Unlocking Phones after 90 days

Reply
Highlighted
I'm a Contributor Level 2
I'm a Contributor Level 2

Unlocking Phones after 90 days

Why must a service provider charge a fee to unlock the device during or after the term is over?  I understand why the might charge a fee during the term but after it should be free unlock!  Is this really necessary to charge a fee to make money?

 

***Edited to add labels***

Accepted Solution

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days

There is a ot involved in the unlocking process both from an administrative and technical standpoint which is why there is a fee. 

View solution in context
Flag this to a Moderator
Message 1 of 34
9,402 Views
Highlighted
Former Moderator
Former Moderator
Solution

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days

There is a ot involved in the unlocking process both from an administrative and technical standpoint which is why there is a fee. 



Flag this to a Moderator
Message 2 of 34
4,813 Views
Highlighted
I'm Helpful Level 2
I'm Helpful Level 2

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days

The phone when bought at full price should never be allowed to be sold locked in the first place.  We already pay Fido an inflated cost for the device, pay a $25 hardware upgrade fee, and then have to pay $50 to have it unlocked.  Simpler to just buy a phone from Google, Apple or Samsung directly.  

Flag this to a Moderator
Message 3 of 34
4,794 Views
Highlighted
I'm Helpful Level 3
I'm Helpful Level 3

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days

Ok, fair enough, there is a cost associated with unlocking the phones. What about the costs associated with locking the phones, who is paying for that? As SpiltBwater said if bought at full price why sell it locked why not sell it unlocked? No costs associated with locking the phone, no cost associated with unlocking the phone, oh, almost forgot, could it be more like a lost revenue issue?

 

When bought at full price, costs (admin, tech) are just a scapegoat, the real reason is to add another roadblock to the options that customers have in this industry and a new revenue tool for the carrier. Back in 2000 my first phone from Fido was unlocked but at that time Fido was the only game in town (GSM).

 

I’m just wondering why is this allowed, why the sale of a product at full price can be conditioned/tied to the sale of a service? We wouldn’t accept to choose between a 55" Samsung TV locked to either Bell or Rogers and pay an “unlock” fee to be able to use the TV with whatever TV provider we wish.

 

What if car manufacturers would sell directly to the oil companies, what a win win proposition. The consumer would get a choice of buying an Accord at full price with either a (free) Petro Canada membership (read locked to filling up only at PC stations) or a (free) Esso membership. Then if one would like to fill up at any gas station there would be an “unlocking” fee paid to the oil companies for “costs associated with the unlocking process both from an administrative and technical standpoint” (paperwork and something like reprogramming a chip inside your car to pair up with any chip at any pump).

Flag this to a Moderator
Message 4 of 34
4,725 Views
Highlighted
Former Moderator
Former Moderator

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days

The unlocking policy is in compliance with the CRTC's rules.


Flag this to a Moderator
Message 5 of 34
4,690 Views
Highlighted
Fido Employee
Fido Employee

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days

The  easiest way to avoid the unlocking fee, is to go straight to the manufactorer and purchase the phone at full cost.

 

But instead, people like the convience of going to a store, purchasing a device at a subsidized cost and spreading it out over 2 years.  For doing this, you must agree to the companies policies for unlocking. Which is the standard 90 day rule.  Fido is well within the rules of doing this.  

 

Personally, I would prefer if every phone cost $50 more upfront on contract and came unlocked.  But that is me.



Flag this to a Moderator
Message 6 of 34
4,671 Views
Highlighted
I'm Helpful Level 3
I'm Helpful Level 3

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days

Rachel, I understand your position. There used to be a time when common sense issues didn’t have to be regulated, even more, businesses used to “regulate” themselves, thus there was no need for regulatory bodies.

 

Businesses in order to achieve their interests are pushing ahead near to or even over what used to be considered common sense and as long as the society accepts it (does not react) it’s ok and when rules are put in place to slow down “their imagination” then we get the standard answer “We are complying with the rules”.

 

Tie-in sales or bundled sales of unsubsidized products is illegal in many places under many laws (antitrust, competition, fairness) and sooner or later one way (self-regulation) or other (laws/rules) the carriers will have to compete based on the services they provide and not by the phones they sell.

 

While I could challenge what you said I am not going to, I’m sure your time would be better spent in helping other Fido customers with their problems rather than debating this type of issues.

Flag this to a Moderator
Message 7 of 34
4,664 Views
Highlighted
I'm Helpful Level 3
I'm Helpful Level 3

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days

Agree with what you said about subsidized phones. Now would you care to share your views regarding unlocking in case the phone is purchased at full price? I mean I made sure that I used “full price” in all paragraphs so someone will not spin this into a subsidized issues.

 

Unless you have something to add should I suppose that it’s ok with you to buy a locked phone at full price and then pay a fee to unlock it? Also for manufacturers that do not sell directly to customers would appreciate if you could share any info that you may have regarding any arrangement Rogers/Fido might have with phone manufacturers.

Flag this to a Moderator
Message 8 of 34
4,662 Views
Highlighted
I'm an Expert Level 2
I'm an Expert Level 2

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days


@sheedy17 wrote:

The  easiest way to avoid the unlocking fee, is to go straight to the manufactorer and purchase the phone at full cost.

 

But instead, people like the convience of going to a store, purchasing a device at a subsidized cost and spreading it out over 2 years.  For doing this, you must agree to the companies policies for unlocking. Which is the standard 90 day rule.  Fido is well within the rules of doing this.  

 

Personally, I would prefer if every phone cost $50 more upfront on contract and came unlocked.  But that is me.



Actually, in exchange for the discount on the phone, what you must agree to is the contract or agreement. Nowhere in that agreement does it stipulate anything about the state of the phone being locked or unlocked nor when the policies are for unlocking it. On the face of it, it is ridiculous to even suggest that.

 

1) When I buy a phone, off contract, from the carrier, it is still locked. Why? Because the lock has nothing to do with the contract.

2) In what other industry are they allowed to cripped your property in order to force you to only use their services with your property?

 

As I said, in exchange for the discount, you agreed to a long term service contract at very high monthly rates. That's what you give up in exchange for the up front discount. There is no good and legitimate reason for the carrier to ever lock that phone. It is your property. You owe nothing on it. You are bound by your contract and that is all that you owe to the carrier.  Could a car company force you to buy gas only from them even though you bought the car outright from them? Could a bank prevent you from doing business with another bank just because you have an account with them? Wireless carriers are one of the few industries that are allowed to impose artificial restraints on trade.

 

In effect, you are saying they lock the phones because they can. Aside from that circular logic, can you provide just one legitimate reason for locking phones to even be allowed?

Flag this to a Moderator
Message 9 of 34
4,653 Views
Highlighted
I'm Helpful Level 2
I'm Helpful Level 2

Re: Unlocking Phones after 90 days

"The unlocking policy is in compliance with the CRTC's rules."

 

It is the locking policy that the CRTC should protect consumers from.  In Europe a phone cannot be sold locked.  They actually have a regulator that cares about consumers.  With Fido and their locking policy, there is no reason I can see why anyone would purchase a phone at full price through them.  Would that make a company successful, for making barriers high enough to not choose to purchase with them?

 

Also, if phone plans are also including the cost of subsidizing a device, I would think Fido should offer more then 10% BYOD discount as that nets me $40 annually for using my own device.  Charge higher price for subsidizing the phones for the consumers who use that option.

Flag this to a Moderator
Message 10 of 34
4,651 Views