FCC Blasts T-Mobile's 365-Day Phone Locking, Proposes 60-Day Unlock Rule (arstechnica.com) 39
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Citing frustration with mobile carriers enforcing different phone-unlocking policies that are bad for consumers, the Federal Communications Commission is proposing a 60-day unlocking requirement that would apply to all wireless providers. The industry's "confusing and disparate cell phone unlocking policies" mean that "some consumers can unlock their phones with relative ease, while others face significant barriers," Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said at yesterday's FCC meeting. "It also means certain carriers are subject to mandatory unlocking requirements while others are free to dictate their own. This asymmetry is bad for both consumers and competition."
The FCC is "proposing a uniform 60-day unlocking policy" so that "consumers can choose the carrier that offers them the best value," Starks said. Unlocking a phone allows it to be used on a different carrier's network as long as the phone is compatible. The FCC approved the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in a 5-0 vote. That begins a public comment period that could lead to a final rulemaking. A draft of the NPRM said the FCC "propose[s] to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud."
"You bought your phone, you should be able to take it to any provider you want," Rosenworcel said. "Some providers already operate this way. Others do not. In fact, some have recently increased the time their customers must wait until they can unlock their device by as much as 100 percent." Rosenworcel apparently was referring to a prepaid brand offered by T-Mobile. The NPRM draft said that "T-Mobile recently increased its locking period for one of its brands, Metro by T-Mobile, from 180 days to 365 days." The 365-day rule brought Metro into line with other T-Mobile prepaid phones that already came with the year-long lock. We reached out to T-Mobile and will update this article if it provides a comment. A merger condition imposed on T-Mobile's purchase of Sprint merely requires that it unlock prepaid phones within one year. T-Mobile imposes different unlocking policies on prepaid and postpaid phones. For postpaid devices, T-Mobile says it will unlock phones that have been active for at least 40 days, but only if any associated financing or leasing agreement has been paid in full.
The FCC is "proposing a uniform 60-day unlocking policy" so that "consumers can choose the carrier that offers them the best value," Starks said. Unlocking a phone allows it to be used on a different carrier's network as long as the phone is compatible. The FCC approved the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in a 5-0 vote. That begins a public comment period that could lead to a final rulemaking. A draft of the NPRM said the FCC "propose[s] to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud."
"You bought your phone, you should be able to take it to any provider you want," Rosenworcel said. "Some providers already operate this way. Others do not. In fact, some have recently increased the time their customers must wait until they can unlock their device by as much as 100 percent." Rosenworcel apparently was referring to a prepaid brand offered by T-Mobile. The NPRM draft said that "T-Mobile recently increased its locking period for one of its brands, Metro by T-Mobile, from 180 days to 365 days." The 365-day rule brought Metro into line with other T-Mobile prepaid phones that already came with the year-long lock. We reached out to T-Mobile and will update this article if it provides a comment. A merger condition imposed on T-Mobile's purchase of Sprint merely requires that it unlock prepaid phones within one year. T-Mobile imposes different unlocking policies on prepaid and postpaid phones. For postpaid devices, T-Mobile says it will unlock phones that have been active for at least 40 days, but only if any associated financing or leasing agreement has been paid in full.
Re: (Score:2)
On what grounds?
It's kind of a thing, we live in a free country. If you want to sell one thing (a phone) that goes with another thing that you sell (a cellular plan), nobody tells you you can't do that. Well, unless you're a monopoly anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Another solution (Score:5, Insightful)
It's stupid; they already have their contracts (Score:2)
Indefensible, really. They already have their customer contracts with cancellation fees, and "free" phones are paid for by the contracts over time, and which have to paid for if you leave the service provider early. Thus I can't think of any reason to have them carrier locked in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
So if the carrier doesn't lock the phone, and the customer leaves for another carrier, what leverage does the first carrier have, to force the customer to finish paying off the phone?
Re:It's stupid; they already have their contracts (Score:4, Insightful)
So if the carrier doesn't lock the phone, and the customer leaves for another carrier, what leverage does the first carrier have, to force the customer to finish paying off the phone?
The contract. They bought the phone from carrier A and regardless if they go to carrier B, they still owe carrier A for the cost of the phone.
To use a bad car analogy, if you buy a car from a dealer then sell it to either a dealer or someone else six months later, you still owe the original dealer for the remaining cost of the car you bought from them. Selling it doesn't absolve you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. You're paying for the phone regardless. Either monthly fee over a few years, or if you leave early, you pay the balance. That's what the cancellation fee covers.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the contract. It's a lot more expensive to go after you for failing to pay what you agreed to, than it is to block you from porting out your phone in the first place. If they have to pursue you legally, or turn you over to collections, they'll only get pennies on the dollar, at best. They hold your phone hostage, they are much more likely to collect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about this from the perspective of a responsible customer, who isn't trying to scam the carrier. I'm talking about carriers protecting themselves from thieves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
To my knowledge, phones only come locked if you haven't fully paid for them. At least, phones are *available* for purchase unlocked, on sites like Amazon. That's where I always get mine. Moto G phones are very affordable ($200 or less) and very capable, there's no reason to buy a locked version. If people didn't get their phones subsidized by the carriers, they would probably make wiser purchases ("Do I really need that $1,000 phone, or will a $200 phone do!").
Re: (Score:2)
I can. Think of phones like Tracfone that will sell you a prepaid phone for $35. You can't get a smartphone and service for $35, but that's becuase they want you to pay for multiple prepaid cards.
Of course ,they're a
Re: (Score:2)
And if the FCC has accepted the basic principle that it's the customer's phone, I see no practical difference in reality between 60 days and 0 days in terms of the phone payments being maintained. However, the existence of any locking period where the customer has to apply for the lock to be removed rather than it being removed automatically is in itself an obstacle to competition.
You guys still have carrier locked phones? (Score:3)
I thought that shit was gotten rid of 20 years ago. It makes no sense in any case. You're under contract one way or the other so the phone will be paid off regardless of whose SIM is inserted in it.
Re: (Score:1)
You're under contract one way or the other so the phone will be paid off regardless of whose SIM is inserted in it.
I bought my phone from Apple. Unlocked. Phone was paid off when I bought it.
I use it on a month to month plan under US Mobile, for way cheaper than I could pay under one of the major carriers.
No contract.
No how.
No way.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought mine under contract with a 24 month pay off period and a contract termination clause involving buying the phone.
No locks here, because they don't make any sense. America is a weird place.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. Best to stay out and never come here.
That's the tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been a T-Mobile customer for 20 years now...and I stopped buying phones from them years ago because it was more headache than it's worth. It's sad, because they used to be the most open, but now, they're just Verizon with a different logo.
To buy a phone, one must:
1. be a T-mobile customer, with an active account, in good standing. This is understandable if there's any promotion involved, but if I want to go to a T-Mobile store and pay MSRP for a phone, why can't I just do that?
2. Pay a $35 surcharge. I understand that this was intended to cover the data transfer and phone setup process (it can take a while; store reps gotta get paid)...but they still charge it even if the phone is sold with the factory seals still intact, and even if the phone is purchased online?
3. Accept that it will be SIM locked for 40 days. The 365 day thing must be a newer policy, but even if a phone is paid in full, I still have to wait 40 days for a SIM unlock?
4. Accept that they disable the OEM bootloader unlock on at least some models, even after SIM unlock. Why??
So, if the FCC gives them grief for these policies (and I hope they will do so, and that AT&T and Verizon will take note), I do hope that T-Mobile deals with all of the OTHER policies that made buying phones from them a practice I stopped doing after i got my work phone, a TCL Stylus 5G, so I paid the $35 surcharge and said 'never again'.
Re:That's the tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Insightful)
To buy a phone, one must:
1. be a T-mobile customer, with an active account, in good standing. This is understandable if there's any promotion involved, but if I want to go to a T-Mobile store and pay MSRP for a phone, why can't I just do that?
They make many times more by getting you to sign up for a plan. They don't lease retail space to compete on selling low-margin devices. They want the phones they sell to be tied to money making plans.
Just buy an unlocked phone somewhere else, and bring it to T-Mobile. You can buy a T-Mobile SIM kit on Amazon or direct from T-Mobile online and you can activate it from home without having to set foot into one of those awful stores.
Re: (Score:2)
They make many times more by getting you to sign up for a plan.
Well, that logic makes sense if I'm presently using a different carrier, or if they're offering me a promotion in exchange for a more profitable plan...but if I'm not changing plans, and they're not giving me any sort of special pricing...then how are they making "many times more" money?
They don't lease retail space to compete on selling low-margin devices. They want the phones they sell to be tied to money making plans.
Obviously, the goal is to sell plans. I get that. But that only works if they tie plans to phones, and if I'm already a customer on their most profitable plan, then why can't they sell me a SIM unlocked phone at MSRP and be
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I find it simpl
Compensation and loopholes (Score:2)
The industry's "confusing and disparate cell phone unlocking policies" mean that "some consumers can unlock their phones with relative ease, while others face significant barriers,"
Kind of silly. Lock-ins are a trade-off. Your phone is locked into the carrier, but there's some financial compensation such as the phone provided at a discount (or free), cheaper plans etc.
If you make it impossible to lock phones to a carrier (for more than 60 days), it just means the financial the compensation will evaporate. Okay, not getting locked into contracts is probably the right decision, but it's also removing consumers' ability to choose for themselves.
as long as the phone is compatible
It's pretty darn easy on Android to make th
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of silly. Lock-ins are a trade-off. Your phone is locked into the carrier, but there's some financial compensation such as the phone provided at a discount (or free), cheaper plans etc.
They're referring to pre-paid phones at RRP, not phones bundled in a contract. In this case, you're getting locked in without any of the compensation or benefits of a post-paid plan. That's just predatory.
as long as the phone is compatible
It's pretty darn easy on Android to make the phone incompatible with other carriers. Seems like a loophole.
This is usually to do with line compatibility built into the hardware, such as GSM, HSPA, CDMA, LTE, etc.
I don't know how it is in the US, but it's been over a decade since I had to worry about any of that. Most phones come with near universal support, and there isn't that much difference between carriers'
Welcome to Canada, where phone locking is banned (Score:2)
Since 2017 [canada.ca] phone locking has been banned, and any phone sold before that data has to be able to be unlocked free of charge. Guess what... the phone carriers survived, there are still phone plans where you can get good phones for cheap/free, and people can still choose. I know - it's shocking!
It always astounds me how a country that so vocally thumps its chest about freedom has so many people who advocate for the ability of corporations to take that away. And it further astounds me how some Americans will
Re: (Score:2)
It always astounds me how a country that so vocally thumps its chest about freedom
Despite of your jealously, we still love you, America Jr.
there are still phone plans where you can get good phones for cheap/free
Please provide some links where I can get free Canadian phones with no strings attached!
Tmobile phone not same as manufacturers version (Score:1)
Don't buy your phone from a carrier (Score:1)
Don't buy your phone from a carrier and it won't be locked by a carrier.
Apple sells unlocked phones. I'm sure various parties sell unlocked Android phones too.
Re: Don't buy your phone from a carrier (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Does not have much to do with TFA.
I Mean You Could Try (Score:2)
Until it gets struck down by the Supreme Court. Clarence needs to keep them "gratuities" rolling in because his RV isn't going to upgrade itself and Ginni needs to get to the next insurrection in comfort and style.
What about the manufacturer? (Score:2)
Adopt the UK model (Score:2)
Subsidized phones (Score:2)
It used to make sense when phones were subsidized, or rather the installment payments were hidden in the monthly cellular bill. Today most phones are sold at cost, or with explicit installment plan, and "payment becomes due in full" if you cancel.
Of course they might want to avoid going though hassle of collections, but most customers will care about their credit ratings. (It will effect everything from getting a rental to getting a new job).
So, a reasonable assumption, for phones sold at cost, with or with
ban locking (Score:2)
Phone locking should be banned. You own the phone, you can use it as you wish. Oh, then the carriers will have to sell phones at a real price? Too bad. Don't like it? Then they can offer phone leases.