Long-term carrier lock-in could soon be a thing of the past in America after the FCC proposed requiring telcos to unlock cellphones from their networks 60 days after activation.
FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel put out that proposal on Thursday, saying it would encourage competition between carriers. If subscribers could simply walk off to another telco with their handsets after two months of use, networks would have to do a lot more competing, the FCC reasons.
“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,” Rosenworcel said.
Carrier-locked devices contain software mechanisms that prevent them from being used on other providers’ networks. The practice has long been criticized for being anti-consumer.
If we’re talking “free” devices with some commitment, I’m OK with some limitation until the terms are met.
The second you charge a dollar for it, it should be unconditionally illegal to have it carrier locked the day they walk out of the store. 60 days isn’t good enough.
Don’t worry. With SCOTUS overturning Chevron this won’t stick. /s (in case it’s not obvious)
We’ll see how this fares in the face of Chevron being rescinded. Will they even recognize FCC authority to do this?
Pretty sure all new rules like this must be made my congress now…
Hoo boy we are fucked.
The FCC can do anything within the law as a condition of using radio wavelengths.
Administrative law is complicated by them having to follow their own procedures and the courts deciding to completely ignore changes to those procedures or make new ones up out of whole cloth.
The autonomy is a strength in some ways compared to parliamentary democracy and ministers, but the courts have really fucked around with it.
I don’t really have a problem with this – I think that it’s rarely in a consumer’s interest to choose a locked phone. Buying a locked phone basically means that you’re getting a loan to pay for hardware that you pay back with a higher service price. But I’d point out that:
-
You can get unlocked phones and service now. I do. There are some privacy benefits to doing so – my cell provider doesn’t know who I am (though they could maybe infer it from usage patterns of their network and statistical analysis). It’s not a lack of unlocked service that’s at issue. To do this, Congress is basically arguing that the American consumer is just making a bad decision to purchase a plan-combined-with-a-locked-phone and forcing them not to do so.
-
Consumers will pay more for cell phones up front. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – it maybe makes the carrier market more competitive to not have a large portion of consumers locked to one provider. But there are also some benefits to having the carrier selecting cell phones that they offer in that the provider is probably in a better position to evaluate what phone manufacturers have on offer in terms of things like failure rates than do consumers.
-
It would help with e-waste too.
This explains why I got a text from my carrier saying all phones now come unlocked. Guess they’re preparing ahead of time. Mine was already unlocked, but still.
is that some american problem i’m too euro to understand? we got rid of this anticompetitive shit in early 10s
Yeah, the less civilized parts of world still do carrier locking to act as an impediment to switching carriers without also giving up your phone or paying a ransom fee.
As an American, can I have some of that freedom?
I’ve had that freedom for the entire duration of the existence of smartphones, in the USA. I buy my phones with no contract, at discounted prices, then I flash them with custom ROMs to improve everything, and I use no contract cell phone service. Since about 2007, that is.
Cool.
Which is why I’ve been buying nothing except OEM unlocked devices since 2016 I Payful price for them, but I don’t have to worry about leaving my carrier Whenever I want and I don’t have to be on extremely expensive cell phone plans either. There is nobody else in my entire life that pays less for cell phone service than I do and I only know one person who pays the exact same and that’s because we are on the same plan on our own accounts. Literally, everybody I know in my life pays about four times what I do for cell phone service.
I am 40 and never had a phone bill to date! When I started working in a real job I was 22 and at that time cell phones were still not 100% a necessity. My job gave us a blackberry so I never had to worry. Crazy enough, I’ve been with this job for 18 years now and the job doesn’t seem very secure these days so I opted to purchase a phone directly. I traded in my old work phone for a new Samsung and got a top of the line for like $400. I signed up for Google voice and got a free number and use my work phones hot spot if I go out to use it just as any other phone for the last 3 years now. Only issue I have is hot spot is battery intensive, and some accounts don’t allow mfa with free voip numbers but whatever, free is awesome.
Hey, that’s an awesome setup.
In the US, almost no one buys their phones outright. They “lease to own”. Anyone whe does buy their phone outright can just buy the unlocked ones.
So I’m not sure what this rule would actually change. You’re already not Carrier locked if you bought your phone. You’re only Carrier locked if you lease it.
The big fuck up was eliminating competition by allowing t mobile to buy sprint. Too many pieces of shit were in charge 2016 to 2020.
The merger is still something that I’m 50/50 on because it made T-Mobile’s service so much more reliable, and iirc Sprint was genuinely struggling.
It still sucks that Boost isn’t going anywhere
Sprint was genuinely struggling.
They were on the verge of bankruptcy, really the 2 options were
-
Let T-Mobile (a distant third competitor to the big 2) buy them
-
Let sprint die, the big 2 buy large chucks of sprint anyways for pennies on the dollar post-bankruptcy and make their distance from T-Mobile even bigger.
If you need another reason, AT&T was very against the deal, so you KNOW what they think is bad is probably actually good for consumers
-
Sprint would have failed without the merger and we would have had three carriers anyway so it doesn’t matter whether they merged or not and in fact it’s probably better that they did because it caused T-Mobile’s service to improve dramatically since then. I knew friends who had T-Mobile back in 2012 and it was a joke. I had T-Mobile in 2016 and it was only okay.
I know lots of Americans who buy their phones without those stupid contracts. It’s not uncommon at all. I have never have a phone on a contract.
In your circle maybe, I’d love the statistics on this though because I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority are paying for their phones on installment through their carriers.
I don’t really see why people are against it, personally I never buy locked devices but they are usually a chunk cheaper and there is always an option for a locked device.
If telecoms were making certain phones exclusively locked (as in not selling unlocked phones) it would be a problem. But rn it seems that it is an easy way to save money if you like a carrier.
okay but you end up paying more - if it was just normal data plan and cost of phone it would be even, but there’s also something paid to middleman that provides something that is effectively credit and extortion services like simlock and some legal thingies, it might have smaller downpayment but it’s not this, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
this is on top of various security and privacy implications of using a phone which you can’t legally reflash
Boots theory doesn’t really apply because it is the exact same phone/hardware. Plus most people don’t really care about reflashing their phone.
As for the privacy stuff I don’t really know much about it in the context of locked phones so I’ll take your word for it.
I think it’s more of a corollary that phone companies can incentivize people to buy more than they need. I live in Canada, where carrier locks have been outlawed for a decade, so we don’t typically get $100s off the phone, but they do often give interest free financing. This pushes people to get a brand new, top-of-the-line Galaxy or iPhone, when all they do is simple stuff that any basic smartphone could do. They just get used to paying “only an extra $50/mo” so once that phone is paid off, they finance a brand new, top-of-the-line smartphone.
“Verizon agrees that the FCC should consider the merits and trade-offs of handset unlocking requirements,” Verizon spokesperson Rich Young told The Register, though that support is conditional.
Screw verizon with an acid covered cactus. What possible “merits” are there to locking a device down for anyone but the companies selling the phones? Rich Young can go kick rocks.
I will not buy a phone through a carrier, I will not buy a phone with a locked bootloader. Period.
I am done with anticonsumer bullshit.
How do you feel about removable batteries?
With removable batteries is that there is actually a legitimate reason for getting rid of them, in that it’s much harder to waterproof a device with a removable battery.
I’d still like to see the option available, but I can at least understand why it’s not from a practical standpoint. The only reason carrier locks exist is to increase the cost of change for the end user, making them less likely to switch providers.
Fuck telecos… Parasites
Yeah who are they to charge for access to all those naturally-occuring cell phone towers?
My monthly fee pays for that, bootlicker :)
Fat chance.
That’s the spirit
OK, now ban bootloader locking next.
Don’t Sammy do and apple do it… Not even carriers?
For quite a long time now, it’s been the case that if your vendor makes this hard as is, a carrier on top of that will make it considerably worse. As an example, take a look at older Samsung devices, that all needed special-tailored roms for each carrier variant
If you buy a phone from Verizon its perma locked for no reason
Pretty sure Samsung does it to appease carriers since they sell unlocked snapdragon variants elsewhere
