FCC proposes ending cellphone carrier locks after 60 days
FCC proposes ending cellphone carrier locks after 60 days
Should you stay or should you go now? If Rosenworcel gets her way, there won't be trouble
Long-term carrier lock-in could soon be a thing of the past in America after the FCC proposed requiring telcos to unlock cellphones from their networks 60 days after activation.
FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel put out that proposal on Thursday, saying it would encourage competition between carriers. If subscribers could simply walk off to another telco with their handsets after two months of use, networks would have to do a lot more competing, the FCC reasons.
"When you buy a phone, you should have the freedom to decide when to change service to the carrier you want and not have the device you own stuck by practices that prevent you from making that choice," Rosenworcel said.
Carrier-locked devices contain software mechanisms that prevent them from being used on other providers' networks. The practice has long been criticized for being anti-consumer.
Just stop buying phones from carriers and you never have to worry about this. If you like a phone, buy it unlocked straight from the manufacturer and do whatever you want with it. Most offer payment plans, and if not you can always use klarna or a credit card with no interest to make payments on it.
Too bad SCOTUS just ruled that US government regulatory agencies are essentially meaningless a day or two ago
Simlocks have completely vanished from the market at least here in Germany, mostly because carriers don't care if you use your subsidised bonus phone with a different card -- you're still locked into a contract with two years or such minimum duration. Even those contracts have gotten rare though I think most people right-out own their phones and then make a separate contract.
Thank fucking God. It never should have been a thing ever.
Don’t worry. With SCOTUS overturning Chevron this won’t stick. /s (in case it’s not obvious)
"Verizon agrees that the FCC should consider the merits and trade-offs of handset unlocking requirements," Verizon spokesperson Rich Young told The Register, though that support is conditional.
Screw verizon with an acid covered cactus. What possible "merits" are there to locking a device down for anyone but the companies selling the phones? Rich Young can go kick rocks.
I will not buy a phone through a carrier, I will not buy a phone with a locked bootloader. Period.
I am done with anticonsumer bullshit.
As much as I to be optimistic, I doubt this will pass. So long as Wall Street is still a thing don't expect any sort of regulations. Continue to buy second-hand, OEM unlocked phones on eBay.
If there is money to be lost in it, dont bet on it getting lit
About damn time.
This explains why I got a text from my carrier saying all phones now come unlocked. Guess they're preparing ahead of time. Mine was already unlocked, but still.
If we're talking "free" devices with some commitment, I'm OK with some limitation until the terms are met.
The second you charge a dollar for it, it should be unconditionally illegal to have it carrier locked the day they walk out of the store. 60 days isn't good enough.
So everyone knows… the new Apple Card lets you do 0% financing on the iPhone. (You also get 3% cash back for buying from the Apple Store.)
So you can buy an unlocked iPhone and pay for it in installments.
Now there is no need to buy from the carriers, have a locked phone, or pay full price up front.
Source: Me, paying ~$68/month for the unlocked iPhone 15 Pro. Also, I do a carrier’s prepaid plan because I’ve been bested by contracts before.
How about no lock in from the get go?
This would be of limited use for many people. Carriers lock people in by selling lots of phones that are missing frequency bands and cannot be used on their competitor's networks. For instance, many of TMO's phones cannot be used on AT&T and Verizon's networks. My Oneplus 9Pro is a great phone, but if I wanted to switch to Spectrum (on Verizon's network) or AT&T I would be forced to buy a new phone.
Some phones like the Iphone and Pixels are compatible with every U.S. network, but plenty of others are not.
I don't really have a problem with this -- I think that it's rarely in a consumer's interest to choose a locked phone. Buying a locked phone basically means that you're getting a loan to pay for hardware that you pay back with a higher service price. But I'd point out that:
-
You can get unlocked phones and service now. I do. There are some privacy benefits to doing so -- my cell provider doesn't know who I am (though they could maybe infer it from usage patterns of their network and statistical analysis). It's not a lack of unlocked service that's at issue. To do this, Congress is basically arguing that the American consumer is just making a bad decision to purchase a plan-combined-with-a-locked-phone and forcing them not to do so.
-
Consumers will pay more for cell phones up front. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- it maybe makes the carrier market more competitive to not have a large portion of consumers locked to one provider. But there are also some benefits to having the carrier selecting cell phones that they offer in that the provider is probably in a better position to evaluate what phone manufacturers have on offer in terms of things like failure rates than do consumers.
-
It would help with e-waste too.