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.
As soon as T-Mobile’s check clears, the conservative SCOTUS will make sure all phones remain locked for eternity. Praise Jesus!
With recent changes to bribery laws by the supreme court, they must change the law before getting paid.
Finally, some meaningful reform!
Didnt even know carrier locking is still a thing. I think thats long illegal here in the EU
People can usually unlock the carrier on their own. Many phones (or at least every phone I’ve ever gotten from T-Mobile) even come pre-installed with a carrier unlocking app. It’s just not automatic, and certain conditions need to be met.
People may also sometimes be able to buy phones already unlocked directly from the manufacturer if they want to. (Whether or not they’re able to do this depends on the manufacturer.)
Just stop buying phones from carriers and you never have to worry about this. If you like a phone, buy it unlocked straight from the manufacturer and do whatever you want with it. Most offer payment plans, and if not you can always use klarna or a credit card with no interest to make payments on it.
Carriers will offer better deals on the phones though if you’re planning to stick with them.
I’m looking at a $1000 phone that ATT will give me for 2.99/month for 2 years. That’s over 85% off on the phone. The trick is they give it to you by actually charging like $42/month, but then giving a $39 credit every bill for 2 years, so you have to pay the difference on the $1,000 phone if you jump carriers.
But since they’re the only carrier that works at my office, and this is gonna be a work phone (my company pays me a monthly stipend for it), I can live with that.
You just end up paying a premium for your mobile plan at that point. There are much cheaper plans than the ATT one, and for some, you’ll end up paying way less if they buy the phone outright and subscribing to those.
There are cheaper plans that subsidize under the AT&T network even.
I used to do this, but Verizon gave me a Flip 5 for $500 less than Samsung was offering and I got a free tablet with it. I needed to switch off of Google Fi anyway because they didn’t have service at my job site.
I had no idea this was even still a thing I don’t understand how it’s legal
It is illegal for all carriers using gsm-based communication. So that’s everyone at the moment and that means that you can’t have phones locked when they’re purchased. They can lock the phones they’re under contracts if you finance the phone. Then they don’t have to remove that until the phone is completely paid off. What’s been going on over the last 4 or 5 years is the company will give you a subsidy for the phone even if you pay it off in full and then claim that that subsidy is part of a financing deal. So they’ll put a fake price and be like the phone cost $1,200 but we’ll sell it to you for $800. Then when you pay off the 800 right when you walk out the door you’re still getting a subsidy that directly pays for that extra $400 they gave you off that wasn’t part of the actual price. If you ever go to change service they automatically use the rest of that monthly subsidy immediately to pay off the phone keep that on the phone since the cost is the same as the subsidy for each month you have the phone untill it’s paid off.
If you have Verizon they have been blocking phones even if they’re not allowed to do that claiming that any phone not purchased through them or the model number that they sell in the store is not compatible with their Network and needs to be evaluated for security. Then they make it a pain in the ass to get your phone approved to be on their Network and it can take up to 90 days even if it’s the same phone just the “unlocked” version with a different model number. This was less of an issue when the FCC rules for GSM based carriers were being enforced, but under Trump and Bush they were not enforcing the rules. And until LTE we had two carriers that were not using GSM based technology so they were not covered by the rules.
It’s not; literally no carrier forces you into a shitty contract anymore.
Not like they used to, mostly. They just replaced “contract” with “equipment payment plan”. Because $50/mo for 24 months is easier for a consumer to swallow than a lump payment of $1200, especially when the carrier is giving you a $10 or $20 (or more) “discount” on the phone.
But as long as the EPP is active, the phone is locked to that carrier. And I think that’s fair. No different than the bank holding the title while you finance a car.
The thing is that the plans that have these equipment deals are significantly more expensive than others. Namely big name plans like TMo or Verizon, compared to MVNO plans like Mint or Visible. So you end up paying more for the plan because you get “a deal” on your phone (but still end up ultimately paying more).
It is very much still a thing and the contracts still exist in some form, specifically phone financing and locking. If you finance a cellphone from Tmobile, it will be locked to Tmobile until you’ve paid for the phone in full, which is usually over two years of payments. This is why carriers offer deals on phones purchased through them, and have those upgrade-every-year type plans. The contract has just switched from the phone service, to the phone itself. This is also why if you walk into any carrier’s store, they’ll try and convince you to trade in your perfectly good paid-for device for the next years model with a decent trade in value, but only if you finance the new phone.
Boost mobile doesn’t even do financing, but they require you be with them for a year before they’ll unlock your phone. I refuse to go back to them after buying an LG Stylo, and then when I wanted to switch 6 months later they refused to release the phone. I ended up having to buy a whole new phone when I didn’t have the money to do so.
Too bad SCOTUS just ruled that US government regulatory agencies are essentially meaningless a day or two ago
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.
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’ve just been buying phones a model or two behind the latest generation. Bonus points for a refurbished phone. Saves a ton of money and they’re usually not much less capable than what’s new.
I actually prefer to buy mid range phones that are brand new instead of buying phones that are a few generations old just because I know that with a new device the battery is new and I treat my batteries very well like only charging to 80% and so on. So I’m a lot more likely to buy like the Pixel A series or like the Motorola G series and such than I am to buy the latest Pixel flagship or whatever.
Yup. I can get away with prepaid 1GB/month for 3€ because I’m almost always near Wi-Fi and don’t really need to use anything bandwidth when I’m not.
I also find it wild how some people will get an expensive contract that comes with a “free” phone, but then don’t switch to an equal but cheaper contract (without a “free” phone) when the contract term expires, or at the very least renew the term so they get a new phone.
Yeah, that one is beyond me as well.
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.
As an American, can I have some of that freedom?
You can, just buy the phone unlocked online and then get download an eSIM from a carrier. Bear in mind when buying the phone unlocked you’ll need to pay the full phone price up front and won’t be able to finance it through your phone plan like most Americans
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.
Rephrased. Countries are allowing exploitation the rest of the world has already learned from. Aka GREED
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.
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.
Yep. Or quasi installments. They usually make it where your paying like $20 a month on the phone for two years, but they’re deducting $20 a month off your monthly service at the same time. That way if you try to break contract, you have to pay for the rest of your phone that you still owe.
Yep. “Free phone” via bill credits for 2 years but they’ll proudly proclaim they don’t do contracts and there’s no ETFs. Technically true, but realistically no difference.
I’ve had a couple. The issue is that you don’t save any money on their service if you have your own. So it’s basically “you can pay us $70 a month and buy your phone yourself, or you can pay us $70 a month and have this phone under contract for two years that we’ll give you.”
Never heard of an MVNO huh? I bought my phones outright and have enjoyed having 4 lines for $105/mo.
I have cell tower priority, unlimited data, and 40GB hotspot per month.
Strangely, if I see internet deprioritized on 5G (which is rare), I switch my settings to 4G and it’s blazing fast. So I’ve never had a problem.
I’m the only person I know who buys their phones unlocked. I think a lot of people rely on the store where they buy the phone to set it up and get all their stuff transfered over. Just getting a new phone in the mail is a recipe for disaster for like a solid 60% of the US population.
I’m getting my phone on a loan at 0%. If I want to switch carriers, then I’ll pay off the rest of the cost of my phone and they unlock it for me, but considering we’ve been running rather insane inflation over the last few years, I’m glad I made AT&T pick up that tab. I see no point in buying outright as I’m not changing carriers multiple times in a year.
You should really check out an MVNO if you can afford to pay off your phone. You’ll save a LOT. I personally use Helium Mobile (uses Tmo and consumer decentralized network) but there are MVNOs that use AT&T if you prefer their coverage.
The major carriers overcharge for service since they lock people in with 0% financing.
My work pays me a stipend if I stay on one of the big three since they have SLAs with them, so it’s hard to beat the price. $20 for 50 GB 5G is my out of pocket because I wanted to put my AppleWatch on the plan.
Why would they not allow an mvno? Odd.
Mine is $6/mo unlimited since I was on the beta for Helium. It’s $20/mo now.
Not always true, I bought a smart talk phone for my kid and the phone was paid in full at the time of purchase. It’s still carrier locked 5 years later because they say “it wasn’t in service for x amount of time and therefore isn’t eligible”. I even reported this to the FCC, opened a case, and they did fuckall and closed the report.
Did you have it active for 2 years? I’ve never had an issue before. Only done it like twice, though.
It was active for about 3 months, until she broke the screen. I replaced her device and put the phone on the shelf. I replaced the screen and digitizer a year later when I needed a spare handset and they told me “it had never been on network” and was ineligible for being unlocked. Which is bullshit because the phone was bought and paid for at the time I purchased it in a box at the store with a prepaid card. As far as I’m concerned, straight talk still owes me 200$. Even if the phone was NEVER activated, I still own it outright, making it mine to do with what I please.
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.
deleted by creator
I wonder what the percentage is these days. Almost everyone I know bought their phone outright.
And I’m on the opposite side of that. Lol everyone I know just does the pay as you go 0% Apr option usually.
Same
In Canada even if you lease to own a phone it’s not carrier locked anymore, you have to pay the remaining balance if you leave, or possibly can return the phone (but that’s just throwing your money away)
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
I have amazing fiber internet from ATT. I’m using it to make this post. FUCK ATT AND FUCK EVERYTHING THEY STAND FOR. I MEAN THIS PROFESSIONALLY TOO. I HAVE TO TRY TO CALL THESE FUCKING ASSHATS DAILY.
-
deleted by creator
I remember during COVID, trying to reduce my bills. Called my mobile operator. For £200 fee I could buy out early, and pay £15 per month. Or I could continue paying something ridiculous like £60 per month.
Absolute no-brainer, and I would never get a contract phone again.
Europe (Germany specifically) has their own problems with carriers though.
When you notify them that you’re cancelling your service, you still have to pay for 3 MORE full months of service after that. Even if you’re in the military and ordered to move. That’s a long time.
This 3 month period mandatory cancellation notice doesn’t change even if you’ve been with them for 2+ years.
For US carriers, once you’ve been with them more than the initial 2 years, you are pretty much able to cancel whenever.
We’ll that’s not correct anymore. After at most 2 years (depending on the contract) you can cancel every month. It’s the law since I think last year.
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
In Denmark you get two options, you can buy an unlocked phone with cash. Or purchase a subscription with it, and the provider gives you some incentive for it. The subscription is locked for 6 months which is the max by law.
If I buy a phone with the subscription, the discount means you would usually pay 80% of the phones value.
That locks you to a subscription for 6 months that is usually more expensive than the other offers out there, but the difference doesn’t make up for the reduced price of the phone over the 6 month period.
So you are actually saving money, as long as you remember to switch to a cheaper subscription after the 6 months pass. The telecom of course hopes you don’t, and that’s their incentive for taking a hit on profit in the short term. It buys them marketshare.
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.
The problem is that you don’t get to have a cheaper plan whether or not you own your own phone. Same monthly cost if you get their free phone under lease, or if you bring your own phone.
If you buy your phone unlocked, you can get Red Pocket which is extremely cheap for service compared to most post paid plans. You can get ~5gb data and unlimited everything else for 20 a month on AT&T. And then if you go to Europe you can just buy a cheap Sim while there and pop it in.
If you’re not picky about the phone, I have gotten sub 300 USD phones for the last 2, first lasted 4 years and I’m about 6 months into the second. Honestly there’s not much I feel like I’m missing, except spending way more money.
I’m very good with electronics (repairs and care). I’m on an unlocked Note 20 ultra I bought used in early 2021 and it’s still in flawless condition. Not parting with it anytime soon and already replaced the battery in it so it would keep going.
Issue with things like mint or rocket is that you get bumped down in priority as soon as towers get a bit congested. I’m paying more, but I like having unlimited data and 40 or 50 GB of hotspot a month.
Simlocks have completely vanished from the market at least here in Germany, mostly because carriers don’t care if you use your subsidised bonus phone with a different card – you’re still locked into a contract with two years or such minimum duration. Even those contracts have gotten rare though I think most people right-out own their phones and then make a separate contract.
It only went away because they were forced to. We would still live with that carrier mess if it wasn’t for regulation.
Thank fucking God. It never should have been a thing ever.
OK, now ban bootloader locking next.
It’s one command to unlock so what’s the point?
…on OEM unlocked devices that you buy upfront and pay full price for. Buy one second hand? Fuck you. Get one through a carrier? Fuck you. Get a gift from a family member who has upgraded? You guessed it, fuck you.
I wasn’t aware that anything can block unlocking it. Learned something new thanks
I sent the FTC a letter asking them to look into the practices of bootloader locking. They did they they would consider looking into it
How did you go about doing that? I wanted to ask them about being able to replace the primary bootloader, including signing keys for any device that a user has paid for, which is a step above bootloader unlocking.
Kind of like installing coreboot or libreboot on a PC/laptop.
Don’t Sammy do and apple do it… Not even carriers?
Pretty sure Samsung does it to appease carriers since they sell unlocked snapdragon variants elsewhere
If you buy a phone from Verizon its perma locked for no reason
Oh there’s a reason. Hotspot bypass being a big one I’d wager, the other being making it significantly harder to avoid ads
But I can use a non Verizon phone on Verizon? Are they just trying to dissuade it because the people doing hotspot bypass are likely gonna do the research.
Edit: oh yeah ads. Of course it’s ads.
This was for bootloader locking, not carrier locking. But yeah, they want you to buy their bullshit hotspot plan instead of just using the data you already pay for.
Of course.
And yeah carrier locking is already illegal [if the phone is fully paid for].
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
Don’t worry. With SCOTUS overturning Chevron this won’t stick. /s (in case it’s not obvious)
“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.
With Chevron overturned, you are absolutely not done with it. It will get much worse.
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.
I can see two sides to this:
Removable batteries are great, if you want longevity for a phone, and don’t mind sacrificing water resistance.
On the other side of the coin:
Removable batteries have more potential to lower water resistance ratings.
I think more manufacturers should give the choice of a model with a removable battery.
As much as I to be optimistic, I doubt this will pass. So long as Wall Street is still a thing don’t expect any sort of regulations. Continue to buy second-hand, OEM unlocked phones on eBay.
If there is money to be lost in it, dont bet on it getting lit
Oh I’m getting lit either way
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.
Your comment belies your lack of understanding of yesterday’s SCOTUS decision.
Not any more, since the Supreme Court just overturned Chevron. Now the FCC (and every other federal organization) can only do what’s explicitly described in law.
Oh right that fucking thing.
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.
About damn time.
