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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Mmmmm, is the intent to unlock phones made to be more fair toward the ultimate end-user who lacked the cybersecurity know-hows to defend themselves at greater cost to its phone integrity?

Or to the nation-states who need even easier access?

If I were an advanced nation state, protecting communication line would be more paramount than trying to get into it.

But what do I know.

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?