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

181–190 of 286 posts

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

#181

Post by thaumasiotes »

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.

> My Pixel 3 is still more than capable hardware-wise

My Pixel 3a has started spontaneously shutting down; at any given moment, it may spend an indefinite amount of time in continuous boot-and-shutdown loops that render it unusable.

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

#182

Post by [deleted] »

Kwpolska wrote: post #173
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.

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by hun3 »

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.

I assume the top reply was referring to "OEM unlocked bootloader/fastboot"

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

#184

Post by kalleboo »

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.

Samsung only offers the 7 years of support for their flagship series of phones. The majority of phones they sell are cheaper ones that do not get that support.

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

#185

Post by whs »

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.

The FBI famously wanted an iPhone unlocked in the third way.

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

#186

Post by JoBrad »

wh0knows wrote: post #18
NewJazz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO allowing OTA updates to go through through the mobile provider was Android's biggest mistake. Their reputation and platform integrity has been irreparably damaged because of it.

This is pure speculation, but is it possible that Android never would have been successful (or as successful) if they did not bow to the carriers? By taking carrier-friendly positions they built a symbiotic relationship that resulted in the carriers being happy to promote their phones.

Apple didn’t bow to the carriers. You can speculate that only Apple could have done that, but Google’s deference to carriers has continued with RCS. Given their market position now, I think it’s just a preference in doing business.

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

#187

Post by JoBrad »

nashashmi wrote: post #81
amluto wrote: post #68

I don’t understand the justification for 60 days or for carrier locks at all. If a phone company wants to impose a requirement that a phone will not operate at all if money is owed for its purchase and hasn’t been paid, then maybe I’d be okay with this. But for some reason carriers seem to think it makes sense to prevent, say, using dual SIM mode with their SIM and a second SIM from a different provider for 2 years o…

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.

I purchased my phone from Apple, and immediately used it on Mint Mobile, which is T-Mobile.

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

#188

Post by Ylpertnodi »

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.

If a car manufacturer gave me an offer to only use one particular petrol vendor...I would very much consider it.

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

#190

Post by theonlyklas »

zrobotics wrote: post #152
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 so…

I would begin with contacting an appropriate state department that helps those people and seeing if they know of any similar organizations, or if they provide grants for non-profit organizations that can assist people in poverty that way. California had quite a bit of money allocated for that, which led to some abuse of the system by a few of them.
Post reply on HN