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

111–120 of 286 posts

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

#111

Post by fy20 »

_yb2s wrote: post #90
ekimekim wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are they actually discounted? Where I am in Europe they don't do that anymore, it's usually cheaper to buy the phone from Amazon - if you can afford the up front cost.

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

#112

Post by woobar »

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 contracts that people sign when they buy a subsidized phone are not really enforceable. Folks will get a "free" phone and stop paying. There is not much that provider can do. The cars are valuable enough and when you stop paying your loan you will lose it pretty fast.

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

#113

Post by bitfilped »

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.

Poor people offen do not have access to credit lines, it's much easier and beneficial to just have cheap products available for those that need them. There's no reason phones should cost $1000 or more anyway, they aren't worth that much.

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

#114

Post by lolinder »

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…

A) This isn't what OP was asking about. They're pretty clearly asking about stolen devices from a consumer, not consumers stealing devices from carriers.

B) Your take is complicated by the fact that there actually is a secondary market for locked phones [0], so this isn't just about people rent-to-owning a phone with an explicit installment plan.

[0] https://www.ebay.com/itm/186656753206

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

#115

Post by lightedman »

commodoreboxer wrote: post #65
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.

Protip: Call Verizon and tell them refusing to unlock your fully-paid for phone can be considered theft in your jurisdiction and can result in criminal charges.

They'll unlock it very quickly. The techs aren't legal geniuses.

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

#116

Post by totetsu »

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?

At least on the 4g days there was such a thing as a lost and stolen device database that was shared between providers. When the phone presents its IMEI to the network the process that checkes it’s subscriber status also checks if it’s IMEI is on that block list.

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

#117

Post by EricE »

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! :(

Yup - it's why the iPhone wasn't on Verizon for years - Verizon insisted on being able to "customize" the iPhone and Apple told them to pound sand.

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

#119

Post by OkGoDoIt »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #40
FireBeyond wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month That phone is generally not given away - the only phones "given away" are generally low end. $1200 flagship phones come at the cost of a contract on the line AND a monthly payment for the device that pays for it in full.

If the monthly payment pays for the device in full, what's the problem with a customer ending the service contract while continuing the monthly payments? If the monthly payment doesn't pay for it in full, why not just make the monthly device payments $n more, and the cellular service payments $n less? That way you don't need to worry if the service plan is cancelled, because the device payments would still be due (or…

You’re thinking about it from a consumer point of view. From the carrier point of view, they don’t want it to be easy for you to decide to switch to another carrier (They want their service to have a high switching cost). So they have various roadblocks like this, to make it a bit more frustrating to switch carriers. Of course they can’t make it too difficult where they would face legal pushback, so there’s a lot of stuff like this that feels random or suboptimal from a technical point of view but helps their bottom line in aggregate.

Remember back when text messages or phone calls were free as long as you messaged/called someone on the same carrier? That wasn’t about passing on savings of actual interchange fees, it was about incentivizing you to be loyal to your carrier and get your friends on board as well.

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

#120

Post by batch12 »

dingnuts wrote: post #105
pcai wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. They charge you and if you dont pay, they report your debt to credit agencies.
Post reply on HN