UK Ban on Sale of Locked Handsets to Come into Effect December 2021

[MacRumors]

British telecoms regulator Ofcom has confirmed it is to ban mobile phone operators from selling locked handsets in order to make switching networks easier for customers (via Sky News).

The watchdog says the current rules hurt some consumers because locked handsets can't be used on other mobile networks until the owner pays for them to be unlocked – usually around £10.

Ofcom, which first floated the idea in December last year, says the new rule will be implemented from December 2021 to make switching providers easier.

The new rule will target BT/EE, Tesco Mobile, and Vodafone, all of which sell locked handsets. O2, Sky, Three, and Virgin do not sell locked phones and won't be affected.

Ofcom said its research found the issue was putting more than a third of people off switching with their existing handset and potentially getting a better deal.

It also highlighted the difficulties experienced by many consumers who currently need to be sent a code to unlock their device, which is often time-consuming and can involve failed codes and a loss of service during the unlocking process.

"We know that lots of people can be put off from switching because their handset is locked," said Ofcom's connectivity director, Selina Chadha. "So we're banning mobile companies from selling locked phones, which will save people time, money and effort - and help them unlock better deals."

Article Link: UK Ban on Sale of Locked Handsets to Come into Effect December 2021

 

[G3Blue]

OFCOM has actually done something for once?

 

[Bokito]

While I approve these bans the telcos will find other ways to block/annoy customers who want to move over like delays, dozens of calls to remind you how good the provider is or just 'errors' when moving you over. You need more than a ban on locked phones to actually help customers.

 

[coredev]

They need to become active on their own now, since after Brexit the EU is not taking care of their sh*t anymore.

 

[LeeW]

About time, the whole handset locking thing was really to prevent people within contract trying to cancel in the middle of it whether they could or not, but they made it ridiculous even out of a contract. I started paying for handsets outright years ago due to this.

 

[Mac Rules]

Good, pro-consumer move.

 

[kerr]

This became the norm a long time ago in Australia

 

[Macropanda]

While I approve these bans the telcos will find other ways to block/annoy customers who want to move over like delays, dozens of calls to remind you how good the provider is or just 'errors' when moving you over. You need more than a ban on locked phones to actually help customers.

Not sure when it came in to affect but you can get your PAC code but just texting PAC to 65075 and it comes back to you instantly so at the very least they can't cause delays.

 

[gnasher729]

They need to become active on their own now, since after Brexit the EU is not taking care of their sh*t anymore.

That's one thing that I hope the EU would copy. Locked handsets are a pain.

 

[Hammerd]

That’s a welcommed change

 

[iphonehype]

EE say there phones can't be unlocked in the first 6 months to reduce fraud...someone taking a contract out and never paying I guess? Anyhow, will this also apply to in this instance?

 

[polyphenol]

How have locked phones ever worked with dual SIMs? Does it need to be unlocked to allow the second SIM to work on a different network?

(I haven't had a locked phone for many years. Nor ever had a dual SIM phone. Awaiting my 12 Pro which will be unlocked.)

 

[zetti]

About time! Doesn't bother me anymore cos I buy outright but this will be good for other people for sure.

 

[polyphenol]

While I approve these bans the telcos will find other ways to block/annoy customers who want to move over like delays, dozens of calls to remind you how good the provider is or just 'errors' when moving you over. You need more than a ban on locked phones to actually help customers.

Never had a problem getting a PAC - though used to be much slower. Other than a short period of having an odd phone number, swapping on the few occasions I have done it, has been straightforward.

 

[bransoj]

Not sure when it came in to affect but you can get your PAC code but just texting PAC to 65075 and it comes back to you instantly so at the very least they can't cause delays.

Think thats been in place a while now, was another ofcomm type thing to try and make it easier to switch.

 

[Daveoc64]

While I approve these bans the telcos will find other ways to block/annoy customers who want to move over like delays, dozens of calls to remind you how good the provider is or just 'errors' when moving you over. You need more than a ban on locked phones to actually help customers.

As "Macropanda" has said above, the new system for porting numbers means that you barely need to contact your existing network to leave. You can send an SMS to the existing network to get one of two codes - a PAC (to keep your number) or a STAC (to end your contract and NOT keep your number).

The networks have to send you these codes in less than a minute and must send them even if you are still in-contract or owe the network money.

You provide the PAC/STAC to your new network (usually via an online form) and they'll do the rest.

Switching mobile phone provider

This guide explains how to switch your mobile phone service to a new provider. You can do so by sending a simple text.

www.ofcom.org.uk

With GDPR, if you've opted out of marketing calls from your existing network, you aren't likely to hear from them at all, other than the required SMS mentioned above. The old network will send a final bill for any outstanding charges (if you leave in contract, that should be (your monthly rate - VAT) * remaining months), but that's it.

EE say there phones can't be unlocked in the first 6 months to reduce fraud...someone taking a contract out and never paying I guess? Anyhow, will this also apply to in this instance?

EE's claim is absolute nonsense, so it will go away when the new regulations come into effect (EE has already said it will implement the new rules). If you don't pay your bill, they can go down the usual debt collection route for that. That's the case now, and it's the case with unlocked devices.

 

[iphonehype]

EE's claim is absolute nonsense, so it will go away when the new regulations come into effect. If you don't pay your bill, they can go down the usual debt collection route for that. That's the case now, and it's the case with unlocked devices.

Yeh but the way I see it, if the person doesn't pay they've still collected revenue from the other person using the phone on EE. So its a win, win for EE.

 

[The Game 161]

Certainly a welcome change.

 

[timsutcliffe]

Seems like a sensible move.

I wonder how many people are paying way over the odds for their phone plans because they've stuck with one of the main providers? There's a massive difference between what they charge and the cheaper companies.

 

[lestmak]

EE say there phones can't be unlocked in the first 6 months to reduce fraud...someone taking a contract out and never paying I guess? Anyhow, will this also apply to in this instance?

Rules come in from December 2021, so not an immediate effect on EE. EE now have 13 months to get out of any commercial agreements it has with handset manufacturers for locking and it must abide by Ofcom's rules by this time. In practice, it does mean if you buy a new iPhone 12 at this time, it can and will still be locked by EE. Over the coming months though, EE will start to not bother with locking the phones.

On your question about contracts and never paying, EE now has to use some other fraud protection measures. They'll probably chase payment from the customer in some way, with the risk of black marking their credit record (and therefore they'll find it hard to ever get a contract in the future) and/or using normal debt recovery routes (County Court Judgements, Debt Collectors/Baliffs, etc.). EE (and its parent, BT), use these routes anyway.

I haven't read the full decision by Ofcom, but this probably was a no-brainer decision. I used to work in the same part of Ofcom as Selina many years ago (she was in fact my line manager for part of the time I was there) and I suspect this was one of the easier policy decisions to make for Ofcom. The difficulty always is that Ofcom has to follow the necessary rules for consultation and decision before implementing (can take two years or more), otherwise someone can raise a judicial review and the decision could be tossed out of court in a flash.

 

[polyphenol]

On your question about contracts and never paying, EE now has to use some other fraud protection measures.

An unpaid-for phone is pretty much the same as a stolen phone. Can't they use IMEI blacklisting?

 

[itsmilo]

I thought this was already illegal in the EU (yes, I know they are leaving)

 

[polyphenol]

I thought this was already illegal in the EU (yes, I know they are leaving)

Technically, have already left. We are in transition so lots still applies but that is the process.

 

[lestmak]

An unpaid-for phone is pretty much the same as a stolen phone. Can't they use IMEI blacklisting?

Yes they already do. Once on a blacklist then operators in the same country will then block. https://www.imei.info/faq-stolen-lost-phone-block-the-imei-number/

However, thieves can try to export the phone to another country where they may not check the IMEIs and sell the phones there. But I'm getting organised crime lords would be thinking an attempt at fraud against a major telco which is carrying out identity and credit checks on a scheme that will only work once is probably not worth the hassle when compared to nicking someone's phone from their handbag or a smash and raid on a high street store.

But then again, I'm not an organised crime lord...

 

[polyphenol]

Yes they already do. Once on a blacklist then operators in the same country will then block. https://www.imei.info/faq-stolen-lost-phone-block-the-imei-number/

However, thieves can try to export the phone to another country where they may not check the IMEIs and sell the phones there. But I'm getting organised crime lords would be thinking an attempt at fraud against a major telco which is carrying out identity and credit checks on a scheme that will only work once is probably not worth the hassle when compared to nicking someone's phone from their handbag or a smash and raid on a high street store.

But then again, I'm not an organised crime lord...

Surely thieves have the ability to unlock phones?

Accepting there can be other issues, but does phone locking really make a big difference to the not-pay-for-6-months contract situation?

I'll take your word for you bona fides.