[HN Gopher] FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T an...
___________________________________________________________________
FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile
aren't so keen
Author : miles
Score : 97 points
Date : 2024-09-21 06:52 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.androidauthority.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.androidauthority.com)
| jalk wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The same recourse any other lender has for a borrower that
| defaults.
| happymellon wrote:
| I bought a car, but then decided to not make the repayments.
|
| What's the recourse for the lender?
| RHSeeger wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| can you share a link to this for story happening?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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-...
| Shakahs wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| acdha wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| How did we live like animals in the dark era before such
| innovative financial products?
| lbourdages wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| grahamj wrote:
| Because they don't make much on the device payments, as
| opposed to the bloated plan fees.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I think the manufacturers should do the payment plans. Then
| carriers can be selected on basis of quality for customer over
| lock in effect
| MR4D wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Kiboneu wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| cogman10 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I don't think this will make any difference--SIM unlocking is
| totally separate from phone firmware
| jfdjkfdhjds wrote:
| 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! :(
| miki123211 wrote:
| No it won't, not unless it's specifically addressed in the law.
|
| The EU (or at least most of it) has banned SIM locks a long
| time ago, but carrier-branded Android phones are still a thing.
|
| In fact, the situation here is even more pernicious, there have
| been news reports[1] of carriers being able to remotely lock
| your phone down if you stop paying the bill, or if you buy it
| used and the first owner stops paying the bill.
|
| [1] Polish https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/plus-instaluje-cos-
| na-ksztalt...
| shevis wrote:
| In what world does disallowing blatantly anticompetitive behavior
| constitute a significant economic change?
| jjk166 wrote:
| Ours
| op7 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Not for nothing, but those devices are generally sold
| interest free.
|
| There's no functional difference between "If you're poor, you
| should save $50/month for the next 2 years, and when you do
| that, maybe then you can get that $1200 phone", versus "You
| can pay $50/month for the next 2 years and get that $1200
| phone now", other than bias against the "financially
| constrained".
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| What happens when the $1200 phone breaks before it's paid
| off? Does the carrier replace it?
|
| I prefer buying used phones so I don't have any experience
| with that... _except_ the first phone I bought... I
| understood from Verizon that the phone was included in the
| plan. Turns out I owed $300 for a dumbphone at a time in my
| life where $300 was a lot more than I wanted to pay for a
| phone.
|
| I replaced it with a used smartphone for $20 a year later.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| It's not "bias", but being financially prudent - when you
| are financially constrained, you don't _need_ a $1200 phone
| nor do you need to subscribe to a $50 /month plan when
| cheaper options are available. Depending on your budget,
| you can get a feature phone for around $50 or a smart phone
| for around $100, and opt for a prepaid plan (the cheapest
| of which starts from $15/month with limited data).
| mystified5016 wrote:
| So your argument is that a cell carrier can't be profitable
| without entrapping poor people into long contracts with debt.
|
| Therefore we must legally protect the rights of businesses to
| exploit people.
| op7 wrote:
| They arent locked into any contract whatsoever at prepaid
| companies like MetroPCS, Cricket, Tracfone, Boost etc. These
| companies provide the phones as interest free loans and the
| businesses incur all the risk.
| cherryteastain wrote:
| UK banned carrier locked phones outright [1] and poor people
| can afford phones just fine.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54692179
| ukoki wrote:
| You know people can finance just about any purchase right?
|
| People buy cars on finance all the time without needing to buy
| their cars through BP and signing an exlusive gas purchasing
| agreement with them. There's no reason for the phone to be tied
| to the carrier.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Finland the operators sell phones, either fully up front or
| with even 0% financing. Then contract is entirely separate
| deal, it might have or not have commitment.
|
| Might miss some "discounts", but it really is entirely
| workable and reasonable model.
| GrantMoyer wrote:
| So the industry sells the phones "at a loss", but it doesn't
| lose money on that, because it eventaully makes back the full
| cost and more, and if it _doesn 't_ make back the full cost it
| considers that "fraud". I don't understand how that's supposed
| to be doing poor people a favor if they still ultimately pay
| the full cost of the phone and the service.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| doesn't the US have number portability too?
|
| https://www.fcc.gov/general/wireless-local-number-
| portabilit...
| grahamj wrote:
| Same in Canada, we got a rare regulator win some time ago, much
| to the chagrin of our draconian carriers. Number portability
| too.
| AzzyHN wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| This might be well intentioned but it's a bad idea. See
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| siskiyou wrote:
| 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.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They're not subject to that agreement by accident.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Sure but they are still competitively disadvantaged in the
| landscape as a result.
| neilv wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-21 23:01 UTC)