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

121–130 of 286 posts

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

#121

Post by ranger_danger »

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?

In general they can't. They would only know if the IMEI came up as stolen in their database if it was reported.

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

#122

Post by prepend »

lightedman wrote: post #115
commodoreboxer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’d like to see a video of this working as it seems improbable. Techs are legal geniuses but seems like they’d have a script that boils down to “so sue us.”

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

#123

Post by matheusmoreira »

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…

They're essentially extending credit lines to people they know nothing about. Sounds like they should just stop doing that. Their "lock down the phone" solution should be illegal.

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

#124

Post by JumpCrisscross »

aftbit wrote: post #99

I'm always mildly annoyed that "Unlocked" can mean three different things with phones: * Able to be used on any carrier (i.e. no SIM lock) * Able to be rooted/jailbroken (i.e. no bootloader root of trust lock) * Able to be accessed (i.e. no screen lock) This article is talking about the first one. There isn't much confusion possible in the title, especially with the dissenting carrier names highlighted.

Is there a term for this sort of linguistic conversion? On one hand, it's part of what makes natural languages so powerful--we can use the word language to mean English, Haskell and pheromones. On the other hand, it leads to confusion when we're overly parsimonious with fun words, e.g. plasma.

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

#125

Post by Spivak »

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! :(

Well 52% of Americans use iOS and 31% are Samsung which now get 7 years of support so I think that's actually a pretty large majority now.

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

#126

Post by notjulianjaynes »

aftbit wrote: post #99

I'm always mildly annoyed that "Unlocked" can mean three different things with phones: * Able to be used on any carrier (i.e. no SIM lock) * Able to be rooted/jailbroken (i.e. no bootloader root of trust lock) * Able to be accessed (i.e. no screen lock) This article is talking about the first one. There isn't much confusion possible in the title, especially with the dissenting carrier names highlighted.

This confusion is especially annoying when trying to purchase a bootloader unlocked phone on secondary market. I'm not even sure it's possible if you buy through a dealer. By unlocked they exclusively mean carrier unlocked.

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

#127

Post by kube-system »

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.

Yes, but the reason they don't do this is because "free phone" sounds more enticing than "$22.95/mo installment plan for 2 years".

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

#128

Post by mhb »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #124
aftbit wrote: post #99

I'm always mildly annoyed that "Unlocked" can mean three different things with phones: * Able to be used on any carrier (i.e. no SIM lock) * Able to be rooted/jailbroken (i.e. no bootloader root of trust lock) * Able to be accessed (i.e. no screen lock) This article is talking about the first one. There isn't much confusion possible in the title, especially with the dissenting carrier names highlighted.

Is there a term for this sort of linguistic conversion? On one hand, it's part of what makes natural languages so powerful--we can use the word language to mean English, Haskell and pheromones. On the other hand, it leads to confusion when we're overly parsimonious with fun words, e.g. plasma.

The term is laziness. Instead of creating or searching for a more precise word, an ambiguous word is used. As another example, see the renaissance of the gender neutral pronoun "they".

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

#130

Post by kube-system »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #63
MR4D wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but not everyone knows how this all works, and the barriers that are still in place do still effectively limit many from shopping around. Many people shopping for phones in the US will visit a wireless retailer and will be funneled to locked phones on contract.
Post reply on HN