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

141–150 of 286 posts

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

#141

Post by Plasmoid »

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…

T-mobile refused to unlock a phone I bought. A complaint to the FCC got that fixed right away.

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

#142

Post by ummonk »

which wrote: post #70
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier? Subprime auto lenders use “electronic devices to remotely shut down vehicles” [1]. Carriers could install remote management profiles on phones financed for subprime borrowers. If a borrower defaults, the loan is sold to a collector and phone erased and put in lost mode. It isn’t pleasant. But neither is being loc…

The GSMA has a blacklist system. Participating carriers can blacklist a stolen / fraud / nonpayment phone IMEI and all the other blacklist members will agree to also ban that phone from their network. The problem is that people won't make payments, sell the phone for cash, and eventually the phone ends up in places (China, UAE, Nigeria, Russia, ...) that don't participate in the blacklist.

The right compromise should be that they have to unlock it when you've paid off the phone in full.

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

#143

Post by zrobotics »

JoshTko wrote: post #110
MR4D wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a reason US cell rates are so high. That reason is because of lock-in. If they did what you want, rates would fall, as would their profitability. I expect them to fight this tooth and nail.

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 infrastructure. North America is pretty large and not densely populated.

That being said, the major carriers here absolutely suck and utilize very scummy business practices that aren't that far off of a payday loan place. Financing an iPhone with Verizon really isn't that far off of payday loan rates, it's a horrible deal.

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

#144

Post by adrr »

acdha wrote: post #71
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 do they distinguish you from a phone thief? Is there some kind of check with the previous owner?

It is carrier locked, not user locked. Just put in another sim card from that carrier.

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

#145

Post by zrobotics »

fy20 wrote: post #111
_yb2s wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally they are sold at a discount, with the deal that they will make back the discount if you use their service. You can buy an unlocked phone new from the manufacturer but then you will pay full price.

Are they actually discounted? Where I am in Europe they don't do that anymore, it's usually cheaper to buy the phone from Amazon - if you can afford the up front cost.

At least in the US, in July, for a Google pixel 8, through Verizon or AT&T, no. Buying a pixel 8 retail from best-buy or Amazon was $200 cheaper than either carrier, and both wanted to push financing instead of outright purchase. My experience (mostly with Verizon) has been that buying directly from the carrier has been more expensive in the last decade than buying the phone retail.

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

#146

Post by cto_of_antifa »

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".

[dead]

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

#147

Post by safety1st »

pcai wrote: post #101
lolinder wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 have businesses all over the American economy doing it.

Now does this particular case of exclusive dealing also serve to reduce theft? Perhaps it does, a case can be made. But what is 100% certain is that anti-theft was not the motive for doing exclusive dealing. It's the other way around. The FTC recognizes that. Any nominally honest judge or business executive would recognize that. Anti-theft is an afterthought compared to the billions in profits at stake.

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

#148

Post by [deleted] »

OkGoDoIt wrote: post #119
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the monthly payment pays for the device in full, what's the problem with a customer ending the service contract while continuing the monthly payments? If the monthly payment doesn't pay for it in full, why not just make the monthly device payments $n more, and the cellular service payments $n less? That way you don't need to worry if the service plan is cancelled, because the device payments would still be due (or…

You’re thinking about it from a consumer point of view. From the carrier point of view, they don’t want it to be easy for you to decide to switch to another carrier (They want their service to have a high switching cost). So they have various roadblocks like this, to make it a bit more frustrating to switch carriers. Of course they can’t make it too difficult where they would face legal pushback, so there’s a lot of…

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by nashashmi »

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.

Why not? Because AT&T doesn’t like selling stuff for other telecom companies. In fact the only reason they have stores is to sell wireless services. If you don’t want their service, they don’t want to sell phones to you from their stock.

Something I learned from an AT&T store

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

#150

Post by zrobotics »

bitfilped wrote: post #113
ukoki wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know people can finance just about any purchase right? People buy cars on finance all the time without needing to buy their cars through BP and signing an exlusive gas purchasing agreement with them. There's no reason for the phone to be tied to the carrier.

Poor people offen do not have access to credit lines, it's much easier and beneficial to just have cheap products available for those that need them. There's no reason phones should cost $1000 or more anyway, they aren't worth that much.

Yes, but 1000 phones aren't normally in the cards for poor people unless they're financing via carrier or using a tax refund. Before switching into software, I spent most of my mid-late 20s under the poverty line, I never had a high-end phone. But cheap android phones are readily available, here's one [0] for $100 USD that honestly looks like an absolutely fine phone.

IME people who are poor enough to not be able to get a contract with a carrier buy a phone at Walmart and then do prepaid carriers. This has the 'fun' side effect that they get a new number whenever they have to switch phone plans. These switches aren't deliberate, they just run out of money to keep up the old prepaid line, go a week or 3 without a phone, then sign up again. Porting the old number is too much work/time, so they just end up with a new phone number. Its just one of the shitty things about poverty.

[0] https://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola-moto-g-play-2023-32gb-...

Post reply on HN