FCC Eyes Making Carriers Unlock All Phones Within 60 Days Of Purchase
from the freedom dept
For decades there has been endless policy wrangling over whether “unlocking your phone” (removing restrictions allowing you to take the device with you to another carrier) should be allowed. Giant carriers have generally supported onerous phone locks because it hampers competition by making it harder to switch providers. Consumer rights groups and the public broadly support unlocked devices.
Now the FCC is proposing a new rule that would require wireless providers unlock customers’ mobile phones within 60 days of activation, giving them the freedom to switch providers so long as their phone supports the mobile network they’re switching to. FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel had this to say of the proposed changes:
“Real competition benefits from transparency and consistency,” said Chairwoman
Rosenworcel. “That is why we are proposing clear, nationwide mobile phone unlocking rules.
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.”
At various times unlocking your phone was deemed downright illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Things have eased some over the years; very often it’s now possible to unlock your device and change carriers if your phone is paid off and you’re no longer under contract. The FCC is contemplating a rule that would force unlocking even for those under contract.
While competition-phobic telecoms have ceded some ground on this space, they still enjoy creating as much friction as possible when it comes to changing providers, hoping to mute competition’s impact. After the Sprint T-Mobile merger U.S. price competition effectively halted; I imagine they’d be thrilled if they could revert to an era where switching providers was as monumental of a hassle as possible.
The FCC is only proposing a new rule and hasn’t provided details yet. That happens on July 18, at which point the public will have an opportunity to comment. Carriers will inevitably sue to prevent any possible reform on this front; and with the recent 6-3 Supreme Court Chevron ruling, corporate lawyers have more tools in their arsenal than ever to mire efforts just like this one in perpetual legal muck.
Filed Under: broadband, fcc, phones, smartphone, tablet, telecom, unlocked, wireless
Comments on “FCC Eyes Making Carriers Unlock All Phones Within 60 Days Of Purchase”
Or simply trying to delay the decision until the FCC budget is reduced to one tenth so every big corp can wipe off with these rules.
Because even if the FCC don’t say if it could apply to loaned phones, Telco will crying about how much they would losing money from people that resell unlocked loaned phones.
And with eSIM, it may be very easy with a simple software update to block other carriers.
SCOTUS gonna get bribed and find the FCC can’t do that.
Re:
“SCOTUS gonna get bribed and find the FCC can’t do that.”
Followed by:
King Biden says ..
Re: Re:
If only Biden were actually willing to use his new King powers.
Re: Re:
so, trump keeps saying anything he does while president is immune from prosecution.
Ok, let’s go with that.
So Biden has trump killed. Under the Trump/MAGAt reading of the law, this is perfectly acceptable and legal.
Tada!
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you should inform yourself before posting.
We thought you were stupid before, but you have now removed all doubt.
Onve again
It is only a felony to bypass drm if you do it for some kind of financial gain
When I had my online radio station I did not break any American or Australian laws when I went to North Korea to cover a sports event there and unlocked my phone so a North Korean SIM card could be used in it, as required for foreigners bringing their phones into the dprk
Since I was not doing it for any kind of financial gain, I was not committing any felony when I did this
Journalists are exempt from the ban on Americans travelling to the dprk
As long as do not sell that bypass for money you are not committing a felony
Re:
What the fuck are you on about.
Re: Re:
Meth. I’m pretty sure they are on meth.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think it’s even that. I think they simply didn’t pay attention in civics class, and possibly many other lessons as well.
Why 60 days?
The document doesn’t mention anything about why they’d be given 60 days. Why not 60 seconds? Once the payment has cleared, any lock-in seems unjustifiable to me.
Re:
I can see a justification for not allowing unlocking during the return window. Unlocking also allows you to root it, and doing that can cause some devices to brick if not done correctly. So limiting to 60 days prevents fraudulent returns caused by that.
Re: Re:
What exactly do you mean by “brick”? Actual hardware damage? I imagine that one could render a system unbootable, but common sense suggests that any returned phone would, for security, need a full reflashing of software and firmware anyway.
61 days would still be well within the warranty window. A manufacturer can deny returns due to user-caused damage, just as they can deny warranty on that basis. But we don’t seem to have much trouble with laptop and desktop computers, most of which are sold unlocked. So, I don’t think this hypothesis makes much sense.
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, rendered unusable/unbootable by either a bad firmware flash, or a software fuse blown.
In similar fashion, while not bricked, Samsung series phones with knox will blow a fuse if you unlock it. This is permanent and will prevent samsung pay and other services from working on it (possibly even Google SafetyNet attestation failure).
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, the fuse thing being permanent is a manufacturer’s choice. They can’t legally void a warranty because someone installs their own software, so banning returns for that reason would be a pretty shitty thing to do. And kind of stupid: if the system could be fully reset to its factory state, the knowledge that it once harbored “unauthorized” software would be of no value.
Re: Re:
Carrier unlocking and bootloader unlocking are 2 separate things. This is only about carrier unlocks. This doesn’t require them to unlock the bootloader, and therefore doesn’t affect root or the integrity of the device.
Re: Re: Re:
Booooooo! The government should get on that. Maybe the EPA, due to the environmental effects of this forced obsolescence.
What I’ve seen commonly, but not addressed in any unlocking articles/reports, is that rooting a device is also tied to carrier unlocking for some reason.
Even if you have no intention to switch carriers, you can’t even root your own device until you meet the requirements for carrier unlocking.
I’d much rather unlock my device immediately, that way I don’t have anything worth saving on my device when I root it (since unlocking wipes the device). Waiting for 2-3 years to unlock it makes it more painful to deal with.
Though, 2 months is certainly better than 2 years.
Re:
That’s because it becomes trivial to bypass the carrier lock once you’ve bypassed the bootloader lock. So the manufacturer prevents you from unlocking the bootloader until the carrier lock is gone.
How to tell us you’re not American without saying you’re not American? (Not that it’s a problem, BTW.)
Re:
Is that something only Americans say? What does the rest of the world say?
For the record, I’m American and say cell phone.