I WAS RECENTLY MADE aware of your editorial piece (“NDP wants to unlock your cell phone – but it’s not quite that simple” on the Cell Phone Freedom Act, and I hope you do not mind if I take the liberty to respond.
I authored the Cell Phone Freedom Act in part to fulfill a commitment to my constituents. Some, including a number that rely on their cell phones to run their small businesses, have come to me with concerns over competitiveness in the Canadian wireless market. They brought up issues such very high prices for wireless phone service in Canada (as the OECD and others reported last year), the length of cell phone service contracts in Canada (often at three years), and how Canadian carriers routinely lock client handsets and often don’t offer unlock codes to their customers.
I know that Canadians across the country share my constituents’ concerns, and I agreed to work on initiatives to help competition and consumers. The first is Bill C-560, the Cell Phone Freedom Act.
The problems my constituents brought up have plagued the Canadian wireless market for many years, resulting in high prices and wireless penetration rates that lag behind most of our trading competitors.
And as the experience in other countries has shown, where wireless market situations have developed that may not be beneficial to competitiveness or consumers, it is incumbent upon legislators to step in.
The Cell Phone Freedom Act tackles one small but important problem: that of network locks being routinely used to prevent customers from trying out competitors. This limits consumer choice, and limits competition. Consumers, outside of contracts, should be free to try competitors without technological hindrance.
It is important to remember that C-560 does not regulate contracts – if a consumer wants to sign a contract with a carrier, they are still free to do so. Since these consumers are obligated to stay with their carrier for the duration of the contract, it is less likely that they would need their handsets unlocked. But consumers who come to the end of their contract, or who choose to buy their handsets (unsubsidized) at full price without a contract, should not be chained to one carrier because of a lock.
The June 23rd piece by Lesley Hunter misinterpreted this. About the C-560, Hunter editorialized “It could discourage wireless carriers from subsidizing new smart phones, pushing them out of the reach of lower-income consumers, for example.”
This confuses unlocking customer cell phones with releasing consumers from binding contracts – two different things. Phones are subsidized by long-term contractual commitments, not by restrictive network locks. As the bill does not touch contracts, nothing will change in this regard, and subsidized phones will continue to be offered.
The article goes on to raise the spectre of paid-by-the-minute tech support costs for consumers that port their phones to new carriers – again, more of a contract issue than one about network locks. Today, carriers are only too happy to roll out the red carpet for customers who have managed to unlock their phones and come from other carriers. They are financially motivated to accept them, and get new customers’ phones working well on their networks. This won’t change once consumers are given the cell phone freedom Bill C-560 brings.
Sincerely,
Bruce Hyer, M.P.
Thunder Bay – Superior North
