SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 4, Touché) by deimtee on Tuesday October 29, @08:14AM (1 child)
Most likely option is they will rewrite their contracts as Lease-to-Own. You sign a contract to "lease" the phone for 12/24/36 months at so much per month, separate payment for service. You don't own the phone, and it remains locked to their network until the "lease" is up, at which point they "gift" you the phone.
One job constant is that good employers have low turnover, so opportunities to join good employers are relatively rare.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29, @05:49PM
The way it works right now, at least with Verizon, is that they charge you separately for the phone and the service. You are welcome to pay off the phone anytime you want and then, without penalty, move to another provider.
I never do that. Rather, I purchase an unlocked phone and add it to my service. No muss, no fuss, no need to be beholden to anyone.
tl;dr: Don't buy phones from telecom vendors and don't buy "locked" phones.