Carriers fight plan to require unlocking of phones 60 days after activation.

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.

The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs. T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival’s network. 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.”

  • Otakulad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 minutes ago

    If a business wants it, then it isn’t good for the consumer.

    Also, the only time a business should be talking to Congress is to explain why they did something, not for new laws. Last time I checked, Congress was supposed to serve the people, not businesses, but I know that has t been true for a long time.

  • Tarogar@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    3 hours ago

    “prison warden advocates for locking everyone up for their own safety”

    The network providers know full well that the market is saturated and that they have to make a better offer if they want to gain market share. The only thing device lock in does is improve their bottom line since they can force you into a shitty contract for longer. It has NO benefit for the consumer whatsoever.

  • Fester@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 hours ago

    “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.”

    I can’t stress this enough: It’s almost always cheaper to pay full price for a phone, plus a pay-over-time fee through your credit card if needed, and use a prepaid MVNO instead of a major carrier.

    So what they really mean is “we risk losing profits on our inflated rates if we can’t trap customers in our overpriced plans and play games with their bills.”

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 minutes ago

      Here in the UK, it generally used to be 1 year, then moved to 18 month, then two year “contracts” (that are essentially paying for the phone). They will of course (if you don’t realise) continue to charge you the increased price after you’ve paid for your phone…

      Recently I was looking at upgrading, almost clicked confirm on a price that seemed suspicious. Until I saw “48 month contract”

      Nope. Bought the phone outright, interest free credit over 1 year (I’m done with that in 3 more months). A few months later, swapped to one of the “virtual” networks we have here. £8 per month (first 3 £3), unlimited/unlimited/30GB data (I don’t need much), plus roaming to Europe (a frequent destination of mine) included.

      100% here it works out a LOT cheaper not to buy through the provider. I have no doubt it’s the same pretty much everywhere too.

    • logicbomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Honestly, it is such an obvious lie, too. Can companies really just lie in their filings to the FTC?

  • oxjox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    How about the government subsidizes the cost of the phone for needy customers rather than the reseller.

    Are there any other industries where a product or service is subsidized by the reseller? What if, like dental insurance, there were a cell phone insurance company.

    I mean, locking phones is stupid to begin with but if it’s for a small segment of people who want $0 / cheap AF phones, maybe there’s other options. I’m on ATT’s site and see a Moto Razr with a retail price of $1k and a payment plan of $6/month for 36 months ($216). The Ts & Cs to get there are lengthy and questionable. The whole industry needs more regulation for the protection of consumers - especially given how critical having a cell phone is in the 21st century.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      How about the telecoms STFU and let people use loans/credit cards if they need them. Using a phone plan to buy a phone costs dramatically more than just financing one through normal means and US phone plans are insanely expensive. I’m in Spain right now, my phone plan is 5€/mo and it has plenty of data.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    If you believe that mobile phone pricing is equal to the price that you get at the operator’s store, then by all means remove the network lock. But it isn’t and you should know that.

    Overall, US operator’s have overpriced their services. That is the issue that should have your focus.