Carriers fight plan to require unlocking of phones 60 days after activation.

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.”

  • Tarogar@feddit.org
    701·
    16 days ago

    “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.

  • Fester@lemm.eeEnglish
    41·
    16 days ago

    “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.”

    • logicbomb@lemmy.world
      11·
      16 days ago

      Honestly, it is such an obvious lie, too. Can companies really just lie in their filings to the FTC?

      • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
        8·
        16 days ago

        They can, they do and they won’t stop.

        They will also lie right to your face

        They lie when advertising

        Companies lie. They need to lie. If they don’t lie, and actually told the truth…they wouldn’t be in business anymore.

  • Otakulad@lemmy.world
    32·
    16 days ago

    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.

  • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
    15·
    16 days ago

    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.

  • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
    4·
    16 days ago

    How about the government subsidizes the cost of the phone for needy customers rather than the reseller.

    Are there any other industries where a product or service is subsidized by the reseller? What if, like dental insurance, there were a cell phone insurance company.

    I mean, locking phones is stupid to begin with but if it’s for a small segment of people who want $0 / cheap AF phones, maybe there’s other options. I’m on ATT’s site and see a Moto Razr with a retail price of $1k and a payment plan of $6/month for 36 months ($216). The Ts & Cs to get there are lengthy and questionable. The whole industry needs more regulation for the protection of consumers - especially given how critical having a cell phone is in the 21st century.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    32·
    16 days ago

    If you believe that mobile phone pricing is equal to the price that you get at the operator’s store, then by all means remove the network lock. But it isn’t and you should know that.

    Overall, US operator’s have overpriced their services. That is the issue that should have your focus.