Niether AT&T or Verizon care about loyalty. The higher the cost to switch, the better as far as their concerned. Similarly, Sprint has survived a decade on a slowly shrinking business customer base, with losses mainly forestalled by the roadblocks they like to throw out when porting hundreds of phone numbers and device incompatability with other networks.
If the switching cost is too high, people won't switch!
More like collusion to fundamentally break the standard before it is allowed to flourish. What if you had a power plug that worked with outlets anywhere, except if you plugged it in in certain businesses, whereby they only were usable at said business, and were a brick otherwise. This is what AT&T has been doing with Apple's eSIMs.
Presumably it is on hold because they are being accused of making the standard terrible. They definitely shouldn't plow on with a terrible standard.
I guess the dispute would revolve around carrier locking. E.g. imagine if you bought an unlocked phone but eSIM gave carriers the ability to remotely lock it to their network.
AT&T want the ability to lock eSIMs to be standardised, so that you can't use it on another network. But eSIMs are permanently embedded into phones, and phones getting thinner means they soon won't have slots for physical SIMs. (Apart from the charger, it's already the last port on many phones.) So it would effectively lock the entire device, which is incredibly wasteful. The FTC sees this as consumer unfriendly and potentially collusive and anti competitive in how it's being pursued.
If GSMA continues, then AT&T will have to play it safe by backing down from their position. So, they are pausing the entire process. If the FTC turns out to have no teeth, then AT&T will be able to pursue locking eSIMs again.
Trade bodies like the GSMA are constantly at risk of collusion accusations. Most meetings on these types of bodies start with reminders about the anti trust rules and what types of discussion are not allowed.
It isn’t surprising that they would stop meetings given the fact that an investigation seems to be in play. Not a reliable signal of bad behavior. It is probably simple pragmatism.
Seeing how impossible it is to get the Apple Watch on non-"partner" networks, I'm very wary about all the supposed market reforms that are expected of eSIM. I'm expecting the exact opposite will happen, with more "carrier exclusives" and stuff like that to try to squeeze money out of customers. Just look at how things worked out with ESNs on CDMA carriers in the US.
Physical SIM cards have worked fantastically well and were one of the greatest ideas of GSM.
Verizon was refusing enrollment of phones in their network of people bought them elsewhere. Something that was unheard of here in Europe where carriers got no say in the choice of your phone - pop in a SIM card and that's it.
Apple Watch eSIM lockdown is showing again that not having SIMs will significantly hurt customers again.
A bunch of US "mobile network virtual operators" created GSM phones that only worked with their SIMs and so on. It's the regulatory requirements and enforcement that lead to interoperability more than the technology.
IIRC AT&T, a GSM carrier with SIM cards, had the iPhone exclusively and was locked for it's lifetime.
In Australia, all three GSM carriers had the iPhone and could be unlocked just by calling up (now they come unlocked out of the box, even when purchased on contract).
Having a physical SIM card here never made a difference to carrier exclusives because that's a business deal, not a technical constraint. The US telecommunications market is a bit of an anomaly compared to most other countries.
Also worth nothing that the EU is fairly regulation heavy on the carriers, which has worked out mostly well, requiring phones to be unlocked/banning locked phones, requiring things like everyone use the same standards, easy/cheap/free roaming between countries, etc. If eSIMs became a thing and carriers started locked them and making them exile, it would be easy to envision the EU mandating consumers able to take a phone between carriers.
AT&T didn't allow those with off-contract iPhones to unlock them until April 8, 2012, so there was a few years there where you could have a paid-off device still locked to AT&T.
This wasn't initially the case with the original iPhone.
I might be remembering wrong, but I think the original iPhone has some sort of technical constraints working on T-Mobile's network even if it was unlocked.
Yes, that was it IIRC. I recall that using the original iPhone/early model iPhones didn't support the bands that T-Mobile used for 3G(?) so you were limited to 2G on T-Mobile. My memory is fuzzy and its something difficult to Google.
When? That hasn't been the case in a long time. I've had Verizon for almost six years and as far as I remember I've never bought my phone from them, always brought my own, it's never been a problem. In fact, the phone I have now is a model they don't even sell. I just bought an unlocked phone.
When Verizon only offered subsidized plans I don't even think it would be in Verizon's best interest to refuse to enroll outside phones, the person would be paying the subsidized price no matter what.
CDMA is being phased out in the US and (IIRC) 4G is a GSM technology, I don't believe my phone even supports CDMA?? AT&T and T-Mobile have always been GSM only and AT&T used to carrier lock their phones.
Either way, the carrier lock isn't an issue of phone technology, carriers can always lock out "unapproved" devices at their level.
When they were still primarily a CDMA carrier. The only reason they changed is because they adopted 4G LTE (which is in the GSM/3GPP family) which uses SIM cards. Proving the point.
There are some cases where this is still a problem. voLTE is left up to the carrier on how they'll implement it. There are cases of phones with proper band support not working on Verizon due to lack of carrier provisioning. The fallback for calls is cdma if the phone isn't whitelisted or lacks a proper carrier file.
To this day there are still people calling into verizon to get certain import models whitelisted.
Physical SIM cards are not a requirement for unlocked phones.
From TFA:
>The technology replaces the usual card with a chip that uses software to associate you with a given service provider. On top of freeing up room inside devices (crucial for wearables like the Apple Watch or Gear S3), it makes it much easier to switch carriers -- you could sign up for a new network without even talking to another human being. And it's that last part that reportedly has the companies scared.
Apple Watch being tied to specific carriers has more to do with the feature set required by Apple (primarily, sharing the same MSISDN between the iPhone and the Watch) than anything directly related to the eSIM.
I would imagine that they (Apple) simply had no appetite for dealing with the user experience corner cases of your Watch having a completely separate identity.
There is precedent for this being relaxed over time and in future revisions of the Watch. For example, Visual Voicemail used to be a requirement for iPhone carriers. Today, no such requirements exist.
The fact is that as a owner of the hardware, Apple is not giving me any access to swap out the eSIM to whatever I want. They control access to the eSIM.
If they had implemented the watch with a physical SIM (using, say, pair SIMs which have existed since the 90's), I could crack it open and put in whatever SIM card I wanted.
I envision an eSIM iPhone having a beautiful carrier selection portal with gorgeous, high-resolution carrier logos... and only Apple partner carriers, with specific iPhone-tailored plans. Goodbye my discount MVNO.
> Incoming calls, messages etc. can be taken only by one of the mobile terminals, in which SIM-card is in so-called “active” state. Accordingly, SIM-card in another mobile terminal is passive and any outgoing operations can be made from this device.
> To transfer basic SIM-card into active state it is necessary to dial 1071#. combination on mobile device keyboard. In this case extra SIM-card automatically transfers into passive mode. To transfer extra SIM-card into active state it is necessary to dial 1072#. combination on mobile device keyboard. In this case basic SIM-card automatically transfers into passive mode.
Yeah, I can understand why Apple didn't go down this path.
Seems to be a restriction of that particular carrier. I used multi / pair sims regularly years ago on several German networks (I.e. for car phones) and they would all ring on incoming calls. However only one card would receive SMS messages. But that should not have been a problem since iOS can already share them between devices.
Sort of related, I have a second sim card with t-mobile US that allows for calling, receiving and sending texts, all from my primary number. This was the other part of their DIGITS beta.
> For example, Visual Voicemail used to be a requirement for iPhone carriers. Today, no such requirements exist.
I forgot to reply to this part. Visual Voicemail was never a requirement if I just put my own SIM card in. The SIM card was always a run-around any stupid policies. Only with eSIM now that backdoor is closed.
I think parent meant that a SIM phone can just be used by any carrier, regardless of support for it... I wouldn't need an "iPhone carrier", just "whatever any-phone carrier" for my iPhone... Some features like vvm would not work, but f it.
An eSIM might need that now I can only pick carriers with explicit support for my particular phone.
I don't understand why carriers feel the need to SIM-lock a phone that's on a contract anyway. I get it for pre-paid phones, the phone is partially subsidised by the carrier and they want to make their money back, but even there they have to unlock the phone after a year.
In the case of a phone on a contract, you're already locked into a contract. Why lock the phone if the customer is already required to pay either way. In fact, isn't it better for the operator if the customer uses their phone on another network, that way they get the monthly payments without even having to provide a service in return.
>I don't understand why carriers feel the need to SIM-lock a phone that's on a contract anyway.
It doesn't make sense if they just want to lock just me, but it does make a lot of sense if they want to lock others.
Say I have a phone that I plan to replace with a fancier one when my """upgrade""" is due. I can pass the old phone on to my little brother or little cousin or sell it on eBay. If it's unlocked, the new owner of the old phone could pop their SIM in and use it with any carrier they like. If it's locked, then they have to also use the same network that the old phone was on, which means they also have to, in general, sign up for it. If I'm not there to help them unlocking it before I pass it on, then the new owner will have a very hard time, at least in my experience, to ask the carrier to unlock it.
If I decide that's too much hassle to deal with and don't want to call them to wait for days for them to push the unlock update for me, I can keep the phone in my drawer. In that case, there is one less used phone in the supply so that carrier can sell more new phones.
Either I pass on or I don't, locking the phone is a win for the carrier. Don't know how it is now (I haven't purchased a used phone for a while), but the carriers I dealt with often asked for the account numbers and waiting and shit to """verify""" the original owner and make it as hard, slow, and painful as possible to unlock a secondhand phone.
I know about the MVNOs compatibility and stuff, but let's be honest, most people will use a carrier-branded phone with that exact branded carrier.
> In fact, isn't it better for the operator if the customer uses their phone on another network, that way they get the monthly payments without even having to provide a service in return.
I suspect the huge chunk of the cost to the carrier is a fixed investment. The person they paid to answer the support line gets the payment regardless whether they sit there playing solitaire or helping you. It doesn't matter that much to them that you actually use their tower or not. The service they provide to you monthly doesn't cost them nothing more.
The fact isn't that they are saving cost if they can get away with not providing service to a phone that is paid off. The fact is that if they can get my teenage cousin on their network, it is a huge huge win for them because he/she will likely pump them with $50/month payment for the next 10 years. Just because one day, I decided that it was nice of me to """give""" my used phone to them.
> Don't know how it is now (I haven't purchased a used phone for a while), but the carriers I dealt with often asked for the account numbers and waiting and shit to """verify""" the original owner and make it as hard, slow, and painful as possible to unlock a secondhand phone.
Carriers in my country don't sell locked phones anymore for the reasons mentioned earlier. The last time I bought a locked phone on contract was the iPhone 3G. Even back then selling a locked phone on contract was extremely rare and IIRC only the iPhone was sold like that back then.
After a year, it just unlocked without me asking for it, I didn't need to do anything except plug it into iTunes, which I used to do anyway. That probably isn't even needed anymore as you don't have to sync with iTunes for carrier updates since forever.
> The person they paid to answer the support line gets the payment regardless whether they sit there playing solitaire or helping you.
If fewer people actually use that carrier, they need fewer support people.
You were asking why carriers lock phones, presumably, that question is for the market that does that, which is the US market. Then you said they don't do that in your country. Then that's good for you, but that has nothing to do with my answer. In a market that carriers don't do that, if someone pulls that bullshit, they will be boycotted. In a market that everyone does that like the US, you as a business are better off colluding with that practice. The reason they don't do that in your market is that they can't, not because it doesn't make business sense.
>If fewer people actually use that carrier, they need fewer support people.
Has any CEO of any carrier or company ever said: "Oh geez, I wish I had fewer subscribers so I can cut the cost of operating this company"?
Say I hire a person that is capable of supporting 1000 customers a month. I pay the person $4k per month. By cutting that person I save $4k per month. If I actually get 1000 customers more and each customer pays me $50 per month, I get $50k. $4k per month for that support person is peanuts to the amount of revenue I get. In most cases, cutting cost is the solution only when I know I can't possibly expand.
My point was that they used to do that in my country, but they stopped as it is completely pointless. Phone contracts usually last at least a year, and they have to unlock after a year anyway.
> Has any CEO of any carrier or company ever said: "Oh geez, I wish I had fewer subscribers so I can cut the cost of operating this company"?
But the point is that they do not have fewer subscribers, they have the same amount of paying subscribers, they just have to provide fewer services to those subscribers.
To re-use your example: if you get 1000 customers more but none of them ever calls the helldesk, then you get paid for those 1000 customers, but you don't have the costs associated with those 1000 customers. That's a win/win for the phone company.
Your point is that it's pointless to lock it if you have to unlock it without the customer asking. That makes sense if you have to do it automatically. The carriers in the US don't have to. They have to only if the paying customer asked first, and after the contract expires, and with a whole bunch of other conditions met.
>But the point is that they do not have fewer subscribers, they have the same amount of paying subscribers, they just have to provide fewer services to those subscribers.
You are seeing it in an extremely short term.
Let's say I pass on my 2-year contract phone originally on AT&T to my cousin who wishes to use it on Tmobile at the point of 1 year and 5 months. Your argument was that since I already had to pay for 2 years, AT&T will save the troubles of serving and supporting my cousin for 7 months if he actually brings it on on TMobile. Your genius plan of being AT&T and not serving my cousin for 7 months only works if you know for sure after that 7 months of free service ends, he will switch anyway. Any carrier will happily provide services if that means they have a legitimate chance of having a subscriber on board. Who cares about giving a potential 10-year subscriber a 7-month head start (especially when that cost is already accounted for)?
>That's a win/win for the phone company.
Nobody ever says having a customer to switch to another network is a win for them.
Seems like the US telecom industry is ripe for some major disruption. What if a company comes in and start treating its customers right? They'll have millions eager to sign up. Or at least that's how capitalism was explained to me at highschool.
Being ethical was neither the main catalyst/competitive edge nor the implication of capitalism. You stay on top in a capitalistic market by being competitive, not by being ethical.
Whoever taught you that pro-capitalism ideals in high school was just as delusional as the person who taught me the pro-socialism ideals in high school -- if not more. At least I believe most people who recite all the pro-socialism ideals in socialist countries are well aware that they are bullshit but just doing it for the money and safety.
Their argument is that it helps to combat fradulent purchases where criminals steal identities, buy phones on margin with the stolen identity and then ship them for sale overseas. As it stands, they are stuck holding the bill.
The carriers should be forced to absorb the consequences of not requiring payment upfront rather than forcing the rest of us to suffer from this absurd locking strategy. The entire situation was manufactured by them. If they required payment upfront, then this would be the credit card companies’ problem. They are much better equipped to deal with such things than carriers anyway.
When I switched carrier I had to go to a T-mobile store to show my passport and do a debitcard transaction of 50 cents to verify that I had a working bankaccount. Seems pretty fraud proof and it took ten minutes.
Indeed that's the party line. Surprisingly Verizon who traditionally hasn't locked them will being doing so for a limited they say to combat fraud. See:
The irony here is that the whole point of SIM cards originally was that it made the device independent of the network and that you could move from network to network at will. I see the value from an electronics packaging point of view, but I don't see how removing a SIM card makes it easier to move network.
> I don't see how removing a SIM card makes it easier to move network.
The idea with eSIM is that instead of having to wait 5 days for the new physical SIM to arrive in the mail (or instead of having to drive to a retail shop to buy one), you can simply buy online and have the eSIM instantly delivered to your phone, right in the moment.
The effect is that it would, if implemented as intended, further lower the barrier to switching carriers (no delay for mail or no drive to retail store).
With physical SIMs you need a SIM from a network in order to join that network. With eSIMs (hypothetically) you'll be able to join without a physical token.
If you switch carriers you don't need to visit a store for a new physical SIM, your SIM is "virtually" switched to the new network seamlessly and instantly. Your new network would just blast some data to your phone and you're connected.
If you buy a new phone and your new phone uses nano SIM and your old phone has a bigger micro SIM, you don't have to visit the store for a new SIM, just register your new phone online with a mouse click.
A person with knowledge and ties to one of the small operators within the GSMA eSIM group mentioned there are many problems with interpretation and acceptance of certain proposed guidelines, especially by the big members.
One big issue on the table is carrier selection freedom once you have chosen your initial operator. Big Telcos want to have the last word when it comes to letting you go if you decide to, and were trying to bake certain clauses into the agreement that would enable them to "oblige" the end user to pay a penalty for premature contract breaking.
Basically, they want to replicate the existing regular sim-lock model with the eSIM, but nothing else regarding free number portability would change.
Regardless of the eSIM, over the past 10 years carriers have been forced by their governments to unlock phones for free in many countries but have always ended up finding loopholes to make this really hard.
Only in Spain which has a population around 45M, we've gone from over 500,000 to just below 1M number portability changes per month so with so much at stake, I really doubt the eSIM is going to make things any better for the end customer.
Wait, the government is looking for collusion aimed at stopping eSIM technology, so one of the alleged colluders is actually stopping the development? In what world does that make sense?
Modern websites/services that use phone number as user identifier (or for 2FA) as opposed to email address (i.e. Whatsapp) stop users from switching carriers way more than need to get physical SIM card.
As an FYI, Google Fi has been using the eSIM on Pixel 2 phones and it's great. You can still opt for a physical SIM if you want, but I can't see a reason to.
61 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadIf people can leave easily they'll be forced to earn genuine loyalty, not this fake kind.
If the switching cost is too high, people won't switch!
And now a govt investigation of that possible collusion is ... stopping the standard happening?
So you can never take that Apple watch with the eSIM to a non AT&T network? There is no unlock?
I guess the dispute would revolve around carrier locking. E.g. imagine if you bought an unlocked phone but eSIM gave carriers the ability to remotely lock it to their network.
If GSMA continues, then AT&T will have to play it safe by backing down from their position. So, they are pausing the entire process. If the FTC turns out to have no teeth, then AT&T will be able to pursue locking eSIMs again.
It isn’t surprising that they would stop meetings given the fact that an investigation seems to be in play. Not a reliable signal of bad behavior. It is probably simple pragmatism.
Physical SIM cards have worked fantastically well and were one of the greatest ideas of GSM.
Apple Watch eSIM lockdown is showing again that not having SIMs will significantly hurt customers again.
In Australia, all three GSM carriers had the iPhone and could be unlocked just by calling up (now they come unlocked out of the box, even when purchased on contract).
Having a physical SIM card here never made a difference to carrier exclusives because that's a business deal, not a technical constraint. The US telecommunications market is a bit of an anomaly compared to most other countries.
Also worth nothing that the EU is fairly regulation heavy on the carriers, which has worked out mostly well, requiring phones to be unlocked/banning locked phones, requiring things like everyone use the same standards, easy/cheap/free roaming between countries, etc. If eSIMs became a thing and carriers started locked them and making them exile, it would be easy to envision the EU mandating consumers able to take a phone between carriers.
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/06/att-will-unlock-off-con...
I might be remembering wrong, but I think the original iPhone has some sort of technical constraints working on T-Mobile's network even if it was unlocked.
When Verizon only offered subsidized plans I don't even think it would be in Verizon's best interest to refuse to enroll outside phones, the person would be paying the subsidized price no matter what.
CDMA is being phased out in the US and (IIRC) 4G is a GSM technology, I don't believe my phone even supports CDMA?? AT&T and T-Mobile have always been GSM only and AT&T used to carrier lock their phones.
Either way, the carrier lock isn't an issue of phone technology, carriers can always lock out "unapproved" devices at their level.
When they were still primarily a CDMA carrier. The only reason they changed is because they adopted 4G LTE (which is in the GSM/3GPP family) which uses SIM cards. Proving the point.
To this day there are still people calling into verizon to get certain import models whitelisted.
A thread for better context: https://www.reddit.com/r/verizon/comments/5uvrko/how_to_use_...
From TFA:
>The technology replaces the usual card with a chip that uses software to associate you with a given service provider. On top of freeing up room inside devices (crucial for wearables like the Apple Watch or Gear S3), it makes it much easier to switch carriers -- you could sign up for a new network without even talking to another human being. And it's that last part that reportedly has the companies scared.
I would imagine that they (Apple) simply had no appetite for dealing with the user experience corner cases of your Watch having a completely separate identity.
There is precedent for this being relaxed over time and in future revisions of the Watch. For example, Visual Voicemail used to be a requirement for iPhone carriers. Today, no such requirements exist.
If they had implemented the watch with a physical SIM (using, say, pair SIMs which have existed since the 90's), I could crack it open and put in whatever SIM card I wanted.
I envision an eSIM iPhone having a beautiful carrier selection portal with gorgeous, high-resolution carrier logos... and only Apple partner carriers, with specific iPhone-tailored plans. Goodbye my discount MVNO.
> Incoming calls, messages etc. can be taken only by one of the mobile terminals, in which SIM-card is in so-called “active” state. Accordingly, SIM-card in another mobile terminal is passive and any outgoing operations can be made from this device.
> To transfer basic SIM-card into active state it is necessary to dial 1071#. combination on mobile device keyboard. In this case extra SIM-card automatically transfers into passive mode. To transfer extra SIM-card into active state it is necessary to dial 1072#. combination on mobile device keyboard. In this case basic SIM-card automatically transfers into passive mode.
Yeah, I can understand why Apple didn't go down this path.
I forgot to reply to this part. Visual Voicemail was never a requirement if I just put my own SIM card in. The SIM card was always a run-around any stupid policies. Only with eSIM now that backdoor is closed.
Can you elaborate on this, whats the connection between visual vm and the SIM?
An eSIM might need that now I can only pick carriers with explicit support for my particular phone.
In the case of a phone on a contract, you're already locked into a contract. Why lock the phone if the customer is already required to pay either way. In fact, isn't it better for the operator if the customer uses their phone on another network, that way they get the monthly payments without even having to provide a service in return.
It doesn't make sense if they just want to lock just me, but it does make a lot of sense if they want to lock others.
Say I have a phone that I plan to replace with a fancier one when my """upgrade""" is due. I can pass the old phone on to my little brother or little cousin or sell it on eBay. If it's unlocked, the new owner of the old phone could pop their SIM in and use it with any carrier they like. If it's locked, then they have to also use the same network that the old phone was on, which means they also have to, in general, sign up for it. If I'm not there to help them unlocking it before I pass it on, then the new owner will have a very hard time, at least in my experience, to ask the carrier to unlock it.
If I decide that's too much hassle to deal with and don't want to call them to wait for days for them to push the unlock update for me, I can keep the phone in my drawer. In that case, there is one less used phone in the supply so that carrier can sell more new phones.
Either I pass on or I don't, locking the phone is a win for the carrier. Don't know how it is now (I haven't purchased a used phone for a while), but the carriers I dealt with often asked for the account numbers and waiting and shit to """verify""" the original owner and make it as hard, slow, and painful as possible to unlock a secondhand phone.
I know about the MVNOs compatibility and stuff, but let's be honest, most people will use a carrier-branded phone with that exact branded carrier.
> In fact, isn't it better for the operator if the customer uses their phone on another network, that way they get the monthly payments without even having to provide a service in return.
I suspect the huge chunk of the cost to the carrier is a fixed investment. The person they paid to answer the support line gets the payment regardless whether they sit there playing solitaire or helping you. It doesn't matter that much to them that you actually use their tower or not. The service they provide to you monthly doesn't cost them nothing more.
The fact isn't that they are saving cost if they can get away with not providing service to a phone that is paid off. The fact is that if they can get my teenage cousin on their network, it is a huge huge win for them because he/she will likely pump them with $50/month payment for the next 10 years. Just because one day, I decided that it was nice of me to """give""" my used phone to them.
Carriers in my country don't sell locked phones anymore for the reasons mentioned earlier. The last time I bought a locked phone on contract was the iPhone 3G. Even back then selling a locked phone on contract was extremely rare and IIRC only the iPhone was sold like that back then.
After a year, it just unlocked without me asking for it, I didn't need to do anything except plug it into iTunes, which I used to do anyway. That probably isn't even needed anymore as you don't have to sync with iTunes for carrier updates since forever.
> The person they paid to answer the support line gets the payment regardless whether they sit there playing solitaire or helping you.
If fewer people actually use that carrier, they need fewer support people.
>If fewer people actually use that carrier, they need fewer support people.
Has any CEO of any carrier or company ever said: "Oh geez, I wish I had fewer subscribers so I can cut the cost of operating this company"?
Say I hire a person that is capable of supporting 1000 customers a month. I pay the person $4k per month. By cutting that person I save $4k per month. If I actually get 1000 customers more and each customer pays me $50 per month, I get $50k. $4k per month for that support person is peanuts to the amount of revenue I get. In most cases, cutting cost is the solution only when I know I can't possibly expand.
> Has any CEO of any carrier or company ever said: "Oh geez, I wish I had fewer subscribers so I can cut the cost of operating this company"?
But the point is that they do not have fewer subscribers, they have the same amount of paying subscribers, they just have to provide fewer services to those subscribers.
To re-use your example: if you get 1000 customers more but none of them ever calls the helldesk, then you get paid for those 1000 customers, but you don't have the costs associated with those 1000 customers. That's a win/win for the phone company.
Your point is that it's pointless to lock it if you have to unlock it without the customer asking. That makes sense if you have to do it automatically. The carriers in the US don't have to. They have to only if the paying customer asked first, and after the contract expires, and with a whole bunch of other conditions met.
>But the point is that they do not have fewer subscribers, they have the same amount of paying subscribers, they just have to provide fewer services to those subscribers.
You are seeing it in an extremely short term.
Let's say I pass on my 2-year contract phone originally on AT&T to my cousin who wishes to use it on Tmobile at the point of 1 year and 5 months. Your argument was that since I already had to pay for 2 years, AT&T will save the troubles of serving and supporting my cousin for 7 months if he actually brings it on on TMobile. Your genius plan of being AT&T and not serving my cousin for 7 months only works if you know for sure after that 7 months of free service ends, he will switch anyway. Any carrier will happily provide services if that means they have a legitimate chance of having a subscriber on board. Who cares about giving a potential 10-year subscriber a 7-month head start (especially when that cost is already accounted for)?
>That's a win/win for the phone company.
Nobody ever says having a customer to switch to another network is a win for them.
Whoever taught you that pro-capitalism ideals in high school was just as delusional as the person who taught me the pro-socialism ideals in high school -- if not more. At least I believe most people who recite all the pro-socialism ideals in socialist countries are well aware that they are bullshit but just doing it for the money and safety.
The carriers should be forced to absorb the consequences of not requiring payment upfront rather than forcing the rest of us to suffer from this absurd locking strategy. The entire situation was manufactured by them. If they required payment upfront, then this would be the credit card companies’ problem. They are much better equipped to deal with such things than carriers anyway.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/17003690/verizon-phones-l...
The idea with eSIM is that instead of having to wait 5 days for the new physical SIM to arrive in the mail (or instead of having to drive to a retail shop to buy one), you can simply buy online and have the eSIM instantly delivered to your phone, right in the moment.
The effect is that it would, if implemented as intended, further lower the barrier to switching carriers (no delay for mail or no drive to retail store).
If you switch carriers you don't need to visit a store for a new physical SIM, your SIM is "virtually" switched to the new network seamlessly and instantly. Your new network would just blast some data to your phone and you're connected.
If you buy a new phone and your new phone uses nano SIM and your old phone has a bigger micro SIM, you don't have to visit the store for a new SIM, just register your new phone online with a mouse click.
(Of course even more convenient would be if carriers stopped the non-sense and offered reasonably priced roaming world wide)
One big issue on the table is carrier selection freedom once you have chosen your initial operator. Big Telcos want to have the last word when it comes to letting you go if you decide to, and were trying to bake certain clauses into the agreement that would enable them to "oblige" the end user to pay a penalty for premature contract breaking.
Basically, they want to replicate the existing regular sim-lock model with the eSIM, but nothing else regarding free number portability would change.
Regardless of the eSIM, over the past 10 years carriers have been forced by their governments to unlock phones for free in many countries but have always ended up finding loopholes to make this really hard.
Only in Spain which has a population around 45M, we've gone from over 500,000 to just below 1M number portability changes per month so with so much at stake, I really doubt the eSIM is going to make things any better for the end customer.
Edit: formatting.