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: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Tuesday October 29 2024, @11:26AM (2 children)
One can argue that locking handsets (indirectly) provides a social service.
People who have little means, and are unable to get a loan other than by using loan sharks or other forms of usuary, can get one of the near-essentials of modern life: a (smart)phone because they commit to paying over the odds for a contract that includes a handset. It is a form of enabler.
That said, what it is doing is covering up and exploiting the problems that some people have with managing their finances. My family, going back several generations, did not have much money - but it was drummed into me that you didn't take out loans or buy on credit or hire purchase because you ended up paying more. You did without and saved up, until you could buy what you needed/wanted. Not everyone behaves in this manner, and loans/credit/HP is a way of life for some.
When people cannot manage their finances, they are open to being exploited. When people are poor, they are open to being exploited via the 'Sam Vimes Boots [wikipedia.org]' effect*. The locking of the handset is a way of the phone service provider gaining some security on the 'loan' of the cost of the handset to the customer, which is repaid, as people point out, at very high effective interest rates.
For some people, making cheap micro-loans available to buy handsets would be sensible. For others, who either cannot, or will not, manage their finances, there is little that can be done - locked handsets might be the only way they can reasonably get phone service. How do you provide a near-essential service to people with the worst problems?
*Another example, from India, is that some people cannot afford to buy a whole box of washing powder to clean their clothes (and might not have or even own any) space to store it). As a result, they buy single wash sachets at a large mark-up in price per kilo compared to buying in the 'bulk' of a whole box. They end up paying more to wash their clothes than richer people.
(Score: 4, Touché) by VLM on Tuesday October 29 2024, @12:20PM
The actually poor people buy the $50 android phone. The folks buying the $1000 phone at the equivalent of loan shark interest rates are relatively wealthier.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29 2024, @11:25PM
People who can't get a loan can't get normal monthly cell phone service [livewell.com] either. Did you think that the big telecoms don't do credit checks or something?
Those folks need to use pre-paid plans, usually from MVNOs and wouldn't be on any contract, let alone one that gives them an expensive smart phone to pay off over time.
Not sure where you are, but in the US, you're way off. Elsewhere? I have no idea.