There was already a battle between AT&T and people who dared connect phones they actually owned to the phone network, and it ended well for the general public and badly for AT&T. The cell network should not get to determine what people attach to it; it should just pass data back and forth.
(In an ideal world, the cell network would have absolutely nothing to do with phone numbers, either; it would just pass data, and phonecalls would always happen over encrypted channels to your actual phone-number provider.)
> the concept of SIM cards is a net win for everyone, in my opinion
Public/private key crypto doesn't require a card that can also do other secret operations. And it doesn't require a smartcard either.
I absolutely agree.
> And it doesn't require a smartcard either.
There are many good reasons why a counterparty does not trust you (fully) with a set of keys.
The biggest one is keys that allow financial transactions or billing events to happen: It makes the "I lost my password" defense for friendly fraud much less credible. Another can be to discourage sharing of a service (i.e. "account sharing").
Now there's two ways to keep "your" keys safe as a service provider: You build a fully locked down platform and only allow devices sold and made by you to attach to it (and play your content, use your phone network, transact on your payments network etc.), or you standardize the interface to the "key jail", keeping the rest of the device open and accessible to independent security research.
You can call such a tamper-proof device holding some issuer's private or symmetric key any way you want – functionally, it will be very similar to a smartcard.
The now reformed SBC/AT&T is doing something similar - only devices on this list[0] can connect to their VoLTE network. Without registering for VoLTE, the phones will not be able to connect to the network.
Even if a phone has full VoLTE compatiblity (the OnePlus 6 series, for example), if the manufacturer does not work with (read: pay) AT&T for certification, it will not be allowed on their network.
This is illegal under California SB822[1], which among other things prohibits the blocking of "nonharmful devices" on networks - but AT&T, along with the other major carriers, are currently acting like this doesn't exist until they're forced to by abide by it by a court of law.
[0] https://www.att.com/idpassets/images/support/wireless/Device...
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
And when my current smartphone dies, I'll be joining the ranks of those who don't own one. I'm aware of two other people who are also moving back to dumb phones. I wonder if this is going to become more common as time goes by.
This is already the case.
I‘ve heard that in the US, some providers are still insisting on this (essentially a leftover practice from the pre-SIM days!), but at least in Europe I‘ve always been able to use any phone I like, even really obscure ones.
The carriers don't use technical measures to keep uncertified devices off their network. It's still usually a violation of the terms of service. And yes, that means that aftermarket PCIe-form-factor cell radio in your laptop is theoretically a problem unless that precise laptop + card combination has been certified.
Maybe, but what would inevitably happen is for network operators to demand that only certified devices, or maybe basebands, be allowed on their networks.
SIMs are a big reason of GSMs (and its successors') success: Having a trusted computing device to allow for key management and a few other things inside an otherwise untrusted/sandboxed phone was the compromise.
I'm all for making the interfaces used less opaque and less prone to be used for shady purposes, but the concept of SIM cards is a net win for everyone, in my opinion.
> That should be the phone's job, not the SIM card. [applications]
If you have a smartphone, it is. Many people still don't own one.
USSD is an alternative and is starting to be deployed in many markets previously using SAT, but it seems much more cumbersome to use and is less secure too (no trusted client side storage and tied to the security of the underlying transport protocols).