Freedom Mobile calls on CRTC to do away with unlocking fees


  • DownwithRobellus

    The Big Three Canadian carriers — Rogers, Telus and Bell — all currently charge $50 for unlocking, but Freedom notes that the fees can rise as high as $75 CAD.

    You end up paying for the phone in the end but these snakes still try to charge you to unlock it!

    • Jason van de Laar

      Indeed, you are literally paying $50-$75 for a text message containing the code.

    • DownwithRobellus

      Worst is you can go online and get the unlock code for $10-$20. Further proof that this is just a quick cash grab before you leave for another wireless carrier.

    • Victor Creed

      $10-$20 to unlock an iPhone? Where?

  • It’s Me

    This needs to happen. Locking phones was only ever a scam to extract more money from customers than their contracts allowed.

  • Jim__R

    Good on FM for bringing this up!
    There is not now, nor has there ever been, a legitimate reason for selling locked phones.

    • It’s Me

      ^100% this.

    • Alex

      ya, the contract is there for a reason, to lock the phone too is just stupid.

    • Hello Moto ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Good on FM? Yeah……that’s why FM is still charging unlock fees. Maybe they should consider practicing what they preach?

  • Alex

    Its actually wrong to do so. We have a contract with the provider that gave us the phone. I have to stay, or face a cancellation fee that can be substantial, and is there to also pay off the phone’s cost too. BUT, to pay for unlocking is absolutely ridiculous. Lots of people go overseas, and trips. More now than before since its so easy to plan stuff, and with phones, we can easily figure out where to go, when we get there too.

    But with phones locked, we can’t put in another sim, and have it working without it being unlocked.
    My dad had to take an emergency trip to China, and couldn’t use his phone other than emails because Bell locked his phone. Normally i remember, but he basically got on the plane the same day he was told to, so. forgot.
    I had an hour talk with rogers for my gf’s phone, since she was going back for a month. In the end, rogers denied a free unlock code, (obviously) and in the end, she just used a cousins old phone there. but it was dumb, cause she had a perfectly usable iphone… that was locked…

  • seekr

    Oh great! Does this mean we can expect Freedom Mobile to stop charging for unlocking their hardware too? I hope they do lead by example, instead of trying to get some free press for ideologically stating something they are not practicing.

  • This is why people should buy phones outright. None of these issue happen when you buy direct from the OEM. Unlock fees are fair because you are at the mercy of the lender.

    If you don’t like the rules there are options lol Freedom is playing on the ignorance and laziness of people to get free press. Since many know they charge the same fees they want to do away with.

    • Walter

      Have you seen the prices of the current iPhones and Google phones. I am terrified to see what Samsung will be demanding.

    • seekr

      exactly! I couldn’t agree more.

    • hardy83

      Freedom argues though that they have discussed the matter with many OEMs and said that they were willing to sell bulk phones to carriers unlocked.

      Who those OEMs were, or what exactly was said should be looked into, but it’s just more proof that phone locking is a carrier decision, not an OEM.

      Why do you think it’s fine that phones be locked? The only reason phones are locked is to keep customers from switching. If the customer paid for the phone outright (which they have to if they cancel regardless of contracts), then they shouldn’t have to be charged to use the phone with another carrier.
      The only barrier for that should be technical, as in a cell phone doesn’t support a carriers frequency, not a software lock for sim cards.

    • It is absolutely the carrier but as a business it makes sense. If someone can come into my shop and get a phone for $0 down and leave the next day to another company, thats a huge loss for me. People can still do that but the unlock fee and the contract and other factors are deterrents. If people were honest and a little less lazy, we wouldn’t have to pay for a lot of the things we have to pay for.

      Thank your peers.

    • It’s Me

      Um, no, it’s no loss at all for you. That’s poor logic. They can still start using another carrier, you can’t stop them. And whether they do or not, you’ve lost nothing because they still are obligated by the contract. You still get paid, whether they choose to also pay another carrier or not. All the lock does is to try to extract additional money from your customer that they didn’t agree to pay you and to prevent them from using their personal property without only paying you. That’s dirty.

      If people weren’t as lazy in their thinking and didn’t just accept nonsensical excuses there wouldn’t be a lock. Thank your peers and the regulators.

    • so as a business who’s sole purpose is to make money and avoid loss. You say they should give expensives phones away in a high churn market with no other fall back but a contract that many walk away from and never pay, is good business?

      You wouldn’t be in business that long. There are options to avoid extra fees and contracts so why blame a business for being a business?

    • It’s Me

      Yes, that’s exactly what I would suggest. That they honour the terms of the agreement you have with them instead of creating an intentional defect whose only reason to exist is to extort additional money from you or handicap your property.

      There is a legal term for interfering with someone’s ability to do business. It’s called anti-trust and anti-competitive behaviour or restraint of trade. There is a term for creating a problem that only you can fix and that you charge to fix, its called racketeering.

      You might think a business needs to abuse their customers or act immorally. I don’t. I think the customer is entitled to what they agreed to. I think the business is entitled to what they agreed to. You seem to think it’s ok for a company to both extort money that isn’t part of the agreement and to hold their customer’s property hostage until extra money not intended by the agreement is paid.

      If you are ok taking money you never earned, then that’s great. Hopefully you stay in business. Actually, hopefully you stay out of jail.

    • You would make a great lawyer painting such a picture lol but they are their phones to do what ever with. An iPhone from Apple is unlocked but cost a lot up front. The problem isn’t the phone is locked, its not wanting to pay for an unlocked phone.

      If they locked all phones regardless of purchase that would be illegal but you can’t say its illegal when you agree to buy a bell phone from bell. All business do this in some degree but then again, no one buys a honda to complain that they can’t put toyota parts in it.

    • It’s Me

      Um yes, people would complain if they bought a Honda and weren’t allowed to use compatible parts from Toyota. In fact there are laws to prevent such abuse. You might be too young, but decades ago TVs were forced to use a standard cable jack (“cable ready”) to prevent such forced Balkanization. You buy a computer, you are allowed to upgrade with compatible parts without having to pay an extortion fee. You buy a car, you’re allowed to buy gas for it from anywhere not just gas stations owned by your financing company. You buy a house, you can take a loan from another bank and not just the one that loaned you your mortgage.

      You should get what you pay for. The company should get what they agreed to and nothing more.

    • That is fine but on contract and reduced price, you haven’t bought anything yet. At the end of the contract the rule should be to unlock it or on an outright buy. Other than that, buying the unlock code is pretty fair.

    • It’s Me

      What? You bought a phone. They reduced the price, but you bought it. It’s yours, free and clear. Use it, sell it or flush it down the toilet, it is your phone, 100%. In exchange, you agreed to pay them a very expensive monthly fee. That’s what they get out of the deal. You get a discount on a phone. They get guaranteed, expensive and lucrative monthly fees and you get a phone at a discount.

      The lock have nothing to do with that agreement. A lock doesn’t not enforce that deal. All the lock does is prevent you from using the phone that is your property as you might want to use it….while still paying your fees. That’s all it was ever meant to do, handicap your property and for one reason (not the contract). That one reason (not the contract) is to prevent you from dealing with someone else at the same time that you continue to pay your carrier. Doesn’t keep you paying your carrier (the contract does that). Doesn’t ensure you won’t reneg on your contract. All it does and all it is suppose to do is prevent you from doing business on your own with someone else. That’s called restraint of trade. You doing business with someone else doesn’t hurt your carrier. Not even a little bit. But preventing you might cause your carrier to gain some extra money they never earned. That’s the reason.

    • That all sounds good in theory but the contract (or even the phone lock) doesn’t prompt loyal payments. If the business decides that all factors into selling a free phone the break even point is month 20, why would they make it any easier to leave than it already is?

      If I refuse to pay bell, I can easily go to rogers and do the same with them and go to Telus. Now if all my phones are free I just made up to 3k and paid little or nothing up front. If it was my business I would try to find some sort of collateral my self because that could be a huge loss and if word gets outs you can do that it would be abused.

      If you can find a way to make customers honour agreements, phones wouldn’t need to be locked

    • It’s Me

      Locks don’t encourage people to stay. Period

    • It’s one of the things to midigate loss. Nothing will ever really make people stay but I don’t agree the fees are useless. On buying a phone outright it should be given for free I will agree that but on a contract at a reduced price or free, I would see the fee making sense

    • It’s Me

      Locks don’t mitigate loss.

    • It does. It is one more barrier to go through to deter people from just jumping ship.

    • It’s Me

      If it does, then it’s an artificial barrier that goes well outside of the agreement. You’re argument is akin to someone charging protection money or demanding bribes and saying it’s just business.

    • that is a business and they do very well. Its called insurance.

    • It’s Me

      whaaat? It’s not insurance. It’s a scam. It falls outside of the agreement. It’s at best a cash grab and at worst a case of racketeering and restraint of trade.

      That has nothing at all to do with the contract. At least you aren’t going back to that chestnut.

    • It’s hard to see why things happen if you only care about one side. The reason they do it is to try and help churn. Same reason for contracts and why they don’t care to sell phones outright without a plan. They make money on service, not hardware. They want to keep you where they make their money. On their network

    • It’s Me

      Hence the contract. Everything you explain about churn and keeping the customer is covered by the legal contract you sign.

      The lock is outside of the contract for a reason, because it has no legal standing. It has simply been allowed until now even though it falls outside of the legal contract. It is exactly the same as if they were allowed to charge protection fees.

    • Contracts aren’t as iron clad as you think. I can go on with very little penalty from skipping out on a phone contract. They are as flimsy as parking tickets by third parties

    • It’s Me

      That of course goes both ways, yet legal binding contracts are the basis of our economy. It’s also completely irrelevant.

      I get they have excuses and their own reasons. That doesn’t make them justified or legitimate. Your best argument has been that the do it to make money, which drives all businesses. The reason a rapist rapes is for sex. That reason doesn’t justify their actions any better that your reasons. Reasons and excuses don’t automatically make the legitimate reason or justify actions.

    • You understand it yet you are only looking at it as a consumer. It’s a two way street and see things one way will never really make a system that works for everyone. Is the fee fair, not really. Are people signing a contract for 2 years and leaving after the first month without payment fair? not really.

      I personally don’t think the fee is the problem or the contract, its expectations. Consumers now expect to have the latest and great toys which come out every year but forget the cost of these things. Companies also expect people to remain on these term contracts for 2+ years while all these shiny new toys are released around them. The trade in was a good effort and the credit when renewal time is close but I think companies should focus more on customer service, Like Telus and they will be fine. Less churn and less disappointment.

    • It’s Me

      I think they should burn down your house if you skip out on your contract. Maybe repo your car. Actually, they should do it just in case you might break your contract.

      Makes exactly as much sense as trying justify the lock. After all, they are businesses, right?

    • Well I can get around an unlock code but I cannot legal drive without car insurance so I wouldn’t get repo’d I would get a ticket and potential license suspension worth hundreds of thousands and if I don’t pay a minimum of 35% or so on my mortgage I HAVE to pay for insurance just to keep the house. Not sure if the phone contract or fee is that serious

    • It’s Me

      Who care how serious? They should take your car and burn your house down if you skip out on your cell contract. It’s just business.

    • That escalated quickly. But my point is, it isn’t serious there are options and it’s completely avoid. Some other things aren’t so who cares about the fee

    • It’s Me

      I find unethical behaviour serious. I find a company taking extra actions outside of a contract to harm a customer to be serious.

      The seriousness of their actions was never they question. The legitimacy of it was, which you’ve consistently failed to demonstrate. Your best excuse for them to act like this is “well, business. And they can count on agreements”, which are irrelevant excuses to their legitimacy.

    • It’s completely legal because you agree to it. Whether you buy it outright or on an agreement you agree to what ever terms come with the purchase. Do you complain when you by a galaxy phone but have to root it to remove touch wiz? No, because that is their phone and you choose to buy it. Same principals apply

    • It’s Me

      Where do you agree to it? It’s not in the agreement. It’s not in the agreement for a reason. Please don’t claim something is in the agreements that simply is not in the agreements. It’s not true and it’s not factual.

      Sorry, you continue to operate under misconceptions and fallacies. You never agreed to them locking the phone. That would be like all the car dealership colluding to add intentional defects to all vehicles in order to force you to come in for unnecessary repairs. And that’s what a lock is, an intentional defect meant to force you to only use their services, regardless of the fact that you are paying for the actual services you actually agreed to.

    • It really is in the agreement. Even gives the minimum days required to wait to unlock

    • It’s Me

      Never was before. If it’s there now that would surprise me, since it’s not a part of the contract, which is the agreement. Maybe the wireless code forced them to put it there.

    • They did back when they were told to be more clear so customer know what their getting. That is why you can’t say it’s unfair if that’s what you signed off on. The outright part is unfair but it is technically still their hardware at that point so it makes since to be locked

    • It’s Me

      Went and read it. Doesn’t mention the lock, only the unlock requirement.

    • Exactly. To unlock something it has to be locked.

    • It’s Me

      Which only means they are allowed to lock it. Doesn’t mean the lock is covered in the agreement. At no point did you ever agree to receive a defective product.

    • I would think since you are in a Bell store buying a Bell phone with Bell service, it would be clear. I understand you want to discredit the businesses but you can’t say they never told anyone that the devices were locked or require to pay to unlock.

      It could be worse. Our neighbors to the south’s largest carrier pays extra to have their phones made custom for their network. You think paying to unlock is bad, imagine not being able to use it off the select network.

    • Me Ted

      35%??? Wait. What? It’s actually 20%.

    • Me Ted

      Nexus devices came unlocked and weren’t expensive.

    • hardy83

      Your argument makes no sense as it’s based on a customer paying nothing on the phone. Canadian phone companies no longer sell the phones at a loss, and any reductions via contracts must be paid back if the contract is broken.
      They don’t lose anything selling a phone to someone who immediately goes to another carrier, as well as I doubt any of the companies, Freedom included, sell their phones at a loss or at cost.

      The ONLY reason for the fees is to keep customers with them. And since the only reason is purely a business oriented one, I don’t care if it goes away. It’s not my problem. I’m a consumer and I want rules to benefit me and honestly, if the CRTC removed the unlock fee, or phones being locked period, I’m confident the big three will still continue to operate and won’t suddenly lose all their money and customers, heck it might even encourage them to compete more right?

    • If a person chooses not to pay when they cancel, which they do and they get the phone for less than full value, that is a loss. The fee is business related because these are businesses.

    • It’s Me

      Why are unlock fees fair? What valid reason is there for ever having locked the phones to begin with? You have a contract that ensures you will pay what you owe in exchange for the discount/subsidy. Lock does nothing to ensure you fulfill your contract. Nothing. The only things locks do is (a) prevent you from also using any another carrier while still paying your contract and (b) ensure some additional revenue for the carrier if you do choose to use your property with another carrier. That’s a scam.

    • Its fair because you are signing a contract. They can claim your first born and you signing it makes it fair and legal. If you don’t like the rules, don’t play the game. There are other options, simply not wanting to do them shouldn’t be grounds to call something unjust. You don’t go to Mcdonalds and say its unfair that you can’t get a whooper do you?

    • It’s Me

      The lock has nothing to do with the contract, period. That’s just an excuse that even a superficial examination shows to be a false assumption.
      1) carriers lock phones you buy whether on contractor not.
      2) carriers charge to unlock whether on contract or not.
      3) the contract makes no mention, whatsoever, about locks.
      4) whether the phone is locked or unlocked, you are still bound by the contract.
      5) even the carriers don’t bother to claim the lock is related to the contract, because it isn’t. They will now claim it is lock for fraud prevention.

      Since the lock is demonstrably not related to the contract in anyway, is that really the best you have?

  • fruvous

    I don’t understand why Freedom is making an issue with this. They could simply stop charging people to unlock their phones. Why do they need the CRTC to bless it for them?

    • Walter

      Freedom is referring to the Big 3.

    • seekr

      hahah, of course they are. Maybe the incumbents can demand wireless service providers can provided consistent and clear coverage with out interruption in their advertised networks. Shaw should just STFU and start focusing hard on improving and attracting customers, their last quarter was pathetic.

    • specialk2000

      No company can promise uninterrupted service in their coverage areas, no one.

    • seekr

      As should no company rely on regulations to impose action they could simply take to be competitive…

      If Freedom Mobile wants free unlocking, they can start by treating their customers to the luxury of not paying for the unlock codes to phones sold by Freedom.

    • fruvous

      So they want Robellus to stop charging it but it’s OK for them to keep doing it?

    • TomsDisqusted

      Huh?? So Freedom should pay the unlock fee (to get the unlock code) to Robellus. You think Freedom wants to send a bunch of money to them?

      And regardless, this is a good consumer issue and one that hinders people from switching away from the big three, why wouldn’t Freedom make an issue of this?

    • fruvous

      It’s hypocritical for Freedom to be pushing for no unlock fee when they charge their own subscribers an unlock fee.

      I never said they should be paying other carriers unlock fees, I’m saying they need to get their house in order before they criticize.

    • mola2alex

      You can play the game and still want to change the rules, doesn’t make you a hypocrite. If they did it for free, they are at a disadvantage but if the rule changes, it’s level playing

    • hardy83

      Having phones unlocked and making it as easy as possible to switch carriers works in Freedom’s favour.

      If it’s easy to switch as a consumer, then it’s easy to try and sell the big three customers to switch over.

      I am on Freedoms side on this, regardless of their intent, it benefits the consumer and phones shouldn’t even be locked to begin with, it’s only there to hinder open competition between carriers and unrightly keep customers because it’s too cost prohibitive to leave.

    • fruvous

      Then why don’t they unlock their subscriber’s phones for free?

    • Jap

      Although it seems as a double standard, they are just following to protect themselves from the industry also, their intent although is profit motivated, allow the consumer a lot more freedom

    • fruvous

      Are they? In the early days, Wind used to give unlock codes at no charge.

    • Vancouver2587

      It can work in other company’s favour too. Some one buys a phone from Freedom and switches to Rogers.

  • Mr Dog

    Great! They will then be able to advertise FREE UNLOCKING

    And then charge us $100 more for the phones.

  • canucks4life

    Freedom isn’t free it costs folks like you and me…

    • Jason van de Laar

      That will be in the next TV spot 🙂

  • me

    Wait, doesn’t Freedom Mobile charge to unlock their phones? Are they leading by example?

    • Hello Moto ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Freedom charges $30 for unlocking….. all talk and no walk. I’m sure Freedom makes a profit from unlocking fees.

    • Techguru86

      Belll and the big boys charge 50$, $30 from Freedom is pretty generous

  • Jason

    Lead by example Freedom Mobile, you can start by giving free unlocking. But I do agree, I’ve bought my last 3 phones from Costco unlocked

  • hoo dat

    I just buy my devices directly from the manufacturers and I’m free to take it where ever I want. It’s amazing how flexible some carriers will be when you present them with an unlocked device.

  • In Asia and Europe, manufacturers sell the phone directly to consumers contract free and unlocked, period.
    In North America, other than Apple and a few lesser famous names like Asus, Huawai, ZTE and some Samsung phones, all phones are sold through carriers locked even if you pay in full. This is just plain BS.

    Since more than 10 years ago, the only kind of phone I used are unlocked and same as all of my family members. Now, here is the amazing piece, my household, including myself, my wife, 2 teens and my parents are all on the $38 Public Mobile Plan since Nov. Our phone bills are finally at a reasonable price!

    • Christopher Baldrey

      Me too! But I’m single. Saving so much money! Old WIND was gouging me. Not as bad as Rogers, but still gouged.

    • Jacob A

      Motorola and Sony phones can be had unlocked. Google (nexus) phones as well. If you really want an unlocked phone, it’s not that tough to find a good one to your liking or to fit your budget. Having said that, I firmly believe all phones should be unlocked. Imagine buying a car then being told you can only gas up at Shell gas stations.

    • Eric

      That’s a faulty analogy.

    • Jacob A

      Are you in high school? Go look up analogy kid. I wasn’t trying to make an exact comparison.

      Next time you feel the need to troll someone, try making an educated argument to go along with your mistaken correction.

    • Eric

      The only way that analogy would work is if Shell also sold us the car and provided a subsidy on them.

    • Jacob A

      Like I said, go look up the definition of analogy then hit the books harder.

    • MoYeung

      “In Asia and Europe, manufacturers sell the phone directly to consumers contract free and unlocked, period.”

      North America so overrated…

    • Me Ted

      I’m sensing a theme here with you.

    • MoYeung

      “My theme” is well-known around here.

    • Me Ted

      You seem angry. Are you angry? There there now. *pat *pat It’s just a cell phone plan.

  • Lakh Jhajj

    still no discussion on unlimited data plans as an option in this haring so far

    • Jap

      I doubt that would even happen as it stresses the towers providing it. Although freedom already provides no overcharge fees and you only get throttled speeds rather than stoppage. There is also koodo’s method that stops your data and asks you to purchase more before continued usage.

    • Techguru86

      Don’t give me that tower stress bs, employees for the providers almost get unlimited data plans and they weren’t complaining about that when they were pushing data free TV apps. That excuse is BS in every way

    • mola2alex

      If people had unlimited, many may use it as a sole connection for home (especially with LTE advanced it 5g) and this would quickly take up capacity. Employees make up a pretty small % of the population so really your argument is BS. I think unlimited would be possible if there was some throttling allowing better distribution… Not as black and white as you think

  • Vancouver2587

    unlocking is unnecessary and anti competitive. The only reason is to prevent you switching companies.

    This is why the United Kingdom and European Union do not allow it. All phones sold in Europe are unlocked. iIn Europe, contracts are becoming rare but still exist. The trend is to buy a phone and finance it over 1-2 years.

    Freedom mobile is correct is saying the phone makers are willing to sell unlocked phones. They already do other countries.

  • MoYeung

    Another reason why North America (Canada & USA) is definitely NOT the often specifically propagandized “best place on earth” bs.

    • Me Ted

      Because of higher cell phone rates? Are you kidding me? Lol. Canada is paradise my man. If you haven’t figured that out yet, then maybe you need to travel more.

    • MoYeung

      “Canada is paradise”? LOL for 20 mins.
      Where were you when they needed people to dig out from the snow? (e.g. Montrealers dig out after 26 centimetres of snow blankets city
      Do you think most people would prefer Hawaii? I haven’t even started with other issues yet, do you want to revise your statement now?

    • Me Ted

      Yeah it is. But don’t take my word for it. Ask any refugee looking for a better life. Hell, ask my father in-law who left the troubles in Argentina back in the 70’s who – coincidentally – used the term “paradise”. Or better yet, ask any Chinese investor looking to stash their dough here before their government confiscates it and/or locks it down even further. I’m sure you can also look up the countless annual studies that routinely rank Canada as one of the top 5 countries to live in (with a few first place finishes).

      “Where were you when they needed people to dig out from the snow? (e.g. Montrealers dig out after 26 centimetres of snow blankets city”

      No disrespect but I think you might be a little confused. Correct if I’m wrong, but this is what I’ve taken from your comments so far: Canada is awful because it snows and cell phone rates are somewhat higher than its Asian and European counterparts? Does that sound about right?

    • MoYeung

      I knew it, another quasi-“war-torn” refugee.

      You family and/or relatives escaped Argentina because of military dictatorship and whatever political unrest in the 1970’s. No problem, it is none of my business.

      On the other hand, from international news on tv, why do think the Syrian refugees want to resettle in UK and Germany instead Greece, Hungary, Jordan or Lebanon? Do you think you would be better off living in USA? (Even local Canadians want to live in USA)

      The Chinese immigrants to Canada aren’t refugees. In fact, many Chinese people move back to china from Canada for better career prospects and opportunities. I can show you some Canadian news articles on this topic.

      The Chinese immigrants are wealthy because of the economic growth in China; there are always some corrupt government officials but the whelming majority of the Chinese immigrants are just successful people in china’s booming economy. China has 1.4 billion people, with the domestic market so huge, you have no clue how much money people can make, when you are successful.

      And what does Canada offer? Bad weather, high taxes, high cost of living, no jobs, small market with limited opportunities, human rights abuse/racism,

    • Me Ted

      You’re right Skippy. Canada is a hell hole and you should probably leave. Hopefully those of us who are forced to still live here will be able to manage and survive. Alas, I fear the worst though seeing as bad cell phone plans, credit cards with only 2% cb, and snow will surely be the end of us.

      Please get word back to China – the ultimate beacon of hope, tolerance, and freedom – that we’re being tortured over here.

      Safe journey and have a nice life.


      All of Canada

    • MoYeung

      That’s it? Give up so soon? I do think Canada is better than those war-torn countries… It’s just another regime here.

    • Me Ted

      Yep. You win. I’m off to my shanty.

    • Emil

      Why don’t you just move? Save yourself all the hassle of typing the reasons you don’t like this place.

    • MoYeung

      “When it comes to shopping, banking, taxes and fees, Canada is usually hopelessly obsolete, but once again you don’t notice it unless you go abroad. Selection and pricing compared to the USA is pathetic. Just compare Amazon usa to Amazon canada and you will see what I mean. A lot of prices are double, and even shipping costs more, that’s why I have an address in Point Roberts. Banking and credit card deals are usual pathetic to what is offered in the USA, but you have no alternatives, so most Canadians just take what they can get. Cell phone deals and contracts are laughable compared to the rest of the world because it is all government controlled. Get this, in Canada, you have to pay to receive phone calls and texts! Abroad this would cause revolts, but here everyone thinks this is normal. So if you answer the phone, and talk it eats into your minutes, and so does getting texts. Compared to the USA, everything except healthcare is a pretty much a rip-off, that’s what you get for having only 35 million people spread across a vast frozen land where we have 2 languages and snow and ice half the year. ”

      A small excerpt, google to read the whole thing.

  • Steven Ercolani

    I see why carriers have locked phones. When you purchase a phone as part of a contract, you shouldn’t have the phone to take to another carrier. Once the contract is fulfilled though, that’s when the carrier should provide the unlock code at no charge.

    • Marlon Brando

      The phone is not free. Your paying for it within the monthly fee. If you want to leave a carrier you have to buy out the balance owing on the phone to end the contract. Ergo, the phone is yours, why should they be paid an additional unlock fee? Plus most carries charge a contract cancellation fee.

  • 905jay

    I see no reason for locking phones.
    If I buy it subsidised, I am paying that off over 2 years, plus a higher initial cost.
    The subsidised prices initial costs have also risen, due to 2 year max terms.

    If I end the contract early, I am responsible for the remainder of the subsidy, plus multiple financial slaps on the wrists. The carrier doesn’t lose either way, and that is a fact of mathematics.

    Selling me a subsidised unlocked phone offers me the ability to travel abroad or switch providers with my device. It doesn’t give me freedom to freely (free as in beer) leave them at no-cost.

    this is a movement I can get behind!

    • mola2alex

      Think you answered your question, they don’t want to lose the roaming revenue. Agree this is long overdue and why I always bought unlocked…

  • Rimtu Kahn

    Totally agree with Freedom…. Locking the phone in the first place is an anti-competitive move although with misguided idea that it helps to keep customers locked in even after the contract term expires. There are many cheaper unlocking options online and in person through 3rd parties. However the robellus company reps do a good job of scaring consumers into thinking:
    1. It is either illegal to unlock phones
    2. Unlocking violates phone warranty

    Speaking from experience, I was told this by 1+ robellus sales reps .

    In fact newer phones can be unlocked via a simple code entry which does not violate warranty terms and most definitely is not illegal.

    True that older phonesat require flashing the ROM or some other hardware unlocking technique and that I can see violating warranty.

    I applaud this push from Freedom, knowing that it may also have impact on them. In fact with the lack of contract options freedom stands to lose more customers if their phones come unlocked or are unlocked for free.

  • Sumit

    The carriers should unlock the device for free once you’ve paid off the device costs or at the end of your contract.

  • Jonavin

    They should start by practicing what they preach.

    • Hunter Miller

      Well every phone I’ve bought from freedom has been unlock from the start so….

  • Igor Babichev

    What good are unlocked Rogers, Telus and Bell phones on Freedom’s network if they don’t support AWS bands?

  • Pingback: Device unlocking and disability services take centre stage at CRTC Wireless Code review | - Leading Brand In Mobile Business()

  • Pingback: Device unlocking and disability services take centre stage at CRTC Wireless Code review | Daily Update()

  • Nino Bonifacio

    All phone coming here are already unlock. Before they carrier release it they will reprogram the phone one by one to put all their stuff in it and lock the phone.