this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
708 points (99.9% liked)

Technology

59689 readers
2681 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If I recall correctly, Canada got rid of carrier lock-in several years ago

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

7 years ago. It's been a very welcome change here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

About damn time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Didnt even know carrier locking is still a thing. I think thats long illegal here in the EU

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

How about no lock in from the get go?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›