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

151–160 of 286 posts

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

#151

Post by bad_user »

miki123211 wrote: post #52
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…

No it won't, not unless it's specifically addressed in the law. The EU (or at least most of it) has banned SIM locks a long time ago, but carrier-branded Android phones are still a thing. In fact, the situation here is even more pernicious, there have been news reports[1] of carriers being able to remotely lock your phone down if you stop paying the bill, or if you buy it used and the first owner stops paying the bil…

I'm not from Poland, but they probably have prices similar to ours ... data plans are cheap, you have credit cards with offers for zero interest plans over 12 or 24 months, and the mobile carriers are unable to offer discounts like the used to, not to mention that exclusivity deals for devices are not a thing here.

So why in the world would people still buy phones from their mobile carriers?

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

#152

Post by zrobotics »

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…

Slightly OT, but as someone who escaped poverty this is the type of volunteering that is super helpful and makes a huge difference. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything like this in my local area, do you have any pointers on starting/finding a program like this to contribute to?

I really what you are doing, I have been looking for a way to give back now that I am in a financially secure position and that sounds more impactful than just giving money. If you would prefer, I can be contacted at my username at google's email service.

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

#153

Post by bmitc »

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.

I've never heard of this disambiguation. An unlocked cellphone has always meant (1). A rooted or jailbroken phone means (2). For three, why would it make sense for manufactures to advertise a phone with/without a lock screen? It doesn't make sense.

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

#154

Post by wmf »

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's a growing segment of the American public who thinks contracts are fake so they would probably sign up for a "free" phone, unlock it, sell it, and then insist on breaking the contract with no penalty because they "didn't understand it and it was unfair anyway". It would be the new "Chase ATM glitch".

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

#155

Post by tzs »

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.

About a year ago there was a change to that. If you want to buy direct from Apple and make monthly payments instead of paying all at once they require you to choose one of AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or Boost.

For some models of phone you are then required to enter a valid phone number for that carrier, and proof that it is your number, in order to be allowed to add the phone to your order.

For other models they don't ask you to enter a number and you can go ahead and complete your order.

Note: the phone will arrive unlocked, so you are not stuck with the carrier that you specified when ordering. From what I've read the phone will arrive configured to use that carrier, but during setup when it asks to setup your number just tell it you want to set it up later. It may ask more than once. Just keep saying you will do it later. When setup is finally done, you can then initiate setting up any carrier you want.

Here's how it currently works for each phone model.

• 16 Pro: not required to enter number, except if you choose Boost as your carrier.

• 16: required to enter number.

• 14 and 15: required to enter number for all carriers except AT&T.

• SE: required to enter number if you choose Verizon or Boost, not required if you choose AT&T or T-Mobile.

Before the 16 came out the pattern was similar. The 15 Pro did not require giving your number. The non-pro 15 required giving you number no matter which carrier you selected. The 14 and SE required it with some and not with others.

An alternative approach that I've seen several people on Reddit claim worked for them was to select to pay in full using their Apple Card when the ordered, which allows ordering without selecting a carrier. Then they call Apple Card customer support and say they would like to switch that charge to Apple Card Monthly Installments.

In summary, if you want to buy from Apple on a monthly payment plan:

• If you use AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, or Boost no problem. Go ahead and give your account information.

• If you use some other carrier and are buying a phone other than a non-pro 16, choose AT&T as your carrier, and then decline to activate AT&T during initial setup. After that you can initiate activation with your carrier.

• If you use some other carrier and are buying a non-pro 16 the only option seems to be to select to pay in full, put it on your Apple Card, and then get Apple Card customer support to switch it to installments.

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

#156

Post by Kerrick »

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.

Perhaps semantic overload? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload

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

#157

Post by forgot-im-old »

ezfe wrote: post #138
stouset wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier I mean, that’s honestly kind of a theft deterrent. One that’s distributed on average amongst the set of all stolen phones, but anything that reduces the average expected value of a phone thief is de facto a deterrent.

A theft deterrent that doesn't actual deter theft and solely benefits the carrier. If I steal an $800 phone but can only sell it for $400 because it's locked to AT&T I've still sold it for a profit lol.

Plus what thief is checking your carrier before running away with it?

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

#158

Post by srockets »

decko wrote: post #118

How are the carrier locks implemented today? I assume it must be implemented on the client (phone). Do the carriers work with all the phone manufacturers to have them add this capability?

Yes.

When a carrier orders lots of phones, the manufacturer would customize the built in software to some extent (how much depends on the manufacturer and the order size)

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

#159

Post by lazide »

ezfe wrote: post #138
stouset wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier I mean, that’s honestly kind of a theft deterrent. One that’s distributed on average amongst the set of all stolen phones, but anything that reduces the average expected value of a phone thief is de facto a deterrent.

A theft deterrent that doesn't actual deter theft and solely benefits the carrier. If I steal an $800 phone but can only sell it for $400 because it's locked to AT&T I've still sold it for a profit lol.

If you can only sell it for $10 when it’s locked, it’s a deterrent.

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

#160

Post by lazide »

forgot-im-old wrote: post #157
ezfe wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A theft deterrent that doesn't actual deter theft and solely benefits the carrier. If I steal an $800 phone but can only sell it for $400 because it's locked to AT&T I've still sold it for a profit lol.

Plus what thief is checking your carrier before running away with it?

They just can’t make enough money off it, so find some other crime to do. Assuming it’s common enough.
Post reply on HN