Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

androidauthority.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 286 posts

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

#41

Post by mrpippy »

cogman10 wrote: post #14

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…

I don’t think this will make any difference—SIM unlocking is totally separate from phone firmware

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

#42

Post by AzzyHN »

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.

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

#43

Post by Ekaros »

ukoki wrote: post #28
op7 wrote: post #20

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 recove…

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.

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.

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

#44

Post by jfdjkfdhjds »

cogman10 wrote: post #14

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…

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! :(

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

#45

Post by jfdjkfdhjds »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #35

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

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.

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

#46

Post by kylehotchkiss »

jalk wrote: post #2

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.

I think the manufacturers should do the payment plans. Then carriers can be selected on basis of quality for customer over lock in effect

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

#47

Post by which »

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.

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

#48

Post by dannyobrien »

jfdjkfdhjds wrote: post #45
seba_dos1 wrote: post #35

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

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.

doesn't the US have number portability too?

https://www.fcc.gov/general/wireless-local-number-portabilit...

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

#49

Post by ewoodrich »

which wrote: post #47

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…

> 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.

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

#50

Post by grahamj »

Marsymars wrote: post #32
lbourdages wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN