apple
Report a problem

Bill could force Apple, AT&T to unlock iPhone

Marshalus   on 27 February 2008 - 00:19 · 24 comments & 16820 views

Advertisement (Why?)
If a new Democratic proposal in the U.S. House of Representatives becomes law, AT&T and Apple would be forced to begin selling unlocked iPhones.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a congressman who serves as chairman of a House telecommunications and Internet panel. His subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on the plan for Wednesday morning. The draft legislation says every mobile provider "shall offer to consumers the opportunity to purchase subsidy-free wireless customer equipment."

The emergence of the 27-page draft bill, called the Wireless Consumer Protection and Community Broadband Empowerment Act (WCPCBEA), underscores what is apparently growing concern among congressional Democrats during this session with what they seem to view as insufficiently flexible, forthcoming dealings among wireless carriers and their customers.

Both this bill, and a similar one proposed in the Senate, would direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a number of new rules for wireless carriers. Among other things, those companies would have to give abundant disclosure to their customers about their rate plans in a "clear, plain, and conspicuous manner," breaking out the cost of everything from early termination fees to state and local taxes for the customer.

View: Full Article @ News.com

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 24 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 Lasker on 27 Feb 2008 - 00:32
This definetely will be beneficial for the customers who will probably find a more cheap choice plan from another carrier.
#1.1 Hurmoth on 27 Feb 2008 - 00:36
With unlimited data usage included in the AT&T plan, who else is cheaper? The cheapest plan at Verizon I could find that has data usage is $79.99. I can't imagine there's to many others out there cheaper than that if there's any at all.
(2 replies) #2 Hurmoth on 27 Feb 2008 - 00:33
Even if it passes out of the House and Senate, the chances of President Bush signing are slim. I doubt this will even make it out of committee with the wording that forces Apple to untie the iPhone from AT&T. I don't see it becoming law.
#2.1 dagamer34 on 27 Feb 2008 - 01:20
It'll be working proof of how horrible the government works for our citizens when the next president gets into the White House.
#2.2 ivanz on 27 Feb 2008 - 06:04
(Hurmoth said @ #2)
Even if it passes out of the House and Senate, the chances of President Bush signing are slim. I doubt this will even make it out of committee with the wording that forces Apple to untie the iPhone from AT&T. I don't see it becoming law.


This just shows how democracy in the US is becoming out of date. I mean why would the president not sign a bill unless it relates to national security or the likes? I can understand blocking a bill which may bring massive riots to the street and whatnot, but this just smells of a dictatorship. Heck, blocking a regular bill is something Vladimir Putin would probably due if he didn't like it. It's time for a change to the system of goverment in the US, as it needs to be modernized and be made more democratic (not the party).
#3 vetL3thal on 27 Feb 2008 - 00:38
Lobbyists will kill this bill...as usual.
#4 team_NOOB on 27 Feb 2008 - 00:42
Something like this is happening in Aus too. See here.

Although that's not necessarily a good thing as im sure its going to inflate the price even more to have it unlocked. Kind of a lose lose situation if you dnt have excess amounts of money.
(3 replies) #5 Mekun on 27 Feb 2008 - 01:06
About time, but i doubt it will make it. This is the US where business comes before the consumer.
#5.1 Hurmoth on 27 Feb 2008 - 01:13
It isn't about businesses coming first. It is about free enterprise and the government sticking it's nose where it shouldn't be. This should be up to the market, not up to the government to dictate. That is what makes America so great, we have the control to change this, by not buying the product we send a clear message that we want change.
#5.2 +stifler6478 on 27 Feb 2008 - 01:38
(Hurmoth said @ #5.1)
It isn't about businesses coming first. It is about free enterprise and the government sticking it's nose where it shouldn't be. This should be up to the market, not up to the government to dictate. That is what makes America so great, we have the control to change this, by not buying the product we send a clear message that we want change.


Uhh, I don't know if you noticed, ever, but that whole "don't buy the product and things will change" **** rarely ever actually works. I know you're a big Apple fan here, but I can't believe you're defending this - the government is actually trying to do something that will benefit the consumers out there and you're still railing on them. How could this bill have a negative impact on anyone except possibly (and probably only marginally at worst) Apple and AT&T?

-Spenser
#5.3 rtk on 27 Feb 2008 - 04:18
(Hurmoth said @ #5.1)
It isn't about businesses coming first. It is about free enterprise and the government sticking it's nose where it shouldn't be. This should be up to the market, not up to the government to dictate. That is what makes America so great, we have the control to change this, by not buying the product we send a clear message that we want change.


Unless the article was about the US/UK MS anti-trust shenanigans, in which case, bring on the government, right?
(1 reply) #6 EXO242 on 27 Feb 2008 - 01:07
Apple ....but all I can say to this is It should have always been unlocked imho.
#6.1 A1Capone on 27 Feb 2008 - 01:43


Can anyone say? iPhowned!!!
#7 gigapixels on 27 Feb 2008 - 02:01
I think it's a great idea.
(1 reply) #8 strekship on 27 Feb 2008 - 02:22
Why just the iPhone? There are lots of other cell phones out there that are carrier specific.
#8.1 episode on 27 Feb 2008 - 02:34
(strekship said @ #
Why just the iPhone? There are lots of other cell phones out there that are carrier specific.


It is all. The only reason the article is titled the way it is is to get more page views.
(1 reply) #9 Gotenks98 on 27 Feb 2008 - 05:16
Considering how countries like japan already require their phones to do this I dont see it being an issue. In america we get screwed over big time. In japan most of the cellphones can use the same attachements for headphones and power adapters because most of the ports are generic as hell. If they did this here then the only reason to choose one company over another would be service and price which is what I think it should be in the first place.
#9.1 freeeekyyy on 27 Feb 2008 - 19:13
(Gotenks98 said @ #9)
Considering how countries like japan already require their phones to do this I dont see it being an issue. In america we get screwed over big time. In japan most of the cellphones can use the same attachements for headphones and power adapters because most of the ports are generic as hell. If they did this here then the only reason to choose one company over another would be service and price which is what I think it should be in the first place.



No, actually, phones are more heavily subsidized in Japan than the US. I think you mean the European Union. In Europe phones can't be locked to a particular provider. They can and are in Japan.
(2 replies) #10 starless.bible.black on 27 Feb 2008 - 05:17
"Bill could force..." and I keep reading Bill Gates could force. Now that would have been fun.
#10.1 Krome on 27 Feb 2008 - 06:56
lol I read and think that way too...
#10.2 z_rudy on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:42
(starless.bible.black said @ #10)
"Bill could force..." and I keep reading Bill Gates could force. Now that would have been fun.


It's probably because the next article is about Bill Gates. Same happened with me and I was puzzled for a second before I read on.
#11 RAID 0 on 27 Feb 2008 - 06:31
There goes the pesky Democrats sticking their fat noses in business... again... where it does not belong.
#12 PGHammer on 28 Feb 2008 - 13:41
Notice that the only phone in the US locked to a specific *carrier* (as opposed to a specific network type) is the iPhone. All other handsets supposedly (according to some) locked to a specific carrier are only locked to a specific network *type* (and that is primarily due to the fact that the US, unlike either the EU or Japan, features more different cellular carrier types; in the EU, GSM dominates by a wide margin, while in the US, while AT&T Mobility is the dominant GSM carrier, the various flavors of CDMA (mostly not compatible with each other) are the dominant network type, and it's VZW that has the largest such network in terms of coverage). You can actually buy planless phones directly from VZW; however, they are highly marked up (a realistic indication as to how heavily VZW plans typically subsidize handset costs to the consumer); however, a CDMA version of the iPhone is not available, period (the iPhone is GSM-only). So, what do they *really* mean?
#13 C_Guy on 03 Mar 2008 - 16:32
"the Wireless Consumer Protection and Community Broadband Empowerment Act"

Can the Americans really, really not find better things to do with their time? Here's some shocking news. The consumer can protect themselves by educating themselves on the products available to them. If you don't want a locked iPhone, here's an amazing idea: don't buy one. You don't understand what Vista Capable means? Look it up.

I am so sick of consumers whining and crying about their own stupid mistakes. If Apple wants to keep their phone locked up, let them. This is supposed to be a free country. And as a free country the consumer has the power to either buy or not buy a product and their decisions will ultimately decide if a product succeeds in the market.

Let the consumer have their choice and make them responsible for themselves.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)