Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starting today, wireless carriers have to unlock your phone

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: Starting today, wireless carriers have to unlock your phone

#51

Post by wyldfire »

coldpie wrote: post #45
bri3d wrote: post #17

This seems pretty vague about what "unlocking" really means. For example, I had a Verizon HTC 8X which was "unlocked" (as are all Verizon LTE phones), but you couldn't edit the MMS gateway. Some older Verizon Android phones were "unlocked" but with no APN editor, so you couldn't get data service. Does anything about this code prevent carriers from playing the "it's unlocked but good luck configuring it" game?

I'm fairly clueless about this topic, but I thought "unlocking" simply meant you can install a different OS if you want.

Initially I'd have agreed, but it seems more subtle than that.

Let's read from Verizon's "Postpay Device Unlocking Policy"

> ... We do not lock our 4G LTE devices, and no code is needed to program them for use with another carrier.

So I take this as "we don't have a subsidy lock that prevents you from moving this phone to another LTE vendor."

Indeed, they clarify later:

> “Unlocking” a device refers only to disabling software that would prevent a consumer from attempting to activate a device designed for one carrier’s network on another carrier’s network, even if that network is technologically compatible.

But these phones do ship with signed bootloaders, and it doesn't sound like Verizon provides the mechanism to replace it.

It doesn't sound like this re-legitimizes 3rd party businesses who offer unlocking services. TFA refers to FCC negotiations with carriers, and not the LoC changing policy. I'll wager that's the only thing that would let you install your own OS.

Re: Starting today, wireless carriers have to unlock your phone

#53

Post by marcosdumay »

ptaipale wrote: post #36
laxatives wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is unpopular. You're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity. If I cared and spent enough money, could I also restrict other people's freedom or privacy? Neither should be a function of ability to pay. That being said, that is more or less how it is now -- you pay in cash/time/effort.

I think he was saying precisely that: when you take a locked-in phone with a fixed deal, you're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity.

Nope. They are lending you money (normaly with a huge interest), and taking your privacy and freedom away for free.

Re: Starting today, wireless carriers have to unlock your phone

#54

Post by bri3d »

coldpie wrote: post #45
bri3d wrote: post #17

This seems pretty vague about what "unlocking" really means. For example, I had a Verizon HTC 8X which was "unlocked" (as are all Verizon LTE phones), but you couldn't edit the MMS gateway. Some older Verizon Android phones were "unlocked" but with no APN editor, so you couldn't get data service. Does anything about this code prevent carriers from playing the "it's unlocked but good luck configuring it" game?

I'm fairly clueless about this topic, but I thought "unlocking" simply meant you can install a different OS if you want.

No, "unlocking" in this context refers to the baseband lock which prevents your phone from joining another carrier's network. This form of lock vastly predates phones with customizable OSes and was originally in place to prevent customers from receiving a subsidized phone, re-selling it for use on another network, and then breaking their contract, or trying to arbitrage a margin between early termination fees and remaining phone cost.

This guidance requires that phone companies allow their phones to join networks they are technically compatible with (i.e., have the radios and baseband support for). It's generally unrelated to the OS or bootloader, as this form of lock is often implemented at the baseband level.

The issue is that phones can be "unlocked" (made able to join another network at the baseband level) but non-configurable at the OS level, barring features requiring OS configuration, like MMS, from functioning. This doesn't seem to be specific enough guidance to prevent phone carriers from playing this trick, as they can continue to provide technically unlocked phones that don't work properly on other networks.

This doesn't really change much these days as the US market is gradually moving towards a financed (rather than subsidized) phone sales model where early termination fee arbitrage isn't possible and collections for broken contracts are more conventional. In general, carriers have less of an incentive to carrier lock their phones than they used to. Plus, some carriers (like Verizon) are already required to supply their LTE phones unlocked due to agreements made to acquire spectrum licenses, so this doesn't really affect them.

Re: Starting today, wireless carriers have to unlock your phone

#55

Post by coldpie »

bri3d wrote: post #54
coldpie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly clueless about this topic, but I thought "unlocking" simply meant you can install a different OS if you want.

No, "unlocking" in this context refers to the baseband lock which prevents your phone from joining another carrier's network. This form of lock vastly predates phones with customizable OSes and was originally in place to prevent customers from receiving a subsidized phone, re-selling it for use on another network, and then breaking their contract, or trying to arbitrage a margin between early termination fees and rem…

Thanks for the explanation. I guess the confusion comes from "locked baseband" and "locked bootloaders." Unlocking is ambiguous without enough context or domain knowledge.

Re: Starting today, wireless carriers have to unlock your phone

#56

Post by pkamb »

nanidin wrote: post #20
grmarcil wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, that is an artifact of the hardware. The network compatibility of early (all?) iPhone 5s was divided across three models. Some can work on other networks, but not in other networks' LTE bands. Depends on your particular model and which network you're trying to move to. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/26/4150856/bringing-your-ipho... Edit: better explanation at this link: http://www.wired.com/2012/09/…

My Sprint iPhone 4S worked fine on CDMA networks in the US, and it worked fine while traveling internationally on GSM / non-CDMA networks. There's something going on in the baseband firmware that rejects domestic carrier SIM cards, but still allows international carriers when an international unlock is granted.

Yes, my newly "unlocked" Sprint iPhone 5 will work fine overseas. It's specifically on non-Sprint domestic carriers where it won't work.

Re: Starting today, wireless carriers have to unlock your phone

#57

Post by jacob019 »

rdw wrote: post #37
jacob019 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is forcing you to buy a locked phone. It's easy enough to buy unlocked phones and sign up with any of the carriers without a contract. You get a lower monthly rate too and often pay less in the long run. People have been voting for the carrier locks with their dollars by mortgaging their phones through carrier subsidies. We can all agree that carrier locks are stupid, but I don't see why the government needs t…

It has not been that easy, in my experience. Apple did not sell an unlocked iPhone 6 until last month, and I think they may have done the same locked-only-for-a-few-months thing with the 5s. I don't recall seeing earlier iPhones for sale unlocked at all, you had to do something illegal to them up till surprisingly recently -- maybe the 4, not sure? I think the legislation is responsible for the easier access these da…

I didn't know that about the iPhone, interesting point. Unlocked phones have always been available, but you should certainly be able to buy the phone you want. All the same, the free market has made unlocked phones available already without any legislation. I don't see manufacturers reversing course, especially now that consumers have so many choices.
Post reply on HN