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

161–170 of 286 posts

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

#161

Post by lazide »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #123
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…

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.

They’re not locking the phone for that, they’re adding a barrier to competition by adding friction being able to switch carriers.

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

#162

Post by apatheticonion »

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 was hoping for unlocked bootloaders - but nope

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

#163

Post by lazide »

notjulianjaynes wrote: post #126
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.

That term would be ‘jailbroken’ right?

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

#164

Post by lodovic »

az226 wrote: post #93
486sx33 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but let’s just say you got a 1200 device and only made the first two payments… jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier?

So make the device unlocked with the ability to lock it back if you fail to make the payments.

That wouldn't qualify as truly unlocked, though

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

#165

Post by bubblethink »

lazide wrote: post #163
notjulianjaynes wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That term would be ‘jailbroken’ right?

No, jailbroken means that you make the device do something that manufacturer prohibits (breaking out of a jail). Unlocking the bootloader where the manufacturer supports unlocking the bootloader is using it as designed. The correct term is "unlockable bootloader", not unlocked. No one ships a production device with an unlocked bootloader.

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

#166

Post by agsnu »

lazide wrote: post #163
notjulianjaynes wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That term would be ‘jailbroken’ right?

I've only ever heard "jailbroken" as using exploits to take control of a device that is intended by the vendor to be locked down - hence, breaking out of jail. I've only ever really heard of it being a term on iOS devices - on Android it's known as "rooting".

Bootloader unlocked generally means that the vendor permits the execution of arbitrary operating system code, ie there is no jail to break out of.

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

#167

Post by bubblethink »

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.

That is kind of impossible for the FCC to regulate. If they mandated that, everyone would be able to install any OS on any hardware, notably iphones too. And that won't happen. If anything, FCC is anti software freedom. A lot of bullshit shenanigans that manufacturers pull (wifi whitelists etc.) are to please the FCC.

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

#168

Post by lloeki »

lazide wrote: post #163
notjulianjaynes wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That term would be ‘jailbroken’ right?

I'd understand jailbreak as escaping the jail via some vulnerability of sorts, which might not even be persisting.

In fact If I saw jailbroken in a listing I'd assume it's because the device cannot have its bootloader unlocked.

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by rocqua »

bubblethink wrote: post #165
lazide wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That term would be ‘jailbroken’ right?

No, jailbroken means that you make the device do something that manufacturer prohibits (breaking out of a jail). Unlocking the bootloader where the manufacturer supports unlocking the bootloader is using it as designed. The correct term is "unlockable bootloader", not unlocked. No one ships a production device with an unlocked bootloader.

Googles pixel phones have an unlocked bootloader I believe.
Post reply on HN