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

221–230 of 286 posts

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

#221

Post by hansvm »

scarface_74 wrote: post #95
toast0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit reporting and collections. There's a reason carriers pull credit reports for post paid accounts and 'free' phone promos right? Although, personally, I prefer to be on the prepaid side of the carrier. I'm not getting a promotional phone, and I'm not paying for it in my monthly rate, so if my phone works for more than two years, I'm saving money. And I don't really need to use secret handshake financing... I'd r…

There is no credit check with T-Mobile. In fact, even if you have bad credit, and you have had service with them for a year, you can get a phone on contract. T-Mobile still finances phones directly and equipment payment plans are clearly separated out from service charges

A year ago they ran a credit check even just for home internet, anecdata of 1.

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

#222

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mhb wrote: post #128
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The term is laziness. Instead of creating or searching for a more precise word, an ambiguous word is used. As another example, see the renaissance of the gender neutral pronoun "they".

> Instead of creating or searching for a more precise word

This doesn’t work, though it seems to be a common misconception among engineers. Put simply, people will nickname neologisms. Creating a new term or pulling one from obscurity virtually begs for someone else to come up with a name people will actually use for you.

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

#224

Post by philipwhiuk »

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.

The Nokia 3210 had a screen lock although that was designed to stop accidental button presses.

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

#225

Post by stouset »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #217
lazide wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No. An unlocked phone is indistinguishable from a locked phone until you attempt to sign it up for another network. That distinction isn’t made until the phone is already stolen. If I’m a thief, I steal the phone either way. Sometimes I get a carrier locked phone and only make $10 (realistically more. Carrier locked phones sell at a discount around 20-50%), or I get an unlocked phone and make $400. Your argument is t…

If the average selling price of a stolen phone drops, the incentive to steal phones does so too.

> Your argument is the same that carrying less cash would make you less of a target for pickpockets. It won’t. They will steal a wallet with no cash as fast as a wallet stuffed with hundreds.

People don't tend to carry cash any more. And you know what has stopped happening as often as a result?

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

#226

Post by pcai »

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…

This is incorrect. You can pay off a phone early and simply ask that it be unlocked - the carrier will happily comply because you are no longer a credit risk. You can also just purchase phones unlocked by paying cash upfront. You don’t need to be a genius to deduce how this works.

The imei blacklists for theft were created much later and aren’t honored globally

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

#227

Post by pcai »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #106
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 sounds like a speculation on a tangential benefit instead of the major consideration in locking phones. The carriers can blacklist any phone's IMEI at any point (in addition to the usual collections attempts, credit reporting etc) which achieves the same effect but better if a phone is stolen from them.

It’s not speculation - this is literally why cell phone locking was invented. The imei blacklists were created much later specifically for theft, not to manage credit risk of customers getting subsidized phones.

You can literally just call your carrier to ask how to get your subsidized phone unlocked. There’s no need to speculate- it’s not a secret!

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

#228

Post by grepfru_it »

wormius wrote: post #216
grepfru_it wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

* citation needed.

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/free-trade-agreements/korea

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

#229

Post by ezfe »

lazide wrote: post #177
night862 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because carrier-locked phones to major carriers don't suffer a severely depressed price. AT&T has high market share it doesn't matter enough if a phone is locked to AT&T to prevent theft and depress resale prices.

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

#230

Post by ezfe »

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.

But it's not $10 because being locked to a major US carrier doesn't depress the price significantly.
Post reply on HN