6mo ago

FCC proposes ending cellphone carrier locks after 60 days

www.theregister.com FCC proposes ending cellphone carrier locks after 60 days

Should you stay or should you go now? If Rosenworcel gets her way, there won't be trouble

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.

117 comments

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.
  
  As an American, can I have some of that freedom?
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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
  
  I wonder what the percentage is these days. Almost everyone I know bought their phone outright.
  
  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)
  
  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
  
  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.

OK, now ban bootloader locking next.
- 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
  
  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
- 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.
- 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.

"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.
  
  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.
- With Chevron overturned, you are absolutely not done with it. It will get much worse.

Don’t worry. With SCOTUS overturning Chevron this won’t stick. /s (in case it’s not obvious)

Thank fucking God. It never should have been a thing ever.

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.
  
  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.
  
  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).

Too bad SCOTUS just ruled that US government regulatory agencies are essentially meaningless a day or two ago

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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Your comment belies your lack of understanding of yesterday’s SCOTUS decision.

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.
- 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.

If there is money to be lost in it, dont bet on it getting lit
- Oh I'm getting lit either way

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!

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.

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 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.

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.

Fat chance.
- That's the spirit

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 :)

If I recall correctly, Canada got rid of carrier lock-in several years ago
- 7 years ago. It's been a very welcome change here.
  
  fuck yeah✊

How about no lock in from the get go?

About damn time.

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.)

This would be of limited use for many people. Carriers lock people in by selling lots of phones that are missing frequency bands and cannot be used on their competitor's networks. For instance, many of TMO's phones cannot be used on AT&T and Verizon's networks. My Oneplus 9Pro is a great phone, but if I wanted to switch to Spectrum (on Verizon's network) or AT&T I would be forced to buy a new phone.
Some phones like the Iphone and Pixels are compatible with every U.S. network, but plenty of others are not.

So everyone knows… the new Apple Card lets you do 0% financing on the iPhone. (You also get 3% cash back for buying from the Apple Store.)
So you can buy an unlocked iPhone and pay for it in installments.
Now there is no need to buy from the carriers, have a locked phone, or pay full price up front.
Source: Me, paying ~$68/month for the unlocked iPhone 15 Pro. Also, I do a carrier’s prepaid plan because I’ve been bested by contracts before.

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.

117 comments