3 ms·
Their argument is that it helps to combat fradulent purchases where criminals steal identities, buy phones on margin with the stolen identity and then ship them
by ryao 9y ago
Their argument is that it helps to combat fradulent purchases where criminals steal identities, buy phones on margin with the stolen identity and then ship them for sale overseas. As it stands, they are stuck holding the bill.
The carriers should be forced to absorb the consequences of not requiring payment upfront rather than forcing the rest of us to suffer from this absurd locking strategy. The entire situation was manufactured by them. If they required payment upfront, then this would be the credit card companies’ problem. They are much better equipped to deal with such things than carriers anyway.
- scherezade 9y agoWhen I switched carrier I had to go to a T-mobile store to show my passport and do a debitcard transaction of 50 cents to verify that I had a working bankaccount. Seems pretty fraud proof and it took ten minutes.
- bogomipz 9y agoIndeed that's the party line. Surprisingly Verizon who traditionally hasn't locked them will being doing so for a limited they say to combat fraud. See: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/17003690/verizon-phones-locked-network-date-spring-change-policy https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/17003690/verizon-phones-l...