In Israel there is a law that doesn’t allow cellular phone companies to lock their phones for the exclusive use of customers of specific mobile network operators. This law seems quite reasonable to me because it means the users of that phone will be able to choose their own mobile network operator.
I know that laws like this are against libertarian principles. I’d like to hear your opinion on this issue. Is that law really unreasonable? Why?
I’m actually not sure cell-phone companies are following libertarian principles if they lock their phones for the exclusive use of certain mobile networks. It depends on what is meant by “locking”, IMO.
A cellular phone company can make a deal with a mobile network operator to have their phone only work in some country exclusively with that operator. In a libertarian society this would be totally illegal.
Maybe I’m not fully understanding the idea, but in a free market, wouldn’t such a cell phone company be opening itself up to competition from other cell phone companies that didn’t have those kinds of restrictions?
Reasonable to who?
It is perfectly reasonable to the person who has no respect for private property and freedom of contract.
It is perfectly reasonable to the economic ignoramus who thinks the public can rob their way to prosperity.
It is normally a bad idea to look to a country in the condition of Israel for advice on how to run an economic system. If it were true then the country would reject the billions given to it by the USA who steals this money from its citizens.
As for this specific issue, if the operators of the networks own the networks then they should decide who may and who may not use their network. Furthermore they should be able to kick out people they do not authorize to use their networks. Of course cell phone customers can contract with providers and pay fees adjusted for the use of networks. The cell phone providers may want band together to build more or larger networks if they find the network charges too high.
In any case there is no need for a law as these network providers and cell providers are only using their property as they see fit.
Property Rights. It’s their product and company. If you do not like locked cell-phones, patronize or start your own business.
It’s a modification to the phone’s firmware which prevents it from functioning unless an approved SIM card is used. Can often be hacked, of course.
You’ll generally end up with such a phone if you sign one of those hire-purchase contracts which gives you a very fancy and expensive phone “free”, but on a 24-month contract. It helps prevent shady people from signing up for these things with fake ID’s etc and selling them the next day at a flea market with new pre-paid SIM cards.
One usually has an option of buying the phone outright for a small fortune instead of going for one of these contracts, but not always… Apple has an exclusivity agreement with Vodafone on this continent for their phones. Dunno about in the 'States. Of course Apple products are usually indefensibly more expensive than an equivalent… It’s just that people who buy Apple think they’re getting something for that extra $, so it works for them. Nothing wrong with that.
As long as the phone is not sold but only ‘rented indefinitely’ the cell company can do with it as it wishes. Otherwise, if the contract says you’ve sold me my phone, than I may easily give you the finger and hack it to allow its use by whichever network operator I please. Either I fully control the phone or I don’t, there’s no middle way.
You can always purchase an unlocked phone…