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

171–180 of 286 posts

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

#171

Post by darby_nine »

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…

This might be the first positive thing I've ever heard someone say about at&t. Mad props for distributing phones though! If you wrote up even a brief guide as to how to do this and common pitfalls I'd do the same in my area.

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

#172

Post by night862 »

lazide wrote: post #160
forgot-im-old wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is, it doesn't matter. They're selling a Locked iPhone instead of an Un-Locked iPhone.

Is the Locked Phone devalued because it is locked to AT&T or is the Unlocked phone at a premium because it is not?

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

#173

Post by Kwpolska »

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.

So don't buy phones from carriers? You can find a cheaper plan without a phone and then add a device you can use on any network, with the manufacturer's software.

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

#174

Post by dcomp »

rocqua wrote: post #170
bubblethink wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

there's a setting in the developer options called OEM unlock which allows the bootloader to be unlocked

It is still shipped locked. Unlocking wipes the device.

It also doesn't work if your device is carrier locked.

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

#175

Post by Izkata »

bmitc wrote: post #153
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.

Android lets you turn off all the lock screen security. Also before smartphones this wasn't even a thing, flip phones didn't even have a lock screen. Don't know if that's changed nowadays.

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

#176

Post by Narkov »

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 can I financially support you?

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

#177

Post by lazide »

night862 wrote: post #172
lazide wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The point is, it doesn't matter. They're selling a Locked iPhone instead of an Un-Locked iPhone. Is the Locked Phone devalued because it is locked to AT&T or is the Unlocked phone at a premium because it is not?

It does matter, by depressing market value - if widespread enough to cause overall market value to be depressed.

Not sure what you’re getting hung up about.

You clearly already know what’s going on or you wouldn’t be able to write the last sentence.

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

#178

Post by refurb »

grahamj wrote: post #53
seba_dos1 wrote: post #35

Wow, I forgot SIM locks were still a thing. Here in the EU this has been dealt with like a decade ago or so.

Same in Canada, we got a rare regulator win some time ago, much to the chagrin of our draconian carriers. Number portability too.

I don't get how this is a benefit to consumers?

It's not like providers throw up their hands and say "oh, I get we'll need to take a hit on this one"

They just adjust offerings and pricing to compensate for it.

With locked plans, they are willing to offer the phone at a discount because they know the cost is offset by the value of the customer acquisition for at least 2 years.

If they can't do that, then they'll just sell undiscounted phones. Which is what consumers can do today anyways.

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

#179

Post by rustcleaner »

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

I am computing comfortably on my GrapheneOS powered Pixel and Qubes OS powered Thinkpad.

Own AAPL, not Apple.

(on second thought...)

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

#180

Post by thaumasiotes »

Spivak wrote: post #125
jfdjkfdhjds wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This argument would only make any sense if you believed that the reason Americans were buying from Apple and Samsung was for their software update policy, which I'm pretty sure you don't.
Post reply on HN