FCC Says Verizon Can SIM Lock Phones Again (droid-life.com) 53
The FCC has granted Verizon a partial waiver to start SIM locking new handsets to its network for 60 days. "This news out of the FCC is the response to Verizon requesting back in February that it be allowed to lock devices to help deter fraud and theft," reports Droid Life. From the report: Why did they need to ask the FCC about locking? As we have explained a couple of times now, Verizon agreed to specific usage terms when it licensed 700MHz C Block spectrum for its LTE network years ago. One of the individual terms concerned handset locking, where Verizon had to acknowledge that it would leave its phones open for use on other networks at all times. Unlike AT&T or T-Mobile phones, where you have to fulfill a number of criteria in order to get either to unlock a phone for use elsewhere, Verizon's phones were to remain unlocked.
The FCC's partial waiver permits Verizon to lock a customer's handset for 60 days from the date someone activates it on Verizon's network. Once the 60 days are up, this is what should happen: "After the expiration of the 60-day period, Verizon must automatically unlock the handsets at issue here regardless of whether: (1) the customer asks for the handset to be unlocked, or (2) the handset is fully paid off. Thus, at the end of the initial 60 days, the unlocking rule will operate just as it does now, and Verizon's customers will be able to use their unlocked handsets on other technologically compatible networks." The only exception is for fraud. "Verizon will not have to automatically unlock handsets that it determines within the 60-day period to have been purchased through fraud," the FCC says. Verizon has since issued a statement thanking the FCC and confirming that this new 60-day lock policy will go live "very soon."
The FCC's partial waiver permits Verizon to lock a customer's handset for 60 days from the date someone activates it on Verizon's network. Once the 60 days are up, this is what should happen: "After the expiration of the 60-day period, Verizon must automatically unlock the handsets at issue here regardless of whether: (1) the customer asks for the handset to be unlocked, or (2) the handset is fully paid off. Thus, at the end of the initial 60 days, the unlocking rule will operate just as it does now, and Verizon's customers will be able to use their unlocked handsets on other technologically compatible networks." The only exception is for fraud. "Verizon will not have to automatically unlock handsets that it determines within the 60-day period to have been purchased through fraud," the FCC says. Verizon has since issued a statement thanking the FCC and confirming that this new 60-day lock policy will go live "very soon."
The best government money can buy (Score:5, Interesting)
If Verizon no longer agreed with the terms attached to the licensed spectrum, they should put it back up for auction. But getting a lackey into the FCC took care of that little problem, and the average US voter is too busy playing spectator sports politics to pay attention to this sort of abuse.
This is straight up conflict of interest. (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon agreed to a set of rules in order to essentially pilfer the public commons via a spectrum auction. Now they are being allowed to renege on their agreement for being able to purchase that part of the agreement due to a FORMER EMPLOYEE RUNNING THE FCC. Any wagers he will be right back at Verizon, or a highly paid do-nothing contractor after all this?
Re: (Score:3)
What principle is involved in "a matter of principle that a wireless carrier should not have agreed to terms without a 60-day SIM lock to begin with. At the very least there should be a minimum of 20 days for SIM locks on any cellular purchase, and a maximum of 60-days."?
Re: (Score:2)
Except your example doesn't happen. If I leave Verizon while I still owe money on my phone, they charge me that money! Granted, there is a subset of people who won't pay that bill but the reality is it's not a high percentage of people bouncing back and forth between carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be that it's not high because of the carrier locking. The summary mentioned that ATT and T-Mobile lock their. Sprint wouldn't have to since they use incompatible networks
Re: (Score:2)
Which subset includes organized fraud rings that purchase these $1K phones with fraudulent checks or credit card information...
So it's not a high percentage of people affected by the SIM lock, and your point is? Oh, right, it is to ignore the fraud problem that you do not quantif [slashgear.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This has always been the case. But that's not the reason for the SIM lock. The reason for the sim-lock is to lock the customer in, so they can't take their very expensive phone to another carrier and thus the carrier has just subsidized a $600 phone to another carrier. That's fine, and in fact I agree with that, since people will in fact do this. But if you've paid out the subsidy/termination fee, the phone should be unlocked, no questions asked.
Are customers that have subsidised contracts not locked into a contract? In the UK bundled phones tend to be on a 18 or 24 month contract, Sure you can move your phone to a different carrier, but then you'd be paying two carriers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Futhermore, the increase of deaths at the border is something Trump worked to achieve"
Looking from a non US citizens POV I'm wondering how the deaths on the border are the fault of your president. He didn't force them to try and cross, in fact quite the opposite. Whether you like trump or not, he's not to blame for 3rd worlder stupidity.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
99.99% of them don't need genuine asylum, they're economic migrants.
Re: (Score:1)
99.99% of them don't need genuine asylum, they're economic migrants.
Citation Required.
Psyche! Just kidding. You pulled those numbers out of your arse and everyone knows it.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to use google.
Fucking Ajit Pai (Score:1)
Allowing a sim lock ... ignore that it must be automatically unlocked after 60 days, and it is a valid anti-fraud measure. It's your skimmed credit card that will be used to buy the phone and resell it the next few days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
the FCC's motives for allowing it are muddied.
Not at all
*Orders are orders*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are real legitimate reasons for VZW to want to SIM lock, outside of VZW just trying to keep people on their network. The summary even mentions them.
Like what? I've read the summary and haven't found any.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not ignoring them. I just haven't found any legitimate reason for allowing SIM locking. I did phone lame excuses however, that, I agree.
SIM locking is not going to prevent any kind of fraud or theft, and even if it did, the burden it pass on the legitimate users is not worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said the problem doesn't matter. What I am saying is that I don't beleive VZW when they say the need to be allowed to SIM lock for 60 days in order to effectively prevent fraud and theft.
Also I think that even if they should be free to ask, the FCC should not agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes .. it is proven that slapping your customers in the face with a wet fish is one of the best sales tactics ever!
Realistically, if you sign a contract with a carrier, you have to pay the bastards, sim lock or no. Failure to pay will see your credit rating deleted, and the bailiffs at the door. If you are paying, why the hell should you not swap sims with your other phone, or use a
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I really don't like VZW but at l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like this bit:
The only exception is for fraud. "Verizon will not have to automatically unlock handsets that it determines within the 60-day period to have been purchased through fraud."
Don't forget about the Bogeyman.
the reason why they're doing this.. NOW.. (Score:1)
verizon is shutting off cdma at the end of 2019, so there will be roughly 15% of their subscriber base getting new handsets (even flip phones will be '4g' aka voice over lte) over the next six months, whether they wanted them or not. this allows verizon to lock that significant volume of new handset purchases.. of very profitable, low usage, subscribers, to term commitments.
The answer for finding a phone bought fraudulently (Score:2)
So, the answer for finding a phone bought fraudulently is to keep them locked with one carrier and to keep them paying on the contract. Not kick them off the network, put the phone ID on a database that prevents it from joining any cell network, and to report them to the police? Wonder how many phones Verizon is going to find fraudulent?
I guess this didn't apply for prepaid? (Score:2)
I know Verizon was selling pay-as-you-go phones in stores,such as the Motorola E4, that stipulated you had to activate and keep the phone on Verizon wireless for a certain length of time before they'd agree to unlock it.
Canada banned SIM-locking (Score:2)
and I don't think cell phone stealing in the first 60 days is more a problem than in the USA.
Lame excuse by Verizon. The FCC shouldn't have allowed it.
Re: (Score:1)
and I don't think cell phone stealing in the first 60 days is more a problem than in the USA.
Lame excuse by Verizon. The FCC shouldn't have allowed it.
I spent 5 years selling phones. Cell phone theft/contract fraud is a big problem in the US and most of it does occur in the first 60 days. The 60 days is meant to ensure that people have paid at least their first bill before they can have their cell phones unlocked.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean people sign up for a contract and then don't pay their bill?
How is it a problem? You should have run a credit check on them, and if you don't trust them, well you should sell them the phone outright instead.
Plus, you really think real thieves are going to be blocked by the SIM lock? You understand they can unlock it themselves easily, wait 60 days, or sell it to someone who is going to use it on Verizon anyways.
So, how is it supposed to dissuade anybody from stealing? What if I want to travel in th
Re: (Score:1)
You mean people sign up for a contract and then don't pay their bill? How is it a problem? You should have run a credit check on them, and if you don't trust them, well you should sell them the phone outright instead.
Plus, you really think real thieves are going to be blocked by the SIM lock? You understand they can unlock it themselves easily, wait 60 days, or sell it to someone who is going to use it on Verizon anyways.
So, how is it supposed to dissuade anybody from stealing? What if I want to travel in the first 60 days and put a local SIM?
They do perform credit checks. How exactly are you supposed to determine if you can "trust them"? The point of this policy change is to increase the amount if time that criminals and the quasi-legal companies that buy their phone have to hold on to them before they can profit from the phones. I think that you are underestimating the impact of cell phone fraud. In most cases its the local retailer and the person who's identity that was stolen who eat the cost of the phones.
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps you can explain to me what cell phone fraud is. I have never heard a single story, a single person being a victim of such a fraud. Could you elaborate?
And then, how is locking a phone for 60 days, with a trivial lock (you can purchase unlock code for $3 on ebay) is going to significantly reduce that fraud.
And finally, could you elaborate on why aren't countries such as Canada, where SIM-locking is forbidden, aren't plagued by this fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly are you supposed to determine if you can "trust them"?
If they can't, and they STILL give phones to these people, then the carrier/seller is the only one to blame and deserve the consequences.
They could simply stop selling phones on contract. They shouldn't beg the FCC to allow SIM-locking just to preserve this useless business case.
When I buy a couch or a TV and the seller sometimes offer to pay on 12 months with no interest. Should they put a lock on the couch so that I can't have friends sitting on it for 60 days to make sure I pay?
Re: (Score:1)
Well the FCC chairman is a Verizon puppet so...
I work in mobile activations (Score:2)
Phone fraud is huge in the US and there are gangs that use stolen credit cards, and homeless/druggie credit and SSNs to steal thousands of phones every week and resell or ship them overseas.
I've tracked a single person fraudulently buy 20 iPhones in 18 days through stores in NY, Pennsylvania, NJ, and Maryland. We caught and blocked his purchases and additional 8 times. Different addresses, em
Has anyone actually unlocked a Verizon phone? (Score:3)
I gave up trying to get Verizon to SIM-unlock my old Note 2. They kept swearing it was never locked in the first place, then that they had unlocked it already but the other carrier's SIM was just malfunctioning, etc, etc. Basically they're a truly horrible company to be a customer of. I can't imagine anyone actually stays with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclosure: Verizon customer here. I used to be with Sprint. I switched to Verizon because they have the best geographic coverage of any carrier.
That said, I'm not at all happy with Verizon having a former employee as chair of the FCC. Didn't DJT promise to drain the swamp?