Carriers fight plan to require unlocking of phones 60 days after activation.
T-Mobile and AT&T say US regulators should drop a plan to require unlocking of phones within 60 days of activation, claiming that locking phones to a carrier’s network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers. “If the Commission mandates a uniform unlocking policy, it is consumers—not providers—who stand to lose the most,” T-Mobile alleged in an October 17 filing with the Federal Communications Commission.
The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs. T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival’s network. T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, “consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers.”
“prison warden advocates for locking everyone up for their own safety”
The network providers know full well that the market is saturated and that they have to make a better offer if they want to gain market share. The only thing device lock in does is improve their bottom line since they can force you into a shitty contract for longer. It has NO benefit for the consumer whatsoever.
“consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers.”
I can’t stress this enough: It’s almost always cheaper to pay full price for a phone, plus a pay-over-time fee through your credit card if needed, and use a prepaid MVNO instead of a major carrier.
So what they really mean is “we risk losing profits on our inflated rates if we can’t trap customers in our overpriced plans and play games with their bills.”
Honestly, it is such an obvious lie, too. Can companies really just lie in their filings to the FTC?
Here in the UK, it generally used to be 1 year, then moved to 18 month, then two year “contracts” (that are essentially paying for the phone). They will of course (if you don’t realise) continue to charge you the increased price after you’ve paid for your phone…
Recently I was looking at upgrading, almost clicked confirm on a price that seemed suspicious. Until I saw “48 month contract”
Nope. Bought the phone outright, interest free credit over 1 year (I’m done with that in 3 more months). A few months later, swapped to one of the “virtual” networks we have here. £8 per month (first 3 £3), unlimited/unlimited/30GB data (I don’t need much), plus roaming to Europe (a frequent destination of mine) included.
100% here it works out a LOT cheaper not to buy through the provider. I have no doubt it’s the same pretty much everywhere too.
If a business wants it, then it isn’t good for the consumer.
Also, the only time a business should be talking to Congress is to explain why they did something, not for new laws. Last time I checked, Congress was supposed to serve the people, not businesses, but I know that has t been true for a long time.
so good, in fact, I buy my phones on eBay! they’re unlocked, debloated, and rootable.
We need another flavor of the 1980s telecom antitrust. All phones should be sold 100% unlocked. All carriers should not be allowed to sell phones with custom software configurations (Verizon is the worst for this) or neutered basic band support that makes the phone difficult if not impossible to use on competing carriers. All phones should be as interchangeable as they are currently capable of. Predatory carrier financing deals should be heavily regulated. No more trapping people in multi-year financing pyramid schemes. Basic communications methods for voice, image, video, text, video call, data should be forcibly standardized on all brands.
These companies were given a long leash, and they just abused it.
