3 ms·

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 y

by 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

dingnuts 2y ago
sorry if this is a stupid question, but if you don't pay for the phone don't they repossess it or something?
- batch12 2y ago
  No. They charge you and if you dont pay, they report your debt to credit agencies.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  So your average phone costs $700-$800 retail new. Cost of repossession would be going to court, court costs, lawyer bills etc. I would end up costing $5000+ for a piece of used goods that is worth $300 if they are lucky.
zaptheimpaler 2y ago
That sounds like a speculation on a tangential benefit instead of the major consideration in locking phones. The carriers can blacklist any phone's IMEI at any point (in addition to the usual collections attempts, credit reporting etc) which achieves the same effect but better if a phone is stolen from them.
- II2II 2y ago
  To be fair, that was an argument that was put forth by carriers years ago (at least in Canada). That said, I don't think it has popped up as much (or at all) in recent years.
- pcai 2y ago
  It’s not speculation - this is literally why cell phone locking was invented. The imei blacklists were created much later specifically for theft, not to manage credit risk of customers getting subsidized phones. You can literally just call your carrier to ask how to get your subsidized phone unlocked. There’s no need to speculate- it’s not a secret!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 2y ago
A) This isn't what OP was asking about. They're pretty clearly asking about stolen devices from a consumer, not consumers stealing devices from carriers. B) Your take is complicated by the fact that there actually is a secondary market for locked phones [0], so this isn't just about people rent-to-owning a phone with an explicit installment plan. [0] https://www.ebay.com/itm/186656753206 https://www.ebay.com/itm/186656753206
- pcai 2y ago
  My point is that carrier locking is about managing credit risk and fraud, not an evil plot to trap customers, and not a mechanism for discouraging street theft. It’s only complicated if people conflate issues or fail to understand the mechanics of carrier locking. You can just call up a carrier and ask to have the phone unlocked and they’ll oblige if its paid off. Sometimes people confuse carrier locking with imei blacklists, which is for stolen handsets. Sometimes people confuse phones with modems or firmware that only work with specific carriers as “carrier locked” but again, that’s not the same thing
matheusmoreira 2y ago
They're essentially extending credit lines to people they know nothing about. Sounds like they should just stop doing that. Their "lock down the phone" solution should be illegal.
- lazide 2y ago
  They’re not locking the phone for that, they’re adding a barrier to competition by adding friction being able to switch carriers.
safety1st 2y ago
That is a weird take which is not informed by an understanding of how business operates. It is 100% an _exclusive dealing_ mechanism. (This is a term of art for a business strategy which may not be legal in the current context, by the way.) It was undoubtedly implemented because it's a way to make more money. Businesses love imposing exclusive dealing. It can reduce their competition and increase their margins. We have businesses all over the American economy doing it. Now does this particular case of exclusive dealing also serve to reduce theft? Perhaps it does, a case can be made. But what is 100% certain is that anti-theft was not the motive for doing exclusive dealing. It's the other way around. The FTC recognizes that. Any nominally honest judge or business executive would recognize that. Anti-theft is an afterthought compared to the billions in profits at stake.
- grepfru_it 2y ago
  Back in 2012 there were international agreements which required us cellular carriers to enforce locking phones. Those may have been unwinded by now but it’s not a simple “just force the companies to do it” scenario
  - wormius 2y ago
    * citation needed.
    - grepfru_it 2y ago
      https://www.cbp.gov/trade/free-trade-agreements/korea https://www.cbp.gov/trade/free-trade-agreements/korea
- pcai 2y ago
  This is incorrect. You can pay off a phone early and simply ask that it be unlocked - the carrier will happily comply because you are no longer a credit risk. You can also just purchase phones unlocked by paying cash upfront. You don’t need to be a genius to deduce how this works. The imei blacklists for theft were created much later and aren’t honored globally

by pcai 2y ago

dingnuts 2y ago

sorry if this is a stupid question, but if you don't pay for the phone don't they repossess it or something?

batch12 2y ago
No. They charge you and if you dont pay, they report your debt to credit agencies.
michaelmrose 2y ago
So your average phone costs $700-$800 retail new. Cost of repossession would be going to court, court costs, lawyer bills etc. I would end up costing $5000+ for a piece of used goods that is worth $300 if they are lucky.

zaptheimpaler 2y ago

That sounds like a speculation on a tangential benefit instead of the major consideration in locking phones. The carriers can blacklist any phone's IMEI at any point (in addition to the usual collections attempts, credit reporting etc) which achieves the same effect but better if a phone is stolen from them.

II2II 2y ago
To be fair, that was an argument that was put forth by carriers years ago (at least in Canada). That said, I don't think it has popped up as much (or at all) in recent years.
pcai 2y ago
It’s not speculation - this is literally why cell phone locking was invented. The imei blacklists were created much later specifically for theft, not to manage credit risk of customers getting subsidized phones. You can literally just call your carrier to ask how to get your subsidized phone unlocked. There’s no need to speculate- it’s not a secret!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lolinder 2y ago

A) This isn't what OP was asking about. They're pretty clearly asking about stolen devices from a consumer, not consumers stealing devices from carriers. B) Your take is complicated by the fact that there actually is a secondary market for locked phones [0], so this isn't just about people rent-to-owning a phone with an explicit installment plan. [0] https://www.ebay.com/itm/186656753206 https://www.ebay.com/itm/186656753206

pcai 2y ago
My point is that carrier locking is about managing credit risk and fraud, not an evil plot to trap customers, and not a mechanism for discouraging street theft. It’s only complicated if people conflate issues or fail to understand the mechanics of carrier locking. You can just call up a carrier and ask to have the phone unlocked and they’ll oblige if its paid off. Sometimes people confuse carrier locking with imei blacklists, which is for stolen handsets. Sometimes people confuse phones with modems or firmware that only work with specific carriers as “carrier locked” but again, that’s not the same thing

matheusmoreira 2y ago

They're essentially extending credit lines to people they know nothing about. Sounds like they should just stop doing that. Their "lock down the phone" solution should be illegal.

lazide 2y ago
They’re not locking the phone for that, they’re adding a barrier to competition by adding friction being able to switch carriers.

safety1st 2y ago

That is a weird take which is not informed by an understanding of how business operates. It is 100% an _exclusive dealing_ mechanism. (This is a term of art for a business strategy which may not be legal in the current context, by the way.) It was undoubtedly implemented because it's a way to make more money. Businesses love imposing exclusive dealing. It can reduce their competition and increase their margins. We have businesses all over the American economy doing it. Now does this particular case of exclusive dealing also serve to reduce theft? Perhaps it does, a case can be made. But what is 100% certain is that anti-theft was not the motive for doing exclusive dealing. It's the other way around. The FTC recognizes that. Any nominally honest judge or business executive would recognize that. Anti-theft is an afterthought compared to the billions in profits at stake.

grepfru_it 2y ago
Back in 2012 there were international agreements which required us cellular carriers to enforce locking phones. Those may have been unwinded by now but it’s not a simple “just force the companies to do it” scenario
- wormius 2y ago
  * citation needed.
  - grepfru_it 2y ago
    https://www.cbp.gov/trade/free-trade-agreements/korea https://www.cbp.gov/trade/free-trade-agreements/korea
pcai 2y ago
This is incorrect. You can pay off a phone early and simply ask that it be unlocked - the carrier will happily comply because you are no longer a credit risk. You can also just purchase phones unlocked by paying cash upfront. You don’t need to be a genius to deduce how this works. The imei blacklists for theft were created much later and aren’t honored globally