FCC commish gobbles Verizon's phone-locking BS, says it tastes great An FCC commissioner has come under fire for seemingly suggesting that Verizon should be granted a legal waiver from his own agency's rules. On Monday, Verizon said that, from this spring, it will start locking down newly purchased smartphones for an unspecified period of time – despite a long-standing and legally binding …
Also, is anyone else irked by the "exponentially less desirable to criminals"? Desirability(x) = b^-x?
Well, it's not entirely wrong. There are two data points: without lockdown, and with it. You can draw any sort of curve you like through two points.
"This will make it elliptically less desirable to criminals."
You buy a phone, you decide how to use it. If you buy as part of an X month contract, then the phone is yours at the end of that period and the provider is obliged to unlock it (for free).
This sounds like a good reason to buy a phone elsewhere and get a SIM-only deal for airtime.
Well, one can do the same in US. Just make sure to avoid Verizon's (or other telco stores). Also, unlocked phone does not necessarily mean phone carrier crap free (as I've learned myself). Do your research before the purchase. EU market is just better suited for open devices - common cellular system and many providers that do not have near monopoly position and thus are able to force this BS onto the market.
Yes, in Europe it is easy.
I upgraded our phones last week, a new Hauwei Mate 10 Pro and Huawei P-Smart. Bought on Amazon, SIM card in the new phone, turn on and that's it
We have 30€ contracts with unlimited calls & SMS and 10GB of data - although there is a new 9€ deal for 5GB a month and flats for voice and SMS, so maybe looking to change next time round.
Can I see some statistics which show the number of subscribers who suffer financial loss as a result of unpatched operating systems on their mobile devices?
Then I would like to see the number of subscribers who report stolen mobile phones.
Then I would like to see the comparison of the age of the phone. Might it be that the financial impact of customers who have their new shiny physically stolen is outweighed by the impact of 1 or two year old phones still in use?
It might not, I'm just interested...
The carrier is shown in the upper left corner of your screen, including your lock screen. Am I the only one who's returned a phone to its owner on that information?
The only company that follows this is Verizon?
F*ck all the other carriers then, I'm sticking with Verizon!
Probably, but a stolen phone that makes traffic is still a source of profit. It would take very little to share the IMEI (or whatever is called) of stolen phones, and block them on any network, without any need to lock them into a single network - which also means it would keep on working on the same network anyway. So, "steal our phones, but keep on paying us only!"
The FCC should manage that list and enforce its use - if it didn't work for the telcos to increase their profits, now. Pai sent his pal first to avoid any "conflict of interests", of course...
Ummm.
The FCC has nothing to do with the Fraud Management on cell phones. Internationally, carriers share a 'stolen IMEI' listing and are required to collate fraud data to share with other carriers and the financial folks. It is a *huge* cost to the businesses and massively important.
"Surprisingly, however, that skepticism was not shared by one of the FCC's own commissioners"
There's nothing surprising about that whatsoever. The FCC has already made it very clear that they view the interests of major telecoms to be much more important than little things like the public good or what actual human beings want and need.
Nothing about this is surprising. Expect the sell-outs to continue.
to get out of playing "unofficial tech support" at work.
"Take a look at what's wrong with your phone? Sure, I'd love to- wait, that's a Verizon phone. I can't help you do anything with that, it's locked. Not connecting to our VPN? You'll have to take that up with Verizon or their subsidiary company, the FCC."
Or just, like, ask the actual IT group for help.
VZ investors pay a lot for their spectrum and infastructure.
I have exactly two choices: the best network with the most spectrum coverage or the best in-your-face marketing group with annoying ringtones.
Don't even bother, T-Mobe...
Corporate favoritism / social welfare programs in disguise! 101-More-Reasons to just buy an unlocked new / second-hand 'feature' phone instead. I've many rusty XDA's, this isn't about being a Technophobe. Its about turning your back on everyone that's out to get you, from corrupt regulators to mobile Malware writers to winner-takes-all Corporations...
How much do you guys pay for 4G data anyway? Here in the UK we can get a perfectly reasonable sim-only contract for 4GB data, all you can eat texts and calls, for £10pm ($13). You'll need a $150-300 smartphone, or to get an iPhone with similar specs, about $1000.
http://www.three.co.uk/Store/SIM/Plans_for_phones
A six-eight week lock-in would give consumers a full billing cycle to notice a problem. It would also prevent thieves from doing an immediate switch, and thus substantially increasing the risk and cost of an operation. While I know nothing about Verizon's internal operations, I would be shocked if they could recover the cost of bringing a new account online in less than three months. I could buy a three-month lock-in. After that...NO.
I'm curious about people assuming that thefts would be armed. Most smart phones are only slightly larger than what is easily palmed.
So...sure they are corporate scum. Sure, the FCC is "industry friendly". But despite the despicable "exponentially" adverb in the press release, I don't see this as a completely invalid idea. Devil in the details, of course.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
