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

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › SIM Locking ruled OK by Commerce Commission. Vodafone rejoices, 2degrees grumbles.

1 | 2 | 3

codyc1515

1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#594013 12-Mar-2012 11:40

To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#594054 12-Mar-2012 12:26

codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/

He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts. Nothing to do with sim-locking.

Toiletduck

119 posts

Master Geek

#594114 12-Mar-2012 13:17

NonprayingMantis:
codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/

He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts. Nothing to do with sim-locking.

In some markets (usually depending on handset manufacturer and carrier combination) the term subsidy is a network/SIM locked phone.
IE: you need to pay the subsidy before the phone will allow usage on another network (set in firmware - just like sim-locking AFAIK)

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#594124 12-Mar-2012 13:36

Toiletduck:
NonprayingMantis:
codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/

He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts. Nothing to do with sim-locking.

In some markets (usually depending on handset manufacturer and carrier combination) the term subsidy is a network/SIM locked phone.
IE: you need to pay the subsidy before the phone will allow usage on another network (set in firmware - just like sim-locking AFAIK)

really. never heard that before.
Regardless, it certainly isn't the case in the US which that article is referring to.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#594127 12-Mar-2012 13:41

This is a "subsidy" in the US. You get cheaper phones - sometimes free, in exchange sign a term contract. Exactly like New Zealand, except there they SIM lock the handsets to make sure you will honour your side of the deal.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#594365 12-Mar-2012 22:11

NonprayingMantis:
codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/

He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts. Nothing to do with sim-locking.

No, it's directly comparable, just less formally legalistic. In practice they lock you into using them using a mechanism (ie via a sim lock rather than an explicit contract) that you have a financial penalty if you exit, in return for subsidies hardware. Let me repeat that - network lock in in return for a handset subsidy - which is exactly what the T-Mobile guy is talking about.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#594377 12-Mar-2012 22:33

JimmyH: It's anti-competitive, pure and simple, and the Commerce Commission should nuke them.

I think we have to get used this government being pro-corporate and anti-consumer / peasant. Every other policy is lined up that way....why should this one be any different.

Jimmy H: 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.

This is probably the worst aspect of it. My uncle visited from Canada with his locked iPhone and it was essentially a brick until he went home, due to the high roaming charges. . He had to buy a phone here and SIM here and another SIM in Australia.....and he left his iPhone in his suitcase, untouched unless there was wifi about...and then he used it like an iPod.

<rare caps outburst> NEVER BUY A LOCKED PHONE.</rare caps outburst>

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#594387 12-Mar-2012 22:45

JimmyH:
NonprayingMantis:
codyc1515: To everyone who disagrees: "T-Mobile CMO: subsidized pricing hurts wireless competition, undermines hardware value"

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/11/t-mobile-cmo-subsidized-pricing-hurts-wireless-competition-und/

He is talking about subsidies in exchange for contracts. Nothing to do with sim-locking.

No, it's directly comparable, just less formally legalistic. In practice they lock you into using them using a mechanism (ie via a sim lock rather than an explicit contract) that you have a financial penalty if you exit, in return for subsidies hardware. Let me repeat that - network lock in in return for a handset subsidy - which is exactly what the T-Mobile guy is talking about.

well we have had that for years in the NZ market - contract in exchange for handset subsidy. Vodafone, Telecom and 2Degrees do it.
People (customers) seem to like it as witnessed by the vast vast amount of iphones (and other phones) sold over the years via this mechanism when they could just as easily have purchased outright and had no contract.

Is it anti-competitive to give customers something they want?

codyc1515

1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#594395 12-Mar-2012 22:55

Linuxluver:
JimmyH: It's anti-competitive, pure and simple, and the Commerce Commission should nuke them.

I think we have to get used this government being pro-corporate and anti-consumer / peasant. Every other policy is lined up that way....why should this one be any different.

Jimmy H: 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.

This is probably the worst aspect of it. My uncle visited from Canada with his locked iPhone and it was essentially a brick until he went home, due to the high roaming charges. . He had to buy a phone here and SIM here and another SIM in Australia.....and he left his iPhone in his suitcase, untouched unless there was wifi about...and then he used it like an iPod.

NEVER BUY A LOCKED PHONE.

Good luck in 5 years when all phones are locked. /sarcasm

Toiletduck

119 posts

Master Geek

#594405 12-Mar-2012 23:46

well we have had that for years in the NZ market - contract in exchange for handset subsidy. Vodafone, Telecom and 2Degrees do it.
People (customers) seem to like it as witnessed by the vast vast amount of iphones (and other phones) sold over the years via this mechanism when they could just as easily have purchased outright and had no contract.

Is it anti-competitive to give customers something they want?

(remembering that there are 2 distinct meanings of the word subsidy)
However when you sign up to a contract and you get a "subsidised handset" you are then free to do what you want with the handset - give it to your grandmother (and then she can use it with another provider). You are still bound by the contract and the commitment and in signing a contract you really should have your eyes wide open.

In the other case you are receiving a slightly cheaper handset that cant be used elsewhere for a set period of time(e.g with a "foreign" SIM roaming or a local SIM domestically).
It isnt anticompetitive to give customers something they want - people need to understand exactly what they are signing up for in the case of a SIM-locked phone - it is a "contract" with a handset with some strings attached.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#594421 13-Mar-2012 00:55

Toiletduck:

well we have had that for years in the NZ market - contract in exchange for handset subsidy. Vodafone, Telecom and 2Degrees do it.
People (customers) seem to like it as witnessed by the vast vast amount of iphones (and other phones) sold over the years via this mechanism when they could just as easily have purchased outright and had no contract.

Is it anti-competitive to give customers something they want?

(remembering that there are 2 distinct meanings of the word subsidy)
However when you sign up to a contract and you get a "subsidised handset" you are then free to do what you want with the handset - give it to your grandmother (and then she can use it with another provider). You are still bound by the contract and the commitment and in signing a contract you really should have your eyes wide open.

In the other case you are receiving a slightly cheaper handset that cant be used elsewhere for a set period of time(e.g with a "foreign" SIM roaming or a local SIM domestically).
It isnt anticompetitive to give customers something they want - people need to understand exactly what they are signing up for in the case of a SIM-locked phone - it is a "contract" with a handset with some strings attached.

my post is clearly referring to the contract/subsidy model.

1 | 2 | 3