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.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Sprint was genuinely struggling.

        They were on the verge of bankruptcy, really the 2 options were

        1. Let T-Mobile (a distant third competitor to the big 2) buy them

        2. 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

    • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.