15 ms·

FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

412 points by miles 2y ago

jalk 2y ago
Can't the operators just sell unlocked phones with monthly installments instead? The installment plan will then include free service for some amount of data/minutes. If the user chooses to switch operator, they are still bound by the installment contract to pay off the phone.
- 486sx33 2y ago
  Yes, but let’s just say you got a 1200 device and only made the first two payments… jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier?
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    Small claims court? Inability for the debtor to get a loan for even another phone (or a used car or whatever) for a period of time? It's messy and expensive, but perhaps it should be messy and expensive.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    The same recourse any other lender has for a borrower that defaults.
  - happymellon 2y ago
    I bought a car, but then decided to not make the repayments. What's the recourse for the lender?
    - RHSeeger 2y ago
      To be fair, car sellers have also started things like being able to brick your car if you're behind on payments. Or, for the up and coming ones, have the car just drive itself back to the dealer (Ford).
      - monkeywork 2y ago
        can you share a link to this for story happening?
        astura 2y ago
        https://stateline.org/2018/11/27/late-payment-a-kill-switch-can-strand-you-and-your-car/ https://stateline.org/2018/11/27/late-payment-a-kill-switch-...
        themaninthedark 2y ago
        https://www.newscientist.com/article/2361657-ford-patents-car-that-can-repossess-itself-and-drive-back-to-showroom/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2361657-ford-patents-ca... Ford got a patent for the idea.
        monkeywork 2y ago
        a patent is VASTLY different than it actually taking place. The number of patents that get filed but never actually implemented could fill the grand canyon.
    - astura 2y ago
      Cars are repoed when payments aren't made.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier? Subprime auto lenders use “electronic devices to remotely shut down vehicles” [1]. Carriers could install remote management profiles on phones financed for subprime borrowers. If a borrower defaults, the loan is sold to a collector and phone erased and put in lost mode. It isn’t pleasant. But neither is being locked into a phone plan you don’t want. [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/03/14/car-lenders-using-remote-shut-off-collect-delinquent-payments/vbNVujhXK591VkDOaylM3J/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/03/14/car-lenders-...
    - which 2y ago
      The GSMA has a blacklist system. Participating carriers can blacklist a stolen / fraud / nonpayment phone IMEI and all the other blacklist members will agree to also ban that phone from their network. The problem is that people won't make payments, sell the phone for cash, and eventually the phone ends up in places (China, UAE, Nigeria, Russia, ...) that don't participate in the blacklist.
      - ummonk 2y ago
        The right compromise should be that they have to unlock it when you've paid off the phone in full.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Shakahs 2y ago
    Currently the carrier will publish the phone's IMEI to a central blacklist, so the phone can't be used with any carrier that subscribes to the blacklist. Also iPhones can be activation blocked via Apple, which is entirely independent of the IMEI block done by carriers.
  - toast0 2y ago
    Credit reporting and collections. There's a reason carriers pull credit reports for post paid accounts and 'free' phone promos right? Although, personally, I prefer to be on the prepaid side of the carrier. I'm not getting a promotional phone, and I'm not paying for it in my monthly rate, so if my phone works for more than two years, I'm saving money. And I don't really need to use secret handshake financing... I'd rather pay $17/month for my plan and pay for a phone when I need it. That said, T-Mobile tried being the 'uncarrier' and charging fairer prices for service and financing phones directly, and it must not have worked as well as carrier norms because they reverted to secret handshake financing.
    - smallnamespace 2y ago
      > Credit reporting and collections. This has a loss rate of around 70-80% across the collections industry, which is an extremely strong disincentive to go this route since it's just highly inefficient. The high cost of the collections process is a deadweight loss upon all society.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      There is no credit check with T-Mobile. In fact, even if you have bad credit, and you have had service with them for a year, you can get a phone on contract. T-Mobile still finances phones directly and equipment payment plans are clearly separated out from service charges
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - hansvm 2y ago
        A year ago they ran a credit check even just for home internet, anecdata of 1.
  - aceofspades19 2y ago
    People made the same argument in Canada but they changed the rules so you either get an unlocked phone or they have to unlock it upon request. Yet there has not been widespread issues of this happening. They can still ding your credit & there is only a small number of carriers so you can only do that so many times before you are going to have serious issues if you don't care about your credit or collections. Also you can still get the phone unlocked without the carrier anyways if you really want to so it would not deter anyone who really wants to run off with the phone anyways.
  - az226 2y ago
    So make the device unlocked with the ability to lock it back if you fail to make the payments.
    - lodovic 2y ago
      That wouldn't qualify as truly unlocked, though
- acdha 2y ago
  That’s how it should work. My understanding is that the carriers (probably correctly) assume that there are more people who will buy a cool phone if they don’t think about it as a short term loan – and then keep paying the same price after the phone is paid off. If they had to say “$900 in 24 payments of $50” more people would decide they don’t need the “Pro” model and the carriers would be forced to compete with the banks on financing terms.
  - colejohnson66 2y ago
    I’ve even seen ones where the loan is “backwards”, and they’re getting more common - you pay full price up front and they give you statement credits each month!
    - acdha 2y ago
      How did we live like animals in the dark era before such innovative financial products?
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        Do you know that CEOs once had to settle for only a single summer home?
  - connicpu 2y ago
    I'm not sure about other carriers, but for the past few years now that's how it's been on Verizon. The only lock in part is they waive interest as long as you stay a Verizon customer until it's paid off.
- lbourdages 2y ago
  That is how it works in Canada now. If you cancel your contract, you have to pay the remaining balance immediately. No fees, just the remainder.
  - Marsymars 2y ago
    Well, kinda. Carriers can work around that by marking up the retail price so e.g. you have a $480 phone that the carrier sells for $700, or lets you buy for $20/m over a 24-month term with a promise to clear the $220 balance if you make it to the end of the term, so it's effectively a penalty if you cancel early.
    - grahamj 2y ago
      Yeah, or you spread the regular retail price over X months with no interest and the carrier takes the manufacturer subsidy. The real catch is that they typically require you to be on a high end non-BYOD plan, which keeps going up every year. I prefer to buy the device outright and minimize the plan cost.
- cogman10 2y ago
  The point is to lock the user into a contract with the carrier. By binding the phone to there service they make it unlikely that a user will switch providers as that would need a new phone while still paying off the old phone. That's why they'll offer these phones at low or no interest plans, so they can pull in the $50/month subscription for the years that the phone is being paid off.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month, compared to a plan which costs $50 less per month, and a BNPL plan attached to the carrier which costs $50 per month?
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      > What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month That phone is generally not given away - the only phones "given away" are generally low end. $1200 flagship phones come at the cost of a contract on the line AND a monthly payment for the device that pays for it in full.
      - RHSeeger 2y ago
        The last 3 phones I purchased, it was a choice between - plan + buying new phone + no contract - plan + phone "free with plan" + increase in plan cost because of phone + 2 year contract For one pone, the first was a clear winner. For another, it was slightly cheaper to get it with the plan (2nd option). For the last (iphone) it was the second option, but there was no increase in plan because of it. So, the "cost" of the phone can vary a lot, and taking the time to figure it out is well worth it.
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        If the monthly payment pays for the device in full, what's the problem with a customer ending the service contract while continuing the monthly payments? If the monthly payment doesn't pay for it in full, why not just make the monthly device payments $n more, and the cellular service payments $n less? That way you don't need to worry if the service plan is cancelled, because the device payments would still be due (or a lump sum payment would be due).
- kylehotchkiss 2y ago
  I think the manufacturers should do the payment plans. Then carriers can be selected on basis of quality for customer over lock in effect
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    You can with Apple.
    - ashirviskas 2y ago
      Or literally any phone in EU.
    - tzs 2y ago
      About a year ago there was a change to that. If you want to buy direct from Apple and make monthly payments instead of paying all at once they require you to choose one of AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or Boost. For some models of phone you are then required to enter a valid phone number for that carrier, and proof that it is your number, in order to be allowed to add the phone to your order. For other models they don't ask you to enter a number and you can go ahead and complete your order. Note: the phone will arrive unlocked, so you are not stuck with the carrier that you specified when ordering. From what I've read the phone will arrive configured to use that carrier, but during setup when it asks to setup your number just tell it you want to set it up later. It may ask more than once. Just keep saying you will do it later. When setup is finally done, you can then initiate setting up any carrier you want. Here's how it currently works for each phone model. • 16 Pro: not required to enter number, except if you choose Boost as your carrier. • 16: required to enter number. • 14 and 15: required to enter number for all carriers except AT&T. • SE: required to enter number if you choose Verizon or Boost, not required if you choose AT&T or T-Mobile. Before the 16 came out the pattern was similar. The 15 Pro did not require giving your number. The non-pro 15 required giving you number no matter which carrier you selected. The 14 and SE required it with some and not with others. An alternative approach that I've seen several people on Reddit claim worked for them was to select to pay in full using their Apple Card when the ordered, which allows ordering without selecting a carrier. Then they call Apple Card customer support and say they would like to switch that charge to Apple Card Monthly Installments. In summary, if you want to buy from Apple on a monthly payment plan: • If you use AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, or Boost no problem. Go ahead and give your account information. • If you use some other carrier and are buying a phone other than a non-pro 16, choose AT&T as your carrier, and then decline to activate AT&T during initial setup. After that you can initiate activation with your carrier. • If you use some other carrier and are buying a non-pro 16 the only option seems to be to select to pay in full, put it on your Apple Card, and then get Apple Card customer support to switch it to installments.
- MR4D 2y ago
  There is a reason US cell rates are so high. That reason is because of lock-in. If they did what you want, rates would fall, as would their profitability. I expect them to fight this tooth and nail.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    People have been able to buy unlocked phones and use them without a service contract for over a decade in the US. In recent years, you can even change mobile networks from your couch with a few taps via eSIM. The US has 3 mobile networks, and it’s a massive country with massive infrastructure needs. I imagine costs must be at least a little bit higher to offset the need for more infrastructure per customer.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      Yes, but not everyone knows how this all works, and the barriers that are still in place do still effectively limit many from shopping around. Many people shopping for phones in the US will visit a wireless retailer and will be funneled to locked phones on contract.
  - JoshTko 2y ago
    They really aren't expensive anymore in the US if you shop around. You can get unlimited data, talk, text for $18/mo per month from US mobile, and you can even choose which network to use Verizon, tmobile, or ATT. US mobile has a new feature that lets you switch the carrier network for $2 per switch.
    - zrobotics 2y ago
      I wonder how much those cheap MVNO prices are subsidized by everyone who has a contract directly with the carrier though. Going directly with Verizon or AT&T is super expensive compared to Europe. At the end of the day, someone needs to build & maintain the physical infrastructure. I don't know if the carriers could keep operating if everyone switched to MVNOs, they might not have enough revenue to maintain the infrastructure. North America is pretty large and not densely populated. That being said, the major carriers here absolutely suck and utilize very scummy business practices that aren't that far off of a payday loan place. Financing an iPhone with Verizon really isn't that far off of payday loan rates, it's a horrible deal.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  I just got an idea for the opposite. Buy a phone with three years worth of service together with the phone. Extra features are extra money. 36 months x 40$ per month plus the cost of phone ($600) = $2040. Add discount for loyalty (-$800). Free phone and more.
- pcai 2y ago
  It’s impractical to “repossess” phones so in practice the carriers wouldn’t be able to stop people from deliberately defaulting on the contract with no repercussions (they can bring it to a different carrier who is indifferent)
- kube-system 2y ago
  Yes, but the reason they don't do this is because "free phone" sounds more enticing than "$22.95/mo installment plan for 2 years".
- wmf 2y ago
  There's a growing segment of the American public who thinks contracts are fake so they would probably sign up for a "free" phone, unlock it, sell it, and then insist on breaking the contract with no penalty because they "didn't understand it and it was unfair anyway". It would be the new "Chase ATM glitch".
- grvbck 2y ago
  That's how it works i EU (or at least the majority of it). Also, it as it is far easier to buy a phone with an installment plan than to get a cash loan, it's very common to see brand new, unboxed phones sold on the second-hand market. People sell the phone for cash and use the installment plan as an interest-free loan payment.
Kiboneu 2y ago
My friend bought an android phone from AT&T. Recently she unlocked it, and she was able to use other sim cards, but the phone was still branded with the AT&T logo and loaded with its software. The phone can’t make any over the air updates because it relies in AT&T to fetch carrier specific updates… which fails when she switches providers. I’m torn because it’s either flash unofficial firmware from the internet or live without security updates until she buys a new phone, both of these undesirable from a security perspective. The phone was just released 4 years ago and it is in good shape; but all that flies out the window because of this and related stupid practices. I’m not sure if that is also addressed.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  IMO allowing OTA updates to go through through the mobile provider was Android's biggest mistake. Their reputation and platform integrity has been irreparably damaged because of it.
  - wh0knows 2y ago
    This is pure speculation, but is it possible that Android never would have been successful (or as successful) if they did not bow to the carriers? By taking carrier-friendly positions they built a symbiotic relationship that resulted in the carriers being happy to promote their phones.
    - JoBrad 2y ago
      Apple didn’t bow to the carriers. You can speculate that only Apple could have done that, but Google’s deference to carriers has continued with RCS. Given their market position now, I think it’s just a preference in doing business.
      - IgorPartola 2y ago
        The thing is that Android is open source (at least nominally). So having Google refuse carries the ability to customize it would be like having the Linux project say that companies can’t ship their own distros. Google could have applied pressure on carries via some sort of “Certified Android” label but realistically this is very different from iOS/Apple where the hardware and software are closed and made by the same company.
egberts1 2y ago
[flagged]
- gruez 2y ago
  "unlocking" in this context means sim locking (ie. making the phone only work with SIM cards from a particular network), not bootloader or any other sort of locking.
  - egberts1 2y ago
    Precisely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVyu7NB7W6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVyu7NB7W6Y
- shevis 2y ago
  Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41036581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41036581>
  - egberts1 2y ago
    I did. Nobody gets it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVyu7NB7W6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVyu7NB7W6Y
cogman10 2y ago
I support this move as hopefully it will kill off the practice of carrier specific OSes. The last carrier phone I bought was a Samsung Galaxy 4 from T-Mobile. I got a total of 0 os updates out of it because T-Mobile never released a new version of the OS (even though Samsung did). They just abandoned the phone. At this point the most important quality of a phone to me is active security updates, so I'll never buy one where a carrier can get in the way of protecting myself from zero day exploits.
- mrpippy 2y ago
  I don’t think this will make any difference—SIM unlocking is totally separate from phone firmware
- jfdjkfdhjds 2y ago
  OS and the bundled sleazy apps and injected ad networks are a big positive cost center for american telcos. >At this point the most important quality of a phone to me is active security updates, so I'll never buy one where a carrier you have no ideia how little of minority this type of thinking is! :(
  - Spivak 2y ago
    Well 52% of Americans use iOS and 31% are Samsung which now get 7 years of support so I think that's actually a pretty large majority now.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      This argument would only make any sense if you believed that the reason Americans were buying from Apple and Samsung was for their software update policy, which I'm pretty sure you don't.
      - consteval 2y ago
        I think you could argue people are buying them for longevity, and these measures increase their perceived longevity. I know a lot of iPhone users who will only buy iPhones because of their longevity. They'll keep them for many generations, and they simply don't have faith in Android phone brands to keep up that long. Phones are large purchases, sometimes financed, like a car. So when it comes to buying, some consumers treat them like cars. They weight reliability and longevity very high, and they'll often buy slightly used phones. A generation or two old iPhone is really still top of the line. A lot of that is marketing perception but there's also some truth to it.
shevis 2y ago
In what world does disallowing blatantly anticompetitive behavior constitute a significant economic change?
- jjk166 2y ago
  Ours
op7 2y ago
I worked in the prepaid phone industry for 4 years so I have some insight on this. This is bad. The whole purpose of phones being locked for 6(now 12 at Mpcs) mo. is so that we are able to offer very decent phones to poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford the up front cost. Were talking about $200-500 phones being given away for completely FREE to new customers sold at a LOSS and we only HOPE to recover that money if they keep their service more than 6 months, for the $500 off iphones closer to 12. Every new prepaid customer who takes advantage of this-we are taking a massive gamble on wether or not this person will legitimately intend to pay their monthly bill, or if theyre just taking advantage of the initial subsidy and then cancelling service and selling the phones overseas or for parts. The industry consides this fraud. Frontline prepaid retailers already have to do some basic KYC on customers like checking IDs(which isnt a hard requirement) to make sure customers arent abusing the promos, because all it takes is a handful of abusers to cause serious economic harm to a particular stores which aleady operate on thin profit margins. If this change goes through expect prepaid/anonymous phones to go away(KYC and ID checking will kick into overdrive), people in poverty wont be able to get iPhones for $100 upfront anymore, expect hundreds more prepaid phone franchise stores to go out of business and thousands of people to lose their jobs, and for what? What is the benfit of this? So retail arbitragers can buy phones to export overseas at the expense of the American lower class even faster in 2 months rather than 6-12?
- sp527 2y ago
  This argument has so many holes you could drive a Cybertruck through it. There are ample used phone markets selling iPhones and top-of-the-line Android devices (e.g. Back Market). No one needs to be on the latest and greatest. I still use an iPhone 13 and I have friends on phones as old as iPhone 11. None of us are part of the "American lower class". Smartphones are a highly mature technology and the improvements being made year on year are now vanishingly incremental, at best. Further, there is no shortage of financing models available to American consumers. If anything, Buy Now Pay Later might be *too* available as an option.
- thisislife2 2y ago
  > people in poverty wont be able to get iPhones for $100 upfront anymore And that's good - those who are financially constrained shouldn't be getting (enticed) into debt-traps by buying a brand-new high-priced device when really cheaper alternatives are available. Note that the article points out that Verizon already unlocks all their phones after 60 days due to a previous agreement with the FCC. So this has already been "tested" in the marketplace and Verizon hasn't wound up this business model of payment plans. The article also points out the consumer benefit of this FCC policy - once Verizon unlocks its phone, their customers have more freedom to try other services through trial eSims, while customers of AT&T and T-Mobile can't because of their (longer duration) locked phones.
seba_dos1 2y ago
Wow, I forgot SIM locks were still a thing. Here in the EU this has been dealt with like a decade ago or so.
- jfdjkfdhjds 2y ago
  most places in the world theres little sim lock, there's mandated number portability, and there are regulations from marking up the price of the phone to artificially make people breaking contract early to pay a lot. ...and there's the usa.
  - dannyobrien 2y ago
    doesn't the US have number portability too? https://www.fcc.gov/general/wireless-local-number-portability-wlnp https://www.fcc.gov/general/wireless-local-number-portabilit...
- grahamj 2y ago
  Same in Canada, we got a rare regulator win some time ago, much to the chagrin of our draconian carriers. Number portability too.
  - refurb 2y ago
    I don't get how this is a benefit to consumers? It's not like providers throw up their hands and say "oh, I get we'll need to take a hit on this one" They just adjust offerings and pricing to compensate for it. With locked plans, they are willing to offer the phone at a discount because they know the cost is offset by the value of the customer acquisition for at least 2 years. If they can't do that, then they'll just sell undiscounted phones. Which is what consumers can do today anyways.
    - SirMaster 2y ago
      Yeah, I am willing to trade being locked to that carrier for a massive discount to my phone. I hope this doesn't mean the discounts go away, because then it will cost me so much more to upgrade phones every few years. It was only $350 for my iPhone 14 Pro at launch for example due to a $1000 discount with trade in. I just looked at the trade-in list and bought the cheapest one on the list refurbished from Amazon, which cost me $350. Traded that in and they gave me a new 14 Pro. I have 0 issues being locked to ATT for 3 years as I need service and I like their service anyways.
AzzyHN 2y ago
It's not just carriers that enjoy locked phones. Currently, BestBuy (the 2nd largest electronics retailer in America, after Amazon) can only sell unlocked iPhones that are at least a year old. If you want a shiny new iPhone 16 Pro that's unlocked, you have to purchase it from Apple directly.
- kylehotchkiss 2y ago
  I don't see this as Best Buy's preferred situation, rather they really need to bring people into stores and this is an agreement with carriers to give them preferential treatment regarding access to their registration systems
which 2y ago
This might be well intentioned but it's a bad idea. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-edtx/pr/101-indicted-transnational-cell-phone-trafficking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edtx/pr/101-indicted-transnatio... for why but the gist of it is that people use fake IDs to impersonate someone, get phones on credit, and make only the first payment. Then they sell it to a wholesaler who uses a sketchy connection to get the phone unlocked, Fedexes the phone to Hong Kong, and never pays again. Having to bribe rogue carrier employees for unlocks is a big cost center for these thugs. By automatically unlocking by default you're doing their job for them and making this crime more profitable. And the victims in many cases don't spot the fraud until months later because not everyone is constantly checking their credit report. And it's not some isolated thing either. Literally ONE phone store / wholesaler in Texas bought and exported 100 million dollars worth of stolen phones in a couple of years. The locking is also part of why new iPhones are even affordable to middle class people in the first place.
- ewoodrich 2y ago
  > The locking is also part of why new iPhones are even affordable to middle class people in the first place. Verizon has been forced to unlock after 60 days by an agreement with the FCC for years now and they still offer similar subsidies as the other carriers.
  - which 2y ago
    Yeah but they might just be eating higher fraud losses. It used to be pretty much instant unlocking until they asked for a waiver to make it 60 days in 2019 (which was granted by the FCC with not much pushback). So clearly some delay is important. Given their previous agreement they might not have felt they could ask for a longer wait.
- amluto 2y ago
  Then lock out phones that are in default. This is not what carrier locks do.
  - which 2y ago
siskiyou 2y ago
Just adding a little bit of context about AT&T: I collect used cell phones, erase them, unlock when possible, and distribute them to unhoused people through several local food shelves, which allows those people to access benefits, housing, health care, jobs, etc which would otherwise be out of reach. With AT&T I can go to their website and unlock an old phone in minutes, allowing them to use a no-cost carrier like QLink Wireless. With T-Mobile or Consumer Cellular (or many others) they just give you the finger. The phone could be e-waste for all they care.
- acdha 2y ago
  How do they distinguish you from a phone thief? Is there some kind of check with the previous owner?
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    Unlocking from being bound to a cellular network.
  - underlipton 2y ago
    I imagine the phone's previous account having removed the device/cancelled service without filing any sort of loss/theft claim would help. And then a red flag would be the unlock call coming before the previous account adds a replacement phone/cancels service.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Locking the phone to a carrier is not an anti-theft mechanism. They're available in abundance on the used market with no special protections of any kind from the carriers, the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier. Maybe you're thinking of the locking mechanisms built in to Android and iOS?
    - pcai 2y ago
      It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is: - get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years. - don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them. - You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone. Carrier locking prevents this. If someone steals your phone on the train that’s a different problem with a different solution
indigodaddy 2y ago
I think there is an argument for this simply based on the fact that Verizon is currently disadvantaged competitively since they already abide per a previous FCC agreement.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  They're not subject to that agreement by accident.
  - indigodaddy 2y ago
    Sure but they are still competitively disadvantaged in the landscape as a result.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      And? Actions have consequences.
    - downrightmike 2y ago
      Good, they shouldn't do bad shit to people for a buck
neilv 2y ago
Separate from phone hardware not being locked to a particular carrier, I'm especially interested in phone hardware not being locked to a bootloader. Currently, Google Pixel hardware units bought through some carriers can't have GrapheneOS installed on them, because that carrier chose to disable "OEM Unlocking" of the bootloader.
- commodoreboxer 2y ago
  Verizon in particular. My Pixel 3 is still more than capable hardware-wise, but it's years out of software support. I could get much more use out of it, but the bootloader is locked and Verizon will not unlock it, so it's e-waste.
  - lightedman 2y ago
    Protip: Call Verizon and tell them refusing to unlock your fully-paid for phone can be considered theft in your jurisdiction and can result in criminal charges. They'll unlock it very quickly. The techs aren't legal geniuses.
    - prepend 2y ago
      I’d like to see a video of this working as it seems improbable. Techs are legal geniuses but seems like they’d have a script that boils down to “so sue us.”
    - 1123581321 2y ago
      I doubt this. Unlocks can be done by T4 support but legal threats will kick you to a separate system that will not respond to requests that quickly.
    - zrobotics 2y ago
      Unfortunately not. I'm currently embroiled in a complaint with my state's public utilities commission with Verizon. Verizon's corporate reps 'upgraded' my grandfathered plan without my consent while switching devices, and their phone reps truly don't care about the threat of regulatory bodies. So even with an actionable legal threat and a case number, their phone support has not at all been responsive.
Centigonal 2y ago
I was abroad recently, and my mother couldn't get service because her phone was SIM locked by cricket and the requisite six month period haven't passed for it to be eligible for an unlock. She had bought her phone full price from Cricket. If she had purchased the same phone for the same price somewhere else, it would've come unlocked.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  Cricket phones are generally subsidized
- qup 2y ago
  Cricket once switched network types from CDMA to GSM (or whatever the terms are). That happened a couple months after I paid full price for a cricket-branded Samsung Galaxy S4, and it bricked it. It was no longer usable on cricket. It wasn't usable on any other network, either.
- spondylosaurus 2y ago
  Depending on which phone, it may have actually cost a bit more than what she paid to get an unlocked phone. I always buy unlocked, but Best Buy charges an extra hundred bucks compared to the "activate with your carrier" version!
  - Centigonal 2y ago
    I didn't know that part!
amluto 2y ago
I don’t understand the justification for 60 days or for carrier locks at all. If a phone company wants to impose a requirement that a phone will not operate at all if money is owed for its purchase and hasn’t been paid, then maybe I’d be okay with this. But for some reason carriers seem to think it makes sense to prevent, say, using dual SIM mode with their SIM and a second SIM from a different provider for 2 years or 45 days or 60 days or whatever. This makes no sense. I’m also a bit surprised that Apple plays along with this. Apple surely has the market power to just say “sorry, no more carrier locks”.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. That’s why there is a 60 day delay. For 60 days you pay AT&T for a service contract.
  - ekimekim 2y ago
    > You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. Why not? You're paying them for the device. Why should they have a right to stop you using it how you want? Imagine if buying a car also came with a requirement to only use the dealership's petrol stations for the first year.
    - qup 2y ago
      Because the devices AT&T sells are subsidized and come with a network contract. You can go other places to buy unlocked phones. I don't buy carrier-locked phones anymore, personally.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      Generally they are sold at a discount, with the deal that they will make back the discount if you use their service. You can buy an unlocked phone new from the manufacturer but then you will pay full price.
      - 2y ago
az226 2y ago
Maybe they can offer a midway point. Allow additional eSIMs to be added if your main phone plan is still active. Currently this use case is impossible.
aftbit 2y ago
I'm always mildly annoyed that "Unlocked" can mean three different things with phones: * Able to be used on any carrier (i.e. no SIM lock) * Able to be rooted/jailbroken (i.e. no bootloader root of trust lock) * Able to be accessed (i.e. no screen lock) This article is talking about the first one. There isn't much confusion possible in the title, especially with the dissenting carrier names highlighted.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Is there a term for this sort of linguistic conversion? On one hand, it's part of what makes natural languages so powerful--we can use the word language to mean English, Haskell and pheromones. On the other hand, it leads to confusion when we're overly parsimonious with fun words, e.g. plasma.
  - mhb 2y ago
    The term is laziness. Instead of creating or searching for a more precise word, an ambiguous word is used. As another example, see the renaissance of the gender neutral pronoun "they".
    - cto_of_antifa 2y ago
      [dead]
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Instead of creating or searching for a more precise word This doesn’t work, though it seems to be a common misconception among engineers. Put simply, people will nickname neologisms. Creating a new term or pulling one from obscurity virtually begs for someone else to come up with a name people will actually use for you.
  - Kerrick 2y ago
    Perhaps semantic overload? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload
decko 2y ago
How are the carrier locks implemented today? I assume it must be implemented on the client (phone). Do the carriers work with all the phone manufacturers to have them add this capability?
- kube-system 2y ago
  Yes, manufacturers do this to get them on the shelf at retailers.
- srockets 2y ago
  Yes. When a carrier orders lots of phones, the manufacturer would customize the built in software to some extent (how much depends on the manufacturer and the order size)
golemiprague 2y ago
[dead]
ummonk 2y ago
> “The Commission fails to point to specific statutory authorization for an unlocking mandate and would have profound economic consequences, thus raising a major question that would require clear statutory authority from Congress.” Surely they're right? Seems like a stretch for them to be claiming the authority to make rules about this.
- adrr 2y ago
  Why? FCC has every right to regulate communication equipment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone
pmarreck 2y ago
yeah this is basically why I've always paid full price upfront for an unlocked phone
SirMaster 2y ago
Does this mean no more discounts? If so that would suck. That's how I buy my phones. Like I only paid $350 for my iPhone 14 Pro because they had $1000 off with a trade-in. And I was able to buy an eligible used trade-in phone from Amazon to get the deal.
sharpshadow 2y ago
How does the carrier unlock a phone remotely? The process should be reproducible. And yes it with two slots for eSIM and SIM it makes less sense to have the same carrier inside.
bluecalm 2y ago
Those are half measures. The obvious solution is to forbid bundling data/cell plans with phones. Those are separate businesses. Bundling can only be bad for competition and customers. That we don't even get this basic protection in EU while things like forcing USB-C are pushed speaks volumes about the state of customer protection.
aeternum 2y ago
It is ridiculous that phones are still locked. Customers are on the hook for the full cost and equipment is now treated as a loan directly to the customer. Makes no sense for carriers to hold the keys.
einpoklum 2y ago
"A 2022 decision by the high court requires explicit Congressional permission before agencies can decide on issues that have “vast political and economic significance.” A combination of a rather-dysfunctional congress, for many years already, and this limitation, means very little ability to regulate on the federal level in the US.

412 points by miles 2y ago

jalk 2y ago

Can't the operators just sell unlocked phones with monthly installments instead? The installment plan will then include free service for some amount of data/minutes. If the user chooses to switch operator, they are still bound by the installment contract to pay off the phone.

486sx33 2y ago
Yes, but let’s just say you got a 1200 device and only made the first two payments… jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier?
- ssl-3 2y ago
  Small claims court? Inability for the debtor to get a loan for even another phone (or a used car or whatever) for a period of time? It's messy and expensive, but perhaps it should be messy and expensive.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  The same recourse any other lender has for a borrower that defaults.
- happymellon 2y ago
  I bought a car, but then decided to not make the repayments. What's the recourse for the lender?
  - RHSeeger 2y ago
    To be fair, car sellers have also started things like being able to brick your car if you're behind on payments. Or, for the up and coming ones, have the car just drive itself back to the dealer (Ford).
    - monkeywork 2y ago
      can you share a link to this for story happening?
      - astura 2y ago
        https://stateline.org/2018/11/27/late-payment-a-kill-switch-can-strand-you-and-your-car/ https://stateline.org/2018/11/27/late-payment-a-kill-switch-...
      - themaninthedark 2y ago
        https://www.newscientist.com/article/2361657-ford-patents-car-that-can-repossess-itself-and-drive-back-to-showroom/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2361657-ford-patents-ca... Ford got a patent for the idea.
        monkeywork 2y ago
        a patent is VASTLY different than it actually taking place. The number of patents that get filed but never actually implemented could fill the grand canyon.
  - astura 2y ago
    Cars are repoed when payments aren't made.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier? Subprime auto lenders use “electronic devices to remotely shut down vehicles” [1]. Carriers could install remote management profiles on phones financed for subprime borrowers. If a borrower defaults, the loan is sold to a collector and phone erased and put in lost mode. It isn’t pleasant. But neither is being locked into a phone plan you don’t want. [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/03/14/car-lenders-using-remote-shut-off-collect-delinquent-payments/vbNVujhXK591VkDOaylM3J/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/03/14/car-lenders-...
  - which 2y ago
    The GSMA has a blacklist system. Participating carriers can blacklist a stolen / fraud / nonpayment phone IMEI and all the other blacklist members will agree to also ban that phone from their network. The problem is that people won't make payments, sell the phone for cash, and eventually the phone ends up in places (China, UAE, Nigeria, Russia, ...) that don't participate in the blacklist.
    - ummonk 2y ago
      The right compromise should be that they have to unlock it when you've paid off the phone in full.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Shakahs 2y ago
  Currently the carrier will publish the phone's IMEI to a central blacklist, so the phone can't be used with any carrier that subscribes to the blacklist. Also iPhones can be activation blocked via Apple, which is entirely independent of the IMEI block done by carriers.
- toast0 2y ago
  Credit reporting and collections. There's a reason carriers pull credit reports for post paid accounts and 'free' phone promos right? Although, personally, I prefer to be on the prepaid side of the carrier. I'm not getting a promotional phone, and I'm not paying for it in my monthly rate, so if my phone works for more than two years, I'm saving money. And I don't really need to use secret handshake financing... I'd rather pay $17/month for my plan and pay for a phone when I need it. That said, T-Mobile tried being the 'uncarrier' and charging fairer prices for service and financing phones directly, and it must not have worked as well as carrier norms because they reverted to secret handshake financing.
  - smallnamespace 2y ago
    > Credit reporting and collections. This has a loss rate of around 70-80% across the collections industry, which is an extremely strong disincentive to go this route since it's just highly inefficient. The high cost of the collections process is a deadweight loss upon all society.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    There is no credit check with T-Mobile. In fact, even if you have bad credit, and you have had service with them for a year, you can get a phone on contract. T-Mobile still finances phones directly and equipment payment plans are clearly separated out from service charges
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - hansvm 2y ago
      A year ago they ran a credit check even just for home internet, anecdata of 1.
- aceofspades19 2y ago
  People made the same argument in Canada but they changed the rules so you either get an unlocked phone or they have to unlock it upon request. Yet there has not been widespread issues of this happening. They can still ding your credit & there is only a small number of carriers so you can only do that so many times before you are going to have serious issues if you don't care about your credit or collections. Also you can still get the phone unlocked without the carrier anyways if you really want to so it would not deter anyone who really wants to run off with the phone anyways.
- az226 2y ago
  So make the device unlocked with the ability to lock it back if you fail to make the payments.
  - lodovic 2y ago
    That wouldn't qualify as truly unlocked, though
acdha 2y ago
That’s how it should work. My understanding is that the carriers (probably correctly) assume that there are more people who will buy a cool phone if they don’t think about it as a short term loan – and then keep paying the same price after the phone is paid off. If they had to say “$900 in 24 payments of $50” more people would decide they don’t need the “Pro” model and the carriers would be forced to compete with the banks on financing terms.
- colejohnson66 2y ago
  I’ve even seen ones where the loan is “backwards”, and they’re getting more common - you pay full price up front and they give you statement credits each month!
  - acdha 2y ago
    How did we live like animals in the dark era before such innovative financial products?
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      Do you know that CEOs once had to settle for only a single summer home?
- connicpu 2y ago
  I'm not sure about other carriers, but for the past few years now that's how it's been on Verizon. The only lock in part is they waive interest as long as you stay a Verizon customer until it's paid off.
lbourdages 2y ago
That is how it works in Canada now. If you cancel your contract, you have to pay the remaining balance immediately. No fees, just the remainder.
- Marsymars 2y ago
  Well, kinda. Carriers can work around that by marking up the retail price so e.g. you have a $480 phone that the carrier sells for $700, or lets you buy for $20/m over a 24-month term with a promise to clear the $220 balance if you make it to the end of the term, so it's effectively a penalty if you cancel early.
  - grahamj 2y ago
    Yeah, or you spread the regular retail price over X months with no interest and the carrier takes the manufacturer subsidy. The real catch is that they typically require you to be on a high end non-BYOD plan, which keeps going up every year. I prefer to buy the device outright and minimize the plan cost.
cogman10 2y ago
The point is to lock the user into a contract with the carrier. By binding the phone to there service they make it unlikely that a user will switch providers as that would need a new phone while still paying off the old phone. That's why they'll offer these phones at low or no interest plans, so they can pull in the $50/month subscription for the years that the phone is being paid off.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month, compared to a plan which costs $50 less per month, and a BNPL plan attached to the carrier which costs $50 per month?
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month That phone is generally not given away - the only phones "given away" are generally low end. $1200 flagship phones come at the cost of a contract on the line AND a monthly payment for the device that pays for it in full.
    - RHSeeger 2y ago
      The last 3 phones I purchased, it was a choice between - plan + buying new phone + no contract - plan + phone "free with plan" + increase in plan cost because of phone + 2 year contract For one pone, the first was a clear winner. For another, it was slightly cheaper to get it with the plan (2nd option). For the last (iphone) it was the second option, but there was no increase in plan because of it. So, the "cost" of the phone can vary a lot, and taking the time to figure it out is well worth it.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      If the monthly payment pays for the device in full, what's the problem with a customer ending the service contract while continuing the monthly payments? If the monthly payment doesn't pay for it in full, why not just make the monthly device payments $n more, and the cellular service payments $n less? That way you don't need to worry if the service plan is cancelled, because the device payments would still be due (or a lump sum payment would be due).
kylehotchkiss 2y ago
I think the manufacturers should do the payment plans. Then carriers can be selected on basis of quality for customer over lock in effect
- scarface_74 2y ago
  You can with Apple.
  - ashirviskas 2y ago
    Or literally any phone in EU.
  - tzs 2y ago
    About a year ago there was a change to that. If you want to buy direct from Apple and make monthly payments instead of paying all at once they require you to choose one of AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or Boost. For some models of phone you are then required to enter a valid phone number for that carrier, and proof that it is your number, in order to be allowed to add the phone to your order. For other models they don't ask you to enter a number and you can go ahead and complete your order. Note: the phone will arrive unlocked, so you are not stuck with the carrier that you specified when ordering. From what I've read the phone will arrive configured to use that carrier, but during setup when it asks to setup your number just tell it you want to set it up later. It may ask more than once. Just keep saying you will do it later. When setup is finally done, you can then initiate setting up any carrier you want. Here's how it currently works for each phone model. • 16 Pro: not required to enter number, except if you choose Boost as your carrier. • 16: required to enter number. • 14 and 15: required to enter number for all carriers except AT&T. • SE: required to enter number if you choose Verizon or Boost, not required if you choose AT&T or T-Mobile. Before the 16 came out the pattern was similar. The 15 Pro did not require giving your number. The non-pro 15 required giving you number no matter which carrier you selected. The 14 and SE required it with some and not with others. An alternative approach that I've seen several people on Reddit claim worked for them was to select to pay in full using their Apple Card when the ordered, which allows ordering without selecting a carrier. Then they call Apple Card customer support and say they would like to switch that charge to Apple Card Monthly Installments. In summary, if you want to buy from Apple on a monthly payment plan: • If you use AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, or Boost no problem. Go ahead and give your account information. • If you use some other carrier and are buying a phone other than a non-pro 16, choose AT&T as your carrier, and then decline to activate AT&T during initial setup. After that you can initiate activation with your carrier. • If you use some other carrier and are buying a non-pro 16 the only option seems to be to select to pay in full, put it on your Apple Card, and then get Apple Card customer support to switch it to installments.
MR4D 2y ago
There is a reason US cell rates are so high. That reason is because of lock-in. If they did what you want, rates would fall, as would their profitability. I expect them to fight this tooth and nail.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  People have been able to buy unlocked phones and use them without a service contract for over a decade in the US. In recent years, you can even change mobile networks from your couch with a few taps via eSIM. The US has 3 mobile networks, and it’s a massive country with massive infrastructure needs. I imagine costs must be at least a little bit higher to offset the need for more infrastructure per customer.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Yes, but not everyone knows how this all works, and the barriers that are still in place do still effectively limit many from shopping around. Many people shopping for phones in the US will visit a wireless retailer and will be funneled to locked phones on contract.
- JoshTko 2y ago
  They really aren't expensive anymore in the US if you shop around. You can get unlimited data, talk, text for $18/mo per month from US mobile, and you can even choose which network to use Verizon, tmobile, or ATT. US mobile has a new feature that lets you switch the carrier network for $2 per switch.
  - zrobotics 2y ago
    I wonder how much those cheap MVNO prices are subsidized by everyone who has a contract directly with the carrier though. Going directly with Verizon or AT&T is super expensive compared to Europe. At the end of the day, someone needs to build & maintain the physical infrastructure. I don't know if the carriers could keep operating if everyone switched to MVNOs, they might not have enough revenue to maintain the infrastructure. North America is pretty large and not densely populated. That being said, the major carriers here absolutely suck and utilize very scummy business practices that aren't that far off of a payday loan place. Financing an iPhone with Verizon really isn't that far off of payday loan rates, it's a horrible deal.
nashashmi 2y ago
I just got an idea for the opposite. Buy a phone with three years worth of service together with the phone. Extra features are extra money. 36 months x 40$ per month plus the cost of phone ($600) = $2040. Add discount for loyalty (-$800). Free phone and more.
pcai 2y ago
It’s impractical to “repossess” phones so in practice the carriers wouldn’t be able to stop people from deliberately defaulting on the contract with no repercussions (they can bring it to a different carrier who is indifferent)
kube-system 2y ago
Yes, but the reason they don't do this is because "free phone" sounds more enticing than "$22.95/mo installment plan for 2 years".
wmf 2y ago
There's a growing segment of the American public who thinks contracts are fake so they would probably sign up for a "free" phone, unlock it, sell it, and then insist on breaking the contract with no penalty because they "didn't understand it and it was unfair anyway". It would be the new "Chase ATM glitch".
grvbck 2y ago
That's how it works i EU (or at least the majority of it). Also, it as it is far easier to buy a phone with an installment plan than to get a cash loan, it's very common to see brand new, unboxed phones sold on the second-hand market. People sell the phone for cash and use the installment plan as an interest-free loan payment.

Kiboneu 2y ago

My friend bought an android phone from AT&T. Recently she unlocked it, and she was able to use other sim cards, but the phone was still branded with the AT&T logo and loaded with its software. The phone can’t make any over the air updates because it relies in AT&T to fetch carrier specific updates… which fails when she switches providers. I’m torn because it’s either flash unofficial firmware from the internet or live without security updates until she buys a new phone, both of these undesirable from a security perspective. The phone was just released 4 years ago and it is in good shape; but all that flies out the window because of this and related stupid practices. I’m not sure if that is also addressed.

NewJazz 2y ago
IMO allowing OTA updates to go through through the mobile provider was Android's biggest mistake. Their reputation and platform integrity has been irreparably damaged because of it.
- wh0knows 2y ago
  This is pure speculation, but is it possible that Android never would have been successful (or as successful) if they did not bow to the carriers? By taking carrier-friendly positions they built a symbiotic relationship that resulted in the carriers being happy to promote their phones.
  - JoBrad 2y ago
    Apple didn’t bow to the carriers. You can speculate that only Apple could have done that, but Google’s deference to carriers has continued with RCS. Given their market position now, I think it’s just a preference in doing business.
    - IgorPartola 2y ago
      The thing is that Android is open source (at least nominally). So having Google refuse carries the ability to customize it would be like having the Linux project say that companies can’t ship their own distros. Google could have applied pressure on carries via some sort of “Certified Android” label but realistically this is very different from iOS/Apple where the hardware and software are closed and made by the same company.

egberts1 2y ago

[flagged]

gruez 2y ago
"unlocking" in this context means sim locking (ie. making the phone only work with SIM cards from a particular network), not bootloader or any other sort of locking.
- egberts1 2y ago
  Precisely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVyu7NB7W6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVyu7NB7W6Y
shevis 2y ago
Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41036581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41036581>
- egberts1 2y ago
  I did. Nobody gets it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVyu7NB7W6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVyu7NB7W6Y

cogman10 2y ago

I support this move as hopefully it will kill off the practice of carrier specific OSes. The last carrier phone I bought was a Samsung Galaxy 4 from T-Mobile. I got a total of 0 os updates out of it because T-Mobile never released a new version of the OS (even though Samsung did). They just abandoned the phone. At this point the most important quality of a phone to me is active security updates, so I'll never buy one where a carrier can get in the way of protecting myself from zero day exploits.

mrpippy 2y ago
I don’t think this will make any difference—SIM unlocking is totally separate from phone firmware
jfdjkfdhjds 2y ago
OS and the bundled sleazy apps and injected ad networks are a big positive cost center for american telcos. >At this point the most important quality of a phone to me is active security updates, so I'll never buy one where a carrier you have no ideia how little of minority this type of thinking is! :(
- Spivak 2y ago
  Well 52% of Americans use iOS and 31% are Samsung which now get 7 years of support so I think that's actually a pretty large majority now.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    This argument would only make any sense if you believed that the reason Americans were buying from Apple and Samsung was for their software update policy, which I'm pretty sure you don't.
    - consteval 2y ago
      I think you could argue people are buying them for longevity, and these measures increase their perceived longevity. I know a lot of iPhone users who will only buy iPhones because of their longevity. They'll keep them for many generations, and they simply don't have faith in Android phone brands to keep up that long. Phones are large purchases, sometimes financed, like a car. So when it comes to buying, some consumers treat them like cars. They weight reliability and longevity very high, and they'll often buy slightly used phones. A generation or two old iPhone is really still top of the line. A lot of that is marketing perception but there's also some truth to it.

shevis 2y ago

In what world does disallowing blatantly anticompetitive behavior constitute a significant economic change?

jjk166 2y ago
Ours

op7 2y ago

I worked in the prepaid phone industry for 4 years so I have some insight on this. This is bad. The whole purpose of phones being locked for 6(now 12 at Mpcs) mo. is so that we are able to offer very decent phones to poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford the up front cost. Were talking about $200-500 phones being given away for completely FREE to new customers sold at a LOSS and we only HOPE to recover that money if they keep their service more than 6 months, for the $500 off iphones closer to 12. Every new prepaid customer who takes advantage of this-we are taking a massive gamble on wether or not this person will legitimately intend to pay their monthly bill, or if theyre just taking advantage of the initial subsidy and then cancelling service and selling the phones overseas or for parts. The industry consides this fraud. Frontline prepaid retailers already have to do some basic KYC on customers like checking IDs(which isnt a hard requirement) to make sure customers arent abusing the promos, because all it takes is a handful of abusers to cause serious economic harm to a particular stores which aleady operate on thin profit margins. If this change goes through expect prepaid/anonymous phones to go away(KYC and ID checking will kick into overdrive), people in poverty wont be able to get iPhones for $100 upfront anymore, expect hundreds more prepaid phone franchise stores to go out of business and thousands of people to lose their jobs, and for what? What is the benfit of this? So retail arbitragers can buy phones to export overseas at the expense of the American lower class even faster in 2 months rather than 6-12?

sp527 2y ago
This argument has so many holes you could drive a Cybertruck through it. There are ample used phone markets selling iPhones and top-of-the-line Android devices (e.g. Back Market). No one needs to be on the latest and greatest. I still use an iPhone 13 and I have friends on phones as old as iPhone 11. None of us are part of the "American lower class". Smartphones are a highly mature technology and the improvements being made year on year are now vanishingly incremental, at best. Further, there is no shortage of financing models available to American consumers. If anything, Buy Now Pay Later might be *too* available as an option.
thisislife2 2y ago
> people in poverty wont be able to get iPhones for $100 upfront anymore And that's good - those who are financially constrained shouldn't be getting (enticed) into debt-traps by buying a brand-new high-priced device when really cheaper alternatives are available. Note that the article points out that Verizon already unlocks all their phones after 60 days due to a previous agreement with the FCC. So this has already been "tested" in the marketplace and Verizon hasn't wound up this business model of payment plans. The article also points out the consumer benefit of this FCC policy - once Verizon unlocks its phone, their customers have more freedom to try other services through trial eSims, while customers of AT&T and T-Mobile can't because of their (longer duration) locked phones.

seba_dos1 2y ago

Wow, I forgot SIM locks were still a thing. Here in the EU this has been dealt with like a decade ago or so.

jfdjkfdhjds 2y ago
most places in the world theres little sim lock, there's mandated number portability, and there are regulations from marking up the price of the phone to artificially make people breaking contract early to pay a lot. ...and there's the usa.
- dannyobrien 2y ago
  doesn't the US have number portability too? https://www.fcc.gov/general/wireless-local-number-portability-wlnp https://www.fcc.gov/general/wireless-local-number-portabilit...
grahamj 2y ago
Same in Canada, we got a rare regulator win some time ago, much to the chagrin of our draconian carriers. Number portability too.
- refurb 2y ago
  I don't get how this is a benefit to consumers? It's not like providers throw up their hands and say "oh, I get we'll need to take a hit on this one" They just adjust offerings and pricing to compensate for it. With locked plans, they are willing to offer the phone at a discount because they know the cost is offset by the value of the customer acquisition for at least 2 years. If they can't do that, then they'll just sell undiscounted phones. Which is what consumers can do today anyways.
  - SirMaster 2y ago
    Yeah, I am willing to trade being locked to that carrier for a massive discount to my phone. I hope this doesn't mean the discounts go away, because then it will cost me so much more to upgrade phones every few years. It was only $350 for my iPhone 14 Pro at launch for example due to a $1000 discount with trade in. I just looked at the trade-in list and bought the cheapest one on the list refurbished from Amazon, which cost me $350. Traded that in and they gave me a new 14 Pro. I have 0 issues being locked to ATT for 3 years as I need service and I like their service anyways.

AzzyHN 2y ago

It's not just carriers that enjoy locked phones. Currently, BestBuy (the 2nd largest electronics retailer in America, after Amazon) can only sell unlocked iPhones that are at least a year old. If you want a shiny new iPhone 16 Pro that's unlocked, you have to purchase it from Apple directly.

kylehotchkiss 2y ago
I don't see this as Best Buy's preferred situation, rather they really need to bring people into stores and this is an agreement with carriers to give them preferential treatment regarding access to their registration systems

which 2y ago

This might be well intentioned but it's a bad idea. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-edtx/pr/101-indicted-transnational-cell-phone-trafficking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edtx/pr/101-indicted-transnatio... for why but the gist of it is that people use fake IDs to impersonate someone, get phones on credit, and make only the first payment. Then they sell it to a wholesaler who uses a sketchy connection to get the phone unlocked, Fedexes the phone to Hong Kong, and never pays again. Having to bribe rogue carrier employees for unlocks is a big cost center for these thugs. By automatically unlocking by default you're doing their job for them and making this crime more profitable. And the victims in many cases don't spot the fraud until months later because not everyone is constantly checking their credit report. And it's not some isolated thing either. Literally ONE phone store / wholesaler in Texas bought and exported 100 million dollars worth of stolen phones in a couple of years. The locking is also part of why new iPhones are even affordable to middle class people in the first place.

ewoodrich 2y ago
> The locking is also part of why new iPhones are even affordable to middle class people in the first place. Verizon has been forced to unlock after 60 days by an agreement with the FCC for years now and they still offer similar subsidies as the other carriers.
- which 2y ago
  Yeah but they might just be eating higher fraud losses. It used to be pretty much instant unlocking until they asked for a waiver to make it 60 days in 2019 (which was granted by the FCC with not much pushback). So clearly some delay is important. Given their previous agreement they might not have felt they could ask for a longer wait.
amluto 2y ago
Then lock out phones that are in default. This is not what carrier locks do.
- which 2y ago

siskiyou 2y ago

Just adding a little bit of context about AT&T: I collect used cell phones, erase them, unlock when possible, and distribute them to unhoused people through several local food shelves, which allows those people to access benefits, housing, health care, jobs, etc which would otherwise be out of reach. With AT&T I can go to their website and unlock an old phone in minutes, allowing them to use a no-cost carrier like QLink Wireless. With T-Mobile or Consumer Cellular (or many others) they just give you the finger. The phone could be e-waste for all they care.

acdha 2y ago
How do they distinguish you from a phone thief? Is there some kind of check with the previous owner?
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Unlocking from being bound to a cellular network.
- underlipton 2y ago
  I imagine the phone's previous account having removed the device/cancelled service without filing any sort of loss/theft claim would help. And then a red flag would be the unlock call coming before the previous account adds a replacement phone/cancels service.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Locking the phone to a carrier is not an anti-theft mechanism. They're available in abundance on the used market with no special protections of any kind from the carriers, the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier. Maybe you're thinking of the locking mechanisms built in to Android and iOS?
  - pcai 2y ago
    It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is: - get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years. - don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them. - You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone. Carrier locking prevents this. If someone steals your phone on the train that’s a different problem with a different solution

indigodaddy 2y ago

I think there is an argument for this simply based on the fact that Verizon is currently disadvantaged competitively since they already abide per a previous FCC agreement.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
They're not subject to that agreement by accident.
- indigodaddy 2y ago
  Sure but they are still competitively disadvantaged in the landscape as a result.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    And? Actions have consequences.
  - downrightmike 2y ago
    Good, they shouldn't do bad shit to people for a buck

neilv 2y ago

Separate from phone hardware not being locked to a particular carrier, I'm especially interested in phone hardware not being locked to a bootloader. Currently, Google Pixel hardware units bought through some carriers can't have GrapheneOS installed on them, because that carrier chose to disable "OEM Unlocking" of the bootloader.

commodoreboxer 2y ago
Verizon in particular. My Pixel 3 is still more than capable hardware-wise, but it's years out of software support. I could get much more use out of it, but the bootloader is locked and Verizon will not unlock it, so it's e-waste.
- lightedman 2y ago
  Protip: Call Verizon and tell them refusing to unlock your fully-paid for phone can be considered theft in your jurisdiction and can result in criminal charges. They'll unlock it very quickly. The techs aren't legal geniuses.
  - prepend 2y ago
    I’d like to see a video of this working as it seems improbable. Techs are legal geniuses but seems like they’d have a script that boils down to “so sue us.”
  - 1123581321 2y ago
    I doubt this. Unlocks can be done by T4 support but legal threats will kick you to a separate system that will not respond to requests that quickly.
  - zrobotics 2y ago
    Unfortunately not. I'm currently embroiled in a complaint with my state's public utilities commission with Verizon. Verizon's corporate reps 'upgraded' my grandfathered plan without my consent while switching devices, and their phone reps truly don't care about the threat of regulatory bodies. So even with an actionable legal threat and a case number, their phone support has not at all been responsive.

Centigonal 2y ago

I was abroad recently, and my mother couldn't get service because her phone was SIM locked by cricket and the requisite six month period haven't passed for it to be eligible for an unlock. She had bought her phone full price from Cricket. If she had purchased the same phone for the same price somewhere else, it would've come unlocked.

nashashmi 2y ago
Cricket phones are generally subsidized
qup 2y ago
Cricket once switched network types from CDMA to GSM (or whatever the terms are). That happened a couple months after I paid full price for a cricket-branded Samsung Galaxy S4, and it bricked it. It was no longer usable on cricket. It wasn't usable on any other network, either.
spondylosaurus 2y ago
Depending on which phone, it may have actually cost a bit more than what she paid to get an unlocked phone. I always buy unlocked, but Best Buy charges an extra hundred bucks compared to the "activate with your carrier" version!
- Centigonal 2y ago
  I didn't know that part!

amluto 2y ago

I don’t understand the justification for 60 days or for carrier locks at all. If a phone company wants to impose a requirement that a phone will not operate at all if money is owed for its purchase and hasn’t been paid, then maybe I’d be okay with this. But for some reason carriers seem to think it makes sense to prevent, say, using dual SIM mode with their SIM and a second SIM from a different provider for 2 years or 45 days or 60 days or whatever. This makes no sense. I’m also a bit surprised that Apple plays along with this. Apple surely has the market power to just say “sorry, no more carrier locks”.

nashashmi 2y ago
You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. That’s why there is a 60 day delay. For 60 days you pay AT&T for a service contract.
- ekimekim 2y ago
  > You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. Why not? You're paying them for the device. Why should they have a right to stop you using it how you want? Imagine if buying a car also came with a requirement to only use the dealership's petrol stations for the first year.
  - qup 2y ago
    Because the devices AT&T sells are subsidized and come with a network contract. You can go other places to buy unlocked phones. I don't buy carrier-locked phones anymore, personally.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    Generally they are sold at a discount, with the deal that they will make back the discount if you use their service. You can buy an unlocked phone new from the manufacturer but then you will pay full price.
    - 2y ago

az226 2y ago

Maybe they can offer a midway point. Allow additional eSIMs to be added if your main phone plan is still active. Currently this use case is impossible.

aftbit 2y ago

I'm always mildly annoyed that "Unlocked" can mean three different things with phones: * Able to be used on any carrier (i.e. no SIM lock) * Able to be rooted/jailbroken (i.e. no bootloader root of trust lock) * Able to be accessed (i.e. no screen lock) This article is talking about the first one. There isn't much confusion possible in the title, especially with the dissenting carrier names highlighted.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Is there a term for this sort of linguistic conversion? On one hand, it's part of what makes natural languages so powerful--we can use the word language to mean English, Haskell and pheromones. On the other hand, it leads to confusion when we're overly parsimonious with fun words, e.g. plasma.
- mhb 2y ago
  The term is laziness. Instead of creating or searching for a more precise word, an ambiguous word is used. As another example, see the renaissance of the gender neutral pronoun "they".
  - cto_of_antifa 2y ago
    [dead]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Instead of creating or searching for a more precise word This doesn’t work, though it seems to be a common misconception among engineers. Put simply, people will nickname neologisms. Creating a new term or pulling one from obscurity virtually begs for someone else to come up with a name people will actually use for you.
- Kerrick 2y ago
  Perhaps semantic overload? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload

decko 2y ago

How are the carrier locks implemented today? I assume it must be implemented on the client (phone). Do the carriers work with all the phone manufacturers to have them add this capability?

kube-system 2y ago
Yes, manufacturers do this to get them on the shelf at retailers.
srockets 2y ago
Yes. When a carrier orders lots of phones, the manufacturer would customize the built in software to some extent (how much depends on the manufacturer and the order size)

golemiprague 2y ago

[dead]

ummonk 2y ago

> “The Commission fails to point to specific statutory authorization for an unlocking mandate and would have profound economic consequences, thus raising a major question that would require clear statutory authority from Congress.” Surely they're right? Seems like a stretch for them to be claiming the authority to make rules about this.

adrr 2y ago
Why? FCC has every right to regulate communication equipment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone

pmarreck 2y ago

yeah this is basically why I've always paid full price upfront for an unlocked phone

SirMaster 2y ago

Does this mean no more discounts? If so that would suck. That's how I buy my phones. Like I only paid $350 for my iPhone 14 Pro because they had $1000 off with a trade-in. And I was able to buy an eligible used trade-in phone from Amazon to get the deal.

sharpshadow 2y ago

How does the carrier unlock a phone remotely? The process should be reproducible. And yes it with two slots for eSIM and SIM it makes less sense to have the same carrier inside.

bluecalm 2y ago

Those are half measures. The obvious solution is to forbid bundling data/cell plans with phones. Those are separate businesses. Bundling can only be bad for competition and customers. That we don't even get this basic protection in EU while things like forcing USB-C are pushed speaks volumes about the state of customer protection.

aeternum 2y ago

It is ridiculous that phones are still locked. Customers are on the hook for the full cost and equipment is now treated as a loan directly to the customer. Makes no sense for carriers to hold the keys.

einpoklum 2y ago

"A 2022 decision by the high court requires explicit Congressional permission before agencies can decide on issues that have “vast political and economic significance.” A combination of a rather-dysfunctional congress, for many years already, and this limitation, means very little ability to regulate on the federal level in the US.