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

101–110 of 286 posts

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

#101

Post by pcai »

lolinder wrote: post #86
acdha wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is: - get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years. - don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them. - You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone.

Carrier locking prevents this. If someone steals your phone on the train that’s a different problem with a different solution

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

#102

Post by pcai »

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.

It’s impractical to “repossess” phones so in practice the carriers wouldn’t be able to stop people from deliberately defaulting on the contract with no repercussions (they can bring it to a different carrier who is indifferent)

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

#103

Post by re »

NewJazz wrote: post #15
Kiboneu wrote: post #7

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 liv…

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.

Ironically, Android being an "open platform" competitor to the closed iPhone was one of its major initial selling propositions.

Andy Rubin, 2008: "A developer will be able to use it as a platform and they'll be able to develop their application on the Android platform. But also because of its openness, a developer will be able to modify the platform, make the platform better. Therefore, because the platform is open, we think Android is somewhat future-proof." https://www.cnet.com/videos/t-mobile-launches-g1-first-googl...

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

#104

Post by themaninthedark »

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://www.newscientist.com/article/2361657-ford-patents-ca...

Ford got a patent for the idea.

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

#105

Post by dingnuts »

pcai wrote: post #101
lolinder wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is: - get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years. - don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them. - You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone. Carrier locking prevents this. I…

sorry if this is a stupid question, but if you don't pay for the phone don't they repossess it or something?

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

#106

Post by zaptheimpaler »

pcai wrote: post #101
lolinder wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is: - get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years. - don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them. - You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone. Carrier locking prevents this. I…

That sounds like a speculation on a tangential benefit instead of the major consideration in locking phones. The carriers can blacklist any phone's IMEI at any point (in addition to the usual collections attempts, credit reporting etc) which achieves the same effect but better if a phone is stolen from them.

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

#107

Post by ashirviskas »

scarface_74 wrote: post #94
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can with Apple.

Or literally any phone in EU.

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

#108

Post by [deleted] »

pcai wrote: post #101
lolinder wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is: - get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years. - don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them. - You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone. Carrier locking prevents this. I…

[deleted]

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

#109

Post by ssl-3 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #96
thisislife2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You can not fill out job applications or participate in the modern economy with a feature phone

Feature phone? What year is this where the only options are a $1200 iPhone or a "feature phone"?

A person can walk into a Best Buy today and buy a carrier-agnostic, factory-unlocked Android phone -- new, in a retail box, with a warranty -- for less than $100. No strings, no contracts, no weird stuff. It's just an item that they have for sale in their store.

(Or, FFS: The last Android phone I bought new was $64.00, including tax and overnight delivery. It came with a 60-day carrier lock, but my carrier is cheap.)

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

#110

Post by JoshTko »

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.

They really aren't expensive anymore in the US if you shop around. You can get unlimited data, talk, text for $18/mo per month from US mobile, and you can even choose which network to use Verizon, tmobile, or ATT. US mobile has a new feature that lets you switch the carrier network for $2 per switch.
Post reply on HN