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

261–270 of 286 posts

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

#261

Post by onesociety2022 »

zrobotics wrote: post #143
JoshTko wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really aren't expensive anymore in the US if you shop around. You can get unlimited data, talk, text for $18/mo per month from US mobile, and you can even choose which network to use Verizon, tmobile, or ATT. US mobile has a new feature that lets you switch the carrier network for $2 per switch.

I wonder how much those cheap MVNO prices are subsidized by everyone who has a contract directly with the carrier though. Going directly with Verizon or AT&T is super expensive compared to Europe. At the end of the day, someone needs to build & maintain the physical infrastructure. I don't know if the carriers could keep operating if everyone switched to MVNOs, they might not have enough revenue to maintain the infra…

MVNOs do not guarantee the same level of service as the main flagship carriers who actually own and build the infra. I'm a customer of a MVNO that uses Verizon network. If I go into a crowded area, I can definitely see some traffic deprioritization happening to my traffic but I'm willing to make that tradeoff for saving a ton of money (majority of the time I use my phone on Wifi anyway).

But since I switched, I have convinced several other family members to also switch to a MVNO to save money. It will be interesting to see what happens if a lot more people make the same tradeoff. I wonder will they just intentionally make the MVNO experience so horrible by throttling to get everyone to upgrade, or they will just increase the rates on the MVNO plans so there is not a substantial difference anymore?

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

#262

Post by monkeywork »

themaninthedark wrote: post #104
monkeywork wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you share a link to this for story happening?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2361657-ford-patents-ca... Ford got a patent for the idea.

a patent is VASTLY different than it actually taking place. The number of patents that get filed but never actually implemented could fill the grand canyon.

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

#263

Post by jimmaswell »

odo1242 wrote: post #238
School-Cotton wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Yeah, I agreed with the usb-C law until I realized how easily usb-C cables snap compared to the alternatives lol

I've never seen a usb-c cable snap, and lightning doesn't look much sturdier to me.

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

#264

Post by lazide »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #260
stouset wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what you are missing is that a carrier locked phone isn't worthless, it is worth quite a bit. A carrier locked iphone 14 sells for ~$400 on ebay, an unlocked one sells for ~$525. A reduction in average selling price is a reduction in incentive to steal, full stop. I'm not sure how you can argue with that. I'm not stating it's 100% effective, I'm not stating that it's worth the cost, all I am saying is that it i…

Because my belief is that the number of thefts doesn't exist on a relatively linear curve, which would have to be true for your position to be correct. My bet is that stealing phones is more like a thresh-hold. Does this crime pay > $x? Then I will do the crime. In this case I suspect that $x is well below the selling price of an unlocked phone. There isn't a gradual dropoff, at least not in the region between $400-$…

Phone theft in areas with predominately iPhones went from ‘very common’ to ‘non-existent’ because of Apple’s remote bricking.

In theory there may be a point you’re describing, but in SF for instance people just started looting cars instead of mugging (or snatch and grabbing) phones.

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

#265

Post by einpoklum »

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…

Upvoted in recognition of your activity, while "downvoting" the reality you report.

I should also mention that - while not directly accessible to homeless people - today it is quite easy to obtain new Smartphones, probably in bulk, which are quite usable with new version of Android and new apps, albeit not the most snappy, for something like 50 USD apiece (I just searched on AliBaba for example). I know such things can be quite legit technically, since I bought a a 75 USD smartphone individually, 10 years ago; and though it sometimes struggled a bit, it worked just fined. Only stopped using it because I was mugged, which was funny because the guy who took my phone was probably not happy he lifted something this cheap :-)

Anyway, that's an optional for buttressing your collection of used smartphones, to distribute.

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

#266

Post by einpoklum »

"A 2022 decision by the high court requires explicit Congressional permission before agencies can decide on issues that have “vast political and economic significance.”

A combination of a rather-dysfunctional congress, for many years already, and this limitation, means very little ability to regulate on the federal level in the US.

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

#267

Post by dghlsakjg »

lazide wrote: post #264
dghlsakjg wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because my belief is that the number of thefts doesn't exist on a relatively linear curve, which would have to be true for your position to be correct. My bet is that stealing phones is more like a thresh-hold. Does this crime pay > $x? Then I will do the crime. In this case I suspect that $x is well below the selling price of an unlocked phone. There isn't a gradual dropoff, at least not in the region between $400-$…

Phone theft in areas with predominately iPhones went from ‘very common’ to ‘non-existent’ because of Apple’s remote bricking. In theory there may be a point you’re describing, but in SF for instance people just started looting cars instead of mugging (or snatch and grabbing) phones.

Carrier locking is not firmware locking! Carrier locking doesn't disable a stolen phone. It disables the use of non approved carriers on the phone, stolen or not.

That's my whole point. Carrier locking used to be standard, even on iPhones, and phone theft was very common too. Carrier locking wasn't a theft deterrent.

Firmware locking is a great theft deterrent. A stolen iPhone is basically just a few cheaper used parts, and all the expensive ones are useless.

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

#268

Post by stouset »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #267
lazide wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phone theft in areas with predominately iPhones went from ‘very common’ to ‘non-existent’ because of Apple’s remote bricking. In theory there may be a point you’re describing, but in SF for instance people just started looting cars instead of mugging (or snatch and grabbing) phones.

Carrier locking is not firmware locking! Carrier locking doesn't disable a stolen phone. It disables the use of non approved carriers on the phone, stolen or not. That's my whole point. Carrier locking used to be standard, even on iPhones, and phone theft was very common too. Carrier locking wasn't a theft deterrent. Firmware locking is a great theft deterrent. A stolen iPhone is basically just a few cheaper used par…

Both of these tactics reduce the sale price of a stolen phone.

One is extremely effective. One is marginally effective. But that still means both of them are effective just to different degrees.

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

#269

Post by BobaFloutist »

ITB wrote: post #246
barbazoo wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many charities are very happy with money btw, our local food bank prefers it and cites a 3x factor in “value” compared to food donations due to discount s they get when buying bulk. Just saying, don’t feel bad for “just” giving money.

If I donate time or things I’m more sure it will be used as I intended.

If I donate cash to a food bank I have faith it will be put to better use than my uninformed intentions ever could.

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

#270

Post by dghlsakjg »

stouset wrote: post #268
dghlsakjg wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carrier locking is not firmware locking! Carrier locking doesn't disable a stolen phone. It disables the use of non approved carriers on the phone, stolen or not. That's my whole point. Carrier locking used to be standard, even on iPhones, and phone theft was very common too. Carrier locking wasn't a theft deterrent. Firmware locking is a great theft deterrent. A stolen iPhone is basically just a few cheaper used par…

Both of these tactics reduce the sale price of a stolen phone. One is extremely effective. One is marginally effective. But that still means both of them are effective just to different degrees.

Yes, but one harms the consumer far more than any possible benefit from reduced theft (again, I would argue that carrier locks don't reduce theft), and the other causes no harm to the consumer while providing a huge benefit by reducing theft.
Post reply on HN