Live data from Hacker News

FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

techcrunch.com

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

#51
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the companies should not extend that loan/credit

Then a lot of folks who finance phones on cheap or free installment plans currently won’t get phones, simple as that. If regulators are fine with that, that’s a reasonable position I suppose. Carriers aren’t a charity to take on aggressive credit risk in these financial consumer populations. Incentives->outcomes.

What are free installment plans?

Currently the most used phones in the US are iphones.

If the actual cost is not hidden behind monthly payments anymore, but some users can not afford iphones, people might start to consider cheaper phone options.

Re: FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

#52
It seems to me that a carrier should be able to lock a subsidized/financed device until it's paid off. That makes it possible for people who would otherwise not qualify for financing to have relatively up-to-date devices.

A carrier should not be able to lock a device that's paid off for any length of time.

Re: FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

#53
post #35

I don't think people realize that the US is the only market in the world where phones are carrier locked, and in fact the only market where carriers have so much power over the features and overall experience of your phone. Mobile carriers dictate that a phone has to be sold with a locked bootloader. They decide if/when the phone should get OS updates. They are the ones who fill the phone with bloatware. Up until a f…

Do other countries get subsidised phones with a phone plan?

In Canada, phone locking has been banned since 2017, with free unlocking being available to phones purchased before that. You can still get cheaper/free phones with your plan, but it won't be locked to that carrier, that would be silly. It's over a contract of some defined length, and you're bound by the contract to pay for whatever value's left of the phone if you cancel. If you paid for that phone by being subscribed to your carrier for that length of time (say, 2 years), why wouldn't you be able to take that phone elsewhere? You've already paid for it, it's yours.

There's also been a trend (I don't know whether it's legislated or not) for phones to be explicitly $X/mo for 24 months (though that still ends up being far below retail, and is sometimes $0), instead of burying that in the plan costs. We still have plenty of problems with ridiculous plan pricing and data limitations, but those have gotten better, and were still bad before carrier locking went away.

Re: FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

#55
post #35

I don't think people realize that the US is the only market in the world where phones are carrier locked, and in fact the only market where carriers have so much power over the features and overall experience of your phone. Mobile carriers dictate that a phone has to be sold with a locked bootloader. They decide if/when the phone should get OS updates. They are the ones who fill the phone with bloatware. Up until a f…

Do other countries get subsidised phones with a phone plan?

If you run the numbers the subsidy offered by US carriers always ends up costing you more than just buying a new phone for full price with a cheaper plan.

Your "free" iPhone isn't free if it involves (1) giving them your current one which is worth $500+ in a private sale and (2) signing up for a 3 year contract at $100+ a month.

Re: FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

#56
post #39

TIL locked phones are still a thing, somewhere. Not gonna lie: That feels fairly wild at this point.

Its always the US ... the comments are always full of "the system will break down if they scrap it / wont somebody think of the children"

You can easily get an unlocked phone in the USA, so it is more like "If you want an unlocked phone, buy an unlocked phone, and if want a mobile network to subsidize your phone, then you might have to deal with the terms of the agreement, including being locked to a mobile network".

Re: FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

#57
So, i'm obviously not from the US, and while i'm not a liberal anymore (For USians: here, liberal=pro-market/what you call capitalist), i do understand what free markets (in a frictionless vacuum...) bring for the consummers.

It seems to me that in the last two years, the FCC and the FTC are kinda waking up and start annoying corporation into making the markets they compete in freer.

I only get my US news from hackernews, so maybe i only have the good, and not the ugly, but even in cases those agencies lost, they made good points and seems to be pushing the US to be less corporatists and more liberalist (in the economic sense, free market and stuff you USian call capitalism)

So how those agencies fall accross party lines? Are those independant?

In my opinion a change of president/government shouldn't change the culture in those agencies, but you are a weird country (the fact that you _still_ have carrier lock proves it), is this a "risk" in your case?

Re: FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

#58
post #35

I don't think people realize that the US is the only market in the world where phones are carrier locked, and in fact the only market where carriers have so much power over the features and overall experience of your phone. Mobile carriers dictate that a phone has to be sold with a locked bootloader. They decide if/when the phone should get OS updates. They are the ones who fill the phone with bloatware. Up until a f…

> I don't think people realize that the US is the only market in the world where phones are carrier locked

Probably because that's not true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock

Re: FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

#59
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the companies should not extend that loan/credit

Then a lot of folks who finance phones on cheap or free installment plans currently won’t get phones, simple as that. If regulators are fine with that, that’s a reasonable position I suppose. Carriers aren’t a charity to take on aggressive credit risk in these financial consumer populations. Incentives->outcomes.

Alot of folks won't have iPhones.

You can get a darn decent Android for 200$ unlocked, and if your really struggling a 50$ phone will get the job done.

No one will suffer if they can't get an iPhone.

A lot of folks also can't do math. I pay about $20 a month for my phone plan, and I paid $700 for my phone up front. AT&t isn't giving phones away, you end up on a more expensive plan that's around $80 or so and then they'll tack on 30 bucks for the phone.

If you're lucky the bill credits will cover the entire cost of the phone, but over two years you've still spent an addition 700$.

Re: FCC rule would make carriers unlock all phones after 60 days

#60

Without provisions for equipment installment plans, this would likely end financing of phones by carriers (potentially pushing consumers to higher cost mechanisms, like credit cards or other traditional credit instruments). When locked, the phone is the collateral. Free and clear phones should be unlocked immediately.

All Verizon phones are automatically unlocked after 60 days and Verizon has still been financing phones.

> When locked, the phone is the collateral

Not really. If someone cancels service without paying off the phone, the carrier doesn't reclaim the phone. It simply prevents the phone from being used with a different carrier. The person could sell the phone to another customer on the same network. Houses are collateral because it's hard to hide a home from creditors and you can't sell the home without discharging the lien on the home. There's no lien on your financed phone.

This change probably wouldn't change much for phone financing because phone companies are already running credit checks when handing out devices on payment plans, require higher-risk people to make down-payments on the phones, and once a person has done it once to you, it's easy to never offer it to them again. Once you've burned Verizon by canceling service and not paying off your phone, you've burned that bridge. Plus, Verizon would likely report it to the credit agencies where you'd have burned the bridge with the other carriers too.

This is a rule that would help prevent a lot of e-waste and make it easier for folks to switch carriers. There is the chance that someone will finance a phone and leave without paying it off, but there's always been a risk that someone would run up a phone bill and not pay it. Someone could go abroad and run up a large roaming bill and not pay it. Back when data plans were limited, someone could run up a bill into the thousands and just cancel service without paying.

Locked devices do serve a function for carriers. They make switching harder and they protect companies roaming revenues. If I have a locked phone, I have to pay Verizon $10/day to use my phone in Europe. If I have an unlocked phone, I can grab a European SIM for $30 and have cheap service for the month.

Verizon has been financing phones and offering similar discounts that T-Mobile and AT&T have been offering even though their devices will automatically unlock after 60 days. A locked phone is worth marginally less than a carrier-locked phone, but a locked phone can still be sold to other people, even if it isn't paid off. A locked phone can still be used even if the original purchaser has defaulted on the debt. These aren't bricked phones, just carrier locked devices.

If the issue were that they needed a form of collateral, carriers would want the ability to brick the devices rather than merely reduce the resale value of the device by 15%. Yea, if you finance an AT&T iPhone, default on the debt, and sell it to Gazelle, you'll get 86% of the price for your locked phone as you would for an unlocked one. If one could flip unlocked financed phones, it would be just as easy to flip locked financed phones - you'd just make 15% less per device.

So what is the lock preventing? It's not preventing someone who has found a way to defraud carrier financing. They can still sell the phones (which are legally their phones which the carrier has no lien on). They merely get a marginally lower resale price. No, the locks aren't necessary for equipment financing. No, the phones aren't collateral.

Post reply on HN