FCC proposes ending cellphone carrier locks after 60 days

Comments

• skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  is that some american problem i’m too euro to understand? we got rid of this anticompetitive shit in 00s

  source

  • Toes@ani.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • shortwavesurfer@monero.town ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      As an American, can I have some of that freedom?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Rephrased. Countries are allowing exploitation the rest of the world has already learned from. Aka GREED

      source
  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • shortwavesurfer@monero.town ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • RedEyeFlightControl@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Not always true, I bought a tracfone 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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨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

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • ripcord@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I wonder what the percentage is these days. Almost everyone I know bought their phone outright.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Strykker@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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)

      source
    • towerful@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source
  • NewWorldOverHere@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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 bull. It also doesn’t get better even if you’ve been with them for a longer period of time.

    For US carriers, once you’ve been with them more than the initial 2 years, you are pretty much able to cancel whenever.

    source

    • newH0pe@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source
  • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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 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

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  OK, now ban bootloader locking next.

  source

  • sunzu@kbin.run ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Don't Sammy do and apple do it... Not even carriers?

    source

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Pretty sure Samsung does it to appease carriers since they sell unlocked snapdragon variants elsewhere

      source
    • LodeMike@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      If you buy a phone from Verizon its perma locked for no reason

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • dinckelman@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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

      source
  • androidisking@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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

    source

    • refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source
  • brb@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s one command to unlock so what’s the point?

    source

    • BigFatNips@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      …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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Hellmo_Luciferrari@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “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.

  source

  • ripcord@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

    source
  • Toes@ani.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    How do you feel about removable batteries?

    source

    • Godort@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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 available 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.

      source
    • Hellmo_Luciferrari@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source
• harsh3466@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source
• secret300@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source
• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source
• danafest@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Halosheep@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source
• nutsack@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I had no idea this was even still a thing I don’t understand how it’s legal

  source

  • Psythik@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s not; literally no carrier forces you into a shitty contract anymore.

    source

    • EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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).

      source
  • Zanz@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source
• SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  We’ll see how this fares in the face of Chevron being rescinded. Will they even recognize FCC authority to do this?

  source

  • LodeMike@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The FCC can do anything within the law as a condition of using radio wavelengths.

    source

    • catloaf@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • roguetrick@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source
    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

      source
• Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  As soon as T-Mobile’s check clears, the conservative SCOTUS will make sure all phones remain locked for eternity. Praise Jesus!

  source

  • Sabata11792@ani.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    With recent changes to bribery laws by the supreme court, they must change the law before getting paid.

    source

    • indepndnt@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Finally, some meaningful reform!

      source
• Sam_Bass@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If there is money to be lost in it, dont bet on it getting lit

  source

  • indepndnt@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Oh I’m getting lit either way

    source
• barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • vxx@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It only went away because they were forced to. We would still live in that carrier mess if it wasn’t for regulation.

    source
• SpiceDealer@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Fat chance.

  source

  • HogsTooth@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s the spirit

    source
• FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• sunzu@kbin.run ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Fuck telecos... Parasites

  source

  • catloaf@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yeah who are they to charge for access to all those naturally-occuring cell phone towers?

    source

    • sunzu@kbin.run ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      My monthly fee pays for that, bootlicker :)

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• recursive_recursion@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If I recall correctly, Canada got rid of carrier lock-in several years ago

  source

  • DannyBoy@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    7 years ago. It’s been a very welcome change here.

    source

    • recursive_recursion@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      fuck yeah✊

      source
• axo@feddit.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Didnt even know carrier locking is still a thing. I think thats long illegal here in the EU

  source

  • Gestrid@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.)

    source
• TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  About damn time.

  source
• umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  How about no lock in from the get go?

  source
• tal@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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. It’s not a lack of unlocked service that’s at issue.

  • 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.

  source
• NewWorldOverHere@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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

  source
• spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• paraphrand@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  He would help with e-waste too.

  source