So the CRTC made a ruling which all carriers MUST unlock all devices for free that are locked as of December 1st 2017. Any devices bought from the carriers that day forward must be unlocked for free as well upon buying it or doing a upgrade.
Just want to hear everyone's thoughts on this! I like the idea as it's not easy for someone to pay $50 for a unlocking fee and shouldn't be needed to begin with.
Let's stay on topic and please do not detail this thread. This is meant for the unlocking of devices. Thanks! 🙂
Any devices bought from the carriers that day forward must be unlocked for free as well upon buying it or doing a upgrade.
Clarification, from the link below:
...all newly purchased devices must be provided unlocked from that day forward.
I have an eight-year old PAYGo flip-phone that I use on average once a month, if that; So my thought bubble is empty on this topic. 😉
I suppose on the surface it's a good idea, however, we all know that corporations will wish to maintain their overall profits, so the lost revenue will, very likely, get made up in other areas.
Anything the CRTC touches turns to <fill in blank>. Unlocked phones mean you'll have to pay for your device in full up front. That is cost prohibitive for many. It won't be subsidized across the term of your contract. Otherwise, you can just get up and go. But where? Bell? Bell shouldn't even exist. I don't know how they have any customers left - it is mind-boggling. They treat their own customers like dirt.
Coming back to Rogers was like going to heaven. I'm sorry I left but the Rogers LTE signal in my area was very weak and still is.
Finally, if you've ever spoken to the CRTC you'll quickly realize they have the technical aptitude of a dodo bird. Totally clueless.
Thanks for putting this topic forward @Meowmix Just read it online before coming on here.
It goes beyond that - CBC article said that as of December, companies cannot sell them locked at all, but must also unlock any existing phones for free when asked starting December 1st (this is CBC's interpretation, but I am sure a lot of this will be interpreted before it comes into place.)
Now the next step I want to see related to locking and unlocking is that we can have access to the company build that provides the features available to the companies network via our phones, then at that point, our phones become completely portable. Now that one I can see the installation side of it being something that people or companies could charge for, unless you know how to do it yourself and want to take the risk.
That is the model now when we go to the third party unlockers.
This was not the only topic announced in the announcements today, but that is for another thread please.
Once again, things are changing - we will see over time how this rolls out and this is a good thread to keep going on that topic.
I am not sure where the logic that unlocked phones will have to be paid up front - we are allowed to ask for unlocks after 90 days already. Now will this lead to some unusual marketing practices, and restrictions on how we can move a phone back and forth - we already have that, and we already know that with each change CRTC has made, and let's remember, the CRTC steps in on our requests to attempt to protect us when the companies are not listening to us. They try there best, but there will always be a line that each company will try to push to to determine how to keep their profits up, and if it turns out that profits fall because if it, we can expect prices will increase - but then again, they already increase fairly regularly, so what is the difference.
Me, I am happy to be able to get the unlock - I unlock all my phones 90 days in through third party companies - the same one each time - never had an issue except on one case where Rogers had not released the phone identifier out for unlocking, and the company would have contacted them to get it done - I said, no worry, I got my money back and did it a few weeks later - I have done this to allow me in the old days to just pick up SIMS while in the States to avoid any roaming charges.
So I am happy to be able to just get the phone unlocked - and I will still have to deal with the reality that some functionality may not be available on other networks, then we will probably go another cycle of we talk to the CRTC, and they legislate that builds for phones that are supported on a company be provided to customers (maybe at a charge, maybe not).
This thread is an interesting one and come December, we will see how it rolls out.
For me at the moment, doesn't matter to me one bit at all, kind of like was stated earlier - interesting, but not too many brain cells in my head at to spend too much time thinking about it.
One last comment, I know CRTC rulings often don't often fall out the way we may hope or they hope, but at least someone is looking out for us in a market controlled economy (a new name for Oligopoly).
I think this is great. The unlock fee has always been blackmail to discourage customers from getting better deals from the competition or being able to pass on or sell their phones to others after they upgrade to a fancier one. In my case, I'm on Rogers PayGo but I know I can get a better deal from 7-Eleven Speakout. However, the cost of unlocking my phone makes trying it out uneconomical.
For me, a fee to unlock isn't a deal breaker... $50 is steep, perhaps $10? -- but for me, it doesn't really matter.
The biggest for me in what is this decision going to cost users? When 3 year contracts went to 2 years, we saw price increases, and even major increases for BOYD/month-to-month users. Which makes absolutely no sense.
Why should I pay the same price as someone who gets a new phone for a plan when I don't get a subsidized phone? The discounts for BYOD should be much more!
I want to see affordable plans brought back, without the value-added features, for BYOD users. My 6 GB Super Plan is awesome except for no extended coverage, but it makes no sense for me to upgrade my plan for another $40-50/mn when I don't need the additional services like spotify/NHL or a new device (which I don't really care to have the lastest and greatest device anyways...).
Glad you commented on and clarified the incorrect assertion that unlocked phones should cost more.
My question to Rogers now is why wait till December to implement this policy. It has been wrong from the start. Will they take a pro-active step and announce the immediate termination of unlocking fees. Do the right thing for you customers.
Sorry? I do not think that the CRTC mandated the unlock fee. They are now ruling that it be discontinued by Dec. 1. As far as I know there is absolutely nothing preventing any carrier from discontinuing this fee any time they choose
and one more thing.. the page you linked to here,.. it simply states that the carrier must unlock a phone after 90 days or immediately if purchased outright. It in no was dictates they they must charge a fee to do this, nor does it dictate that the phone must be locked to a provider's network at all. You have misinterpreted this completely.
I really do not understand what you are attempting to read into this but lets parse this out...
no later than 90 calendar days after the contract start date... it could be zero days, completely up to Roger's discretion .. this is her to protect the consumer, if unregulated I am sure Roger's would NEVER unlock a phone.
at the rate specified by the service provider... again this could be zero, and IF Roger's had any interest building customer good will, they would adopt a policy to immediately waive the unlock fee.
Just don't attempt to make a case for Roger's not doing this a some sort of regulatory requirement. It is NOT