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

61–70 of 286 posts

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

#61

Post by GrantMoyer »

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…

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.

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

#62

Post by neilv »

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.

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

#63

Post by lotsofpulp »

MR4D wrote: post #58
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.

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.

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.

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

#64

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer »

indigodaddy wrote: post #60

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.

They're not subject to that agreement by accident.

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

#65

Post by commodoreboxer »

neilv wrote: post #62

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.

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.

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

#66

Post by indigodaddy »

HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #64
indigodaddy wrote: post #60

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.

They're not subject to that agreement by accident.

Sure but they are still competitively disadvantaged in the landscape as a result.

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

#67

Post by Centigonal »

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.

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

#68

Post by amluto »

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”.

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

#69

Post by amluto »

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…

Then lock out phones that are in default. This is not what carrier locks do.

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

#70

Post by which »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8
486sx33 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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 loc…

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.
Post reply on HN