T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by afavour on Monday October 21, 2024 @04:47PM (#41908375)

> claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers

Weird, because they seem to have the same prices as Verizon.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by al_borland on Monday October 21, 2024 @05:36PM (#41908774)

Going to Apple's site, where it allows the user to pick a carrier or choose unlocked, they are all the same.

I thought all the major carrier did away with phone subsidies years ago so they could advertise lower monthly service fees, when those prices were becoming too high.

My phone is still subsidized, but it's through work, so I'm not the one paying the monthly bill. I didn't even think that was still an option for the average user buying on their own. Before switching my phone over to work, I had been buying unlocked phones at full price for a few years.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by whatever1 on Monday October 21, 2024 @05:02PM (#41908500)

With TMobile when I upgraded they gave me 1000$ incentive in 24 month increments.

So yes they do offer "cheaper phone prices" but of course you are locked to their expensive plan for years.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by afavour on Monday October 21, 2024 @05:04PM (#41908512)

Verizon offer the exact same thing. They just unlock phones after 60 days (in fairness they have to, but still, they seem to be doing just fine)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by ToxicMegacolon on Monday October 21, 2024 @06:18PM (#41909158)

why do they have to? is it just verizon or do others have to do unlock it after 60 days too?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by tzs on Monday October 21, 2024 @07:29PM (#41909631)

It goes way back to when some 700 MHz LTE spectrum was auctioned off in 2007. Before the auction and before the FCC finalized the rules that would apply to the spectrum the FCC commissioners were circulating drafts of rules they were considering. One of the drafts was proposing open access rules.

Google wrote to the FCC and made a binding commitment to bid at least $4.3 billion dollars if the final rules included certain open access rules. The FCC then included those rules, thus guaranteeing they would get at least $4.3 billion.

Verizon outbid Google and so got that spectrum along with those open access requirements, which included no SIM locking.

In 2018 Verizon, citing fraud concerns, asked the FCC to relax the no locking rule. The FCC agreed, allowing a 60 day lock.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by Whatarethese on Monday October 21, 2024 @05:04PM (#41908519)

Verizon does but over 36 months.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by olliej on Monday October 21, 2024 @04:53PM (#41908419)

did they say explicitly who it's cheaper for?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by reaperducer on Monday October 21, 2024 @05:06PM (#41908533)

> claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers

And somehow an iPhone today isn't cheaper than when it first came out and there was no subsidy from Cingular.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones... by dmonitor on Monday October 21, 2024 @05:24PM (#41908660)

Getting AT&T to unlock an iPhone (or buying one unlocked from Apple) is little more than a formality. It's the $50 pre-paid phones you can pick up from Wal-mart that they don't want to unlock.

[ Parent | on HN ]