Mediacheck

Unlock My Cell Phone!

Why can't Canadians switch our devices to other carriers?

By Michael Geist, 4 Sep 2007, TheTyee.ca

iPhone

iPhone: Let freedom ring.

From the moment of its debut, the Apple iPhone has attracted enormous attention. Its biggest impact may go beyond the consumer electronics market, however, as the iPhone has forced politicians and regulators to confront some uncomfortable policy challenges.

When the iPhone hit the U.S. market in late June, Canadians could not help but notice that it was not available within Canada (there is still no word on when that might happen), that Rogers was the only Canadian carrier capable of offering it (raising questions about the lack of competition in the Canadian market), and that no major Canadian wireless carrier provides consumers with data plans that are remotely comparable to AT&T's offer of unlimited data for the iPhone US$20 per month.

These competition and pricing concerns remain unresolved, yet a new policy issue has burst onto the scene in recent weeks. The iPhone, like many cellphones in North America, is "locked" to a single carrier. Consumers who want the iPhone must use AT&T since the device contains technical limitations that render it difficult to use on other networks. These limitations are artificial in the sense that there are otherwise no impediments for an iPhone to run on a competing U.S. network such as T-Mobile, a compatible European or Asian network, or on the Rogers network in Canada.

Mobile freedom?

Locked cellphones have become common in North America as carriers claim that they sell "subsidized" phones in return for an exclusive commitment and long-term contract from consumers. While many consumers may like the opportunity to purchase a phone for a fraction of the full retail price, others would presumably prefer the freedom of an "unlocked" cell phone that would allow them to easily switch between carriers.

The freedom provided by unlocked cellphones is particularly useful for people who travel, since they can avoid roaming fees by converting their phone into a local phone in most countries by simply inserting a local SIM card. This approach is standard in Europe and Asia, where consumers would not tolerate a market comprised solely of locked cellphones.

While the iPhone may be locked to AT&T, several consumers, including a New Jersey teenager, have uncovered how to unlock their phones. This has unleashed a legal battle pitting companies anxious to offer unlocked versions of the iPhone against AT&T, which has threatened to sue anyone offering unlocking services.

Competition locked up

From a policy perspective, it is readily apparent that locked cellphones undermine efforts to encourage greater competition in the marketplace. Both the U.S. and Canada have mandated wireless number portability, which is designed to allow consumers to switch carriers without being forced to change their phone number. However, locked cellphones run counter to that policy by requiring consumers to fork out hundreds of dollars on a new phone to make the change.

Unlocking cellphones also raises some interesting legal issues as consumers ask whether the practice of unlocking cellphones is legal. In certain respects, this is an odd question to even have to ask -- no one would ever question whether consumers have the right to tinker with their car or to use the same television if they switch providers from cable to satellite, yet the telecom industry has somehow convinced the public that unlocking their phones -- consumers' own property -- is wrong.

Indeed, earlier this year a Telus executive boldly claimed that "unlocking a cell phone is copyright infringement. When you buy a handset from a carrier, it has programming on the phone. It's a copyright of the manufacturer." The Telus position is almost certainly incorrect under current Canadian law, though that could change if the government goes ahead with planned reforms that mirror the law in the United States.

Loosen the law

The U.S. situation is far more complicated since they have laws that prohibit picking a digital lock such as a cell phone lock. Last year, the U.S. created an exemption to allow consumers to legally unlock their cellphones, yet the provision seemingly does not allow a company to offer the service of unlocking cellphones. In other words, consumers can do it, but they're on their own.

While the U.S. may face renewed pressure to remove this impediment, new Industry Minister Jim Prentice will confront the issue as he addresses telecom policy reform. If Canadians are to enjoy the full benefit of competition and the products they purchase, Prentice should use the upcoming spectrum auction to reserve some space that welcomes only "open and interoperable" devices that are not locked to any single carrier and ensure that the law clearly reflects Canadians' right to unlock phones without legal risk.

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

11  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • darcy.mcgee

    4 years ago

    Such a ridiculous statement

    This is just ridiculous:
    -----
    Locked cellphones have become common in North America as carriers claim that they sell "subsidized" phones in return for an exclusive commitment and long-term contract from consumers
    ----

    Unlocked cell phones are easy to get in Canada. If you don't live in an urban area where they're surely for sale, you can get one from expansys.ca by mail order.

    Note the price on a Motorola Razr V3. About the same as you'd pay if you didn't sign a three year contract. (It's a crappy phone, btw.)

    Until consumers start choosing unlocked phones instead of just taking what they're carriers provide, they have no incentive to change.

    As for technology...North America went CDMA a long time ago, and there was a brief move towards GSM. Canada was pretty sweet for a while with Fido offereing gret rates...the CRTC should never have allowed that sale to go through. Never. It was appaling.

  • Chris H

    4 years ago

    No competition

    The problem in Canada is that there is so little competition. If the rumoured merger between Telus and Bell goes ahead, things will only get worse. The main issue is the CRTC not allowing true competition in the marketplace. Open it up, I say! Let me have the option of going with AT&T; because Rogers, Bell, and Telus simply don't care about screwing the consumer. They'll give you 3 months free internet on your phone to get you hooked, then charge you astronomical fees for a pitiful amount of data. Something needs to be done.

  • GJW

    4 years ago

    Hackarounds

    There are plenty of hackarounds. Any encrypted, "locked" piece of technology can be unlocked. But unlocking phones won't prompt more competition in the market.

    Canada's market is pretty open. The fact that companies take each other over is just part of doing business. The problem with Canada is that the market is very small, so there's not a lot of incentive for someone to build a phone network from scratch just to fight with the established corporations for a few scraps.

    There usually is a little guy, however. If you really hate Telus, Bell, Rogers etc. then look for them. Or, if you live in the city and know how to hack WiFi networks, get a Skype phone and enjoy free calls to your heart's content.

  • Stump

    4 years ago

    Our airwaves

    Quote:
    Canada's market is pretty open. The fact that companies take each other over is just part of doing business.

    The airwaves are a public resource. The cheapest way for the average citizen to access them should be the goal, not maximizing profits for private enterprise. Knowing how to hack computers shouldn't be a prerequisite.

    It was the guaranteed earnings of the monopoly that created the infrastructure. Paid for by the public. The CRTC and the government have and continue to fail the real owners of the various frequencies which make up the usable radiowave spectrum

  • darcy.mcgee

    4 years ago

    Rumours and inuendo

    Umm...you need to read a real newspaper, not just the Tyee

    Quote:
    If the rumoured merger between Telus and Bell goes ahead

    The deal was done a couple of months ago, and Telus didn't do it:
    http://tinyurl.com/28jco9

    In any case, allowing Rogers to buy Fido was an *incredibly* poor decision on the part of the CRTC. Why, I was spending quite a bit of time in Seattle a couple of years ago and with Fido I had great roaming rates: I never worried about the cost. If I were doing that today...well...let's just say I'd have a Seattle phone number, not a Canadian one.

    Since that merger's happened, rates have gone through the roof for a lot of services. It's quite tragic.

    It's also entirely unsurprising that the CRTC doesn't have a clue. This is, after all, an organization that allowed Telus to sodomize Clearnet, and allows these organizations to charge me by the minute for the use of MY airwaves...long after the technology had been retrofitted by ALL providers to provide per second billing.

    Still...handset choice...nothing to do with CRTC and everything to do with consumers being lazy and disinterested. Don't complain about those three year contracts and free handsets if you're going to keep BUYING those free handsets and signing those three year contract.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too.

  • newphorik

    4 years ago

    Darcy,,, The Tyee is

    Darcy,,,

    The Tyee is closer to a real newspaper than most of what we see...

    They actually report stuff no?

  • Chris H

    4 years ago

    Way to believe everything you read!

    "Umm...you need to read a real newspaper, not just the Tyee

    Quote:

    If the rumoured merger between Telus and Bell goes ahead

    The deal was done a couple of months ago, and Telus didn't do it:
    http://tinyurl.com/28jco9"

    The rumour is that the deal is still forging ahead dispite what Telus reported a couple months ago. It supposedly has been kept quite and unreported in the mainstream media because of the political fallout the merger will cause. But, like any rumour, who is to say how much truth there is to it. My source is a former BC Tel manager. I read the Province cover to cover every day, but I can't say that is much more "real" than the Tyee.

  • incredulous

    4 years ago

    Canada just sucks when it comes to mobile

    The main issue is the business model. Mobile operator handset subsidies enable them to lock their phones. The fact is that most of the phones bought in North America come with sweet subsidies, so the operators feel compelled to lock-in their customers and make switching costs even more painful.

    In Asia and Europe, many consumers prefer to buy their phones outright - and so they come unlocked (of course most of the networks are GSM as well) - but they then pay the much steeper prices. Europeans and Asians don't mind shelling-out $300-$500 for a new phone because they perceive a mobile phone as a necessity AND as an extension of their personality/identity.

    Meanwhile in Canada, we have the lowest mobile penetration rate in the OECD - less than 50%. More Canadians see a mobile phone as a luxury or a necessary evil rather something to be prized and valued - so they go for the heavily subsidized $99 handset for a 3-year commitment.

    Finally, in response to an earlier post about the dominance of CDMA in Canada - actually, both Bell and Telus use THE SAME CDMA network - so if you wnat to be technical, Canada has only 1 GSM operator (Rogers/Fido) and 1 CDMA operator (Telus/Bell). The thwarted merger between Bell and Telus would simply have been a logical extension of the shared cellular network.

  • Latarnik

    4 years ago

    Cell Phones

    We can not change carriers or have reasonable rates, because big players like Rogers or Telus, must be bribing top civil servants and members of various Boards or Committees and have them on their side. Damn the consumers. Even CRTC is catering to CBC and large cablevision providers. Time to finish it like Reagan and Thatcher, deregulated air travel, fired lazy controllers and more people are traveling cheaply with less accidents!
    Vive la Liberte, down with Socialism

  • Tom Lal

    4 years ago

    Selus

    I seem to recall that most attempts to provide competition in telecommunications were met with fierce opposition from Unions and the left in general. Much like the airline industry. And for this short sighted political march we have 3 cel phone carriers and 2 national airlines. ANd lets remember Rodgers bought Fido and quickly made Fido into non competition. Our short sighted friends left us with no consumer choices 3 uncompetitive cellular companies and it costs more to fly to Edmonton from YVR than a return ticket to Amsterdam.. Hmm come to think of it perhaps I could use the trip. My point being that competition can be positive to us as consumers.

  • zalm

    4 years ago

    Idiot

    THe CRTC decisions are available online here
    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/public/2002/8045/decte.htm and herehttp://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/public/2005/8045/decte.htm

    In no place will you find that the decision considered any union's or member of the public's submission. The CRTC's only concern was whether the profit motive was reasonable considering the restriction competition placed on a carrier's ability to earn that profit.

    The union bullshit was Canwest spin from TWU press releases. Why am I not surprised that some of you believed the spin instead of the decision?

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.