SIM Locking ruled OK by Commerce Commission. Vodafone rejoices, 2degrees grumbles.

Forums › Skinny › SIM Locking ruled OK by Commerce Commission. Vodafone rejoices, 2degrees grumbles.

Kyanar

1938 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Topic # 98604 2-Mar-2012 15:09
So, just saw on NZ herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10789323) that the Commerce Commission has given the green light for SIM locking, saying that it recognises that "in some circumstances, SIM locking can have consumer benefits". Naturally 2degrees is disappointed by the response, saying they hope other providers don't see the decision as carte blanche to go ahead and do it. Vodafone claims it's always reserved the right to lock phones, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Curl up with some popcorn, this could be an interesting turn of events.

1 | 2 | 3

84 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 589442 2-Mar-2012 15:16
I love it. More business for mobile phone technicians like me. More unlocking jobs in the near future. Bring it on! :)

codyc1515

1599 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

Reply # 589443 2-Mar-2012 15:17
Saw on NBR "It will monitor Skinny, but take no action.". I'm assuming thats just for now. They had better tread carefully from what i read.

JimmyH

754 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 590298 4-Mar-2012 21:38
It's anti-competitive, pure and simple, and the Commerce Commission should nuke them. The only goal is to make it harder for people to change networks. Even if the unlock is "free after X months", its still another hassle and hoop a customer to jump through to leave - which makes them less likely to do so. Of course Vodafone etc will rejoice - all the carriers win of there are barriers that reduce customer churn and the need for them to have to compete so hard with each other on price on price. It also means that you can't dodge gouging roaming fees as easily by, for instance, dropping an aussie pre-pay SIM in your phone to pay local rates while on holiday. Could be a good business model for an enterprising teenager though (the Skinny target market) with some technical skills - if they can figure out the unlocking process and/or buy/get necessary unlocking hardware they could unlock the phones of everyone in their school etc for $10 a pop. Perfectly legal, and the sort of entrepreneurial thing I might have done in my youth......... If Skinny wants to subsidise phones, they can do so easily by just tying the subsidy to a term contract rather than locking the phone. "The New Whizz-Bang phone is $500, or $150 on a 24 month contract. A $350 early contract termination fee applies".

NonprayingMantis

3613 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 590319 4-Mar-2012 22:49
JimmyH: It's anti-competitive, pure and simple, and the Commerce Commission should nuke them. The only goal is to make it harder for people to change networks. Even if the unlock is "free after X months", its still another hassle and hoop a customer to jump through to leave - which makes them less likely to do so. Of course Vodafone etc will rejoice - all the carriers win of there are barriers that reduce customer churn and the need for them to have to compete so hard with each other on price on price. It also means that you can't dodge gouging roaming fees as easily by, for instance, dropping an aussie pre-pay SIM in your phone to pay local rates while on holiday. Could be a good business model for an enterprising teenager though (the Skinny target market) with some technical skills - if they can figure out the unlocking process and/or buy/get necessary unlocking hardware they could unlock the phones of everyone in their school etc for $10 a pop. Perfectly legal, and the sort of entrepreneurial thing I might have done in my youth......... If Skinny wants to subsidise phones, they can do so easily by just tying the subsidy to a term contract rather than locking the phone. "The New Whizz-Bang phone is $500, or $150 on a 24 month contract. A $350 early contract termination fee applies". except that people under 18 (or with bad credit) can not take advantage of that kind of offer. And, looking at their marketing, I'm guessing that teenagers are the exact kind of market they are going for.

codyc1515

1599 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

Reply # 590320 4-Mar-2012 22:51
NonprayingMantis: JimmyH: It's anti-competitive, pure and simple, and the Commerce Commission should nuke them. The only goal is to make it harder for people to change networks. Even if the unlock is "free after X months", its still another hassle and hoop a customer to jump through to leave - which makes them less likely to do so. Of course Vodafone etc will rejoice - all the carriers win of there are barriers that reduce customer churn and the need for them to have to compete so hard with each other on price on price. It also means that you can't dodge gouging roaming fees as easily by, for instance, dropping an aussie pre-pay SIM in your phone to pay local rates while on holiday. Could be a good business model for an enterprising teenager though (the Skinny target market) with some technical skills - if they can figure out the unlocking process and/or buy/get necessary unlocking hardware they could unlock the phones of everyone in their school etc for $10 a pop. Perfectly legal, and the sort of entrepreneurial thing I might have done in my youth......... If Skinny wants to subsidise phones, they can do so easily by just tying the subsidy to a term contract rather than locking the phone. "The New Whizz-Bang phone is $500, or $150 on a 24 month contract. A $350 early contract termination fee applies". except that people under 18 (or with bad credit) can not take advantage of that kind of offer. And, looking at their marketing, I'm guessing that teenagers are the exact kind of market they are going for. I don't see why that is. They enter into an agreement the moment they use the SIM, are you saying that does not apply?

Beccara

687 posts

Ultimate Geek

UberGroup

Reply # 590321 4-Mar-2012 22:55
IANAL but minor's can't enter into any sort of legal agreement, their guardians have to All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

codyc1515

1599 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

Reply # 590323 4-Mar-2012 22:59
Beccara: IANAL but minor's can't enter into any sort of legal agreement, their guardians have to Yes and Westpac can't give me an overdraft as I'm a minor without my guardians consent. Still happens anyway.

NonprayingMantis

3613 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 590338 4-Mar-2012 23:44
codyc1515: NonprayingMantis: JimmyH: It's anti-competitive, pure and simple, and the Commerce Commission should nuke them. The only goal is to make it harder for people to change networks. Even if the unlock is "free after X months", its still another hassle and hoop a customer to jump through to leave - which makes them less likely to do so. Of course Vodafone etc will rejoice - all the carriers win of there are barriers that reduce customer churn and the need for them to have to compete so hard with each other on price on price. It also means that you can't dodge gouging roaming fees as easily by, for instance, dropping an aussie pre-pay SIM in your phone to pay local rates while on holiday. Could be a good business model for an enterprising teenager though (the Skinny target market) with some technical skills - if they can figure out the unlocking process and/or buy/get necessary unlocking hardware they could unlock the phones of everyone in their school etc for $10 a pop. Perfectly legal, and the sort of entrepreneurial thing I might have done in my youth......... If Skinny wants to subsidise phones, they can do so easily by just tying the subsidy to a term contract rather than locking the phone. "The New Whizz-Bang phone is $500, or $150 on a 24 month contract. A $350 early contract termination fee applies". except that people under 18 (or with bad credit) can not take advantage of that kind of offer. And, looking at their marketing, I'm guessing that teenagers are the exact kind of market they are going for. I don't see why that is. They enter into an agreement the moment they use the SIM, are you saying that does not apply? what does a prepaid agreement have to do with anything? I am saying they can't get a postpaid mobile plan (which is what would be required for a 24month contract with subsidy). Try asking any of the existing carriers - none of them allow under 18s to go on contract, and there is probably a very good reason for that. ETA: What I find funny is that you regard a $30 unlock fee, or free after 9 months, to be anticompetitive because it makes it harder to switch networks, but your proposed alternative solution is to lock somebody in for 24 months, with a $350 fee for leaving before that 24 months is up. Last time I looked, 24 was a lot more than 9. and $350 was a heck of a lot more than $30.

scuwp

1069 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 590384 5-Mar-2012 08:02
AFAIK Skinny is produced as a budget brand. They have to make money somewhere otherwise why would they bother, so they have chosen to offer cheaper than mainstream prices but try to ensure customers stay with them for a given (an relatively short) period of time to recoup some costs and hopefully remain profitable. No profit = no service. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't think 9 months is onerous and if you don't like it pay some more and get a different service from a mainstream contract provider. Customer choice = competition. The ComCom have it right IMO. Artificial intelligence is no match, for natural stupidity!

SaltyNZ

2092 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 590415 5-Mar-2012 09:02
NonprayingMantis: what does a prepaid agreement have to do with anything? Actually, that's an interesting question. When you activate a prepay SIM you enter into a legal contract with the carrier, or at least that's the intention. Since you can't enter into a contract while a legal minor, I wonder how that works? In a practical sense it works the same way of course, but in a theoretical, legal sense? iPad + iPhone 4S + 2degrees 3G data 4tw! These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Toiletduck

116 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 590427 5-Mar-2012 09:23
SIM locking wouldn't be so bad if there was a genuine subsidy attached to the handset - but looking at the prices of the "subsidised" handset vs purchasing in the open market there isnt a real advantage.

traderstu

67 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 590431 5-Mar-2012 09:27
I think this is nothing but a storm in a teacup. US$3.10 inc postage for a sim unlocker from deal extreme and the problem is solved.

ajw

880 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 590432 5-Mar-2012 09:28
Toiletduck: SIM locking wouldn't be so bad if there was a genuine subsidy attached to the handset - but looking at the prices of the "subsidised" handset vs purchasing in the open market there isnt a real advantage. Especially when you look at the Warehouse pricing.

NonprayingMantis

3613 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 590435 5-Mar-2012 09:35
Toiletduck: SIM locking wouldn't be so bad if there was a genuine subsidy attached to the handset - but looking at the prices of the "subsidised" handset vs purchasing in the open market there isnt a real advantage. I haven’t looked recently, but some people on this forum did a comparison with the phones skinny had at launch and found that they were quite almost all a bit cheaper than was available from elsewhere. IIRC the average was MORE than $30 cheaper. Don’t know if that is still the case or not.

ajw

880 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 590438 5-Mar-2012 09:43
Sony Ericsson xperia on special at $369 unlocked for Telecom XT. http://www.dicksmith.co.nz/product/EM0022/sony-ericsson-xperia-active-tc Sony Ericsson xperia white retail $389 locked. http://www.dicksmith.co.nz/mobiles-wireless/prepaid-mobiles/skinny-mobile

1 | 2 | 3