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

412 pointsposted a year ago
by miles

66 Comments

siskiyou

a year ago

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 QLink Wireless. With T-Mobile or Consumer Cellular (or many others) they just give you the finger. The phone could be e-waste for all they care.

zrobotics

a year ago

Slightly OT, but as someone who escaped poverty this is the type of volunteering that is super helpful and makes a huge difference. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything like this in my local area, do you have any pointers on starting/finding a program like this to contribute to?

I really what you are doing, I have been looking for a way to give back now that I am in a financially secure position and that sounds more impactful than just giving money. If you would prefer, I can be contacted at my username at google's email service.

darby_nine

a year ago

This might be the first positive thing I've ever heard someone say about at&t. Mad props for distributing phones though! If you wrote up even a brief guide as to how to do this and common pitfalls I'd do the same in my area.

Plasmoid

a year ago

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

throwaway81523

a year ago

There's also huge e-waste and technological regression from shutting down the 2g and 3g networks. I have several perfectly good old phones that are now useless as phones. They were better phones than current ones, because they were smaller and used much less power, through the one weird trick of not containing what we used to call workstation-class processors. I don't understand why they couldn't make the current base stations (they are SDR anyway) serve multiple standards. I had thought that was possible.

oldmanhorton

a year ago

Is there a way to get phones to you or information about how to do this myself? I am sure I could find similar programs if I looked but it sounds interesting.

d4704

a year ago

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!

acdha

a year ago

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

gigatexal

a year ago

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

einpoklum

a year ago

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.

Narkov

a year ago

How can I financially support you?

cogman10

a year ago

I support this move as hopefully it will kill off the practice of carrier specific OSes.

The last carrier phone I bought was a Samsung Galaxy 4 from T-Mobile. I got a total of 0 os updates out of it because T-Mobile never released a new version of the OS (even though Samsung did). They just abandoned the phone.

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 can get in the way of protecting myself from zero day exploits.

miki123211

a year ago

No it won't, not unless it's specifically addressed in the law.

The EU (or at least most of it) has banned SIM locks a long time ago, but carrier-branded Android phones are still a thing.

In fact, the situation here is even more pernicious, there have been news reports[1] of carriers being able to remotely lock your phone down if you stop paying the bill, or if you buy it used and the first owner stops paying the bill.

[1] Polish https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/plus-instaluje-cos-na-ksztalt...

mrpippy

a year ago

I don’t think this will make any difference—SIM unlocking is totally separate from phone firmware

dsab

a year ago

I bought Samsung S21 from some shady reseller because original Samsung store was trying to steal my data by a promotion where I need to give them my bank account number and they will send my 20% of phone price back, then when I returned with phone to home and turned on phone I saw a message saying "this phone is a property of Polkomtel (on of carriers operating in Poland), it will be locked if you stop paying the bills", shady reseller agreed to replace my phone with another one not fucked up by a greedy carrier who is making incomes private (selling expensive phone in subscription model for people with no credit rank, often abusing this subscription model as low rate credit (they are goi g from carrier straight to lombard) and making loses public (they will lock my phone if someone dont pay)

jfdjkfdhjds

a year ago

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! :(

aftbit

a year ago

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.

bmitc

a year ago

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.

JumpCrisscross

a year ago

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.

notjulianjaynes

a year ago

This confusion is especially annoying when trying to purchase a bootloader unlocked phone on secondary market. I'm not even sure it's possible if you buy through a dealer. By unlocked they exclusively mean carrier unlocked.

apatheticonion

a year ago

I was hoping for unlocked bootloaders - but nope

neilv

a year ago

Separate from phone hardware not being locked to a particular carrier, I'm especially interested in phone hardware not being locked to a bootloader.

Currently, Google Pixel hardware units bought through some carriers can't have GrapheneOS installed on them, because that carrier chose to disable "OEM Unlocking" of the bootloader.

commodoreboxer

a year ago

Verizon in particular. My Pixel 3 is still more than capable hardware-wise, but it's years out of software support. I could get much more use out of it, but the bootloader is locked and Verizon will not unlock it, so it's e-waste.

Kwpolska

a year ago

So don't buy phones from carriers? You can find a cheaper plan without a phone and then add a device you can use on any network, with the manufacturer's software.

bubblethink

a year ago

That is kind of impossible for the FCC to regulate. If they mandated that, everyone would be able to install any OS on any hardware, notably iphones too. And that won't happen. If anything, FCC is anti software freedom. A lot of bullshit shenanigans that manufacturers pull (wifi whitelists etc.) are to please the FCC.

Centigonal

a year ago

I was abroad recently, and my mother couldn't get service because her phone was SIM locked by cricket and the requisite six month period haven't passed for it to be eligible for an unlock. She had bought her phone full price from Cricket. If she had purchased the same phone for the same price somewhere else, it would've come unlocked.

qup

a year ago

Cricket once switched network types from CDMA to GSM (or whatever the terms are). That happened a couple months after I paid full price for a cricket-branded Samsung Galaxy S4, and it bricked it. It was no longer usable on cricket. It wasn't usable on any other network, either.

spondylosaurus

a year ago

Depending on which phone, it may have actually cost a bit more than what she paid to get an unlocked phone. I always buy unlocked, but Best Buy charges an extra hundred bucks compared to the "activate with your carrier" version!

nashashmi

a year ago

Cricket phones are generally subsidized

Kiboneu

a year ago

My friend bought an android phone from AT&T. Recently she unlocked it, and she was able to use other sim cards, but the phone was still branded with the AT&T logo and loaded with its software. The phone can’t make any over the air updates because it relies in AT&T to fetch carrier specific updates… which fails when she switches providers.

I’m torn because it’s either flash unofficial firmware from the internet or live without security updates until she buys a new phone, both of these undesirable from a security perspective. The phone was just released 4 years ago and it is in good shape; but all that flies out the window because of this and related stupid practices.

I’m not sure if that is also addressed.

NewJazz

a year ago

IMO allowing OTA updates to go through through the mobile provider was Android's biggest mistake. Their reputation and platform integrity has been irreparably damaged because of it.

Heston

a year ago

Could she just get a friend using AT&T put their sim in her phone to have it updated?

jalk

a year ago

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.

acdha

a year ago

That’s how it should work. My understanding is that the carriers (probably correctly) assume that there are more people who will buy a cool phone if they don’t think about it as a short term loan – and then keep paying the same price after the phone is paid off. If they had to say “$900 in 24 payments of $50” more people would decide they don’t need the “Pro” model and the carriers would be forced to compete with the banks on financing terms.

wmf

a year ago

There's a growing segment of the American public who thinks contracts are fake so they would probably sign up for a "free" phone, unlock it, sell it, and then insist on breaking the contract with no penalty because they "didn't understand it and it was unfair anyway". It would be the new "Chase ATM glitch".

cogman10

a year ago

The point is to lock the user into a contract with the carrier. By binding the phone to there service they make it unlikely that a user will switch providers as that would need a new phone while still paying off the old phone.

That's why they'll offer these phones at low or no interest plans, so they can pull in the $50/month subscription for the years that the phone is being paid off.

grvbck

a year ago

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.

486sx33

a year ago

Yes, but let’s just say you got a 1200 device and only made the first two payments… jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier?

MR4D

a year ago

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.

lbourdages

a year ago

That is how it works in Canada now. If you cancel your contract, you have to pay the remaining balance immediately. No fees, just the remainder.

kube-system

a year ago

Yes, but the reason they don't do this is because "free phone" sounds more enticing than "$22.95/mo installment plan for 2 years".

kylehotchkiss

a year ago

I think the manufacturers should do the payment plans. Then carriers can be selected on basis of quality for customer over lock in effect

nashashmi

a year ago

I just got an idea for the opposite. Buy a phone with three years worth of service together with the phone. Extra features are extra money. 36 months x 40$ per month plus the cost of phone ($600) = $2040. Add discount for loyalty (-$800). Free phone and more.

pcai

a year ago

It’s impractical to “repossess” phones so in practice the carriers wouldn’t be able to stop people from deliberately defaulting on the contract with no repercussions (they can bring it to a different carrier who is indifferent)

seba_dos1

a year ago

Wow, I forgot SIM locks were still a thing. Here in the EU this has been dealt with like a decade ago or so.

jfdjkfdhjds

a year ago

most places in the world theres little sim lock, there's mandated number portability, and there are regulations from marking up the price of the phone to artificially make people breaking contract early to pay a lot. ...and there's the usa.

grahamj

a year ago

Same in Canada, we got a rare regulator win some time ago, much to the chagrin of our draconian carriers. Number portability too.

amluto

a year ago

I don’t understand the justification for 60 days or for carrier locks at all. If a phone company wants to impose a requirement that a phone will not operate at all if money is owed for its purchase and hasn’t been paid, then maybe I’d be okay with this. But for some reason carriers seem to think it makes sense to prevent, say, using dual SIM mode with their SIM and a second SIM from a different provider for 2 years or 45 days or 60 days or whatever. This makes no sense.

I’m also a bit surprised that Apple plays along with this. Apple surely has the market power to just say “sorry, no more carrier locks”.

nashashmi

a year ago

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.

op7

a year ago

I worked in the prepaid phone industry for 4 years so I have some insight on this. This is bad. The whole purpose of phones being locked for 6(now 12 at Mpcs) mo. is so that we are able to offer very decent phones to poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford the up front cost. Were talking about $200-500 phones being given away for completely FREE to new customers sold at a LOSS and we only HOPE to recover that money if they keep their service more than 6 months, for the $500 off iphones closer to 12. Every new prepaid customer who takes advantage of this-we are taking a massive gamble on wether or not this person will legitimately intend to pay their monthly bill, or if theyre just taking advantage of the initial subsidy and then cancelling service and selling the phones overseas or for parts. The industry consides this fraud. Frontline prepaid retailers already have to do some basic KYC on customers like checking IDs(which isnt a hard requirement) to make sure customers arent abusing the promos, because all it takes is a handful of abusers to cause serious economic harm to a particular stores which aleady operate on thin profit margins. If this change goes through expect prepaid/anonymous phones to go away(KYC and ID checking will kick into overdrive), people in poverty wont be able to get iPhones for $100 upfront anymore, expect hundreds more prepaid phone franchise stores to go out of business and thousands of people to lose their jobs, and for what? What is the benfit of this? So retail arbitragers can buy phones to export overseas at the expense of the American lower class even faster in 2 months rather than 6-12?

az226

a year ago

Maybe they can offer a midway point. Allow additional eSIMs to be added if your main phone plan is still active. Currently this use case is impossible.

AzzyHN

a year ago

It's not just carriers that enjoy locked phones. Currently, BestBuy (the 2nd largest electronics retailer in America, after Amazon) can only sell unlocked iPhones that are at least a year old. If you want a shiny new iPhone 16 Pro that's unlocked, you have to purchase it from Apple directly.

einpoklum

a year ago

"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.

bluecalm

a year ago

Those are half measures. The obvious solution is to forbid bundling data/cell plans with phones. Those are separate businesses. Bundling can only be bad for competition and customers. That we don't even get this basic protection in EU while things like forcing USB-C are pushed speaks volumes about the state of customer protection.

aeternum

a year ago

It is ridiculous that phones are still locked. Customers are on the hook for the full cost and equipment is now treated as a loan directly to the customer.

Makes no sense for carriers to hold the keys.

sharpshadow

a year ago

How does the carrier unlock a phone remotely? The process should be reproducible.

And yes it with two slots for eSIM and SIM it makes less sense to have the same carrier inside.

decko

a year ago

How are the carrier locks implemented today? I assume it must be implemented on the client (phone). Do the carriers work with all the phone manufacturers to have them add this capability?

indigodaddy

a year ago

I think there is an argument for this simply based on the fact that Verizon is currently disadvantaged competitively since they already abide per a previous FCC agreement.

ummonk

a year ago

> “The Commission fails to point to specific statutory authorization for an unlocking mandate and would have profound economic consequences, thus raising a major question that would require clear statutory authority from Congress.”

Surely they're right? Seems like a stretch for them to be claiming the authority to make rules about this.

SirMaster

a year ago

Does this mean no more discounts? If so that would suck. That's how I buy my phones. Like I only paid $350 for my iPhone 14 Pro because they had $1000 off with a trade-in. And I was able to buy an eligible used trade-in phone from Amazon to get the deal.

shevis

a year ago

In what world does disallowing blatantly anticompetitive behavior constitute a significant economic change?

pmarreck

a year ago

yeah this is basically why I've always paid full price upfront for an unlocked phone

which

a year ago

This might be well intentioned but it's a bad idea. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-edtx/pr/101-indicted-transnatio... for why but the gist of it is that people use fake IDs to impersonate someone, get phones on credit, and make only the first payment. Then they sell it to a wholesaler who uses a sketchy connection to get the phone unlocked, Fedexes the phone to Hong Kong, and never pays again. Having to bribe rogue carrier employees for unlocks is a big cost center for these thugs.

By automatically unlocking by default you're doing their job for them and making this crime more profitable. And the victims in many cases don't spot the fraud until months later because not everyone is constantly checking their credit report. And it's not some isolated thing either. Literally ONE phone store / wholesaler in Texas bought and exported 100 million dollars worth of stolen phones in a couple of years.

The locking is also part of why new iPhones are even affordable to middle class people in the first place.