T-Mobile, AT&T Oppose Unlocking Rule, Claim Locked Phones Are Good For Users (arstechnica.com) 44
An anonymous reader writes: T-Mobile and AT&T say US regulators should drop a plan to require unlocking of phones within 60 days of activation, claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers. "If the Commission mandates a uniform unlocking policy, it is consumers -- not providers -- who stand to lose the most," T-Mobile alleged in an October 17 filing with the Federal Communications Commission. The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs.
T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival's network. T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, "consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers." If the proposed rule is enacted, "T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12," the carrier said. "A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets." In July, the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the unlocking policy in a 5-0 vote.
The FCC is proposing "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."
T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival's network. T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, "consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers." If the proposed rule is enacted, "T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12," the carrier said. "A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets." In July, the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the unlocking policy in a 5-0 vote.
The FCC is proposing "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."
Don't even remember (Score:2)
How!? (Score:4, Insightful)
high roaming fees local sims are bad for profit (Score:2)
high roaming fees local sims are bad for profit
Re:How!? (Score:5, Informative)
Just how is a locked phone good for the consumer? This sounds like gaslighting by T-Mobile and AT&T. It's actually anti-consumer.
Because it's really a loan. Essentially you "buy" the phone at a reduced rate on the promise that you also buy service for the duration that the phone is locked. The provider covers a good chunk of the actual cost of the phone, and the user then has to use the provider's service.
In that sense, the providers are correct - without being able to lock the phone and guarantee the revenue stream they'd be forced to increase the initial price of the phone.
Except, of course, the practice is scummy in other ways. Once you've "paid off" the loan, your price for service doesn't go down, and your phone will remain locked until you call up the provider and make them remove the lock. Plus, there are reasons you might want to use a phone on a different provider that don't involve canceling service on your existing one, such as traveling out of the country.
But their argument isn't entirely nonsense. Of course, if customers can't afford the phone immediately and need to pay it off in installments, there are other ways to do that. Such as an actual loan, with terms that make it clear that the buyer doesn't entirely own the phone until paid off, and aren't tricks to make the customer think they're getting a cheap phone, when in reality they're essentially being loaned money from the service provider.
Re: (Score:2)
being in a service contract for the duration of the loan is completely different from them selling locked phones at retail for cash and claiming that its good for consumers.
walk in to a shop, buy a phone, WHY IS IT LOCKED?????
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isnt really with those on a service contract, its prepaid as per the summary:
Prepaid phones will not longer be as cheap as they currently are, because the phone company would have to make the cost of the phone back in the first 60 days or possibly lose the customer to a different network.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue isnt really with those on a service contract, its prepaid as per the summary:
Prepaid phones will not longer be as cheap as they currently are, because the phone company would have to make the cost of the phone back in the first 60 days or possibly lose the customer to a different network.
Easy fix: All prepaid plans become BYOD. Let the customers get loans from the cell phone manufacturers. If they can't get a loan from the cell phone manufacturer because they're too high-risk, then they'll have to just do what they probably should have been doing in the first place: save up their money until they can afford to buy the new phone that they want instead of buying it on credit.
The very fact that we've gone so far down the rabbit hole of encouraging people to buy stuff that they can't afford t
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically how it works in Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Put it on a credit card, like any other purchase?
Oh, that.
Re: (Score:2)
All prepaid plans become BYOD.
That's how I've done my wife's phone and mine for at least the last 10 years, if not more. We were on either T-Mobile, or AT&T, since Verizon didn't dance well with BYOD; at least at the time. I never bothered looking after that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They reality of it is they should probably just offer loans to cover the cost of the phone. If the customer jumps ship to another carrier they are still contractually obligated to pay back the loan even not being a monthly service subscriber.
The way it works now is that you buy a phone from the carrier with only a couple hundred down, and they give you a no-interest loan for the next three years, with part of the deal being that you're locked to their service. (There are many people who could not get a different loan, and don't have credit cards.) There's nothing unreasonable about this -- it is a great deal for these customers.
However, these are customers who are bad risks, which is why they are getting the loan from the phone carrier. If afte
Re: How!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And where are these supposed subsidies anyway? I just had a quick look at t-mobile.com, and to get my 16 Pro/256 would cost me $1099. That is the same price I would pay at the Apple Store, where I would get an unlocked phone out the door, no need to wait, apply, and jump through hoops. And it's not like the service plans have lowered in price since the carrier subsidies went down to a pittance to non-existent. So.... why would I take the locked phone and 2-year contract?
The carriers used to subsidize th
Re: (Score:2)
Fair is in the eye of the beholder (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yeah, so tldr, if you remove the ability of the cellphone provider to optimize their profits by locking in users, they'll likely have to charge more to compensate for the losses.
Do cellphone providers not know about the importance of political contributions?
Re: (Score:3)
They've got their contracts with cancellation fees. Seems to me their profit is safe.
Re: (Score:1)
yeah aye. people are conflating being locked into a contract with buying locked phones at retail.
one makes sense, the other is criminal abuse.
Companies giving away money now? (Score:3)
What free and subsidised phones? The cost of those things are still paid by their consumers with a nice profit margin for themselves.
Phone makers don't give away their products for free either.
Re: (Score:1)
the problem is they are selling locked phones at retail.
being locked into a service contract is completely different.
Re: (Score:1)
no, that is completely different. service contracts and locked retail phones have almost nothing to do with each other.
once those service contracts expire however, phone should be unlocked as fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
At least calling it "financing" is being honest. You're paying for it. Perhaps at the full MSRP. The carrier is keeping it locked until it's paid off.
The carriers should offer a few options. Buy your own phone up front for lower service rates. Or allow customers to pay off the balance, unlock the phone and then get the lower rate. Or buy the phone on time with a higher monthly rate*.
*Carriers will usually maintain this higher rate. But the honest ones will usually tell you that you've "earned" a newer mod
Re: (Score:1)
exactly. the problem is selling locked phones at retail without service contracts.
Re: (Score:3)
Trust is a womderful thing (Score:2)
The things I don't like is, you have to give up the right to use your device however you want, and whomever you want to get service from. Then you have to "trust" the Service provider to unlock the phone that is supposed to be yours.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The things I don't like is, you have to give up the right to use your device however you want, and whomever you want to get service from. Then you have to "trust" the Service provider to unlock the phone that is supposed to be yours."
But that is the point. It really isn't "your" phone when you are "buying" a subsidized device. It is not fully paid for. The alternative is to actually buy your own phone, which was never locked in the first place. All the phone I have used on T-Mobile I bought, paying
Original Galaxy Note (Score:1)
The world's smallest violin. (Score:2)
"consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers."
Translation: "If we cannot keep our users on a leash then we won't be able to trick them into buying our overpriced service! You're going to prevent people from being tricked!"
Subsidies? (Score:2)
The customer is the one funding the company. Therefore theyâ(TM)re also the one paying for the free subsidies.
If you get a free phone thatâ(TM)s locked for a year, youâ(TM)re paying for it in extra profit margin in your monthly payments
A company that didnâ(TM)t provide free phones could afford to charge lower fees
Contract vs. Device lock (Score:2)
A few folks have mentioned that there's a contract, so the lock-in is unnecessary. I would counter that the lock in is a way to prevent people from ghosting the contract. Seems to me that, like buying a car, the device might not truly be "yours" until the last payment of the subsidy is paid.
I have no opinion on the morality of locking in a subsidized device. It's been over a decade since I bundled a phone into a contract.
Not for my phone (Score:2)
I check each new iPhone to see if there's anything worth upgrading for (no, not really), and what it would cost.
I don't recall a single time where the locked phone from any provider cost less than the unlocked phone straight from Apple.
Maybe this is true for some other phones but not mine. Still rocking the iPhone 12 for as long they support it.
More corporate America bullshit. (Score:2)
"A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets."
Absolute rubbish. Unlocked handsets have been mandatory here in the UK for some time and they're unlocked from day one, not day 60 or month 12. Three UK have had unlocked handsets since before the law came in, at least a decade. All of them have the latest flagships from Apple, Samsung etc available.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally Nonsensical... (Score:2)
claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers.
Even if you pay for a new phone, in full, in cash, at MSRP, they still won't unlock it for 40 days. I'd buy this argument if the carrier locks were limited to financed phones, or if a carrier unlock was documented such that it gave service contracts a better standing if a cellular contract went to court. But no, T-Mo won't unlock a phone on the spot, even if paid for in full.
The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs.
Yet, somehow, my phone bill is roughly double what it was five years ago...
T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, "consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers."
So then sell a phone at two prices, one subsidized, one car
In related news, (Score:2)
foxes oppose the introduction of rules forbidding them from guarding hen-houses, claiming that foxes are good for the hens.
Say something ridiculous, anything. (Score:2)
And there'll be a percent of people who believe it, just because they don't understand anything.
Call it what it is: Predatory lending (Score:2)
Selling people overpriced stuff they can't afford and then use scummy tactics to keep bleeding them dry until they've paid the price many times over.