is that some american problem i'm too euro to understand? we got rid of this anticompetitive shit in early 10s
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
362 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
59174 readers
1811 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, the less civilized parts of world still do carrier locking to act as an impediment to switching carriers without also giving up your phone or paying a ransom fee.
As an American, can I have some of that freedom?
You can, just buy the phone unlocked online and then get download an eSIM from a carrier. Bear in mind when buying the phone unlocked you’ll need to pay the full phone price up front and won’t be able to finance it through your phone plan like most Americans
load more comments
(2 replies)
In the US, almost no one buys their phones outright. They "lease to own". Anyone whe does buy their phone outright can just buy the unlocked ones.
So I'm not sure what this rule would actually change. You're already not Carrier locked if you bought your phone. You're only Carrier locked if you lease it.
The big fuck up was eliminating competition by allowing t mobile to buy sprint. Too many pieces of shit were in charge 2016 to 2020.
I know lots of Americans who buy their phones without those stupid contracts. It's not uncommon at all. I have never have a phone on a contract.
In your circle maybe, I'd love the statistics on this though because I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority are paying for their phones on installment through their carriers.
I'm the only person I know who buys their phones unlocked. I think a lot of people rely on the store where they buy the phone to set it up and get all their stuff transfered over. Just getting a new phone in the mail is a recipe for disaster for like a solid 60% of the US population.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
The merger is still something that I'm 50/50 on because it made T-Mobile's service so much more reliable, and iirc Sprint was genuinely struggling.
It still sucks that Boost isn't going anywhere
Sprint was genuinely struggling.
They were on the verge of bankruptcy, really the 2 options were
-
Let T-Mobile (a distant third competitor to the big 2) buy them
-
Let sprint die, the big 2 buy large chucks of sprint anyways for pennies on the dollar post-bankruptcy and make their distance from T-Mobile even bigger.
If you need another reason, AT&T was very against the deal, so you KNOW what they think is bad is probably actually good for consumers
I remember during COVID, trying to reduce my bills. Called my mobile operator. For £200 fee I could buy out early, and pay £15 per month. Or I could continue paying something ridiculous like £60 per month.
Absolute no-brainer, and I would never get a contract phone again.
Not always true, I bought a smart talk phone for my kid and the phone was paid in full at the time of purchase. It's still carrier locked 5 years later because they say "it wasn't in service for x amount of time and therefore isn't eligible". I even reported this to the FCC, opened a case, and they did fuckall and closed the report.
I wonder what the percentage is these days. Almost everyone I know bought their phone outright.
I don't really see why people are against it, personally I never buy locked devices but they are usually a chunk cheaper and there is always an option for a locked device.
If telecoms were making certain phones exclusively locked (as in not selling unlocked phones) it would be a problem. But rn it seems that it is an easy way to save money if you like a carrier.
okay but you end up paying more - if it was just normal data plan and cost of phone it would be even, but there's also something paid to middleman that provides something that is effectively credit and extortion services like simlock and some legal thingies, it might have smaller downpayment but it's not this, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
this is on top of various security and privacy implications of using a phone which you can't legally reflash
In Denmark you get two options, you can buy an unlocked phone with cash. Or purchase a subscription with it, and the provider gives you some incentive for it. The subscription is locked for 6 months which is the max by law.
If I buy a phone with the subscription, the discount means you would usually pay 80% of the phones value.
That locks you to a subscription for 6 months that is usually more expensive than the other offers out there, but the difference doesn't make up for the reduced price of the phone over the 6 month period.
So you are actually saving money, as long as you remember to switch to a cheaper subscription after the 6 months pass. The telecom of course hopes you don't, and that's their incentive for taking a hit on profit in the short term. It buys them marketshare.
Boots theory doesn't really apply because it is the exact same phone/hardware. Plus most people don't really care about reflashing their phone.
As for the privacy stuff I don't really know much about it in the context of locked phones so I'll take your word for it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
OK, now ban bootloader locking next.
Don't Sammy do and apple do it... Not even carriers?
Pretty sure Samsung does it to appease carriers since they sell unlocked snapdragon variants elsewhere
If you buy a phone from Verizon its perma locked for no reason
For quite a long time now, it's been the case that if your vendor makes this hard as is, a carrier on top of that will make it considerably worse. As an example, take a look at older Samsung devices, that all needed special-tailored roms for each carrier variant
load more comments
(2 replies)
"Verizon agrees that the FCC should consider the merits and trade-offs of handset unlocking requirements," Verizon spokesperson Rich Young told The Register, though that support is conditional.
Screw verizon with an acid covered cactus. What possible "merits" are there to locking a device down for anyone but the companies selling the phones? Rich Young can go kick rocks.
I will not buy a phone through a carrier, I will not buy a phone with a locked bootloader. Period.
I am done with anticonsumer bullshit.
How do you feel about removable batteries?
With removable batteries is that there is actually a legitimate reason for getting rid of them, in that it's much harder to waterproof a device with a removable battery.
I'd still like to see the option available, but I can at least understand why it's not from a practical standpoint. The only reason carrier locks exist is to increase the cost of change for the end user, making them less likely to switch providers.
I can see two sides to this:
Removable batteries are great, if you want longevity for a phone, and don't mind sacrificing water resistance.
On the other side of the coin:
Removable batteries have more potential to lower water resistance ratings.
I think more manufacturers should give the choice of a model with a removable battery.
With Chevron overturned, you are absolutely not done with it. It will get much worse.
Don’t worry. With SCOTUS overturning Chevron this won’t stick. /s (in case it’s not obvious)
We'll see how this fares in the face of Chevron being rescinded. Will they even recognize FCC authority to do this?
Pretty sure all new rules like this must be made my congress now...
Hoo boy we are fucked.
The FCC can do anything within the law as a condition of using radio wavelengths.
Administrative law is complicated by them having to follow their own procedures and the courts deciding to completely ignore changes to those procedures or make new ones up out of whole cloth.
The autonomy is a strength in some ways compared to parliamentary democracy and ministers, but the courts have really fucked around with it.
If we're talking "free" devices with some commitment, I'm OK with some limitation until the terms are met.
The second you charge a dollar for it, it should be unconditionally illegal to have it carrier locked the day they walk out of the store. 60 days isn't good enough.
Fat chance.
That's the spirit
If there is money to be lost in it, dont bet on it getting lit
This explains why I got a text from my carrier saying all phones now come unlocked. Guess they're preparing ahead of time. Mine was already unlocked, but still.
Fuck telecos... Parasites
Yeah who are they to charge for access to all those naturally-occuring cell phone towers?
load more comments
(1 replies)
If I recall correctly, Canada got rid of carrier lock-in several years ago
Just stop buying phones from carriers and you never have to worry about this. If you like a phone, buy it unlocked straight from the manufacturer and do whatever you want with it. Most offer payment plans, and if not you can always use klarna or a credit card with no interest to make payments on it.
As soon as T-Mobile's check clears, the conservative SCOTUS will make sure all phones remain locked for eternity. Praise Jesus!
With recent changes to bribery laws by the supreme court, they must change the law before getting paid.
I don't really have a problem with this -- I think that it's rarely in a consumer's interest to choose a locked phone. Buying a locked phone basically means that you're getting a loan to pay for hardware that you pay back with a higher service price. But I'd point out that:
-
You can get unlocked phones and service now. I do. There are some privacy benefits to doing so -- my cell provider doesn't know who I am (though they could maybe infer it from usage patterns of their network and statistical analysis). It's not a lack of unlocked service that's at issue. To do this, Congress is basically arguing that the American consumer is just making a bad decision to purchase a plan-combined-with-a-locked-phone and forcing them not to do so.
-
Consumers will pay more for cell phones up front. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- it maybe makes the carrier market more competitive to not have a large portion of consumers locked to one provider. But there are also some benefits to having the carrier selecting cell phones that they offer in that the provider is probably in a better position to evaluate what phone manufacturers have on offer in terms of things like failure rates than do consumers.
How about no lock in from the get go?
This would be of limited use for many people. Carriers lock people in by selling lots of phones that are missing frequency bands and cannot be used on their competitor's networks. For instance, many of TMO's phones cannot be used on AT&T and Verizon's networks. My Oneplus 9Pro is a great phone, but if I wanted to switch to Spectrum (on Verizon's network) or AT&T I would be forced to buy a new phone.
Some phones like the Iphone and Pixels are compatible with every U.S. network, but plenty of others are not.
Didnt even know carrier locking is still a thing. I think thats long illegal here in the EU
I had no idea this was even still a thing I don't understand how it's legal
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›