Unlock or Not?

[Hands0n]

The subject of Unlocking mobile phone handsets comes up in conversation (on-line and face to face) from time to time. Opinion varies.

Some say that the mobile ops have every right to protect their revenue by locking the handsets to their networks. This is to ensure that the handsets bought are only used on their home networks. Apparently/allegedly to recoup some of the handset subsidy from the network operator.

Others say that it is quite appropriate to unlock handsets for use on other networks. Thus preserving the individual user's right to choose another network, but retain the handset originally bought. That the subsidy is recouped in the first year of contract anyway.

What are your thoughts then? Should networks and manufacturers strive to make handsets permanently locked to the parent network operator? Will this not just lead to a greater amount of technological waste as these handsets are discarded at the end of contract rather than re-deployed? Will this not kill off, at a stroke, the (often charity-based) market in re-deploying handsets to so-called Third World or Emerging countries? Will such perma-locking practise lead to an expansion in the SIM-free market where the phones are sold in original factory condition?

[Hands0n]

I'll put my hand up now and admit that I do unlock mobile handsets (it is a hobby).

My vote is that handsets should be sold locked, but be unlockable. It is not a lucrative market as there are so many outlets for unlocking these days. Pennies are made, not sackfulls of notes!

But I am a firm believer in free choice. I do not subscribe to the "huge handset subsidy" claims by the mobile ops. Given the quantities that they buy them in the actual factory gate price is but a fraction of the Retail price. At worst, we are getting them at cost. At best, the mobile op is paying the factory gate price for us. But the profits on the airtime more than compensate (or why would they even make this market?).

[Ben]

I voted that handsets should be sold unlocked. If networks want to spread the cost of the handset subsidy over the contract period then fine, factor it in by all means - the customer will have to pay whether they use the phone on another network or not.

I believe in buying a handset and that handset being yours. I believe in having an airtime agreement as a separate entity. I just think that's the way it should be done!

[Hands0n]

@Ben - while I did not vote the same as you I do believe that the future lies in an unbundling of handset and airtime. This will help create a vibrant "Lifestyle" market in handsets (a fave brickbat of mine).

We see Lifestyle being exploited to very great financial gain in other markets, the mobile ops are way behind as can be expected of any telco.

Freed of the shackle that is the Handset the mobile ops could perhaps become ever more inventive with their airtime offerings. The handset market, meanwhile, could become fully retail - the mobile ops could compete of course through their enormous buying power and established outlet channels.

There will be those who would disagree, of course. Lets hear a good counter argument. I would vigorously challenge any technical obstacle though. Any such can be overcome.

[miffed]

it's also worth noting that SP locking is pretty uneffective on the whole , most handsets are cracked within a few weeks , and the only purpose the locking serves is to create revenue for the unlockers

Surely the networks have learned by now that trying to force people to stick with them will have the opposite effect ? how about listening to customers and trying to provide the kind of service that people WANT to use ?

The whole thing about Networks SP locking reeks of having absolutely no faith in their own product
Does anyone know what the legal implications are of actually simlocking in the first place ? surely (on payg at least) the phone is yours to do with as you please once you have paid for it ?

[gorilla]

I think in the UK consumers have demanded that they do not pay for mobile phones and hence most people (whether they are upgrading or taking out a new contract) will get a free phone. Whether it is the independent retailer or the network, but someone is subsidising the phone manufacturers when a new contract is taken up.
1. If networks or whoever supply phones to the market for a charge, say £150 the phone should be unlocked and the consumer should be free to do what they like with the phone.
2. If everyone has to pay for their phone will this mean that the price of a contract will be reduced? It is my belief that contracts are expensive because that in itself pays not only for your calls etc but also contributes to the cost of the phone.

I'm not sure if I would be willing to pay for a handset just because it is unlocked. I do however demand that the handset be unlocked at the end of my contract.

[Jon3G]

Just leave it has it is

The networks think they are winning

The unlockers stay in business

[davidlove]

I'm with Ben on this and think all phones should be sold SIM free. Would you buy a PC locked to BT?

Any subsidy can still be recouped over the life of the contract and the operators would save themselves the trouble/expense of fiddling with each phone's software, arguing with the manufacturers about branding, then fielding support calls when it all goes Pete Tong. Also, retailers would not have to stock four versions of the 6680.

Once "content" really gets going (watch how BBC TV will be delivered), the whole idea of "pre-provisioned" software, portals etc. will become irrelevant. Operators will just become ISPs and then the hardware will naturally de-couple.

[kryten]

When I was with Voda, if you'd topped-up more than £30 in total, they'd unlock it, free.

I also remember when I was on Virgin, the phone came in 'from the factory' unlocked condition, with a virgin sim-pack.

[maxspank]

Originally Posted by davidlove

Would you buy a PC locked to BT?

Do you buy your PC from BT?

Handsets do cost the networks alot of money, some being around £200 for the handset which is passed on to you FOC or a considerable amount less. You know when you're buying your handset that it is going to be locked, so you have a choice, you can buy it sim free.

But I also agree, once you've signed your contract and are commited to it, then you are paying each and every month for it, so maybe they should be unlocked. But I think Vodafone offer a fair balance, £19.99 if you have had your phone less than 12 months (regardless of length of contract, and the same for PAYT) and free for handsets older than 12 months.

[Hands0n]

Originally Posted by maxspank

Do you buy your PC from BT?

You can buy PCs from BT and these are very definintely not locked to their network Okay, a bit mischevious I know

I agree that the mobile ops are discounting the handsets, or at the very least bundling the cost of the handset into the contract price. But [at least] two points remain; (a) The cost of the handset to the mobile operator bears no relationship to the retail price of a SIM-free that you or I would have to pay and (b) the cost is more than recouped within the life of the contract, making the mobile operator handsome profits (anyone ever seen a poor mobop?).

I can fully understand why the handsets are locked by the operator to prevent abuse of the "benefit" of bundling the cost of ownership into the contract. However, taken as a whole across the entire mobile phone customer population the number of those who would use another SIM in a handset must be relatively few. Taking a straw poll among my peers, friends and associates I would say that less than 10% have or would consider using a "foreign" SIM in their handset. That leaves the remaining 90% generating true revenue to the mobile operator.

So, rather than mess up perfectly good handsets with branding and locking the mobile ops could make life easier for everyone, themselves included, by leaving them as the manufacturer intended and produced.

Given the current state of play though I do think that the Vodafone policy outlined above is fair and equitable. Which is more than can be said for at least one mobile operator who can't unlock their own Nokia BB5-locked handsets.

[davidlove]

When I renewed my Voda contract recently the CS thought it quite unusual that I wanted a "no handset upgrade" option. Clearly the prospect of a new phone at a subsidised price is the motor that drives the operators' growth (and churn!).

But I was able to negotiate 12 months' half price line rental and half price extras pack which I thought was a fair deal. Leaves me able to buy SIM free and get a reasonable price on eBay when I upgrade. Which I'm afraid is quite often.

[Ben]

Did you consider 'upgrading' to one of Vodafone's SIM Only tariffs, davidlove? It sounds like you got a pretty good deal anyway, but when I was due an upgrade on Vodafone I switched to SIM Only at £25 a month for 250 xnet minutes with the free £40 (£120 value) extras pack.

I think Hands0n and maxspank have it pretty spot on that there's really no need to lock contract handsets. The regulator should take action, here. PAYG, where there's no guarantee on return, is a different game altogether, but with operators able to guarantee their minumum return on a contract sale there's really no excuse for locking.

[davidlove]

Thanks for that Ben - never realised that Voda had a SIM only contract option, thought it was just PAYG and avoided it because of high Mb and roaming charges. Will remember that next time, though it probably doesn't make that much difference to the monthly bill.

Does anyone see any evidence of what I've predicted in previous posts? Namely that, as technology enables Content to become more compelling, ie Sky Mobile etc., it will be the content providers who drive demand for new handsets, not the operators.

Will the operators just become ISPs? In that scenario, branding and locking handsets becomes irrelevant.