All cellphones in Chile must be sold unlocked | Hacker News Reader

All cellphones in Chile must be sold unlocked

theverge.com

63 pointspeeplaja21 comments

In some countries in Europe it is already obligatory to sell an unlocked version, usually a locked version is also sold. If you examine the pricing closely, it does not really matter which one you get, you end up paying the same amount, either directly (unlocked), or monthly (locked).

I expect that in Chile all contracts will either rise in price, or phones will become a lot more expensive to buy.

While it sounds like a nice idea, as a consumer you don't really gain that much.

It becomes useful after contract ends. I.e. I did not hear that locked phones magically unlock themselves after period of a contract. Instead you need to call some number, hold on a line, explain to reps what you want to do, explain that you contract is over, etc and then finally get unlock code.

It will be way less hassle if it would be just unlocked from start.

ps: still have Ericsson T60i and Motorola RAZR Gold.. While currently unused, old and scratched, I can rely on these when traveling somewhere with GSM networks.

Here in Uruguay the carrier is allowed to keep your phone locked after the contract expires. I have an Iphone from Movistar and they say they won't unlock it. It is a shame, because I used to travel and couldn't use my phone in countries where Movistar isn't established or doesn't have a deal with a local carrier.

Here the only way to get a subsidized Iphone is from two companies which won't unlock your phone. The third one, the public one, couldn't make a deal with Apple to offer it. So I guess my next phone is going to be an Android.

That makes no sense: here they sell unlocked phones but you still have to keep contract for two years if you want it subsidized.

So there's no reason to rise phone prices: you still have to pay full contact subscription even if you change the phone.

There is reason. Usually business plan looks like this:

locked - monthly payment * 24 = phone price + X

X - some money to cover expenses you have as operator because you give phone to user + some money to cover amount of free minutes/MB/SMS (infrastructure is not free) + everything else is profit. Profit might be taken instantly (A) or taken from everything you use above your quota (B). (A) is most probably 0 because of competition.

Now with unlocked phone user might take prepaid card from other operator (that does not work in USA). What happens? B profit goes away. Business is about profit therefore A will grow most probably instead of being zero.

Hmm... most subscription packages around here are of type "1000 Min, 1000 SMS, 1000 MB" or some such so B profits aren't really high.

Also pricing being competitive, there's not much difference in SMS/data/call prices outside dataplans.

That makes that claim still silly.

Fact: an iPhone in the Netherlands costs around €0 on average. You can also buy it unlocked for €750.

In Greece they have to sell iPhones unlocked, and initial average price is €699.

Easy to check yourself at apple.com.

Thats exactly what happens in Brazil. All phones MUST be sold unlocked but they lock you in with contracts in order to get cheaper phones. However if you choose to buy a "fully unlocked" phone, the prices have skyrocketed. (We have the most expensive iPhone worldwide, 16GB 4S = 1.2K dollars).

This is the usual practice here in Chile, and I don't expect it to change.

I wonder if this will lead to more restrictive contracts.

I joined a gym a while ago that made me commit to a year's membership by taking out a loan for buying a year's pass. This was suboptimal for me because it showed up on my credit report and ran a credit check, but perfect for them because there was no easy way for me to weasel out of my contract, and they could simply pass the debt over to a credit-collection agency if I stopped paying.

I wonder if we'll see mobile phone contracts that come with a phone being treated the same way if the phone has to be sold unlocked.

Network locking is a form of money. If I can lock your phone to my network, that's worth money to me because you're more likely to stay with my network. As such, I can offer the phone to you for cheaper.

If I can't lock it, I'm going to charge you more. Is this something that requires government intervention? Perhaps, as many people don't understand the issues and may be taken advantage of. IMHO a better solution would be to require a maximum price to unlock phones (10 currency units?) and not get so involved in technology that changes quickly.

All phones in Greece are de facto unlocked.

ditto in New Zealand.

And South Africa

It's the same in Colombia now.

And you can keep your phone number even if you switch network providers.

Keeping your phone number (aka number portability) does wonders for allowing people to change networks and allowing competition.

Same in South Africa

The same in Australia, Malaysia & Singapore.

Definitely not the case in Australia (thought as far as I know all carriers unlock for free/small fee). Locking at all is just a dick move - the telco already made you sign a contract, if you want to switch carriers, they still get their money.

Some English police stations have signs saying that they investigate all reports of stolen mobile (cell) phones, and if you make a false report of having your phone stolen you can expect them to find out and that they will prosecute you for it.

Apparently telling the telco that you had your phone stolen in an effort to get out of the contract was so popular the telcos started needing police incident numbers.

There is no such thing in Australia. While there certainly is more of a market for unlocked phones then in the US, the majority of phones bought in Australia are locked. This includes prepaid phones and phones on a contract.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com