"Under Wheeler's proposal, carriers would have to unlock phones only after the consumer's contract is up."
Why? If they're locked into a contract anyways, why does it matter if their phone is unlocked?
Why? If they're locked into a contract anyways, why does it matter if their phone is unlocked?
> Instead of proposing that unlocks be allowed, how about pushing for subsidy locks to be made illegal instead? There's no need for them; if you've received a subsidy on a phone, you've already signed a contract by which you're legally bound until its expiration, so there's zero need for the phones to be locked in the first place.
I also believe that carriers shouldn't be allow to lock phones. I don't think carriers should be in the business of selling phones in the first place.
It appears that most of these things aren't actually necessary and T-mobile is pulling back the curtain to show what ATT/Verizon are doing.
Really, why? I don't care for the latest overhyped bells and whistles, my current phone is an SIII Mini which I bought for an affordable price, and even better, I put whoever SIM card is best for me at the time
Here it's because you get like 10x or unlimited minutes in the same network compared to 100-200 you get with other networks, so that's why people want to be able to use at least 2 SIMs with their phones. Not sure how it is in US regarding the minutes you have with other networks, but I assume it's similar since carriers want to lock you in through that, too.