Showing posts with label cellular phone discount. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cellular phone discount. Show all posts

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Used Cell Phones Online-Is T-Mobile's new no-contract plan really a good deal?

Is T-Mobile's new no-contract plan really a good deal?-Used Cell Phones Online-

 Mylan Cellular does the math to show you how much money wireless subscribers can save on T-Mobile's new contractless service plans. 
 
 
T-Mobile shook up the wireless industry this week with the introduction of its new no-contract service plans. But is the service really a good value for consumers compared to what the other big guys are offering?
In this edition of My Blog, I answer that very question. A reader wants to know if he should ditch Verizon's wireless service for T-Mobile. While some people seem to balk at the notion that wireless consumers will have to "pay"for their smartphones under these new T-Mobile plans, I do the math to explain why even buying a device at full price on T-Mobile is still a better deal than a Verizon subsidized two-year contract.
And for another reader, I clarify some of the finer points of T-Mobile's device financing program.
If you are interested in learning more about T-Mobile's new plans, check out an in-depth FAQ that was written earlier this week. It should answer many of your questions.

T-Mobile vs. Verizon Wireless

Question:.

 I am a Verizon Wireless subscriber whose contract is up later this year. But I am considering switching to T-Mobile since they announced their new plans. I live in the Washington, D.C. area so I'd be one of the first markets to get T-Mobile's LTE. From a value standpoint, would you recommend T-Mobile or would you recommend I continue to stick with Verizon?
Thanks,
 
Answer:
,
The short answer to your question is that I think T-Mobile's new service plans are a terrific deal compared with what the other nationwide carriers are offering. Still, to be fair, I must point out that T-Mobile's CEO John Legere may have exaggerated his claim that consumers will save $1,000 over two years with T-Mobile's plans compared to a plan on a competitor. As I will explain in this column, when comparing similar plans, the cost difference isn't that great. But it's significant.



T-Mobile executives claim that consumers can save big bucks with new T-Mobile's new contractless service plans when compared to services from competitors.
 
But there is a caveat. It's only a great value if the service works where you live, work, and travel. So the first thing you need to do is ask your friends, family, and colleagues who use T-Mobile how they like the service. As far as I know, T-Mobile has pretty decent service in the Washington, D.C. area. And you are correct that D.C. is among the first cities to get the T-Mobile's new LTE service. So that is good news for you.

I also know that if you travel outside of Washington, D.C. in some areas, you may not get such great service or any service at all. In that instance, it doesn't matter how much money you can save with T-Mobile's new plan. It's not a good deal if can't make or receive phone calls or update your Facebook page when you are out of town for a weekend.

But let's assume, that most of the places where you travel in and around D.C. and other parts of the country get decent T-Mobile coverage. If that's the case, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't switch right now.

Before I go further, let me just preface this by saying that I don't know how much you currently pay for your Verizon Wireless service, since you didn't indicate that in your question. So as I run the numbers and compare the services, I am going to compare T-Mobile's new plan with Verizon's current plans that it sells to new wireless customers. If you have a different plan, you will have to compare the pricing yourself to see how much money you could save.

The comparison

T-Mobile's plans start at $50 a month for unlimited voice and text messaging service. At that price you get 500MB of data at full 3G/4G speeds. If you exceed 500MB of data in a month, you aren't charged an overage fee. But the speed of your service will be slowed until the beginning of the next billing cycle.
Meanwhile, the least expensive service from Verizon is $90 per month ($50 for 1GB of data and $40 for a smartphone.) If you exceed the 1GB of data in your plan, you will be charged overage fees. Overage fees start at $10 for 1GB of data.

But let's compare apples to apples and see what the price difference is between the two services. Let's say you want at least 2GB of data at full 3G/4G speed. On T-Mobile's new plan that service will cost you $60 a month. Verizon's service is $100 for 2GB of data ($60 for 2GB of data and a $40 smartphone fee.)

The difference in cost between these two plans is $40 per month. In one year, you will save $480 on the T-Mobile plan. (If you're willing to live with 500MB plan and possibly get slower service when exceed 500MB of data, you could save $600 in one year.)

Of course, this comparison does not account for the fact that you need a phone that can operate on T-Mobile's network. Verizon uses different technology for its voice services, which are not compatible with T-Mobile, so your old Verizon phone won't work on T-Mobile.

As we compare the cost of adding a new T-Mobile device into the mix, let's assume that you would upgrade your device on Verizon too. And I'll use the iPhone 5 as an example.

T-Mobile If you buy a new iPhone 5 from T-Mobile, you can either pay full price for the phone when you sign up for service, or you can pay for the device in monthly installments over 24 months. If you pay over 24 months, you will tack on another $20 a month to your service. But in reality, it doesn't matter whether you pay for the device upfront or if you pay for it over 24 months. The cost of the device will be the same, since T-Mobile is offering zero percent financing.

Let's say that you want the 2GB data service from T-Mobile and the 16GB iPhone 5. The cost of the phone is $580. And the service fee is $60 per month. Over two years, you will have paid $2,020 for the iPhone 5 on T-Mobile's 2GB plan.

Verizon A brand new 16GB iPhone 5 on Verizon costs $200 if you agree to a two-year contract. The 2GB service is $100 per month. This means that over two years, which is the standard contract period, the total cost of ownership on Verizon is $2,600.

The result: In just two years, you will be saving $580 by using T-Mobile instead of Verizon. But the savings don't stop there. Regardless of whether you financed the iPhone over 24 months or you paid for it in full when you bought it, after two years, the device is paid for. And you are no longer paying your carrier for the device.

Bottom line

When you compare the total cost of ownership between the two carriers, it's easy to see that you will save hundreds of dollars with T-Mobile over the course of a typical two-year contract.
I think some people are confused by the fact that T-Mobile is requiring customers to pay for their phones. But the reality is that every carrier makes its customers pay the full price of their phones and then some. You may only be paying $100 or $200 for a new phone when you sign your contract. But over the life of your contract, you are paying for the device, since that cost of the carrier subsidy is bundled into the price of your monthly service. And if you leave your contract early, you are socked with a hefty early termination fee.

The biggest difference between T-Mobile's plan and the rest of the carriers is that with T-Mobile once you're done paying for your phone, your out-of-pocket expense goes down. Meanwhile, Verizon and other carriers that subsidize phones continue to charge the same service fees they charged when they were recouping the cost of the subsidy. What this means is that once you have paid back the cost of the subsidy, the portion of your monthly bill that had paid for that subsidy is now profit for the carrier.

What's more if you bring a device you already own to the network or you buy an unlocked device at full price to use on that network, you will pay the same monthly service charge as someone who bought a subsidized device.

I am the first person to admit that I don't trust wireless carriers. It always seems like they are trying to squeeze more cash out of their subscribers. But when I look at the new T-Mobile plans, I can honestly say that I don't think T-Mobile is cheating anyone.

The reality is that no carrier can afford to give devices away for free. That doesn't make good business sense. But the subsidy model that we're all used to in the U.S. only encourages customers to tie themselves to two-year contracts. And it penalizes customers who either want to keep an existing device once their contracts expire or want to buy unlocked devices at full price. Meanwhile, T-Mobile's plans will encourage people to either keep their devices longer or search for the best deals on new phones. And as a savvy bargain hunter and self-professed cheapskate, I think that's great.
The only reason that I am not signing up for one of T-Mobile's new plans right now is because its service isn't available everywhere I travel. If it were, I'd be first in line for this service.
I hope this advice was helpful. I hope you save a bundle!

Is T-Mobile's device financing flexible?

,Question:

 I am pretty excited about T-mobile's new service plans. I have been a long time prepaid customer with Virgin Mobile but have long been disappointed with the selection of phones they offer as well as those phones being locked to Virgin. What T-mobile has come up with in my view is a good compromise between pre and post paid payment models.

That said, I am still confused about a couple things regarding the cost of the phones. It appears that T-mobile allows you to either pay full price for the device and forgo any monthly payment, or you can pay a low upfront cost with payments broken up over the course of two years.

My question is will T-Mobile allow you to either lower the payment or lesson the term by paying more upfront? For instance could I pay $250 for a Blackberry Z10 instead of $100 to lower my monthly payment or to have a shorter payment term on the phone? Also, will Tmobile allow customers to pay off phone sooner than two years all at once if they so desire?
Thanks for the clarification, and keep the great column coming!
Thanks,
 
Answer:,

 You can put more money down when you sign up for the service, but T-Mobile will not allow you to reduce the monthly payment.

That is a set price depending on the device you buy, a T-Mobile spokesman told me. That said, if you increase the down payment, you will pay off the device in a shorter period of time. As an example, if the BlackBerry Z10 costs $580, and you put $250 down, you'd pay the regular $20 a month fee to T-Mobile for 16.5 months instead of 24 months.
Also, you are free to pay off the balance on the device at any time during the finance period. In other words, let's say you put $100 down when you bought the phone, you could pay the remaining $480 anytime you like and there is no penalty.

I hope this answered your question. And good luck.

Please visit our ONLINE STORE for a complete selection of discount cell phones, used cell phones, refurbished cell phones as well as new and used tablets.

Cellular Phone Refurbished-Despite Google patent efforts, VP8 no shoo-in for Web video

Despite Google patent efforts, VP8 no shoo-in for Web video- Cellular Phone Refurbished-

Nokia refuses to license patents it says are needed to use Google's video technology, sullying Google's earlier patent deal. But WebRTC could still spread VP8 widely, lowering Web video costs for startups and schools.
 Get Cell Phone Cheap Today at www.mylancellular.com
 

Justin Uberti, a WebRTC leader and VP8 advocate at Google, speaking at Google IO 2012.
Justin Uberti, a WebRTC leader and VP8 advocate at Google, speaking at Google IO 2012.
  
A Google patent-licensing deal two weeks ago dramatically improved the fortunes of its VP8 video technology, but Nokia has added a barricade to what has already been an arduous road to adoption.
VP8 is a codec -- technology to encode and decode video or audio data for compact storage and efficient network streaming. Despite passionate debates about VP8 vs. the incumbent codec, H.264, most people need never care about video codecs.
But as video becomes ever more deeply embedded in the Net -- TV entertainment, chatting with friends, videoconferences for business, online schooling for children -- the video codec issue becomes ever more important. At stake in the current debate is whether H.264 and its big-business licensing terms will prevail, or whether there also is room for an open-source, free-to-use alternative that could give an edge to cash-strapped startups, schools, and self-publishers.
Spreading VP8
Google and allies including Mozilla want to build VP8 into the workings of the Net as a royalty-free technology. The current focus for the debate is WebRTC, a technology for Web-based chat that members of the Internet Engineering Task Force are standardizing.

Two weeks ago, Google announced a VP8 patent deal that could have helped persuade IETF members that VP8 support should be a mandatory part of WebRTC.
WebRTC has a lot of momentum -- it's even got its own conference -- so it could conceivably carry VP8 all around the Net. That would start with browsers, but then could extend into smartphone processors, video-streaming sites, set-top boxes, and video cameras.
Google's patent deal was with MPEG LA, which licenses pools of video patents used for various standards, and it cleared some of the clouds of intellectual-property risk that loomed over VP8.
But Nokia last week told IETF members that it's got patents that bear on VP8. And in discussions about the related WebRTC, an IETF standard for browser-based audio and video chat, efforts so far have failed to produce consensus that VP8 should be required as mandatory to implement (MTI).
Google has steadily pushed for years its aspirations for royalty-free video on the Web, including through its $123 million acquisition of VP8 developer On2 Technologies. WebRTC gives Google, Mozilla, and others a second chance to build VP8 into the workings of the Web -- something they failed to do years earlier when hammering out how to build video directly into the standard for Web pages themselves, HTML. WebRTC is built into Chrome and Firefox and about to arrive in Chrome for Android, and developer adoption would help spread VP8 far and wide.

WebRTC logo
 
Patents are a significant problem to VP8 and its use in WebRTC, but not the only barrier. The biggest issue, arguably, is simply that the industry so far has largely coalesced around H.264, aka AVC, and it looks likely to move smoothly to its successor, H.265 aka HEVC.

The technology is well-understood and broadly supported. With H.264, makers of Web browsers, video cameras, mobile-phone processors, and DVDs pay royalties to MPEG LA which licenses a pool of patents for the codec.

Computing industry players are accustomed to H.264 royalty payments -- indeed, Cisco would like H.264 to be the mandatory WebRTC codec. But that price is a big deal to smaller players.
"Speaking as a developer working for a company with much less money than yours," Lorenzo Miniero of Web-based videoconferencing company Meetecho told Cisco in a mailing list post, "if the IETF selects H.264 as the MTI codec, this will make it even more dramatically difficult and expensive (if not impossible) for pretty much everybody else to use WebRTC."
Also, patent-encumbered technology is fundamentally at odds with open-source software such as Mozilla's Firefox, and therefore can't tap into the energy and cooperation of open-source programming.
Google works to steadily improve the performance and image quality of its software for encoding and decoding VP8 video. It does the same with offers freely available technology that lets chipmakers build VP8 support into hardware. This graph shows the latest hardware encoder, Foxtail, producing significantly higher quality than the first-generation Anthill version at the same network transmission rate. Alternatively, it offers the same quality at a lower bitrate. Foxtail also beats out Duclair; the decoding software.
Google works to steadily improve the performance and image quality of its software for encoding and decoding VP8 video. It does the same with freely available technology that lets chipmakers build VP8 support into hardware. This graph shows the latest hardware encoder, Foxtail, producing significantly higher quality than the first-generation Anthill version at the same network transmission rate. Alternatively, it offers the same quality at a lower bitrate. Foxtail also beats out Duclair; the decoding software.
(Credit: Google/WebM) 
 
"Having open-source codecs will allow for faster acceptance and faster improvements to the codec by the development community," said Paul Greenlea, a programmer and strategist at development shop Fresh Tilled Soil, which just published a demonstration of WebRTC-based chat using Chrome running on a Google Nexus 7 and on a MacBook Air
.
Google works hard to improve VP8 as part of the higher-level WebM project, which bundles VP8 and the Vorbis audio codec for streaming video. Periodic releases of freely available VP8 encoders and decoders technology, usable either as software libraries or for building into video hardware, show steady improvements in image quality at a given network transmission data rate.

Google's MPEG LA patent deal

Google's VP8 deal with MPEG LA, announced earlier this month, gave Google "a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8" held by 11 patent holders.
One snag, though: In 2011, 12 organizations came forward to say they had VP8-essential patents when MPEG LA said it was investigating the formation of a VP8 patent pool.
Nokia, apparently the 12th company, isn't playing along. "The declaration says that Nokia is not prepared to license the listed patents for RFC 6386 under any terms," Nokia's Markus Isomaki said on the IETF's WebRTC mailing list. RFC 6386 is a Google description of VP8 at IETF.
In addition to trying to coax the tech industry to adopt VP8 as mandatory in WebRTC, Google is trying to standardize VP8 itself. In January, it brought VP8 to the International Organization for Standardization, submitting VP8 to the ISO working group known as the Motion Picture Expert Group (MPEG). That's the very group that produced H.264 and its brand-new sequel, HEVC/H.265.
VP8 allies had hoped to convince WebRTC standards group members that VP8 should be a mandatory-to-implement codec. At a November 2012 meeting, the WebRTC group was set to see if there was consensus on the matter -- but Google abruptly yanked the item off the agenda and pushed it back to the next IETF meeting in March.

WebM logo
 
The MPEG LA deal arrived shortly before the March meeting was set to begin, though. Among those who bridled to see the agenda including a WebRTC codec discussion were representatives from Apple and Microsoft, two companies that are big H.264 fans; they wanted more time to digest the MPEG LA deal and more information about what companies are actually involved in it.
"The decision rests on (at least) late-breaking news, and unavailable information, and I am opposed to any move to get a formal decision for a mandatory video codec at the meeting," Apple's David Singer said in a mailing list message. "There is some very important data (notably, the names of the 11 and the resulting license) which is promised to be available in only a few weeks. Let's not decide in haste (and possibly repent at leisure)," he added.
And Microsoft's Matthew Kaufman said Google's announcement "was posted too late to be of any value for this meeting."
Ultimately, the IETF group again postponed WebRTC codec issue.

Catching the mobile wave

 But that was just agenda wrangling. In another high-traffic discussion item, Internet giant Cisco championed H.264 as the mandatory WebRTC codec, arguing that VP8 would hold the standard back. It came from a post by Jonathan Rosenberg, chief technology officer of Cisco's cloud collaboration group:
I would like to suggest that, at this time, adoption of VP8 as MTI [mandatory-to-implement codec] will slow down adoption of WebRTC by turning off developers that would otherwise embrace it if H.264 were selected...

The reality is [that] today's Internet communications systems are built on H.264. And unless the developer cares only about living within the island of the web browser, a VP8 based solution will simply not meet their requirements...
If IETF selects VP8 as the MTI codec, this will make it dramatically more difficult and expensive for us to use WebRTC.
Google employees offered rebuttals. Google's Justin Uberti objected to the idea of the Web as an island, referring indirectly to the number of Firefox, Chrome, and Chrome for Android browsers that support WebRTC: "I think it is worthwhile to point out that within weeks, there will be 2B+ [more than 2 billion] deployed WebRTC endpoints, across desktop and mobile, that support VP8. Surely that dwarfs the total number of deployed H.264 endpoints by several orders of magnitude."
Added Harald Alvestrand, a Google VP8 author, in a mailing list message, "When we have a growing market, and are intending to do a change, we always have a choice between early and late change. The later we leave the change, the more devices there will be out there with 'before-the-change' technology deployed. If we think the switch to VP8 makes sense at any time in the future, it's less expensive to start the switch now than to start the switch later."
And the hardware support is coming so mobile devices won't use so much power decoding VP8 video. Alvestrand included a VP8 image quality test that describes the state of hardware support:
More than a dozen chip manufacturers have announced chips with 1080p VP8 support, including Samsung (Exynos 5), NVIDIA (Tegra 3), Marvell (Armada 1500), Broadcom (BCM28150), Texas Instruments (OMAP54xx), Freescale (i.MX 6), STEricsson (NovaThor L9540), LG Electronics, Hisilicon (K3v2), Rockchip (RK2918, RK3066), Nufront (NS115), Ziilabs (ZMS40) and Allwinner (A10). Clear majority of leading mobile chipsets in 2013 will contain VP8 hardware support.
VP8 will catch on

 Ultimately, VP8 will find a place, said Karl Dahlin, vice president of business development at videoconferencing hardware company AVer. H.264 is widely used for corporate viceoconferencing chat rooms, but things will change with the spread of mobile videoconferencing.
"The rush of consumer-based videoconferencing today and new applications of WebRTC will use VP8, and mobile videoconferencing users will eclipse [traditional video chat] rooms very quickly," with 100 times as much usage, Dahlin predicted.
Although it's easier to focus development and testing resources when there's only one standard, that's not going to be the future of video, he said.
The end result of all this wrestling will be quite simple, he said: "The infrastructure for video should support both."

Correction, 10:52 a.m. PT: The caption beneath the graph incorrectly identified the top performing encoder shown in the graph itself. That encoder is Google's Foxtail VP8 encoder.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

cellular phone discount-beats Samsung Galaxy S IV (13 Mega Pixel) in terms of Camera Quality


cellular phone discount-beats Samsung Galaxy S IV (13 Mega Pixel) in terms of Camera Quality

 



Screen Shot 2013-03-15 at 7.19.46 AM

If you are thinking of buying a smartphone in the second quarter of 2013, you might be caught in a dilemma between Samsung Galaxy S IV and HTC One. They are both high-end products released just earlier this month and will be available worldwide starting next month.

Samsung Galaxy S IV (GS4) might have won the battle in terms of the hardware. Specwise, the GS4 just can’t lose because it has a 4+4 core processor in selected countries. It has a 13 mega pixel camera and 2600 mAh battery. However, the figures are just figures, we don’t know how it eventually comes out.

Some guy at the Samsung Unpacked 2013 took photos with the HTC One and compared it with the GS4. The result suggests that HTC One might have a better image quality than the GS4 with its 4 mega pixel camera working with its own UltraPixel imaging technology. UltraPixel is something nearing the PureView from Nokia, it fixes and improves the brightness and contrast while capturing. The imaging software certainly plays a role in improving the final picture. From the photos below, you can see the colour under the HTC One’s UltraPixel camera looks brighter under indoor environment. The low-light performance of the HTC-One surely overtake the Samsung GS4′s 13 mega pixel camera.

However, both of the photos are produced in shaky hands and we really can’t tell which is sharper. More reviews will come when these two smartphones become available.


s_4afc8737a9bb4890a6d854b8951a3984 s_0703512df5ab43a1b677746dae0bea41 s_10cc3da2b2894cfeb9956091039148f7 s_d4b4e1e6696d441daacb108b455290ad





Please visit our ONLINE STORE for a complete selection of discount cell phones, used cell phones, refurbished cell phones as well as new and used tablets.

Friday, March 22, 2013

used cell phones cheap-BlackBerry CEO says iPhone is outdated

By Mylan Cellular, Friday March 22, 2013. 


used cell phones cheap-BlackBerry CEO says iPhone is outdated



Mylan Cellular Discount cell phones

Blackberry photo

A woman uses a new touchscreen BlackBerry Z10 smartphone, put on display during a launch event for the new phone in London, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013. 

     Mylan Cellular

We are based in Burleson, Texas, and sell discount cell phones and Used cell phones and unlocked cell phones and refurbished cell phones Cheap as well as new and used tablets, online, across the state, and nationwide. 
March 22, 2013

 — 
Apple's iPhone is outdated, according to the chief executive of BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion Ltd.
Thorsten Heins made the comment Thursday on the eve of the much-delayed launch of the new touchscreen BlackBerry in the United States. AT&T begins selling the Z10 touchscreen BlackBerry on Friday, more than six weeks after RIM launched the devices elsewhere.
Heins also told The Associated Press that a new keyboard version of the BlackBerry won't be released in the U.S. until two or three months from now. He previously said it would be eight to 10 weeks, but now he's saying it could be delayed an additional two weeks.
Both the touchscreen and keyboard models are part of RIM's attempt at a comeback after the pioneering brand lost its cachet not long after Apple's 2007 release of the iPhone.
Heins said a lack of innovation at Apple has left iPhone's user interface outdated. He noted iPhone users have to go in and out of applications and the device doesn't allow for multitasking like the new BlackBerry Z10 does.
"It's still the same," Heins said of the iPhone. "It is a sequential way to work and that's not what people want today anymore. They want multitasking."
RIM's new software allows users to have multiple applications open like on a desktop, he said, noting that with BlackBerry you don't have to close an application to check an email.
"We're changing it for the better because we're allowing people to peak in the hub," Heins said.
Heins said the iPhone was revolutionary five years ago, but he said it's now "just kind of sitting there."
Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris declined comment.
But the delay in selling the new keypad BlackBerry, called the Q10, complicates RIM's efforts to hang on to customers tempted by the iPhone and a range of devices running Google Inc.'s Android operating system. Even as the BlackBerry has fallen behind rivals in recent years, many BlackBerry users have stayed loyal because they prefer a physical keyboard over the touch screen found on the iPhone and most Android devices. But the temptations to switch grow with each additional delay, despite favorable reviews for new system.
Heins said the Q10 keyboard version BlackBerry is just not ready yet and said part of the reason is out of his control.
"It's our job to deliver the right software package and the right software quality to the carriers," he said. "Then it is on the carriers to decide how intense they want their testing cycle to be and that really can range from a few weeks to three months."
U.S. carriers reportedly haven't made testing a priority because RIM, which is based in Based in Waterloo, Ontario, has dramatically lost market share. The U.S. has been one market in which RIM has been particularly hurting, even as the company is doing well overseas. According to research firm IDC, shipments of BlackBerry phones plummeted from 46 percent of the U.S. market in 2008 to 2 percent in 2012. The iPhone and Android now dominate.
Heins said the company has to regain market share in the U.S. for BlackBerry to be successful.
"You got to win here to win everywhere else," he said. "That's just the way it is. We've lost market share quite a bit, to put it mildly, and we absolutely need BlackBerry 10 to turn us around."
Heins said initial sales in other countries are encouraging, but he could not release numbers ahead of RIM's earnings report next Thursday.
"I get more and more excited every day," he said. "I really have to make sure I stay grounded and I don't lose my sense for reality. But for the whole company this is so important to finally be here, and to see people buying it, after we were told 30 months ago when we started that two quarters down the road we would be bankrupt, we would be out of business."


Please visit our ONLINE STORE for a complete selection of discount cell phones, used cell phones, refurbished cell phones as well as new and used tablets.



    Monday, March 4, 2013

    cellular phone discount-White House throws support behind unlocking phones


    cellular phone discount-White House throws support behind unlocking phones



    The Obama administration said it supports consumers who want to unlock their mobile phones without fear of breaking the law, and it urged legislative fixes to remedy a recent government ruling on the topic that removed protections for people who do unlock their phones.
    A petition on the subject has so far received more than 114,00 signatures, well above the 100,000-threshold needed to trigger an official White House response. The petition, started Jan. 25 by OpenSignal co-founder Sina Khanifar, asked that "the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal."
    "The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties," wrote R. David Edelman, the administration's senior advisor for Internet, innovation and privacy, in the White House's response to the petition. "In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smartphones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs."

    Please visit our ONLINE STORE for a complete selection of discount cell phones, used cell phones, refurbished cell phones as well as new and used tablets.


    The ruling, from the Library of Congress, concerns the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and was issued last October. In effect, the Library of Congress, which governs copyright law, said that there is no copyright exemption for unlocking cellphones, making unauthorized unlocking potentially illegal.
    Currently, if U.S. mobile customers want to unlock their handset and bring it to another carrier, they now need express permission from their current carrier to do so, according to a government ruling that went into effect Jan. 26.

    The ruling generated outrage among consumers. "Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad," the petition against the ruling states. "It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full."

    Edelman wrote in the White House response that the administration "would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation."

    In response to the White House's latest statement, the Library of Congress, which is an arm of Congress and therefore not subject to control by the administration, said that "the question of locked cell phones has implications for telecommunications policy and that it would benefit from review and resolution in that context."
    "The rulemaking is a technical, legal proceeding and involves a lengthy public process," the statement from the Library of Congress said. "It requires the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights to consider exemptions to the prohibitions on circumvention, based on a factual record developed by the proponents and other interested parties. The officials must consider whether the evidence establishes a need for the exemption based on several statutory factors. It does not permit the U.S. Copyright Office to create permanent exemptions to the law. As designed by Congress, the rulemaking serves a very important function, but it was not intended to be a substitute for deliberations of broader public policy."

    The Obama administration, through the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, will also work with the FCC on the issue. "Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices," Edelman wrote
    .
    "From a communications policy perspective, this raises serious competition and innovation concerns, and for wireless consumers, it doesn't pass the common sense test," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement. "The FCC is examining this issue, looking into whether the agency, wireless providers, or others should take action to preserve consumers' ability to unlock their mobile phones. I also encourage Congress to take a close look and consider a legislative solution."


    This petition has been responded to by the White House. See the response below.

    WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

    Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal.

    The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
    As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
    Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
    The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
    We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.


    TOTAL SIGNATURES

    114,322
    OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO
    Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal.

    It's Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking

    Thank you for sharing your views on cell phone unlocking with us through your petition on our We the People platform. Last week the White House brought together experts from across government who work on telecommunications, technology, and copyright policy, and we're pleased to offer our response.
    The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.
    This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.
    The White House's position detailed in this response builds on some critical thinking done by the President's chief advisory Agency on these matters: the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). For more context and information on the technical aspects of the issue, you can review the NTIA's letter to the Library of Congress' Register of Copyrights (.pdf), voicing strong support for maintaining the previous exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cell phone carrier unlocking.
    Contrary to the NTIA's recommendation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that phones purchased after January of this year would no longer be exempted from the DMCA. The law gives the Librarian the authority to establish or eliminate exceptions -- and we respect that process. But it is also worth noting the statement the Library of Congress released today on the broader public policy concerns of the issue. Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved.
    So where do we go from here?
    The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.
    We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.
    Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.
    We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you -- the everyday consumers who stand to benefit from this greater flexibility -- to ensure our laws keep pace with changing technology, protect the economic competitiveness that has led to such innovation in this space, and offer consumers the flexibility and freedoms they deserve.
    For discount cell phones, used cell phones and refurbished cell phones as well as new and used tablets. Please visit our online store.





    d