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.
[...] 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."
[...] T-Mobile and other carriers are responding to a call for public comments that began after the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in a 5–0 vote. The FCC is proposing "to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud."
[...] T-Mobile's policy says the carrier will only unlock mobile devices on prepaid plans if "at least 365 days... have passed since the device was activated on the T-Mobile network."
"You bought your phone, you should be able to take it to any provider you want," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said when the FCC proposed the rule. "Some providers already operate this way. Others do not. In fact, some have recently increased the time their customers must wait until they can unlock their device by as much as 100 percent."
[...] AT&T enables unlocking of paid-off phones after 60 days for postpaid users and after six months for prepaid users. AT&T lodged similar complaints as T-Mobile [...] In an October 2 filing, Verizon said it supports "a uniform approach to handset unlocking that allows all wireless providers to lock wireless handsets for a reasonable period of time to limit fraud and to enable device subsidies, followed by automatic unlocking absent evidence of fraud."
The public interest groups also note that unlocked handsets "facilitate a robust secondary market for used devices, providing consumers with more affordable options," the NPRM said.
[...] The Supreme Court recently overturned the 40-year-old Chevron precedent that gave agencies like the FCC judicial deference when interpreting ambiguous laws. The end of Chevron makes it harder for agencies to issue regulations without explicit authorization from Congress. This is a potential problem for the FCC in its fight to revive net neutrality rules, which are currently blocked by a court order pending the outcome of litigation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday October 29, @06:56AM (3 children)
if you have the attention span of a goldfish and you just look at the initial purchase price.
If you look at what end up paying at the end of the carrier contract, suddenly your handset looks pretty damn expensive.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Tuesday October 29, @08:19AM (1 child)
I've done some calculations and noticed that if you buy an open-line handset which is not locked to any mobile provider and add up the monthly bills for a no-device phone plan over two years it indeed comes up much cheaper. In my country it seems that the mobile providers effectively charge you an interest rate that amounts to something like 15% to 20% for the two-year subscription plan. They will give you a generous plan so it looks like you're getting a lot but for a monthly fee that is so high that most of it is free money for them given how you're probably not going to be able to use that much. Here there's a plan for a Samsung Galaxy Fold Z 6 (retail, open line price of US$1800 equivalent), and you pay $60 a month for the phone for two years. So far so good. But you also have to also get a $30/month plan. However, you'll never be able to use all the call minutes and data bandwidth the contract gives you within the month so most of that $30 is effectively interest payment. Instead I opted for a $15/month plan that is sufficient for my needs and bought the phone on the open market on an installment plan with my credit card. The banks would never get away with charging such usurious interest rates.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday October 29, @02:58PM
The real gotcha is the "penalties" for wanting to end the service contract early. Rather than just offering to let you buy out the phone for the remaining balance or allow you to move the phone to a different plan and keep paying the contracted monthly amount on the phone, they want a penalty amount that amounts to the total cost of the phone as if no payments had ever been made.
They tie it up like that so they don't lose their customers when someone comes along offering a better deal on the service.
(Score: 2) by Sourcery42 on Tuesday October 29, @06:01PM
Exactly. I can't speak for T-Mo, but AT&T is completely full of shit.
I'm an AT&T customer because I get a pretty steep discount, otherwise I'd probably use some MVNO. I always buy my phones unlocked because AT&T quit subsidizing them about a decade ago. The first smartphone I got, I paid $100 out of pocket with a 2-year contract. I checked my upgrade options just now. For example, I could have a Galaxy S24 Ultra for $1300 paid over 3 years, or an iphone 16 pro max for $1200 over 3 years. I looked up the purchase prices for those phones on Samsung and Apple's websites. Surprise! The Samsung is $1300 and the Apple is $1200. There is no subsidy. You just get a locked down device with some added carrier bloatware on it and a payment plan for the full purchase price tacked onto your monthly bill.
The only argument they could possibly make is they're saving me the time value of money not paying that whole ridiculous price up front, but I'm gonna go with they're just full of shit.