8 ms·

GSMA puts eSIM work 'on hold' due to US collusion investigation

88 points by casca 8y ago

jacknews 8y ago
Hold on, so there's possible collusion to stop the standard happening? And now a govt investigation of that possible collusion is ... stopping the standard happening?
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  More like collusion to fundamentally break the standard before it is allowed to flourish. What if you had a power plug that worked with outlets anywhere, except if you plugged it in in certain businesses, whereby they only were usable at said business, and were a brick otherwise. This is what AT&T has been doing with Apple's eSIMs.
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    >"This is what AT&T has been doing with Apple's eSIMs." So you can never take that Apple watch with the eSIM to a non AT&T network? There is no unlock?
- IshKebab 8y ago
  Presumably it is on hold because they are being accused of making the standard terrible. They definitely shouldn't plow on with a terrible standard. I guess the dispute would revolve around carrier locking. E.g. imagine if you bought an unlocked phone but eSIM gave carriers the ability to remotely lock it to their network.
  - jacknews 8y ago
    Yes this makes most sense, the article isn't clear
- lozenge 8y ago
  AT&T want the ability to lock eSIMs to be standardised, so that you can't use it on another network. But eSIMs are permanently embedded into phones, and phones getting thinner means they soon won't have slots for physical SIMs. (Apart from the charger, it's already the last port on many phones.) So it would effectively lock the entire device, which is incredibly wasteful. The FTC sees this as consumer unfriendly and potentially collusive and anti competitive in how it's being pursued. If GSMA continues, then AT&T will have to play it safe by backing down from their position. So, they are pausing the entire process. If the FTC turns out to have no teeth, then AT&T will be able to pursue locking eSIMs again.
- droopybuns 8y ago
  Trade bodies like the GSMA are constantly at risk of collusion accusations. Most meetings on these types of bodies start with reminders about the anti trust rules and what types of discussion are not allowed. It isn’t surprising that they would stop meetings given the fact that an investigation seems to be in play. Not a reliable signal of bad behavior. It is probably simple pragmatism.
MikeGale 8y ago
If they call lock-in and making it very hard to leave "Loyalty", then these businesses are truly delusional. If people can leave easily they'll be forced to earn genuine loyalty, not this fake kind.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  Niether AT&T or Verizon care about loyalty. The higher the cost to switch, the better as far as their concerned. Similarly, Sprint has survived a decade on a slowly shrinking business customer base, with losses mainly forestalled by the roadblocks they like to throw out when porting hundreds of phone numbers and device incompatability with other networks. If the switching cost is too high, people won't switch!
k_lander 8y ago
But why put it on hold? Wouldn't it make more sense to fast-track instead after these signs of carrier collusion are coming to the surface?
- shaki-dora 8y ago
  It’s the same dynamic that makes the drug business at the corner momentarily pause while the police cruiser circles the block.
kalleboo 8y ago
Seeing how impossible it is to get the Apple Watch on non-"partner" networks, I'm very wary about all the supposed market reforms that are expected of eSIM. I'm expecting the exact opposite will happen, with more "carrier exclusives" and stuff like that to try to squeeze money out of customers. Just look at how things worked out with ESNs on CDMA carriers in the US. Physical SIM cards have worked fantastically well and were one of the greatest ideas of GSM.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  What do physical SIMs have to do with business deals? GSM carriers using physical SIM cards had carrier exclusive phones for ages.
  - izacus 8y ago
    Verizon was refusing enrollment of phones in their network of people bought them elsewhere. Something that was unheard of here in Europe where carriers got no say in the choice of your phone - pop in a SIM card and that's it. Apple Watch eSIM lockdown is showing again that not having SIMs will significantly hurt customers again.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      A bunch of US "mobile network virtual operators" created GSM phones that only worked with their SIMs and so on. It's the regulatory requirements and enforcement that lead to interoperability more than the technology.
    - madeofpalk 8y ago
      There are plenty of differences between the US and European phone markets, with simcard-less CDMA phones being the least of concern.
      - izacus 8y ago
        Can you elaborate more? Because not being able to buy your own phone at your own price seems to be a huge concern in a free market.
Aaargh20318 8y ago
I don't understand why carriers feel the need to SIM-lock a phone that's on a contract anyway. I get it for pre-paid phones, the phone is partially subsidised by the carrier and they want to make their money back, but even there they have to unlock the phone after a year. In the case of a phone on a contract, you're already locked into a contract. Why lock the phone if the customer is already required to pay either way. In fact, isn't it better for the operator if the customer uses their phone on another network, that way they get the monthly payments without even having to provide a service in return.
- jimmies 8y ago
  >I don't understand why carriers feel the need to SIM-lock a phone that's on a contract anyway. It doesn't make sense if they just want to lock just me, but it does make a lot of sense if they want to lock others. Say I have a phone that I plan to replace with a fancier one when my """upgrade""" is due. I can pass the old phone on to my little brother or little cousin or sell it on eBay. If it's unlocked, the new owner of the old phone could pop their SIM in and use it with any carrier they like. If it's locked, then they have to also use the same network that the old phone was on, which means they also have to, in general, sign up for it. If I'm not there to help them unlocking it before I pass it on, then the new owner will have a very hard time, at least in my experience, to ask the carrier to unlock it. If I decide that's too much hassle to deal with and don't want to call them to wait for days for them to push the unlock update for me, I can keep the phone in my drawer. In that case, there is one less used phone in the supply so that carrier can sell more new phones. Either I pass on or I don't, locking the phone is a win for the carrier. Don't know how it is now (I haven't purchased a used phone for a while), but the carriers I dealt with often asked for the account numbers and waiting and shit to """verify""" the original owner and make it as hard, slow, and painful as possible to unlock a secondhand phone. I know about the MVNOs compatibility and stuff, but let's be honest, most people will use a carrier-branded phone with that exact branded carrier. > In fact, isn't it better for the operator if the customer uses their phone on another network, that way they get the monthly payments without even having to provide a service in return. I suspect the huge chunk of the cost to the carrier is a fixed investment. The person they paid to answer the support line gets the payment regardless whether they sit there playing solitaire or helping you. It doesn't matter that much to them that you actually use their tower or not. The service they provide to you monthly doesn't cost them nothing more. The fact isn't that they are saving cost if they can get away with not providing service to a phone that is paid off. The fact is that if they can get my teenage cousin on their network, it is a huge huge win for them because he/she will likely pump them with $50/month payment for the next 10 years. Just because one day, I decided that it was nice of me to """give""" my used phone to them.
rkangel 8y ago
The irony here is that the whole point of SIM cards originally was that it made the device independent of the network and that you could move from network to network at will. I see the value from an electronics packaging point of view, but I don't see how removing a SIM card makes it easier to move network.
- pwg 8y ago
  > I don't see how removing a SIM card makes it easier to move network. The idea with eSIM is that instead of having to wait 5 days for the new physical SIM to arrive in the mail (or instead of having to drive to a retail shop to buy one), you can simply buy online and have the eSIM instantly delivered to your phone, right in the moment. The effect is that it would, if implemented as intended, further lower the barrier to switching carriers (no delay for mail or no drive to retail store).
- astura 8y ago
  With physical SIMs you need a SIM from a network in order to join that network. With eSIMs (hypothetically) you'll be able to join without a physical token. If you switch carriers you don't need to visit a store for a new physical SIM, your SIM is "virtually" switched to the new network seamlessly and instantly. Your new network would just blast some data to your phone and you're connected. If you buy a new phone and your new phone uses nano SIM and your old phone has a bigger micro SIM, you don't have to visit the store for a new SIM, just register your new phone online with a mouse click.
- jpalomaki 8y ago
  World be quite convenient when travelling if you could buy the local eSim online instead of hunting the physical card. (Of course even more convenient would be if carriers stopped the non-sense and offered reasonably priced roaming world wide)
globile 8y ago
A person with knowledge and ties to one of the small operators within the GSMA eSIM group mentioned there are many problems with interpretation and acceptance of certain proposed guidelines, especially by the big members. One big issue on the table is carrier selection freedom once you have chosen your initial operator. Big Telcos want to have the last word when it comes to letting you go if you decide to, and were trying to bake certain clauses into the agreement that would enable them to "oblige" the end user to pay a penalty for premature contract breaking. Basically, they want to replicate the existing regular sim-lock model with the eSIM, but nothing else regarding free number portability would change. Regardless of the eSIM, over the past 10 years carriers have been forced by their governments to unlock phones for free in many countries but have always ended up finding loopholes to make this really hard. Only in Spain which has a population around 45M, we've gone from over 500,000 to just below 1M number portability changes per month so with so much at stake, I really doubt the eSIM is going to make things any better for the end customer. Edit: formatting.
ender89 8y ago
Wait, the government is looking for collusion aimed at stopping eSIM technology, so one of the alleged colluders is actually stopping the development? In what world does that make sense?
ungzd 8y ago
Modern websites/services that use phone number as user identifier (or for 2FA) as opposed to email address (i.e. Whatsapp) stop users from switching carriers way more than need to get physical SIM card.
sctb 8y ago
Previous thread about the investigation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16888016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16888016.
huslage 8y ago
As an FYI, Google Fi has been using the eSIM on Pixel 2 phones and it's great. You can still opt for a physical SIM if you want, but I can't see a reason to.

88 points by casca 8y ago

Hold on, so there's possible collusion to stop the standard happening? And now a govt investigation of that possible collusion is ... stopping the standard happening?

StudentStuff 8y ago
More like collusion to fundamentally break the standard before it is allowed to flourish. What if you had a power plug that worked with outlets anywhere, except if you plugged it in in certain businesses, whereby they only were usable at said business, and were a brick otherwise. This is what AT&T has been doing with Apple's eSIMs.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"This is what AT&T has been doing with Apple's eSIMs." So you can never take that Apple watch with the eSIM to a non AT&T network? There is no unlock?
IshKebab 8y ago
Presumably it is on hold because they are being accused of making the standard terrible. They definitely shouldn't plow on with a terrible standard. I guess the dispute would revolve around carrier locking. E.g. imagine if you bought an unlocked phone but eSIM gave carriers the ability to remotely lock it to their network.
- jacknews 8y ago
  Yes this makes most sense, the article isn't clear
lozenge 8y ago
AT&T want the ability to lock eSIMs to be standardised, so that you can't use it on another network. But eSIMs are permanently embedded into phones, and phones getting thinner means they soon won't have slots for physical SIMs. (Apart from the charger, it's already the last port on many phones.) So it would effectively lock the entire device, which is incredibly wasteful. The FTC sees this as consumer unfriendly and potentially collusive and anti competitive in how it's being pursued. If GSMA continues, then AT&T will have to play it safe by backing down from their position. So, they are pausing the entire process. If the FTC turns out to have no teeth, then AT&T will be able to pursue locking eSIMs again.
droopybuns 8y ago
Trade bodies like the GSMA are constantly at risk of collusion accusations. Most meetings on these types of bodies start with reminders about the anti trust rules and what types of discussion are not allowed. It isn’t surprising that they would stop meetings given the fact that an investigation seems to be in play. Not a reliable signal of bad behavior. It is probably simple pragmatism.

MikeGale 8y ago

If they call lock-in and making it very hard to leave "Loyalty", then these businesses are truly delusional. If people can leave easily they'll be forced to earn genuine loyalty, not this fake kind.

StudentStuff 8y ago
Niether AT&T or Verizon care about loyalty. The higher the cost to switch, the better as far as their concerned. Similarly, Sprint has survived a decade on a slowly shrinking business customer base, with losses mainly forestalled by the roadblocks they like to throw out when porting hundreds of phone numbers and device incompatability with other networks. If the switching cost is too high, people won't switch!

k_lander 8y ago

But why put it on hold? Wouldn't it make more sense to fast-track instead after these signs of carrier collusion are coming to the surface?

shaki-dora 8y ago
It’s the same dynamic that makes the drug business at the corner momentarily pause while the police cruiser circles the block.

kalleboo 8y ago

Seeing how impossible it is to get the Apple Watch on non-"partner" networks, I'm very wary about all the supposed market reforms that are expected of eSIM. I'm expecting the exact opposite will happen, with more "carrier exclusives" and stuff like that to try to squeeze money out of customers. Just look at how things worked out with ESNs on CDMA carriers in the US. Physical SIM cards have worked fantastically well and were one of the greatest ideas of GSM.

madeofpalk 8y ago
What do physical SIMs have to do with business deals? GSM carriers using physical SIM cards had carrier exclusive phones for ages.
- izacus 8y ago
  Verizon was refusing enrollment of phones in their network of people bought them elsewhere. Something that was unheard of here in Europe where carriers got no say in the choice of your phone - pop in a SIM card and that's it. Apple Watch eSIM lockdown is showing again that not having SIMs will significantly hurt customers again.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    A bunch of US "mobile network virtual operators" created GSM phones that only worked with their SIMs and so on. It's the regulatory requirements and enforcement that lead to interoperability more than the technology.
  - madeofpalk 8y ago
    There are plenty of differences between the US and European phone markets, with simcard-less CDMA phones being the least of concern.
    - izacus 8y ago
      Can you elaborate more? Because not being able to buy your own phone at your own price seems to be a huge concern in a free market.

Aaargh20318 8y ago

I don't understand why carriers feel the need to SIM-lock a phone that's on a contract anyway. I get it for pre-paid phones, the phone is partially subsidised by the carrier and they want to make their money back, but even there they have to unlock the phone after a year. In the case of a phone on a contract, you're already locked into a contract. Why lock the phone if the customer is already required to pay either way. In fact, isn't it better for the operator if the customer uses their phone on another network, that way they get the monthly payments without even having to provide a service in return.

jimmies 8y ago
>I don't understand why carriers feel the need to SIM-lock a phone that's on a contract anyway. It doesn't make sense if they just want to lock just me, but it does make a lot of sense if they want to lock others. Say I have a phone that I plan to replace with a fancier one when my """upgrade""" is due. I can pass the old phone on to my little brother or little cousin or sell it on eBay. If it's unlocked, the new owner of the old phone could pop their SIM in and use it with any carrier they like. If it's locked, then they have to also use the same network that the old phone was on, which means they also have to, in general, sign up for it. If I'm not there to help them unlocking it before I pass it on, then the new owner will have a very hard time, at least in my experience, to ask the carrier to unlock it. If I decide that's too much hassle to deal with and don't want to call them to wait for days for them to push the unlock update for me, I can keep the phone in my drawer. In that case, there is one less used phone in the supply so that carrier can sell more new phones. Either I pass on or I don't, locking the phone is a win for the carrier. Don't know how it is now (I haven't purchased a used phone for a while), but the carriers I dealt with often asked for the account numbers and waiting and shit to """verify""" the original owner and make it as hard, slow, and painful as possible to unlock a secondhand phone. I know about the MVNOs compatibility and stuff, but let's be honest, most people will use a carrier-branded phone with that exact branded carrier. > In fact, isn't it better for the operator if the customer uses their phone on another network, that way they get the monthly payments without even having to provide a service in return. I suspect the huge chunk of the cost to the carrier is a fixed investment. The person they paid to answer the support line gets the payment regardless whether they sit there playing solitaire or helping you. It doesn't matter that much to them that you actually use their tower or not. The service they provide to you monthly doesn't cost them nothing more. The fact isn't that they are saving cost if they can get away with not providing service to a phone that is paid off. The fact is that if they can get my teenage cousin on their network, it is a huge huge win for them because he/she will likely pump them with $50/month payment for the next 10 years. Just because one day, I decided that it was nice of me to """give""" my used phone to them.

rkangel 8y ago

The irony here is that the whole point of SIM cards originally was that it made the device independent of the network and that you could move from network to network at will. I see the value from an electronics packaging point of view, but I don't see how removing a SIM card makes it easier to move network.

pwg 8y ago
> I don't see how removing a SIM card makes it easier to move network. The idea with eSIM is that instead of having to wait 5 days for the new physical SIM to arrive in the mail (or instead of having to drive to a retail shop to buy one), you can simply buy online and have the eSIM instantly delivered to your phone, right in the moment. The effect is that it would, if implemented as intended, further lower the barrier to switching carriers (no delay for mail or no drive to retail store).
astura 8y ago
With physical SIMs you need a SIM from a network in order to join that network. With eSIMs (hypothetically) you'll be able to join without a physical token. If you switch carriers you don't need to visit a store for a new physical SIM, your SIM is "virtually" switched to the new network seamlessly and instantly. Your new network would just blast some data to your phone and you're connected. If you buy a new phone and your new phone uses nano SIM and your old phone has a bigger micro SIM, you don't have to visit the store for a new SIM, just register your new phone online with a mouse click.
jpalomaki 8y ago
World be quite convenient when travelling if you could buy the local eSim online instead of hunting the physical card. (Of course even more convenient would be if carriers stopped the non-sense and offered reasonably priced roaming world wide)

globile 8y ago

A person with knowledge and ties to one of the small operators within the GSMA eSIM group mentioned there are many problems with interpretation and acceptance of certain proposed guidelines, especially by the big members. One big issue on the table is carrier selection freedom once you have chosen your initial operator. Big Telcos want to have the last word when it comes to letting you go if you decide to, and were trying to bake certain clauses into the agreement that would enable them to "oblige" the end user to pay a penalty for premature contract breaking. Basically, they want to replicate the existing regular sim-lock model with the eSIM, but nothing else regarding free number portability would change. Regardless of the eSIM, over the past 10 years carriers have been forced by their governments to unlock phones for free in many countries but have always ended up finding loopholes to make this really hard. Only in Spain which has a population around 45M, we've gone from over 500,000 to just below 1M number portability changes per month so with so much at stake, I really doubt the eSIM is going to make things any better for the end customer. Edit: formatting.

ender89 8y ago

Wait, the government is looking for collusion aimed at stopping eSIM technology, so one of the alleged colluders is actually stopping the development? In what world does that make sense?

ungzd 8y ago

Modern websites/services that use phone number as user identifier (or for 2FA) as opposed to email address (i.e. Whatsapp) stop users from switching carriers way more than need to get physical SIM card.

sctb 8y ago

Previous thread about the investigation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16888016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16888016.

huslage 8y ago

As an FYI, Google Fi has been using the eSIM on Pixel 2 phones and it's great. You can still opt for a physical SIM if you want, but I can't see a reason to.