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."
Unless C-32 goes through (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And what if I have my own phone purchased by other means - will I be able to purchase a subscription with a SIM card to it without any problems?
Re: (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: (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 t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The copyright cartels today will never let anything they have copyrights to fall into the public domain. The majority of things is copyrighted by a corporation and not an individual, so the life+50 years is meaningless.
Oh Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But global warming is helping us out with that tho.
Fortunately I live an hour or so north of the border
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not when it's -45 outside it isn't... (Score:2)
And besides, the snow is just an insulator. The ice cream isn't producing heat so it will end up at the same temperature as the snow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, fun fact: Winnipeg sells more Slurpees from 7/11 per capita than any other place in the world.
Re:Oh Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are so many people willfully ignorant of what services modern governments pay for from their taxes?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because they're the right-wing nutjobs from the GGP ...
Re: (Score:2)
>>>So you also clearly don't keep health insurance for your family, don't benefit from (in no particular order) police services, fire departments
If I don't use the services (not sick, no snow, etc), then I'm not getting any benefit am I? What you are saying it equivalent to saying, because I have Comcast cable in my street, I'm gaining benefit from the wire even though I don't subscribe. An unused service can not be counted.
BTW you are correct I benefit from a policeman patrolling my street once
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Where in Canada do you live?
Isn't the idea of a society that we pool resources for mutual good, even if we don't help everyone all the time?
You're dead-on about the debt though. The Liberals were paying it down, too bad the Conservatives haven't figured out how to do that...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OK, but apart from police services, fire departments, curb-side trash removal, winter snow removal, labor regulation, environmental regulation and judicial services, WHAT HAS THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT EVER DONE FOR US?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Not everyone lives in a sucking city
Fixed that for ya. ;-) Although technically I live in an "urban" zone according to the Census so I do gain SOME benefit from the policeman patrolling the street once a day, but it still doesn't add up to $20,000 worth of benefits per year. I'd estimate 40% of that, or $8000, is wasted on the non-productive activity of paying interest on the debt.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You get "passive services" (things that exist that you don't have to explicitly take advantage of) like police, fire departments, trash removal, equipment and food safety inspection, military protection, weather services, road maintenance, and a whole slew of other things. If you ever do need health care, employment insurance, immigration services, a pension fund, or any other service like that, they're there immediately, kinda like insurance.
All told, between paying the equivalent in insurance or private c
Re:Oh Canada (Score:5, Informative)
I find that difficult to believe especially since I barely use any government services.
I call BS on that one. Chances are extremely good that you've done at least some of these in the last year:
- Purchased food inspected by the government to ensure that it's unlikely to give you food poisoning, and that the nutritional information listed on the side of the container is accurate. Or purchased food from a restaurant which had been inspected to ensure that there weren't cockroaches all over the place (among other things).
- Purchased gasoline from a pump that had been inspected to ensure that 1 gallon of price = 1 gallon of fuel.
- Put money into a bank knowing that the bank was required by law to give it back to you if you asked for it, and would still be yours even if the bank went under (assuming it was less than $100,000).
- Engaged in a transaction on an SEC-regulated market.
- Taken advantage of a 401(k) or IRA.
- Relied on the military and police for protection against any really serious attack (not just one criminal going after your property, but an organized assault with bombs and missiles). You may have also called your emergency services for help with a criminal, a fire, an injury, or other hazards.
- Made use of a government water system (not necessarily at home).
- Taken a walk or ride or swim in a public park of some kind.
- Ridden on or flown an aircraft that had been regulated to ensure that it was extremely unlikely to crash.
- Breathed air that wasn't super-polluted because government regulations prevented companies from just spewing out nasty particulate matter.
I can keep going if you like. The point is, most of the really useful stuff your government does at various levels is not readily visible but affects you every day.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah but does it add-up to $20,000? I could buy a new car with that. I could buy TWO cars if they are Kia imports. Every year. IMHO the services you list still don't add up to the $20,000 I paid.
Especially 30-40% of that tax is wasted on debt interest payment (i.e. nonproductive). Plus a lot of the services you list are actually PRIVATE companies (trash, firefighters, ambulance, etc) not government so they are not funded by taxes. They are funded by the yearly bill I pay upfront, or the bill they sen
Re:Oh Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure it does.
- You probably eat at least 1000 meals or so over the course of the year (that's a little less than 3 meals a day). A reasonable guess would be about 5% of those meals would be dangerous to eat, and would result in an average medical bill or last pay of $250 (most would be less than that, a few would be a lot more than that), for a total cost of $12,500.
- Let's say you drive a vehicle that gets 25 mpg, and drive 10,000 miles per year, and are thus purchasing 400 gallons of fuel for a cost of $1000 (that's about $2.50 per gallon). However, the gas station owner bilks you because there's no inspection, so you end up actually paying $1500, so the government inspection just saved you $500.
- For banking, let's say you had a 15% chance of having deposits of $30,000 in one of the banks that failed. That gives you an average loss of $4500.
- For securities, let's go with about a 11% chance that you lose your investment to a con man without regulation, and a 1% chance that you'd lose your investment to Bernie Madoff under regulation. If you invest, say, $40,000, your government just saved you on average $4000.
I'm already above $20K, and not even through the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea how much it costs to pave a road? ;)
Slightly more seriously, there is a lot of benefit you can derive from those around you (that do use government services) not being pushed to the brink of poverty and desperation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny. That looks familiar. [phawker.com]
Disappointed... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>All of the advantages of modern America
What about jobs? I've looked for an engineering job in Canada, managed to get one interview five years ago, and that's it. They seem a little scarce at least for my skillset (designing FPGAs).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(designing FPGAs).
Sir, forgive me if I'm way off here, but I'm having trouble reading your post through its ambiguous acronyms. Is this FPGA the ever-so-coveted "First-Post-Get Algorithm" that Slashdot Anonymous Cowards have been seeking their whole lives?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Canada has maintained a good balance between free markets and social needs. This is evident with the lack of bank failures during the crisis. I think this is due to the politics, with more parties to vote for and more awareness by the citizens.
We had a financial meltdown in the 1920s which led to strict rules being put in place to prevent what happened in 2008 with the subprime mortgage mess.
Canadians won't stand for any sort of corruption, even if it's for a meager $1M of crony contracts.
We put up with far more shit then we should. The current federal conservative government needs to get tossed out on their asses for the amount of bullshit they've pulled in the past couple years. Unfortunitely, none of the other parties can get their shit together well enough to get it done. And this is the opinion of a forme
Re: (Score:2)
You should at least consider trying to do the immigration thing legally though, because immigrating to Canada looks like it's far easier than immigrating to, say, the United States. Particularly if you're a "skilled worker".
Read all about it: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.asp [cic.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a law. Its a bill.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in Vancouver, you get to avoid the snow most of the year too :)
PS I love being Canadian, come on up.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada's taxes in reality are little different from that of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg [wikipedia.org]
And depends where you live, but parts of southern Ontario and BC see very little snow. States to the south like Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania all get more snow on average.
Re:Oh Canada (Score:4, Insightful)
All of the advantages of modern America without all the ultra-right-wing bullshit and wars.
Not really. I have become increasingly distressed at the direction Canadian politics have headed. The only thing saving the politicians from selling Canada to the United States wholesale is this minority government. The problem with this is that it paralyzes the government, and generally lets things be run by big business, which is precisely what is wrong with the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal).
They're not the same. Most countries with universal healthcare still allow private healthcare/insurance, Canada is an exception.
This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones for most people ... the reason prices are low is because they know that you're locked in when they sell it to you.
But after 12 months (when the contract ends, so presumably the phone is now paid for) the phone is still locked. If it were unlocked, the customer has extra options: take the phone and use a cheap SIM-only plan from another provider, or negotiate a reduction in the cost of the current plan.
Locking is an uncompetitive business practice (Score:2)
I mean come on ... the company obviously has a business interest in locking the phone, or they wouldn't bother. So saying that there's no cost associated with unlocking the phones -- not even including the customer service costs to be incurred at the point of unlocking -- is silly.
Business interest is rather vague, so let's be a little more specific and call it what it is: A business interest in reducing competition. This is about phones that are bought and paid for, either via contract or outright.
You're actually arguing for free market principles in favour of an anti-competitive practice? Seriously? You don't see the paradox in that? You actually believe that this particular behaviour reduces prices to the consumer?
On the side point, have you unlocked a phone recently? I did a few
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal).
Um, no? [bluecross.ca] (One of many.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal).
Um, no? [bluecross.ca] (One of many.)
Actually, yes. I was -- obvious to people familiar with Canada's system and the debate, including legal disputes, around it -- recognize I was referring to normal insurance. You linked to supplemental insurance, which, yes, is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal).
You ever stop and think about WHY healthcare is public? When you allow people with more money to have better healthcare you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate. I don't care where you live but that's not right.
The first case we had of someone being able to pay more for better healthcare was last year I think. I'm not sure what loophole they used to legally do this. There was a social uproar about it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You ever stop and think about WHY healthcare is public?
Of course. It's because many people don't understand, or appreciate, the free market and liberty, and would rather sacrifice those things for the easy, and less-free, way out.
When you allow people with more money to have better healthcare you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
Absolutely untrue. That doesn't begin to make sense. That's like saying when you allow people with more free time to exercise more, you are putting their lives at a greater value than those with less free time who can't exercise more.
Bill Gates could spend billions of dollars keeping himself alive, that most people could not do (and
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. It's because many people don't understand, or appreciate, the free market and liberty, and would rather sacrifice those things for the easy, and less-free, way out.
Most of us realize that the absolutes you're preaching are an absurd utopia that cannot exist in reality. Some of us realize that in trying to achieve that sort of libertarian ideal is much more likely to end in something totalitarian instead. That's what happens when ideals are extremes.
One person's freedom and liberty often infringes on another's.
Re: (Score:2)
When you allow people with more money to have better healthcare you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
No, THEY are putting their lives into a greater value bucket.
By your logic, and with a car analogy, when you allow people with more money to drive nicer and safer cars you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
Even in the poorest case in America, the individual survives a very large portion of ailments that used to mean death. What we are essentially arguing about is only the portion of life saving that is also expensive. There is effectively no real limit to how much wea
Re: (Score:2)
Could you clarify? Many of us have, what I would consider, "private" insurance - For example, I have health care coverage from Blue Cross that supplements the basic universal coverage and takes care of things like drugs, private hospital beds, etc.
Maybe there's another meaning of "private" insurance that I'm not aware of?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal).
Ahhh yes, the famed quote... was this the Cato Institute or PRI, I can't recall?
In either event, it's complete BS: http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth18_e.php
This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones
So to back up your clearly counter-factual claim, you talk about cell phone prices, claiming they're higher because they're lower. Huh.
Maury
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh yes, the famed quote... was this the Cato Institute or PRI, I can't recall?
In either event, it's complete BS: http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth18_e.php [chsrf.ca]
False. I was not referring to private supplemental insurance, but private primary insurance, which is illegal in Canada.
you talk about cell phone prices, claiming they're higher because they're lower.
No, I do not. Try again?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Canadian and I have private insurance.
Supplemental insurance. I was referring to buying insurance that replaces the government insurance. It's prohibited.
Re: (Score:2)
You also can't print your own Driver's License that replaces one issued by the government, or choose to pay taxes to your brother-in-law' private taxation bureau instead of to Revenue Canada. Why is this surprising?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in
No. It's the government reasonably limiting what private corporations who generally collude to eliminate real competition can do to restrict consumers' right to make choices in the marketplace.
Assuming you mean the cell phone thing, not the healthcare thing, since this obviously doesn't apply to healthcare in Canada: no, this law restricts consumers' choices. It means I cannot pay less to get a permanently locked phone.
(private insurance in Canada is illegal).
Just plain wrong and stupid. I have private insurance, through my employer, as does pretty much every other Canadian.
I think it was obvious that I was not referring to supplemental insurance.
This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones for most people ... the reason prices are low is because they know that you're locked in when they sell it to you.
No
Yes.
it will force the industry to provide a wider variety of services at a variety of prices
No. The industry can do that NOW. What this law will do will -- like universal health care -- limit variety and services and prices.
which is exactly the way a free market works
It's amazing that you can take an obviously and definitionally false
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and if you even bothered to read the summary then you'd know that they don't have to unlock the phone until AFTER your contract is over, or after 6 months if you've paid full price for it anyway. There's no extra money to be made here.
You're not thinking.
If there's no money to be made there, then why wouldn't they just unlock it when the contract is over? Why need a law?
Think on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Snow is a reason to want to move to Canada, not a detraction.
No really, it's not. I say that as an avid skier. As great as snow is in parks and ski hills, shoveling it off the sidewalk and the slush damage to my shoes simply isn't worth it.
But then, there's Vancouver. Pretty much no snow, and just over an hours drive to Whistler, widely considered the best ski resort on the planet (I concur). Of course everyone wants to live there, so there's the prices issue...
Maury
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.... (Score:2)
While I agree with the premise here, I'm not sure I like the idea of forcing companies to do this. I mean, the advantage of an unlocked phone is only apparent if there are other networks in the country that phone can run on.
Maybe this isn't a problem in Canada like it is here in the US...?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This news comes on the heels of some of the larger Mobile carriers recently launching their GSM (most 3.5G) networks.
Before very recently there was only one company in the entire country that utilized GSM and that was Rogers [rogers.ca]. Every other company was CDMA. There were a few other company names that used GSM, but they simply bought/rented bandwidth off of Rogers towers. The largest of which was Fido [www.fido.ca], however they were eventually bought up by Rogers.
This sounds like a good thing to me and I hope it goes through
Re: (Score:2)
Fido was entirely independent with their own set of towers at one point in time. (microcell).
However Rogers bought 'em out and consolidated equipment/towers.
Every other GSM provider (up until recently / soon, but after the rogers-fido merger) just leases rogers' network, though. (7-11 and.. whoever else).
Re: (Score:2)
You probably know didn't state it... Bell and Telus got together to build a GSM network. Because of the iPhone and to cash in on roaming charges during the Olympics.
Re: (Score:2)
My provider is set to launch their GSM network in a few weeks and I'm pretty excited.
As a European, this comment takes me right back to the heady days of 1994.
Re: (Score:2)
I can buy an unlocked I phone from the Apple web-sight in Canada.
Then I could use it as a wi-fi phone.
HSDPA+ / UMTS in Canada (Score:2)
Previously I'd say the differing network technologies were a concern. Bell & Telus operate mostly on CDMA while Rogers runs on GSM. Most of the smaller carriers operate piggybacked onto these networks, or are owned outright by these three carriers. Wind Mobile is the exception (using AWS).
More recently however, all three of the major carriers have been implementing HSDPA+ (Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org]) on UMTS 850 / 1900MHz. So if you're buying a Smartphone that's a "world phone", chances are you can use it in on all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do Canadian cell phone carriers still lock their phones so they will only play ringtones from the carriers store?
Already in Europe (Score:2)
This is already required if not in all of the EU, then in most of the northern European countries. Cell-phones are instead sold with minimum-time subscriptions, so you may change operator but you still have to pay for the old subscription until the minimum time runs out.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that is entirely true. It is not illegal in the US, however it may void a service or purchase contract for the device. Carriers then have the right to refuse continued service for the device (though that rarely goes beyond warrantied replacement and repairs). Even though our ridiculously expensive monthly plans serve to subsidize the cost of the phone, individuals are generally still considered to have purchases the phone. US customers rarely lease or rent phones from carriers outside of
Gaining My Support (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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
Re: (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
Don't hold your breath (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Phone company sympathizers that will claim it hurts business...
wont someone think of the rich CEO's!
Re: (Score:2)
3rd party unlocking legal in Sweden. (Score:3, Informative)
Over here in Sweden, 3rd party unlocking of phones is legal. (or at least has been, haven't seen much advertising for that lately, come to think of it.)
You could pay the equivalent of $50 or something to some bozo with a computer and a cable to crack the operator lock.
Obviously, if you signed a contract with monthly fees for a number of months, you'd still have to pay those, but there were some marketing stunt where you could get a locked phone without monthly fees virtually for free. You could then unlock it and sell with a nice profit.
That kind of deals obviously don't come often. Maybe there was just the one.
Bill Proposes Canadian Cellphone Unlocking Rights (Score:5, Funny)
Ted, however, is against it on the grounds that it's totally bogus.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course.
Dividing the year into 25 months instead of the customary 12 is very convenient.
That way we can still claim that we have 3 full months of summer.
T-Mobile and ATT&T experience (Score:2)
I use T-Mobile in the US and when ever I needed a phone unlocked I simply asked them, and they did it for me. No fuss, no bother. Generally they would ask me why and I would say because I am traveling overseas and want to get a local SIM card. At one stage I had considered switching to AT&T (because T-Mobile coverage in my own house sucks) and unlocking was an issue for me. The AT&T rep I spoke with assured me that that was possible - however I have not put it to the test.
It may be a case of YMM
Incorrect summary (Score:2)
A bill is 'tabled' (put off until a later date) when either there are more pressing issues, or there are not enough votes to get it passed. They did not 'table' this bill, they introduced it.
Re: (Score:2)
A bill is 'tabled' (put off until a later date) when either there are more pressing issues, or there are not enough votes to get it passed. They did not 'table' this bill, they introduced it.
"Tabling a motion" in pretty much everywhere except the USA means beginning the process of discussion, not ending it (ie: "I put this paper on the table so [everyone seated at the table] may discuss its contents").
unlock the owned cable boxes as well so any cable (Score:2)
unlock the owned cable boxes as well so any cable system in Canada can use any Owned cable box there.
Good intention, but useless ... (Score:3, Informative)
This bill is good intentioned, but practically useless, given the state of affairs of the cell phone market reality in North America (yes, USians, you too!)
In Europe, Africa and most of Asia, everyone standardized on GSM. You ask the network for a phone number, and they give you a SIM card, you go to any shop and buy any phone and it is guaranteed to work with any network you choose. Not only that, but phones work everywhere from Hong Kong to Dubai to Spain to Johannesburg. Nothing special, other than getting a SIM card if roaming is too expensive.
In the USA and Canada, we the consumers, have accepted things that are never acceptable elsewhere. For example, we had CDMA, which is used only in the USA, Canada, Japan and perhaps another one or two smaller countries. CDMA does not have a SIM card. The phone is made by the manufacturer and locked to a certain network that sells you the phone.
Even when GSM came to North America, it was done in bands that were not the standard ones used elsewhere in the world, which was circumvented when quad band phones were put on the market. Meaning they work in Europe and Canada/USA, but they have a higher price and have more silicon inside to handle this fragmentation.
When 3G came by, more fragmentation occurred. The governments started selling "spectrum", and companies like Google and Cricket grabbed certain bands (WINDMobile, Mobilicity and Public Mobile in Canada did the same). AWS was invented.
This means that a phone from Rogers will not work with WINDMobile and vice versa.
So what use will the bill be if they are operating at different frequencies?
Not only that, we see industry lobbyists asking for "more spectrum". The excuse is that spectrum is too crowded, but the real reason is more fragmentation and balkanization so they can lock in customers more and more. Why does Europe which is more densely populated, or Egypt have more carriers, yet all handsets work on all networks?
See this article I wrote earlier: Mobile phone carriers lobby for more balkanization by asking for more spectrum [baheyeldin.com] as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can add Oceania to your list in the second sentence too (i.e. Australia/NZ etc.). Unless you consider that part of Asia (most people here generally don't). But we too are completely standardised on GSM in the same way as Europe etc.
As a regular traveller to North America (both US and Canada), the state of cell phones over there has pissed me off for almost two decades now. Even in the mid 90s, I could take my Nokia brick (GSM) to any other country on earth, step off the plane, and be roaming without iss
Re: (Score:2)
Rogers: GSM -850MHz & 1900MHz Telus: CDMA and limited HSPA -800MHz & 1900MHz Bell: CDMA and limited HSPA -850MHz & 1900MHz
You might want to add that said awesome phone would need to support both GSM and CDMA. I hear some Blackberry World Edition phones do
Re:Awesome except for one small thing. (Score:5, Informative)
Telus and Bell built a JOINT network. It's the same 3G network operating on 850Mhz & 1900Mhz.
Their CDMA Network is on the way out and will not be upgraded.
Rogers also has a 3G network operating on 850Mhz & 1900Mhz.
So, you have the nations three biggest carriers operating on the same frequencies of 850Mhz & 1900Mhz HSPA(+).
The only thing not compatible is the first and second gen networks.
The only carriers that this doesn't affect are Mobilicy and Wind.
a. because they don't have contracts and in case of Wind, will unlock your phone (after 3 months) (not sure about mobilicity)
b. they are on the AWS band and are only compatible with each other. (1700Mhz/2100Mhz)
Re: (Score:2)
Effectively in Canada there are two national providers.
Bell and Telus use the same frequencies, in fact they have sharing agreements across the country.
Rogers / Fido is the other one, same company, different brands.
The new carrier, Wind Mobile, is only operating in Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver. They are filling a role like Fido did before Rogers bought them. They run on the same frequency as T-Mobile's 3G network in the USA.
All these carriers use Sim cards.. most phones will run on Be
Re:Awesome except for one small thing. (Score:4, Informative)
Telus runs two networks. Their new HSPA+ (21mbps) network runs on both 850 and 1900 spectrum.
Rogers has both GSM AND HSPA/UMTS on 850 and 1900. Generally their 3G HSPA stuff is on 850 while the 2.5G EDGE is on 1900 but this is changing in many rual centers.
You can take an iPhone for example, and work perfectly fine on Telus, Bell, or Rogers (provided it is unlocked which they are from the Apple Store up here).
The particular phone you gave an example for was a bad one as well. The N900 has 2.5G EDGE/GSM on all Canadian frequencies. But it's 3G is only on the AWS band, which is T-Mobile in the USA or WIND Mobile here in Canada. You're also wrong about the SIM, Bell and Telus (and Nokia..what?) have their GSM network which has SIM cards like any other.
Telus/Bell still run their CDMA network but it is generatlly depreciated and not many phones are sold for it any longer.
SO basically there is no incompatible bullshit other than the info in your post. LTE will be welcome of course.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, cell phone companies won't lose much as a whole, but it WILL make it harder for them to keep a customer (as long as their competitors have compatible networks). That's fine with me, of corse, but the drawback is that purchase costs of new phones could go up. Why should the carrier give you a $300 discount on the phone if you're just gonna switch? I'll say though that most discounts depend on a 2-yr contract, s