UK Mobile Networks Banned From Selling Locked Phones (bbc.com) 33
The UK's mobile networks are to be forbidden from selling phones locked to their services from December 2021. From a report: Regulator Ofcom said unlocking handsets could often be a complicated process, and this was discouraging owners from switching providers at the end of their contracts. The networks have previously suggested that locking devices helps deter theft and fraud. But the watchdog noted some companies had already abandoned the practice. Among those companies affected are: BT and its EE mobile division, Vodafone, Tesco Mobile, O2, Sky, Three and Virgin already only sell unlocked handsets. "[It] will save people time, money and effort -- and help them unlock better deals," said Ofcom's connectivity director Selina Chadha. Vodafone has already responded: "We stand ready to implement these changes when they come into force." EE added: "We'll work with Ofcom to comply with its guidelines."
Editing? (Score:5, Informative)
The confusing sentence should be something like:
Among those companies affected are: BT and its EE mobile division, Vodafone, and Tesco Mobile; O2, Sky, Three and Virgin already only sell unlocked handsets.
Re: (Score:2)
At least the UK is getting it right. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My phone was bootloader unlockable for free. But my lady's phone isn't, and the cheapest I've seen an unlock is $35. There are no unlocks on eBay, and the top Google result for unlocking it is $55. Both are Moto phones, but hers is a prepaid and mine was sold unlocked.
Maybe people will start buying phones they can aff (Score:2)
Maybe this will encourage people to choose phones they can afford. Rather than paying $25/month extra for 36 months ($300 more) for a plan that includes a $150 phone subsidy.
* per year. $900 extra in total (Score:2)
That should say an extra $300 per year.
$900 more over a three-year contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Well sounds like they can afford the phones they're getting, they're just paying a lot more for them
Keep the Stupid Tax (Score:5, Interesting)
In the U.S. you can save a lot of money by buying an unlocked phone and purchasing the carrier plan separately, yet many consumers do not do that. Those dummies with locked phones are paying a disproportionate fraction of the cost of maintaining the cell networks. Banning locked phones would force more carrier expense onto the savvy consumers. For every amount a stupid person is made better off by banning locked phones, a smart person is made worse off. Someone has to pay for the cell networks so why is it wrong to let the stupid people pay a disproportionate share?
What is even the ethical basis for that? Any idiot can go to Las Vegas and throw away their money on bad bets, why is it that when others' stupid spending behavior lowers the cost of my cell phone bill instead of lining the pockets of billion-dollar gambling and entertainment corporations does it become a target for reform?
Re: (Score:3)
In the U.S. you can save a lot of money by buying an unlocked phone and purchasing the carrier plan separately
This.
Many years ago, I purchased a Motorola RAZR V3 in London. GSM, unlocked. I brought it home and picked up an AT&T SIM card. In fact, I was under the impression that EU phones were unlocked by law 15 years ago. Or maybe that was just a popular option for their customers back then.
It will be interesting to see if the UK and US 5G systems are similar enough to do this again. Right now, phones in the US are not advertised with a price (like at Costco). You pick a model, go to the carrier's sales desk
Re: (Score:2)
Banning locked phones would force more carrier expense onto the savvy consumers.
That is a competition problem. If you had some competition in the mobile industry, they wouldn't be able to pass those costs on.
Re: (Score:2)
Often times people don't have the upfront cash to buy an expensive phone. Paying a few dollars extra per month works out better for them
Re: Keep the Stupid Tax (Score:2)
They aren't able to get a load from regular sources?
Re: Keep the Stupid Tax (Score:2)
^load^loan
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not easy to get a loan for under $1k
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
They make more than enough money that this pittance doesn't actually interest them.
The reason you want to do this is that this is the right thing to do. Clear and consistent pricing. There sho
Re: (Score:2)
why is it wrong to let the stupid people pay a disproportionate share? What is even the ethical basis for that?
I think that's pretty much the FOUNDATION of most ethical systems: treat others fairly, particularly those less fortunate than you.
Re: (Score:1)
Banning locked phones would force more carrier expense onto the savvy consumers.
No, it wouldn't. Before the current administration corrupted the FCC, Verizon had been legally required to sell all their phones unlocked ever since they bought the C-block spectrum license. Verizon had been selling unlocked phones for years, and the sky did not fall.
Without locked phones, carriers still have another tool to keep you tied to their service - the handset finance agreement. Not sure how it is in the UK, but on this side of the pond we finance fucking everything. Even putting McDonald's on
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people can't afford to pay $500 up front, but can afford to pay $50/month for 12 months. Obviously for anyone who can do simple math the latter costs them more in the long term, but it would require them to wait 10 months or have planned and saved in advance.
This is why people take loans, the same principle applies - get a lump sum up front, pay more for it over the long term, and people are not going to stop doing it.
There are also obviously stupid people who are scared by the $500 price tag but l
Re: (Score:2)
You do in the UK as well, even buying the phone on a credit card with rubbish rate is usually cheaper than getting a contract, there are plenty of telco who do one month rolling SIM contracts.
I don't think unlocking them will make any difference here as the contracts are usually 24-36 months to cover the cost of the handset, which seems to be about the length of time most people stay with the same phone anyway.
You have to wonder... (Score:2)
Unless, of course, the whole idea was to give the industry a year to find new ways of putting hidden charges on their customers, so that the profits they are screwing customers to get won't be significantly impacted...
Re: (Score:2)
... why this new regulation isn't coming in to effect until December 2021, more than a year away. On the face of it, there doesn't seem to be any realistic reason why the change could not have been introduced on, say, January 1, 2021.
There's quite a lot of legislative stuff already happening in the UK on that day, in case you hadn't heard.
Re: (Score:2)
To their credit, Ofcom are actually quite good at cracking down on hidden charges and other customer-unfriendly policies (albeit after the fact).
Re: (Score:2)
Canada, ahead of the curve (Score:2)
Locking is no longer necessary (Score:2)
If someone buys a phone on an installment plan and stops making payment on it, then it's essentially a stolen phone. Just brick it like we do for other stolen phones. If bricking stolen phones is a good enough for you and me if our phone should be stolen, then it should be good enough for the phone companies if a customer steals the phone. Yeah it'll cost them a ton of money since they can't recover the phone if it's bric
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to permanently brick the phone, you can just block it's IMEI from all the networks and from online services (google, apple etc)...
If the phone is recovered, it can be unblocked and returned to use.
Will this make a big difference? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It lets you use a local simcard when you travel to other countries.
If lets you swap local simcards if you want to for whatever reason.
It makes it easier for you to sell the phone when you're done with it.
You're tied into a contract for phone *service*, you are not required to use the phone with that service. You could give the new handset to a relative and continue using your old one etc.
So long as you continue paying the contract terms, the operator shouldn't care or have any say in what you do with the ha
Re: Will this make a big difference? (Score:2)
... Not necessarily...month long rolling contracts are common, and some people appreciate the flexibility.
Iinm, it's pretty common in the UK for people to buy their own phone and go for a sim-only plan, so perhaps the impact will not be as big as some imagine.
Wasn't that mandated in EU few years ago? (Score:2)
It suprises me SIMLock is still a fact in some countries. Telecoms in Poland stopped this practice about a decade ago. I assumed this was due to EU intervention (like banning most of the roaming charges). Did UK had some exception?
Re: (Score:3)
No, there is no EU law, but several EU members have national laws against the SIM locks.
Whoa there cowboy . . . (Score:1)
*snicker* no, I'm serious . . . giving users a choice to do what they want with something that they pay for is just crazy talk!