLTEL) refuse to activate phones not sold specifically for use on their network, mainly in order to avoid having to provide support for phones they've never sold.

-SC

 

Yup. It's like I always say: "If you can't get a splinter out with tweasers, try a chain saw. :lmao:

 

I agree with that. But I think the reason why T-Mobile will easily unlock their phones is because they won't work anywhere but within 1900Mhz footprint because they don't have 850. This means if you want to use it with Cingular r AWS, they won't work that well since T-Mobile has the most 1900Mhz coverage anyway. So it really makes no sense to unlock a T-Mobile phone unless it is a triband and you are taking it overseas. In that case, Cingular will also unlock tri-bands. In fact, many Cingular tri-bands already come unlocked.