FCC Rule Would Make Carriers Unlock All Phones After 60 Days (techcrunch.com) 91
The FCC wants to make it significantly easier for consumers to unlock their phones from their carriers, proposing that all devices must be unlockable just 60 days after purchase. From a report: How this will mesh with current plans and phone buying trends, however, is something the agency is hoping to learn before putting such a rule into effect. Mobile phones purchased from a carrier are generally locked to that carrier until either the contract is up or the phone is paid off. But despite improvements to the process over the years (unlocking was flat-out illegal not long ago), it still isn't quite clear to all consumers when and how they can unlock their phone and take it to the carrier (or country) of their choice.
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM, in a press release today. "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," she wrote. "That is why we are proposing clear, nationwide mobile phone unlocking rules." Specifically, the release says, carriers would simply have to provide unlocking services 60 days after activation. A welcome standard, but it may run afoul of today's phone and wireless markets.
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM, in a press release today. "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," she wrote. "That is why we are proposing clear, nationwide mobile phone unlocking rules." Specifically, the release says, carriers would simply have to provide unlocking services 60 days after activation. A welcome standard, but it may run afoul of today's phone and wireless markets.
Could be so simple (Score:2, Insightful)
How this will mesh with current plans and phone buying trends, however, is something the agency is hoping to learn before putting such a rule into effect. Mobile phones purchased from a carrier are generally locked to that carrier until either the contract is up or the phone is paid off.
This could be so simple.
If the phone is purchased, no carrier lock allowed.
If the phone is on a payment plan, it is not a purchase until paid off, and can be locked until it's paid off. Do not let carriers off the hook for the taxes on their property.
As for contracts and locking, screw their contracts.
It won't hurt any customer to know up front what it will cost them for a contract with zero phone lines or other active services.
Make them publish that cost too along with all the rest.
Of course you know this
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly agree.
If the phone is on a payment plan, it is not a purchase until paid off, and can be locked until it's paid off. Do not let carriers off the hook for the taxes on their property.
When you buy a car and are still paying it off, the pink slip goes to the bank, not the dealer nor the manufacturer. IMO, it should still be unlocked while you're paying it off, and you should still have to pay it off even if you switch carriers. If they want to rent you a phone, as in those "always get the latest iPhone" sort of deals, then fine - lock it. But if you bought it, then it should be yours, even if they offered you an installment plan. Besides, if you break it during that period, t
Re: (Score:2)
However you didn't actually buy the phone - you agreed to buy the phone when your last payment was made. The carrier is acting as both the lender and the car dealer in these cases. Note that some car loans require installation of a device which disables the car and/or tracks it remotely until the car is paid off.
If the current arrangement is unacceptable, I suppose that Verizon Wireless could create a subsidiary Verizon Finance which would maintain ownership of the phone (via. the lock) until you make your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current mechanism is just a way that the carrier who is loaning you the money for the phone to be paid off over the contract period prevents/discourages you from stop payments before the phone is paid off and then, possibly, you selling the phone. The carriers, because they have additional protection via the lock, are willing to forgive poor credit and loan you the money with the phone as a sort of collateral.
This change would likely be the end of those arrangements.
I don't know how a carrier in the UK
Re: (Score:2)
However you didn't actually buy the phone - you agreed to buy the phone when your last payment was made.
I don't buy this. I think you're pulling this out of your ass. If this were true, then canceling your service before the phone is paid off would mean that the phone goes back to the carrier and you don't owe anything more on it (or you may owe the deprecation loss, or they may even owe you!). That's what happens on a car lease-to-own. In fact, if you cancel your service before you paid off your phone, you simply own the balance (hint: because it's your phone).
The carrier acting as both lender and car dealer
Re: (Score:2)
Although there is no actual "registered title" to a phone, the carrier effectively keeps the "title" via the lock. True, they can't "repossess" the phone as they could a car (after all, the cost of repossession would vastly exceed the value of the phone anyway).
If you pay in full for the phone, no lock (and that's been the case for some time as far as I know).
If you want to make payments, the phone is the collateral.
That's all this is regardless of the terms of the agreement.
Perhaps carriers will begin to l
Re: (Score:2)
Although there is no actual "registered title" to a phone, the carrier effectively keeps the "title" via the lock. True, they can't "repossess" the phone as they could a car (after all, the cost of repossession would vastly exceed the value of the phone anyway).
Sorry, but that's BS. There is a clear owner of the phone - it is the person that bought the phone, regardless of the carrier lock.
The Tesla analogy is not applicable - you bought the Tesla with borrowed money and the car is the collateral for your loan.
This _IS_ a good analogy. How is it different?
The carrier doesn't restrict who you can call or text on your "installment plan" phone - if they did, that would be more comparable to your Tesla hypothetical.
No, that would be like Tesla saying what roads you can drive on. My analogy was the charging stations - Telsa doesn't restrict you from going to others via a carrier lock. Way to move the goalposts.
Why this rule is needed is perplexing...
Because carrier locks on phones are highly anti-competitive, and many of those "they don't do that any more" situations, like still putti
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want title to your car to be held by a bank, pay cash for the car instead of borrowing money from the bank to buy it.
If you don't want a lien on your house, pay cash for the house instead of borrowing money from the bank to buy it.
If you don't want a carrier lock on your phone, pay cash for the phone instead of borrowing money from the carrier to buy it. No one is forcing you to buy a phone "on time" - I pay cash for my phones -> No Carrier Lock. The carrier lock is essentially collateral on
Re:Could be so simple (Score:4, Insightful)
That still causes problems. For example, a dual-eSIM iPhone should be able to be used with a foreign SIM when traveling abroad, but when the phone is locked it won't allow it at all. Some (maybe all?) Android phones have a work-around where you can temporarily unlock it for 30 days, and you can do that up to 5 times in a year. It lets the carrier keep their lock until the device is paid off, but lets consumers travel overseas without needing to buy a burner phone.
Even still it will cause issues domestically. Some people have one phone and have SIM1 for personal calls/texts/data, and use a second SIM for a business number. Or have a cheap plan for their primary, then have a secondary SIM for additional data or a second carrier if they go in areas frequently where the primary carrier has spotty coverage.
It's a catch-22 for the carriers. If they want to offer subsidized phones (or even 0% interest loans) they need some guarantee that the person won't just skip out and move to a different carrier. On the other hand, carrier-locking the device blocks a good number of legitimate consumer features that should be available even if the device is still under contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The carrier lock is stupid and should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of all the things the FCC ought to be doing, was
Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Like drive up the initial cost of phones?
You think the government is in charge of setting phone prices?
Re: (Score:1)
Everything the government does in all areas has an effect on whatever it is they are regulating.
People respond to changes in environment. If you raise taxes on beef they'll eat more pork and chicken. The tax revenue generated from beef will go down, not up. If you make some new regulation about phones, the phone companies will respond and change their behavior in some way to maintain their bottom line in the new environment, the easiest thing to do is raise the cost of all phones.
This is week 1 first sem
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
>> has an effect on whatever it is they are regulating
Wow, ya think? But it doesn't automatically drive up prices. And the phone companies don't make the phones, they merely sell them on an installment plan. Price too high? Buy an unlocked phone elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what they do, doesn't?
For example,
If they tax something, the cost of it goes up.
If they reduce taxes on something, the cost of it goes down.
What was your point?
Re: (Score:2)
I think my point was very clear.
Meanwhile, the FCC said "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". Nothing whatsoever related to taxes, and regulations don't automatically drive up prices.
Re: (Score:2)
So was mine. Ta es we're an example. As I said. I even used the word example.
Again, when the government changes the business landscape, companies will react to protect their bottom line. How can you seriously debate or deny such a trivial concept?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm merely disputing your claim that the phone companies will "raise the cost of all phones" due to this regulation. No evidence. You are welcome to claim that they will somehow make it up by raising prices elsewhere, but that also is just speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then you tell me what they'll do to protect the bottom line.
We know it won't be "nothing, they'll just take the hit".
Stop making childish OCD high school level debate, "I require hard evidence" non-points. It's silly. Be an adult.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Ok then you tell me what they'll do to protect the bottom line
They won't do anything. "protect the bottom line" was your claim and you've got nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Lmao, sure buddy, they'll just eat it.
Moving on. I don't discuss or debate with children or those with child like minds.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you are welcome to fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
Lol, exactly, that is the response a child would give. Thanks for proving my point.
There is no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow other than past performance.
Prove the sun will rise tomorrow.
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
It could blow up. Aliens could kidnap it. The earth could be blown up for a hyperspace bypass.
You can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow. The odds are very high but you can not _prove_ it.
Nice try though.
Next up, explain why the telcos will just suck it up on their bottom line instead of responding.
Re: (Score:2)
You sad little whiner.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, you got nothing so you fall all the way down to raw ad hominem about the level of a 4th grader.
Good job! Yermom will be proud!
I guess I'm going to wait forever for you to actually engage on what this thread was about: explain to me why companies would suck it up and allow their bottom line to be lower rather than respond to government regulations.
Go ahead, I'm still waiting a full day later for you to actually address the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh! Thank you for making MY point, inadvertently, dumb AC,
You're not helping your buddy here, just go finish that bong and have a nap.
Re: (Score:1)
Everything the government does in all areas has an effect on whatever it is they are regulating.
People respond to changes in environment. If you raise taxes on beef they'll eat more pork and chicken. The tax revenue generated from beef will go down, not up. If you make some new regulation about phones, the phone companies will respond and change their behavior in some way to maintain their bottom line in the new environment, the easiest thing to do is raise the cost of all phones.
This is week 1 first semester Econ 1 for freshmen.
If you had skipped Econ 1 and gone to remedial English instead perhaps you would have known the difference between the words 'set' and 'affect'.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow U R so sew smrt!
Making spelling noise comments on a dead social media site in a world of auto correct. That wasn't acceptable even in the days of USENET, tryhard.
Can't make this shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, to clarify, my point is that reality is in the middle of those two extremes.
Yes, absolutely. AC was extrapolating to such a degree that some clarification on his reasoning was warranted, and it was probable that such a clarification would be amusing.
Re: (Score:3)
Like drive up the initial cost of phones?
Huh? Half the time when you're actually buying the phone a locked version actually costs more than the unlocked version.
Locking phones isn't going to make them cheaper. Its just there to make people less likely to switch carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
No I mean just buying a phone from a vendor (like Best Buy or Amazon) initially - a lot of the times the locked one costs more vs the unlocked one.
I don't finance phones so no clue on that front.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry, the supreme court will overturn it soon enough. Especially if they're paid a big gratuity after the fact (not before that would be bribery).
Re: (Score:2)
When did America become a judicial dicatorship? (Score:2)
Or maybe such a rabbit hole was the natural result of the vacuous Subject? (The FP Subject was worse and even more badly sourced...)
However your [serviscope_minor's] comment struck me oddly because "soon enough" is undefined. Even if someone cared enough to figure out a way to get it to the Court, why would the Court care enough to do anything "soon enough". That could be a good thing if the Court was willing to wait for and react to real problems, but... These years it seems the Court does whatever it want
Re: (Score:2)
"A nonpartisan Justice may compel up to two junior partisan Justices to recuse."
I don't believe that there are ANY nonpartisan Justices.
I appreciate the sentiment but I don't think that there are any reasonable solutions left.
I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonpartisan means "confirmed by a majority of the Senators from BOTH parties". If you look at the history you will see that was the norm. Going by your UID you are probably old enough that all of the Justices were nonpartisan within your lifetime. Now none of them are, though it is interesting that all three of the retired Justices who are still alive were nonpartisan confirmations.
The recusal rule is deliberately crafted to make each nonpartisan potentially equal to three partisans--two recusals plus one v
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that such a thing as a "partisan justice" exists shows that the system is broken.
Supreme Court justices should be picked by having a non-partisan committee of justices and other legal experts put forth a slate of a few names, from which the President has to pick.
Re: When did America become a judicial dicatorship (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the president / parliament has final say in picking the candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the president / parliament has final say in picking the candidate.
But if they only have a pool of similar candidates, then it's a hollow choice. Like choosing for 'best actor' when the nominations are Larry, Moe, or Curly...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm filing this branch under "better solution approach", though I also think it shows you haven't reviewed the history. The best version I know on Wikipedia is the article about the history of the nominations.
However America does already have something similar to your approach. I believe it is the ABA that reviews nominations and evaluates the fitness of nominees for judicial appointments. Used to work pretty well. Before the orange buffoon.
My approach involves changing the incentives so that every presiden
If you pay attention to the news (Score:1)
What they're doing is getting voters ready for post-election criminal bribery investigations. Even for a supreme Court Justice is corrupt as those two it's tough to keep taking bribes while under active investigation for them. So in all likelihood since they're both pushing 75 they will retire and cash out. Clarence Thomas in particular is on record saying that if he couldn't get the brib
Re: (Score:2)
For everyone aghast because the court is shifting in a partisan way that ship has sailed, circumnavigated the globe and come back late and with exotic spices.
No notes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd appreciate if it would stop fucking me over.
Forgot About Those (Score:2)
Forgot carrier locked phones were still a thing. I've just gotten mine through Apple for years and it's always unlocked. Even back in the day when it was carrier locked to AT&T, you just called and said you were traveling internationally and wanted to use it with another service while traveling and they'd unlock it for free.
Next story (Score:2)
Supreme Court rules the FCC has overstepped its bounds and reverses the decision.
Yes, but ... (Score:2)
Mobile phones purchased from a carrier are generally locked to that carrier until either the contract is up or the phone is paid off.
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced ... "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," ...
When you buy a phone from a carrier, and pay in installments, it's not actually yours *until* you pay for it in full. No carrier is going to let you take a partially paid for phone to another carrier w/o paying it off first. In this case, the case for keeping the phone locked until then seems clear. Now, to be fair, perhaps the new carrier will help you with that, but then you're probably in the hole with them. Maybe this would help with that kind of move, but you're not getting that phone w/o paying s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> not actually yours *until* you pay for it in full
You are on the hook for the loan that bought you the phone, but meanwhile it is yours to do with as you wish. This policy will obviously make it harder to enforce payment of the loan because the telco can't disable it, but I have no sympathy for them.
Simple Solution: Don't Buy a Locked Phone (Score:3)
Simple Solution: Don't Buy a Locked Phone
Re: (Score:3)
My solution: Only buy a used phone from eBay/Swappa and skip the drama that accompanies phones that cost $500+ (or in the case of Apple $1000+). My current phone is a Google Pixel 4A 5g, purchased on eBay for $150, and sold my previous phone, a Pixel 3XL for $140. Only reason I upgraded was I wanted to see what all the hubbub was about 5G. So far, meh.. I'm on a tmobile MVNO and I find I get better connectivity in most areas in town if I lock the phone to 4G..
Re: (Score:2)
And with MVNOs if you ever need more data, your (sic) unlimited data rate doesn't slow to drinking through a straw. I do the same thing, buy my own phones and use an MVNO. It's not that hard and we get two smart phones for $30ish a month. I don't need the $250 Verizon plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more simple: pay the merchant in full when you buy a phone.
Cannot come soon enough (Score:2)
This cannot come soon enough. I agree about other comments where the phone is not completely paid for - but once paid for it should be unlocked.
I had an experience with this some months ago. AT&T tripled the price of my service in January. I have made maybe 4 calls in the last year, so all I need is voice. Indeed, the only reason I even have a flip phone is for emergency calling and occasional travel. I had that phone for over three years and it was paid for the day I got it. There were never any
Your personal experience is not mine (Score:2)
My phone service is from Mexican telco magnate Carlos Slim. Besides being the lowest cost plan from anyone, they had an option where I got a free as in beer but not certainly not free as in speech (it is very much locked to TracFone) smart phone.
It is the absolute slowest phone imaginable, but hey, I only need to charge it about once a week.
If this rule goes through, I am going to have to start paying coin for my phone. If Mr. Slim throws in a functioning phone for free with his ultra-low-cost-no-con
Re: (Score:2)
Typical AT&T... I'd go without a phone if AT&T was the only carrier..
unlock (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why wait 60 days? (Score:2)
If it is yours (you paid for it in full) you should be able to take it to any carrier you want, not questions asked, no delay.
Of course if you are still paying for it, it gets a bit more complicated.
Potentially there could be a mechanism in which you continue to pay for it monthly, to the new carrier, while they pay the balance to the old one? A little bit like when you transfer your credit card balance from one card to the next? Could the FCC require such a thing? Wouldn't it be outside of the FCC jurisdic
SO EASY (Score:3)
1. If a phone is paid in full - don't allow locking.
2. If a phone is pay over time - allow it to be locked until paid.
3. If a phone was paid in full but discounted subject to the signing of a contract - allow it to be locked until the contract term is up.
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea would make sense if carriers were legally required to unlock the phone when the conditions you list were met; not upon request of the customer, but in all cases and under penalty of law.
Re: (Score:2)
A locked phone screws you when you try to go abroad. There are ways to alleviate that, e.g. the EU banned roaming charges inside its member states (and they came back again after brexit, for Brits only). Still not great if you want to go somewhere that your carrier wants to charge you 50c/megabyte for though.
Case study (Score:2)
Since 2017, Canada has required carriers to unlock phones on request, for free, 90 days after activation. And all devices sold since the rule came into effect have to be unlocked, so carrier-locked phones just aren't a thing here.
Have phone costs gone up? Not sure; haven't bought a phone in a long time. But our cellphone plans are amongst the highest in the world, so any supposed competitive pressure from people switching providers hasn't materialized. :(
Just outlaw the practice of locking phones..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire thing amounts to the carrier oligopoly artificially restricting a phone's functionality, for the sake of trying to lock you in to using their network with it.
The people arguing, "But the carrier subsidized your phone so you don't really own it yet!" are missing the point. Carrier could still do that with written contracts stating the full amount still owed becomes due immediately if you cancel the plan. They just like manipulating the customer in this manner, because there's always a percentage of people who will just keeping making monthly payments rather than go through the extra hassles needed to get a phone unlocked and transferred to another provider. They like the "friction" it adds to resist you changing services.
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason for locked phones nowadays are burner phones like Tracfone and such. Those phones are basically locked to Tracfone and cannot be used anywhere else.
Of course, I expect Tracfone to demand a lot more personal information if you want to unlock your phone.
Rent a phone (Score:2)
What is to stop mobile providers from hanging the deal so that you rent the phone from them for a fee, and can buy it from them for a token amount at contract end date.
Can the government really force mobile phone companies to unlock their own property? (They probably can, but in the US this could be struck down by the courts if the carriers fight it)
To hell with unlocking (Score:2)
I'd rather have 60 days of software updates for phones.
Blahblahblah (Score:1)
This could result in cheaper phones overall (Score:3)
A $1000 phone doesn't seem quite as staggering if it's masked/baked into 24 months of plan payments. However, if phones have to be unlocked within 60 days, then long-term payment plans would be more risky since the phone can't be leveraged for collateral & customer income after 60 days. That in turn may increase the amount of phones bought 'up front' (or paid within 60 days)--which will almost certainly make consumers more price-sensitive.
End result: Consumer interest shifts towards phones they can afford with cash, and retailers/Mfgs have to release cheaper phones to meet demand.
Never had a locked phone (Score:2)
I always buy unlocked phones, generally, Moto G for $200 or so. Never had a reason to amortize a $1,000+ phone over time, locking me in to a carrier.
Locked phones are banned in the UK (Score:2)
In the UK you might see two sets of charges if you bought a phone. One will be your handset loan, the other the ongoing direct debit for the phone contract itself. Contract minimum periods are still in force, but the handsets are unlocked from the start.
Re: (Score:1)
The publish date on the Ofcom article is wrong. In the UK it's been illegal to sell network-locked mobile phones since December 2021.
If I understand correctly, countries in the EU have had similar rules since 2020, due to the EU's Electronic Communications Code Directive 2018.