Long-term carrier lock-in could soon be a thing of the past in America after the FCC proposed requiring telcos to unlock cellphones from their networks 60 days after activation.

FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel put out that proposal on Thursday, saying it would encourage competition between carriers. If subscribers could simply walk off to another telco with their handsets after two months of use, networks would have to do a lot more competing, the FCC reasons.

“When you buy a phone, you should have the freedom to decide when to change service to the carrier you want and not have the device you own stuck by practices that prevent you from making that choice,” Rosenworcel said.

Carrier-locked devices contain software mechanisms that prevent them from being used on other providers’ networks. The practice has long been criticized for being anti-consumer.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • RedEye FlightControl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Strykker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      In Canada even if you lease to own a phone it’s not carrier locked anymore, you have to pay the remaining balance if you leave, or possibly can return the phone (but that’s just throwing your money away)

    • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Sprint would have failed without the merger and we would have had three carriers anyway so it doesn’t matter whether they merged or not and in fact it’s probably better that they did because it caused T-Mobile’s service to improve dramatically since then. I knew friends who had T-Mobile back in 2012 and it was a joke. I had T-Mobile in 2016 and it was only okay.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I wonder what the percentage is these days. Almost everyone I know bought their phone outright.

      • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        And I’m on the opposite side of that. Lol everyone I know just does the pay as you go 0% Apr option usually.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • fishos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        So then you buy the unlocked version, just like the person said. This applies more to people leasing it who are locked in, like they said. Do you not have any reading comprehension?

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yep. Or quasi installments. They usually make it where your paying like $20 a month on the phone for two years, but they’re deducting $20 a month off your monthly service at the same time. That way if you try to break contract, you have to pay for the rest of your phone that you still owe.

          • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yep. “Free phone” via bill credits for 2 years but they’ll proudly proclaim they don’t do contracts and there’s no ETFs. Technically true, but realistically no difference.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve had a couple. The issue is that you don’t save any money on their service if you have your own. So it’s basically “you can pay us $70 a month and buy your phone yourself, or you can pay us $70 a month and have this phone under contract for two years that we’ll give you.”

        • Tygr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Never heard of an MVNO huh? I bought my phones outright and have enjoyed having 4 lines for $105/mo.

            • Tygr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Strangely, if I see internet deprioritized on 5G (which is rare), I switch my settings to 4G and it’s blazing fast. So I’ve never had a problem.

      • Thetimefarm@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • kbotc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m getting my phone on a loan at 0%. If I want to switch carriers, then I’ll pay off the rest of the cost of my phone and they unlock it for me, but considering we’ve been running rather insane inflation over the last few years, I’m glad I made AT&T pick up that tab. I see no point in buying outright as I’m not changing carriers multiple times in a year.

          • locuester@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            You should really check out an MVNO if you can afford to pay off your phone. You’ll save a LOT. I personally use Helium Mobile (uses Tmo and consumer decentralized network) but there are MVNOs that use AT&T if you prefer their coverage.

            The major carriers overcharge for service since they lock people in with 0% financing.

            • kbotc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              My work pays me a stipend if I stay on one of the big three since they have SLAs with them, so it’s hard to beat the price. $20 for 50 GB 5G is my out of pocket because I wanted to put my AppleWatch on the plan.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sprint was genuinely struggling.

        They were on the verge of bankruptcy, really the 2 options were

        1. Let T-Mobile (a distant third competitor to the big 2) buy them

        2. 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