"Verizon was previously required to unlock phones automatically after 60 days due to restrictions imposed on its spectrum licenses and merger conditions that helped Verizon obtain approval of its purchase of TracFone. But an update applied today to the TracFone unlocking policy said new phones will be locked for at least a year and that each customer will have to request an unlock instead of getting it automatically."
What irks me about this is that consumers are already financially on the hook in terms of subscription periods and cancellation policies and conditional deals etc. The only legitimate reason to "lock" the phone hardware is to ensure the person doesn't pay with a stolen credit card and vanish... which doesn't take a whole dang year!
The long locking-period is just a way to impose a stealthy and anti-competitive switching-cost onto consumers, denying them the right to use the things they own.
It's also an example of how just because one doesn't care about politics... doesn't mean it won't "care" about you.
> While the Biden-era FCC’s leadership criticized yearlong locking periods and proposed a 60-day unlocking requirement for all carriers, the Trump FCC appears likely to write a new industry-wide standard that would be welcomed by large mobile carriers.
Can a carrier ever surreptitiously lock an unlocked phone, or is it only on phones financed or purchased through the carrier? For example, if I bought an unlocked phone and attached it to my Verizon plan, could Verizon lock it?
Pocket-sized devices with more computing power than we could have dreamed of as children, and society has somehow allowed it to become a completely miserable experience.
I'm part of the problem. But I won't be (as much) after I get a used one and put Graphene OS on it.
Having lived in a lot of countries over the past couple of decades, I can say this is absolutely something Americans do completely wrong. Just buy your phone at full price. The "free" phones cost significantly more than a full price phone.
I would find it so deeply enjoyable to see the homes of Verizon management equipped with paddlocks on their bathroom doors, refrigerators, garages, etc.
It would be my pleasure to announce to them that the terms of service dictate that the padlocks would never be removed, but the new subscription fees would be announced shortly.
It would be delicious to see such a delightful revenge sink deep into their lives.
Until such time, enjoy our esteem, you scoundrels!
Buy your own phone like everyone’s saying, but also use an MVNO instead of setting money on fire paying the major carriers. The better MVNOs even have multiple carriers and allow you to switch at any time.
Interesting coincidence. I just ordered a new Tracfone for 50 bucks. I had assumed the unlock policy was 1 year. The same phone, unlocked, was much more expensive. Strategically, I figured that after being a Tracfone customer for well over a decade, I probably wouldn't get around to switching for yet another year, so I'm OK.
Well, I don't know if people ever look at old threads, but I had an inspiration, and decided to unlock my old phone before switching to the new one. Tracfone made it utterly painless. Now I have an unlocked phone should I ever travel to a faraway place and need to get a local SIM card.
> AT&T’s policy allows unlocking of phones on postpaid plans after 60 days if the device has been paid in full, or after six months for phones on prepaid plans. T-Mobile’s policy allows unlocking of phones on postpaid plans after 40 days if the device has been paid in full, or after 365 days for phones on prepaid plans.
If the phone is paid in full, what is the justification for not unlocking it?
I still remember at the beginning of the mobile era, when there were tons of small "repair shops" that would unlock phones for a small fee. They are likely still around.
I'm glad I stumbled across this: life circumstances have allowed me go abroad for a trip the past two years. One thing I had forgotten about since the last trip were some of my group being unable to get one of the cheap prepaid data eSIMs because their phone was still locked to the carrier. I've been tempted to replace my aging iPhone SE 2022 (^1) with a trade-in deal and get a new phone, but it never occurred to me that would mean being forced to use AT&T's $10/day (capped at $100 in one billing cycle) "International Day Pass" during future trips until it had been paid off for long enough.
(^1) I wish I wasn't so tempted after ~4 years, but the battery health has dropped to 75% and the performance has suffered dramatically. A new battery is on the table I suppose, but I am split between just putting that money towards a new phone.
Why is anyone even tolerating a carrier selling them a phone locked for a single day (unless it is free with plan or something in which case there's nothing wrong)?
If you're using an iPhone, buy it from the Apple Store, full stop. No reason not to. If you need financing they have that (ACMI). They also sell older models refurb (like new condition) to save even more.
For a cheap Android (Revvl 60 or whatever), they'll just give you another cheap one next time you switch carriers, right? They are basically e-waste after a year or two and don't get updates.
And basically the only flagship Android widely sold in America is Samsung which is also sold DTC, albeit only online, and sometimes has promos for direct purchase? Maybe not as much financing tho. The other OEMs either don't sell in the US, or have some DTC presence too (ex. OnePlus).
If a carrier cannot trust you (especially due to bad credit history), they can't sell you the phone you want if you don't pay outright, and many people aren't able to do that. SIM locks are basically "repossessions but for phones." Nobody argues in good faith that banks shouldn't be allowed to evict you if you don't pay your mortgage, and that's effectively what a "no SIM locks" policy does for phones.
To make things even worse, it's far too easy for fraudsters to buy a phone using a stolen identity, never pay a single installment, and instantly sell it on the second-hand market. For SIM-locked phones, the carrier can brick the phone until it is fully paid of, so that kind of fraud is not possible.
Sim locks do enable some abuse, particularly around roaming fees, as you're not allowed to swap your SIM when leaving the country. However, They're a blunt tool unsuited to the 21st century internet-enabled smartphones. One could imagine a mechanism where the carrier is still allowed to brick the phone in case of fraud, but there's no actual SIM lock.
Slightly off-topic but if you want to buy Pixels for GrapheneOS or similar: never buy the Verizon version. They do not allow bootloader unlock even after the modem is unlocked.
26 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 39.8 ms ] threadmerger conditions.
The long locking-period is just a way to impose a stealthy and anti-competitive switching-cost onto consumers, denying them the right to use the things they own.
It's also an example of how just because one doesn't care about politics... doesn't mean it won't "care" about you.
> While the Biden-era FCC’s leadership criticized yearlong locking periods and proposed a 60-day unlocking requirement for all carriers, the Trump FCC appears likely to write a new industry-wide standard that would be welcomed by large mobile carriers.
I'm part of the problem. But I won't be (as much) after I get a used one and put Graphene OS on it.
It would be my pleasure to announce to them that the terms of service dictate that the padlocks would never be removed, but the new subscription fees would be announced shortly.
It would be delicious to see such a delightful revenge sink deep into their lives.
Until such time, enjoy our esteem, you scoundrels!
If the phone is paid in full, what is the justification for not unlocking it?
(^1) I wish I wasn't so tempted after ~4 years, but the battery health has dropped to 75% and the performance has suffered dramatically. A new battery is on the table I suppose, but I am split between just putting that money towards a new phone.
If you're using an iPhone, buy it from the Apple Store, full stop. No reason not to. If you need financing they have that (ACMI). They also sell older models refurb (like new condition) to save even more.
For a cheap Android (Revvl 60 or whatever), they'll just give you another cheap one next time you switch carriers, right? They are basically e-waste after a year or two and don't get updates.
And basically the only flagship Android widely sold in America is Samsung which is also sold DTC, albeit only online, and sometimes has promos for direct purchase? Maybe not as much financing tho. The other OEMs either don't sell in the US, or have some DTC presence too (ex. OnePlus).
If a carrier cannot trust you (especially due to bad credit history), they can't sell you the phone you want if you don't pay outright, and many people aren't able to do that. SIM locks are basically "repossessions but for phones." Nobody argues in good faith that banks shouldn't be allowed to evict you if you don't pay your mortgage, and that's effectively what a "no SIM locks" policy does for phones.
To make things even worse, it's far too easy for fraudsters to buy a phone using a stolen identity, never pay a single installment, and instantly sell it on the second-hand market. For SIM-locked phones, the carrier can brick the phone until it is fully paid of, so that kind of fraud is not possible.
Sim locks do enable some abuse, particularly around roaming fees, as you're not allowed to swap your SIM when leaving the country. However, They're a blunt tool unsuited to the 21st century internet-enabled smartphones. One could imagine a mechanism where the carrier is still allowed to brick the phone in case of fraud, but there's no actual SIM lock.