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

191–200 of 286 posts

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

#191

Post by folmar »

Izkata wrote: post #175
bmitc wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure they had, it was just not in frequent use. See page 75 of manual for SE T68i (2002) for example https://archive.org/details/manualsbase-id-62423/page/74/mod...

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

#192

Post by grvbck »

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.

That's how it works i EU (or at least the majority of it).

Also, it as it is far easier to buy a phone with an installment plan than to get a cash loan, it's very common to see brand new, unboxed phones sold on the second-hand market. People sell the phone for cash and use the installment plan as an interest-free loan payment.

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

#193

Post by gigatexal »

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 is such a nice thing that you’re doing! Bravo and thank you!

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

#194

Post by circuit10 »

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.

Advertising isn’t the only context where these terms are used… In usual conversation “is your phone unlocked?” could mean 1 or 3

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

#195

Post by d4704 »

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…

Would you be accepting any phone(s) if shipped to you or do you have a group you would recommend that accepts shipments of phones?

Thank you!

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

#196

Post by acdha »

lolinder wrote: post #86
acdha wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they distinguish you from a phone thief? Is there some kind of check with the previous owner?

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?

I was mostly asking because the comment I replied to wasn’t perfectly clear and I’ve read more than a few complaints about e-waste caused by people forgetting to release things from their account before tossing it. I think what they’re doing is a great idea and was curious how much hassle it involved.

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

#197

Post by School-Cotton »

EricE wrote: post #117
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! :(

Yup - it's why the iPhone wasn't on Verizon for years - Verizon insisted on being able to "customize" the iPhone and Apple told them to pound sand.

As a years-long happy Verizon and iPhone user I'm glad they did!

Now I wish they would do the same thing to the EU wanting to "customize" the iPhone... (e.g. forcing USB-C)

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

#198

Post by grepfru_it »

safety1st wrote: post #147
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…

That is a weird take which is not informed by an understanding of how business operates. It is 100% an _exclusive dealing_ mechanism. (This is a term of art for a business strategy which may not be legal in the current context, by the way.) It was undoubtedly implemented because it's a way to make more money. Businesses love imposing exclusive dealing. It can reduce their competition and increase their margins. We ha…

Back in 2012 there were international agreements which required us cellular carriers to enforce locking phones. Those may have been unwinded by now but it’s not a simple “just force the companies to do it” scenario

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

#199

Post by IgorPartola »

JoBrad wrote: post #186
wh0knows wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The thing is that Android is open source (at least nominally). So having Google refuse carries the ability to customize it would be like having the Linux project say that companies can’t ship their own distros.

Google could have applied pressure on carries via some sort of “Certified Android” label but realistically this is very different from iOS/Apple where the hardware and software are closed and made by the same company.

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

#200

Post by FollowingTheDao »

lazide wrote: post #159
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.

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

$10 is a lot of money to some people. It was a lot for me at one point in my life.
Post reply on HN