Bill Proposes Canadian Cellphone Unlocking Rights 359
SJrX sends in a CBC report that the Canadian New Democratic Party has tabled a bill requiring all cellphone companies to provide unlocked cellphones. (Wikipedia notes, "The party is regarded as falling on the left in the Canadian political spectrum.") This reader adds, "The fact that there is a minority government currently should help this bill's chances of getting passed." "The bill proposes three rules: cellphone carriers would be required to notify customers at the point of purchase whether a phone is locked to work only on their network; they would have to remove such a lock free of charge at any point after the conclusion of the customer's service contract; and they would have to remove it if the customer does not enter into a contract within six months of buying the device up front."
Gaining My Support (Score:5, Interesting)
A letter I sent to my NDP representative 8/25/09 (Score:4, Interesting)
I am writing you due to my concern and displeasure with what I feel are unacceptable, anti-competitive practices in Canada's mobile phone industry.
Foremost among my concerns is the practice of "Cell Phone Network Locking". Cellular phones are expensive pieces of equipment. Consumers nowadays can expect to either pay hundreds of dollars or be required to lock themselves in to a three year contract in order to get a handset subsidized by their network provider.
I understand and respect the network's need to protect their investment in terms of the "minimum contract time", but my problem arises at the end of the contract term (or immediately, in the case of the consumer who purchases their hardware outright).
Networks sell their hardware in a "Network Locked" state. This means that a phone purchased from Rogers will only work on Rogers owned networks, Bell only with Bell and so on... If a consumer who owns their phone outright is in any way unsatisfied with their service or have to switch providers for any reason, they are forced to abandon their hardware and "start again" with a new and expensive handset or enter another long contract.
Modern cell phones will typically cost $500 but can climb to almost $1000 for top-of-the-line hardware.
A recent article in the news cites Canada's cell phone rates as being amongst the world's most expensive (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/08/11/canada-cellphone-rates-expensive-oecd.html).
Though many countries do not have laws regarding the practice of SIM locking, a number of countries do seem to have been able to strike a fair balance between consumer protection and corporate profits.
I would urge you to consider pursuing Canadian regulations like those described in the following countries: Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore and Spain. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock) All of these countries have regulations that in one way or another allow the consumer to freely own their handset after they have paid for it. Often there is some fair and reasonable period of protection for the company.
Whether it be like Hong Kong's "until the phone is paid for", or Denmark's "Six Months" isn't really an issue for me, but for the time being it seems that relying on Canadian providers to voluntarily provide unlock codes to consumers is not working. I believe a legislative implement will be what is best for Canadians.
Competition is good for the consumer as is choice, allowing customers who have paid for their hardware to choose which provider to get their service from will hopefully improve our situation.
A second issue which seems to be getting coverage elsewhere is the move to charge consumers for receiving text messages. I am strongly against this as it opens the door for consumers to be forced into paying "Junk Mail".
Although I'll admit that I'm not necessarily an NDP supporter regularly, I am certainly in agreement with their current "I'm Against The Text Message Cash Grab" campaign that they seem to be running (Even if the language is a bit inflammatory for my tastes, the message is clear). Should you find yourself in a position to suppourt a bill on this issue, I would be pleased if you did.
Thank you very much for your time,
And here we are nearly 10 Months later and they're introducing a bill?
Could it be possible that the political system actually works? Surely there's some other explanation. Please, Oh Please, let there be some other explanation... I'd hate to be forced into voting for the NDP as the only party that isn't completely incompetent.
Re:Gaining My Support (Score:2, Interesting)
You really only have three options at the national level-- the Conservatives, the Liberals, or the NDP. If you're in Quebec, there's the Bloc Quebecois (who are a centre-left party). The current breakdown in the House of Commons is Conservatives (144), Liberals (77), Bloc Québécois (48), New Democrats (37). The NDP are small, but not as small as all that, and they're growing quickly. It's not like he's voting for the Greens or the Pirate Party or something. With the current political makeup, I think it's going to be a while before we have a majority government again, which gives the NDP considerably more power than a minor party might otherwise have, because any governing coalition needs their votes, so they have to deal.
Re:Gaining My Support (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been an NDP voter for the last number of years, and I could not put it better myself. They are also the only party with a progressive copyright stance. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are totally quiet on it, while trying to pass corporate media backed laws in the background. The NDP do seem to be tackling more "modern" topics than the other two parties, who seem stuck in the same old rut. I am sure it has something to do with the demographic of the NDP party likely being less than 40, while the other two are greater than 50.
I think bottom line the NDP are doing nothing wrong, though they need to prove their fiscal restraint to voters. The big thing as I see it is political modernization, and political reform. The current system is HEAVILY biased for Conservatives. Not only are all the ridings all messed up, but the weight each province has according to population is all skewed. Add to that the rural voters "count" more than urban voters (rural is all Conservative, Urban is Liberal/NDP mix), then that just isn't all that fair. On top of all that, the whole "First Past the Post" archaic political system is totally unfair to begin with (and undemocratic) and I believe we are either the LAST country or one of two that actually use that stupid system. The reason why things haven't changed is the two big parties are biased in that they gain power from it, so they do not want it to leave (or their supporters). All those things combined and you get a pretty undemocratic system, insofar as how much my vote is worth compared to someone Else's. Things will be slow to change until we have some political reform so I think it is likely the most important issue going (i.e. it will continue to be the Libs and the Cons playing their political games back and forth). As it is, I disagree with the Conservatives in most things, and I simply have no respect at all for the liberal party (though not totally opposed ideologically).
Re:Unless C-32 goes through (Score:3, Interesting)
There are valid reasons to hate C-32, but that's not one of them.
There are a few reasons, but not that many. The more I read about it, the more I think it's probably one of the best bills we might expect.
I think a lot of the complaints people do have could be addressed by inverting the digital locks language. Right now it says "illegal except when..." but it should really say "legal except when... ...the aim is to circumvent copyright law". That would mean you wouldn't need exceptions for linux or the blind, that would be legal by default, yet it would still be illegal to remove a lock if you did so to use material without obtaining it from the copyright holder.
In the meantime I'd like a rider to allow lock removal when the content is in the public domain. I'd also like the Crown Copyright to be amended in the same way.
Maury
Re:Unless C-32 goes through (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends on the carrier. But some of them actively encourage you to bring your existing unlocked phone to their network:
http://www.windmobile.ca/ [windmobile.ca]
Coincidentally, they're currently the only game in town that offers unlimited data/voice packages... I'm just waiting for them to put in a new tower in my town (they say it'll be up before the end of the year) to switch... I can get the same service I have now for less than half the cost. And no, I don't work for Wind. Actually, I work for Bell....
Re:Oh Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, your throat hasn't been slit and your rural home taken by foreign invaders, because of the Army, or marauding gangs out of "Road Warrior", because the justice system puts criminals in jail if they start to form them. Nothing in your house has electrocuted you and the house hasn't blown up or fallen down because the government imposes standards on vendors of everything from copper wire and gas appliances to lumber.
And most public debt is taken out to pay for large, slow-payback infrastructure like the $5M/mile roads out to your house that we city people don't use. Perhaps you got this way because you insisted on living outside the family home in a tent while your father sat inside, "wasting" 40% of his income on the non-productive activity of paying off the home mortgage, which is the exact financial equivalent of most national debts.