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

81–90 of 286 posts

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

#81

Post by nashashmi »

amluto wrote: post #68

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 o…

You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. That’s why there is a 60 day delay. For 60 days you pay AT&T for a service contract.

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

#82

Post by amluto »

which wrote: post #72
amluto wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The FCC is proposing unlocks for phones that are not completely paid for yet. No one is against unlocking paid for phones. The lock is basically the only recourse the carrier has for nonpayment because blacklisting the IMEI doesn't matter if the phone goes to another country. I don't think you can relock a phone once it's unlocked, and the crooks typically make 1 or 2 payments which would cover the 60 days so by the…

This is pretty weak. For example:

1. Carrier locks prevent dual-SIM use where one SIM belongs to the locked carrier and the other does not. This is of no value for preventing unpaid phones from being taken overseas but has plenty of value for locking paying users in.

2. Carrier locks require a communication channel from the carrier to the lock database to the phone. With iPhones, for example, the whole mechanism is mediated by Apple. The same mechanism could absolutely prevent activation overseas — instead of having a “locked to carrier X” state and an “unlocked” state, have a “locked and cannot be used for non-emergency purposes” state, an “unlocked until time T” state, and a “fully unlocked” state. And this would even be simpler: it doesn’t require any integration with the baseband processor, so it could be implemented straightforwardly on the AP.

(Note that iPhones already have a locked-to-an-iCloud-account state and can be remotely locked out, which implements 95% of this.)

So, in summary, I do not believe that the current carrier lock scheme is honestly or competently designed as a theft-of-unpaid-phones prevention measure.

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

#83

Post by astura »

monkeywork wrote: post #54
RHSeeger wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

can you share a link to this for story happening?

https://stateline.org/2018/11/27/late-payment-a-kill-switch-...

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

#84

Post by nashashmi »

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 just got an idea for the opposite. Buy a phone with three years worth of service together with the phone. Extra features are extra money. 36 months x 40$ per month plus the cost of phone ($600) = $2040. Add discount for loyalty (-$800). Free phone and more.

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

#85

Post by underlipton »

jfdjkfdhjds wrote: post #44
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! :(

It would be nice if security updates were more friendly, and not bundled with feature updates (ever). Having to go through a whole song-and-dance, only for the OTA update to fail for one reason or another: not endearing. Worst of all: they stop coming just when you've become really familiar with your phone, after a few years.

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

#86

Post by lolinder »

acdha wrote: post #71
siskiyou wrote: post #57

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 QL…

How do they distinguish you from a phone thief? Is there some kind of check with the previous owner?

Locking the phone to a carrier is not an anti-theft mechanism. They're available in abundance on the used market with no special protections of any kind from the carriers, the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier.

Maybe you're thinking of the locking mechanisms built in to Android and iOS?

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

#87

Post by ekimekim »

nashashmi wrote: post #81
amluto wrote: post #68

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 o…

You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. That’s why there is a 60 day delay. For 60 days you pay AT&T for a service contract.

> You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network.

Why not? You're paying them for the device. Why should they have a right to stop you using it how you want? Imagine if buying a car also came with a requirement to only use the dealership's petrol stations for the first year.

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

#88

Post by qup »

Centigonal wrote: post #67

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.

Cricket once switched network types from CDMA to GSM (or whatever the terms are). That happened a couple months after I paid full price for a cricket-branded Samsung Galaxy S4, and it bricked it. It was no longer usable on cricket. It wasn't usable on any other network, either.

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

#89

Post by qup »

ekimekim wrote: post #87
nashashmi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. That’s why there is a 60 day delay. For 60 days you pay AT&T for a service contract.

> You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. Why not? You're paying them for the device. Why should they have a right to stop you using it how you want? Imagine if buying a car also came with a requirement to only use the dealership's petrol stations for the first year.

Because the devices AT&T sells are subsidized and come with a network contract.

You can go other places to buy unlocked phones.

I don't buy carrier-locked phones anymore, personally.

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

#90

Post by _yb2s »

ekimekim wrote: post #87
nashashmi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. That’s why there is a 60 day delay. For 60 days you pay AT&T for a service contract.

> You cannot go to a AT&T store to buy a phone and then use it on tmobile’s network. Why not? You're paying them for the device. Why should they have a right to stop you using it how you want? Imagine if buying a car also came with a requirement to only use the dealership's petrol stations for the first year.

Generally they are sold at a discount, with the deal that they will make back the discount if you use their service. You can buy an unlocked phone new from the manufacturer but then you will pay full price.
Post reply on HN