cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

Meowmix
I'm a Trusted Advisor

Hey guys!

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! 🙂

 

*Edited Labels*

48 REPLIES 48

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

57
Resident Expert
Resident Expert

@Meowmix wrote:


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.

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/crtc-puts-an-end-to-locked-cellphones-and-unlocking-fees-628653...



Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

Meowmix
I'm a Trusted Advisor
Hello @57

Thank you. I got the information from Mobilesyrup which now has fixed that.. Thanks!

What's your thoughts on this?

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

57
Resident Expert
Resident Expert

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.

 

 



Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

Meowmix
I'm a Trusted Advisor
Hello @57

Agreed. Reading many comments everywhere show this. It reminds me of when all carriers cut off the 3 year terms and switch to 2 years. Plans started raising and we had / have still little for what we are paying for.

For me this is good news though. I like that now we can have unlocked devices like other carriers around the world offer and we don't need to pay for that service anymore.

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

DominicB
I Plan to Stick Around

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.

 

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

BS
I'm a Senior Advisor

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.

 

Bruce

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

BS
I'm a Senior Advisor

@DominicB

 

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).

 

Bruce

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

OLDYELLR
I'm a Senior Advisor

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.


Rogers PayGo. Location: S-W Ontario

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

Meowmix
I'm a Trusted Advisor
Hello @OLDYELLR

Agreed. I never unlocked my devices via Rogers. Always did them third party which are cheaper for the same service. This will however hurt the small businesses which unlock phones. ( Not the carriers as they will find a way to add that amount back on our bills.)

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

b-ry
I'm a Reliable Contributor

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...).

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

Meowmix
I'm a Trusted Advisor
Hello @b-ry

Thats what many said after the CRTC made this ruling. Once the carriers lose the $30-$50 they will add that on another service or plan.

Unfortunately we as customers can only do so much until the CRTC listens. It took them years to do what they just did.

For you it might not matter about the unlocking but for thousands it does. This means whoever is travelling, can use their existing phone with another carrier where they are at like a pay as u go account. No need to go over data and or fees. This also helps the customer not dish out $30-$50 unlocking fee which i have to agree the price was and is a rip off. I can get a unlocking code for $10 near my house which u have done many times and works without issues. Carriers have the same software and systems they use as well (he worked for Bell tech support before hand). So all in all I am happy with this.

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

DGB31
I'm Here A Lot

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.

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

Meowmix
I'm a Trusted Advisor
Hello @DGB31

My understanding is that they will have this up once December 1st comes. Since this is a CRTC ruling, I believe carriers must follow the date given to them. They would have to speak to the CRTC and see if they can get clearance to have this start as soon as possible but up to both of them.

Rogers will be making a announcement as well regarding this but most likely won't their CEO, managers and all find a way to get the money back. I believe more information will be given to us by Rogers following that date.

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

DGB31
I'm Here A Lot

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

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

Meowmix
I'm a Trusted Advisor
Hello @DGB31

The CRTC in fact made a rule for the carriers to have customers pay a unlocking code to unlock their devices A. After 90 days of getting the device on a 2year term OR immediately once you purchased the phone outright. It's on the CRTC page if u want to view it.

http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/phone/mobile/infograph01.htm

Also my post above was about the ruling yesterday. Not the ruling about the unlocking payment.


" service provider that provides a locked device to the customer as part of a contract must
for subsidized devices: unlock the device, or give the customer the means to unlock the device, upon request, at the rate specified by the service provider, no later than 90 calendar days after the contract start date.
for unsubsidized devices: unlock the device, or give the customer the means to unlock the device, at the rate specified by the service provider, upon request."

Here you go. This is the current one. The CRTC made the rule that u can have the unlocking done BUT the carriers put a price as what they want. The CRTC let that happen and agreed to it.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/phone/mobile/codesimpl.htm

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

DGB31
I'm Here A Lot

SO... Rogers is totally free to set that cost at zero.

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

Meowmix
I'm a Trusted Advisor
Hello @DGB31

From the looks of it it says RATE so it doesn't say free which is $0. So again no one knows. The CRTC has said many that's that its up to the carriers the amount they put for the unlocking fee but also were surprised on how high the put the price. In the end this should have never happened and been able to get our devices unlocked for free years ago.

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

DGB31
I'm Here A Lot

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. 

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

Meowmix
I'm a Trusted Advisor
Hello @DGB31

Guess you missed this?

" F. Mobile device issues
1. Unlocking

A service provider that provides a locked device to the customer as part of a contract must
for subsidized devices: unlock the device, or give the customer the means to unlock the device, upon request, at the rate specified by the service provider, no later than 90 calendar days after the contract start date.
for unsubsidized devices: unlock the device, or give the customer the means to unlock the device, at the rate specified by the service provider, upon request."

" Locked device
A wireless device that is programmed to work only with the network of the service provider that sold the device to the customer."

Please if you have any thing else regarding this contact the CRTC as per they are the ONES that first started the carriers to give out unlocking codes and giving the carriers a choice to add whatever amount they wanted to unlock a device.. I never once " misinterpreted" anything. Maybe a bit or research would be best as I provided the link which shows the CRTC rule that any locked device CAN be unlocked on a fee that the carrier choices to put. This ranges from any amount. If it was "$0" then the CRTC would have made the announcement they did yesterday, back years ago when they made the ruling above. If you can find anything on the CRTC page which mandates all wireless rulings that states a carrier should NOT have a device locked then please show it. As shown above, the CRTC has made a rule that carriers have to unlock devices within a time frame and also can charge whatever amount they which. Carriers can lock a device to be used to then other then the Nexus / Pixel line as that is coming from Google and the agreements from them. The CRTC in no way has told the carriers to lock any device but supported it many times. The carriers are free to lock the devices to them as you as a custom get a better deal when signing up with the.. Again please do some research on your part.

If you have any issues regarding this, contact the CRTC and see what they tell you. They will give u the exact information I gave from their OWN website.

Re: CRTC bans locked phones and carrier unlocking fees as of December 1st 2017

DGB31
I'm Here A Lot

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