CRTC Bans Locked Phones and Carrier Unlocking Fees (mobilesyrup.com) 94
An anonymous reader shares a report: Canada's telecom regulator has announced that as of December 1st, 2017, all individual and small business wireless consumers will have the right to have their mobile devices unlocked free of charge upon request, while all newly purchased devices must be provided unlocked from that day forward. The decision came following the February 2017 review of the Wireless Code, where unlocking fees took center stage, with some parties (like Freedom Mobile) advocating for the abolishing of those fees altogether, some arguing they should remain as an important theft deterrent and the CRTC suggesting the fee should be far under the current $50 CAD standard. "The Wireless Code has helped make the wireless market more dynamic to the benefit of Canadians. While they appreciate the Code, they told us loudly and clearly that it could be more effective," said Jean-Pierre Blais, chairman of the CRTC, in a press release.
Re: (Score:1)
Hopefully, they will limit themselves to just shouting across the US-Canada border.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, this is a start. Phone locking has been outrageously abused by carriers, and I'm glad they're getting another kick in the balls from the CRTC. Next should be a review of wireless pricing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Unlocked BLU user here. Ban CDMA. (Score:4, Informative)
The Fuck are you talking about?!
Re: (Score:3)
The Fuck are you talking about?!
I think he's talking about hot grits, Natalie Portman, and goatse.
Re: Unlocked BLU user here. Ban CDMA. (Score:3)
Also Canadian here. Unlocked Moto X Play.
When I go to the US, I use my SIM from Roam Mobility. They utilize the T-Mobile network which had never given me any trouble. Got 4G LTE everywhere i went on my last trip. Going again this August.
I just ordered a BLU R1-HD (2GB RAM, 16GB Storage) for my younger brother. Reviews looked good and only $150 CAD. Runs Android 6.0
Re: (Score:2)
Same here, I use a Pre-paid T-mobile Sim in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Japan still uses CDMA.
I believe unlocked CDMA networks should be mandated. The US CDMA carriers support phone unlocking because they are still locking down what devices can access their network.
The US GSM carriers use different radio frequencies than the rest of the world. making International roaming difficult. Even the 2 US GSM carriers (AT&T and T-Mobile) are not totally compatible with each other.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CDMA is shortly going to be gone at least within the US since both major CDMA carriers have opted to take the LTE route.
As for the GSM carriers (read UMTS) and the US using different frequencies than the rest of the world. This is nothing short of bollocks. The frequencies allocated differ all over the world. There is no "this is the frequency used in the US and this is the frequency used in the rest of the world" standard. If you get a quad band phone however, you should be set in about 80% of the worl
Re: (Score:3)
Today, almost every phone does do everywhere. Apple is an exception, where they claim a cost savings to cut $0.10, but in reality lock
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how pathetically few americans venture beyond our borders [thepointsguy.com] the fact that GSM rules internationally doesn't matter so much.
I guess it's feasible that it keeps the big two from actually competing with each other, except with the high turnover rate of phones
Re: (Score:2)
66 million is a lot higher than I would have expected, ~20%. It seems like they might be double counting, though - i.e I went to Canada, and Asia. Since all of their sub totals add up to less than the 66 million (I am guessing the missing numbers are for Oceana), and I can't possibly be the only person to visit two regions, I can only conclude they mean 66 million trips out of the country rather than 66 million distinct Americans.
CDMA is used throughout the world (Score:5, Informative)
CDMA won the GSM vs CDMA war. GSM was designed (by committee) to use TDMA - each phone takes turns communicating with the tower. That was OK for voice, but absolutely destroyed data bandwidth because each phone got an equal slice of the bandwidth even if it didn't need it. CDMA allows every phone to transmit simultaneously, and the tower distinguishes them because each phone uses orthogonal codes. Kinda like two people writing on the same sheet of paper, one vertically, one horizontally. CDMA interprets other devices transmissions as an increase in the noise floor (decrease in signal to noise ratio), so each phone's bandwidth scales automatically. If 10 phones are transmitting simultaneously, each phone gets 1/t0h the bandwidth. If only one phone is transmitting, the noise floor is lower and it gets all the bandwidth.
This is why CDMA carriers rolled out 3G data a year before GSM. The U.S. allowed both standards to compete, and CDMA absolutely destroyed GSM in data service. GSM threw in the towel and licensed CDMA from Qualcomm, and needed the extra year to come up with the specs and hardware. This is also why 3G GSM phones could talk and use data at the same time. They had a TDMA radio for voice, and a wCDMA radio for data. CDMA phones had only one radio, and it could only be used for voice or data, not both simultaneously.
CDMA for voice is used mainly in only the U.S. But if the U.S. had gone along with GSM, our data speeds today would probably be around 300 kbps - 1 Mbps. And LTE probably wouldn't exist. Most implementations of LTE use OFDMA - orthogonal frequencies as opposed to orthogonal codes in CDMA. CDMA served as the proof of theory that this crazy orthogonal signaling stuff really did work when scaled up to the size of a nationwide network. Without that proof, people wouldn't have been willing to put in the time and money into developing LTE. (OFDMA requires more processing to extricate the orthogonal signals than CDMA. Up until about 2010, the processors needed for OFDMA used too much power to be of practical use in a device designed to operate for at least 12 hours on battery. My old Galaxy S supported Sprint's WiMAX which was also OFDMA, and it would only last about 4 hours if I was using WiMAX.)
The time-limited nature of TDMA is also why GSM coverage is worse in rural areas. Because the timeslices are synchronized and a constant length, each TDMA tower's range is limited by the speed of light multiplied by the duration of the timeslice (IIRC this is about 35 km). CDMA has no such restrictions, so in a wide-open rural area with little noise and few obstructions, a single CDMA tower can cover a lot more area than a GSM TDMA tower. TDMA was just a bad idea overall, and it was stupid for GSM to standardize on it.
Re: (Score:1)
Sigh, when people say "CDMA" in CDMA vs GSM, they do not mean "code division multiple access", they're referring to cdmaOne [wikipedia.org] and CDMA2000 [wikipedia.org]. THAT is what most people mean when they talk about CDMA phones, and those are the ones that should be shot.
The rest of the world uses GSM/UMTS (yes, as far as anyone on the street cares, they're the same thing.) Sure, UMTS might ride over Code Division Multiple Access [wikipedia.org] (the channel access method), but it's seperate from cdmaOne and when you're discussing this stuff you
Re: (Score:2)
Australia had CDMA as well under Telstra. That got shut down when 3G came along I believe.
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to check that. CDMA lost the GSM vs CDMA war because very few places outside of the US use CDMA in any meaningful measure, most of those networks are being shut down. CDMA may have beaten GSM's UTMS to market, but the overwhelming majority of telco's still chose GSM. Even those who used CDMA eventually switched over to GSM because maintaining a different technology to most of the market was costing them money and customers.
And CDMA has no current generation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Makes sense for all parties. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's grammar nazi time! Pay attention to the correct forms:
The consumerS gets what they want or The consumer gets what HE wants
It's grammEr nazi time! Pay attention to the correct form: The consumerS get what they want.
It's grammar [merriam-webster.com], not grammer.
-- spelling nazi :-)
Re: (Score:2)
You fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That justification for locked phones never held any water.
If I break my contract, they have penalty fees, those fees are independent of whether or not my phone is locked, or even if they provided a phone in the first place.
Not to mention the fact that phones purchased outright are still locked, which makes no sense as you paid full price for it!.
What Canada really needs to do, and this may be a step in that direction, is to completely uncouple the phones from the plans. That wouldn't stop a carrier from off
Re: (Score:2)
but the monthly discount is laughably low on it so it's obvious that the difference between that plan and a full featured plan isn't the actual cost of the phone
There are various ways the carrier can offer lower prices this way than you would get if you bought the phone directly...
The carrier doesn't need to profit from the sale of the phone, as they are already profiting from the service.
No retailer overheads on the handset etc.
The carrier has a lot more buying power than you do, phone manufacturers will offer steep discounts to a carrier looking to buy 500k units.
The carrier doesn't have to pay sales tax etc on the phones they buy.
You may find that the actual cos
Re: (Score:2)
All of your points go out the window when you look at the price of the phone at the carrier's own store, and find that it's way more than the discount for bringing your own times the number of months on the contract.
The most I've seen is $10/month off for a BYOD plan, and contacts are limited to 24 months by law. So that's $240. There aren't many phones they'll let you buy outright for $240 in their own store, which means that the BYOD plans are a to off as you are obviously still subsidizing someone's devi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not from those same carrier's who think that $10/month is fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we're talking about Canada, the carriers most certainly pay GST (Goods and Services Tax), plus provincial or combined taxes, to the supplier. They get a credit for the tax they've paid and only pay the difference to the tax men when they sell the phone to a consumer. (It's a bit more complicated, but they most certainly do not get their phones tax-free).
Now if they import them, they have to pay the tax to the governments instead of to the supplier. When they sell on the phone, they still charge the c
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait to see how the carriers manage to interpret this rule in the most customer-hostile way possible. Maybe they'll create a special "speaking to phone unlocking agent" fee.
Re: (Score:3)
Activation fees : +50$
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to see how the carriers manage to interpret this rule in the most customer-hostile way possible. Maybe they'll create a special "speaking to phone unlocking agent" fee.
Last time I had a landline phone bill it still included some ridiculous amount for touch tone fees. In that spirit, it seems like Canadian telecoms can easily make up for this rule by charging extra for you to use an unlocked phone on their network.
Re: (Score:2)
+2$ per month... paid itself after 2 years contract.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But how much of that region locking is done in order to satisfy the BS that is "Canadian content regulations"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Netflix pay to license more content for Canada than it's legally allowed to show? It's a bit circular, because if the rules were lifted today Netflix would still have nothing more in their catalog for Canadians.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no rules from the CRTC about Netflix. Not even requirements for Canadian content. See my reply elsewhere. Netflix licenses content from content producers on a per-country basis. The legal restrictions are set by the content providers, not a Canadian regulator. If Netflix decides that the content licence for a particular area is unfavorable, they just don't licence it for that area.
If they pay to license more content for Canada, they're legally allowed to show it, which contradicts the premise exp
Re: (Score:2)
There are no rules from the CRTC about Netflix
Reply to the person that said there were. I'm just saying what the logical conclusion would be based on that premise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unifor media council chair Randy Kitt also criticized the broadcast regulator for failing to force Netflix to follow Canadian content rules. "Netflix isn't shy about collecting subscription fees in Canadian dollars and repatriating them to the U.S., so why do they continue to get a free pass?" he asked in a statement.
Wailing and the lamenting of the shareholders (Score:2)
Honestly, This is the best reason why you cant let businesses go along without regulation.
If companies do asshole things like locking a phone, then they deserve industry wide regulation and fines.
So many people wail about "regulation is killing business" No assholes that run companies are killing business.
Say no to assholes in management positions
Re:Wailing and the lamenting of the shareholders (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of those places where government regulation made sense.
Although all the carriers locked their phones, and it was obvious that customers didn't want it, no single carrier dared unlock without the rest of the industry following suit. Although one company could possibly use it as a selling point to try to attract customers, in reality it would be a competitive disadvantage.
You can imagine if only one company offered unlocked phones, their customers would be free to leave for the competition, but the competitors customers would not be free to do the reverse.
The free market can in fact sort out many things, but this just isn't one of them. (that, and the whole definition of a "free" market in such a heavily regulated space)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet 100% of that carrier's customers would be able to leave, and only 1/3 of the competitor's customers could move to them. Severe disadvantage. But if everyone does it, the playing field stays level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because most customers don't even think about that, And instead look at the gift with purchase, or $0.10/month cheaper, or they simply thought the salesperson was cute....
Re: (Score:2)
People keep their phones for only a few years.
That's a relatively recent phenomenon. And I doubt it's here to stay. We're going to be entering the era of "good enough" soon, and most people won't have much desire to be on the upgrade treadmill anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Relatively recent? Only about as recent as feature phones, which have been along longer than smart phones. Before that, who cares - the market for brick phones was really limited in comparison, so it's a case of apples-oranges.
Phones wear out. The get dropped in toilets and sinks and bathtubs. They get stolen. Batteries fail to hold a charge as long as when new. Screens get cracked, and in many cases the person will buy a newer phone with more features than pay for a new battery or a new screen, specifical
Re: (Score:2)
Feature phones were all junk before they had to compete with smartphones and I never liked or used the extra features.
If I had all the computing power I needed in a phone and bloat slowed, then I could reasonably go 5-6 years on the same phone. If I have to replace the battery after 2-3 years, that's minor surgery but still cheap. There are still phones out there that make it easier still.
Phones wear out. The get dropped in toilets and sinks and bathtubs. They get stolen. Screens get cracked.
I don't think that's universal. I've never cracked a phone screen and I've only flushed 1 phone down a toilet in near
Re: (Score:2)
The first smartphones were crap too. And the "If I had all the computing power I needed in a phone and bloat slowed, then I could reasonably go 5-6 years on the same phone." is the same argument as "if my dead grandma had wheels she'd be a car."
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. It's the same argument as my current desktop computer.
Re: (Score:2)
In an unregulated market with multiple carriers, chances are high at least one carrier would offer unlocked devices. Customers would flock to that carrier, forcing the other carriers to also unlock their devices. A company doing an asshole thing like locking
inexhaustible abstract solvents (Score:2)
Power abhors competition. It doesn't matter what form this power takes. When you have strong government, government gets blamed. Where you lack strong government, factional violence gets blamed.
There's a principle in computer science that you can solve any probl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd also like to see the boot loader unlocked. This just means you're not tied to a specific carrier. Having the boot loader unlocked would mean you could actually own the hardware - instead of purchasing the hardware and licensing the software.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a terrible example. If you get a subsidized phone, expect it to be carrier locked. If you buy a car with a loan, expect a lien. The option to pay for either with cash has always existed, so don't moan about a deal you voluntarily chose.
If you want a real example of where regulation is neede, look at large high rise apartments without fire alarms.
Funny (Score:2)
Funny that Freedom Mobile says that they are against unlock fees. When I got a new phone about a month back, they told me there would be a fee to unlock the phone. Likely they don't want other carriers to charge to unlock their phones to make it easier for customers to switch to their system. However, they are doing the exact same thing.
The whole reason there are locks in the first place is that the cell phone is usually paid for as part of the monthly bill. Putting a lock on it gives some assurance that
Re: (Score:2)
In ancient times when Freedom Mobile was called Wind Mobile, they'd actually unlock your phone for free once you'd been with them for a certain period of time (a year, I think.)
They stopped doing that a while back and added the $50 unlocking fee. But I don't think they ever really wanted it that badly and they're willing to look good and make Rogers, Bell and Telus look bad.
The only ones who will suffer from this are those phone-unlocking services in malls and online. Well, too bad for them I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent Parting Gift to Canadian Carriers (Score:2)
Worth noting is that this decision has come down on the last working day of CRTC Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais. What a great parting gift to the carriers after all their years of extorting every possible dollar from Canadians.
Fare thee well, JP Blais, and thanks for the solid!
I'm glad to live close to the U.S. border so that I can use Roam Mobility as needed to get around the hideous roaming fees charged by the Canadian carriers.
Warm Fuzzies :) (Score:1)
Theft deterrent? (Score:2)
In what way is a locked phone a theft deterrent? Other than reducing it's potential resale value, which a thief won't find out until it is stolen?
NAFTA? (Score:2)
If trade is really free, does this mean I can order a Canadian phone from anywhere in North America, including the USA? I'm guessing not... because some animals are more free than others.
Anyone have a link to the original announcement? (Score:2)