Verizon tried this (60 days, then unlock), yet still had 700K phones subject to fraud.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Verizon Wants to Lock Phones Longer Like AT&T and T-Mobile
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is why we can't have nice things.
Not really. I’m a legitimate customer and I would like the ability to add another carriers eSIM.
How would you suggest they secure a device they have financed for the consumer?. Financing for the phone is collateralized by control of the phone. Verizon, T-Mobile, etc. should have every right to lock down the phone until the financial obligation of the purchaser is paid in full. This is a serious and legitimate problem for service providers.
They are not unlocked when purchased. An unlocked device for whose owner still has a financial obligation can easily stop paying the entity and sell it elsewhere. They pocket the money and the provider gets nothing. They have been cheated / scammed. It is a pretty simple scam that cost service providers who finance phones tens of millions of dollars every year.
If you finance a car, you can't just go and sell it anyone with satisfying the financing agreement first. Why's would itbee any different with a phone?
In the EU the consumer credit laws are different and there are additional protections for the companies / providers that finance phone purchases.
I would suggest they don't, and I don't think it's a legitimate reason for sim-locking. The PR reasoning you mentioned is similar to Apple's "for the privacy" reasoning and PR is all it is.
The true reason why they do that is to prevent you from using the phone with a different network in the future, or in case another carrier decides to offer someone a better deal and buy out their plan. Plans usually run for 2-3 years, so if I want to upgrade to the newer generation after a year, it would be difficult to sell my sim-locked phone and buying a new one. Also, I can just as well get another (prepaid) sim-card from the same carrier, which doesn't require me to provide any of my true personal details, and I could get away with the fraud you mentioned.
The same way Apple is being forced into allowing third party app stores onto their platform by regulators and made up laws in some regions, carrier providers should be forced to not sim-lock devices they sell.
Yes, really. Did you finance your phone or pay in full up front? If you paid in full up front no one will be in your wy to get strive with whatever provider you wish. Did you finance your phone through a carrier? Yes? Then you are rightfully out of luck. The lock is part of the cost of financing. They a very legitimate right to prevent the loss of their access to the collateral for the financing, i.e. the phone. If you want to move service to a different provider, pay off your financing and you are them free to do as you wish.
I've tried doing that with O2 in Germany few years ago, O2 refused to unlock the phone until the contract was over, even when I offered to pay it off in full.
Losing customers hand over fist and this is the route they want to take. Sounds about right for verizon. Fraud is such a lame excuse..
Not allowing locking would likly end subsidized phone deals.
Right. Just liek consumers buying locked phones, VZW made a deal and needs to honor it.
They do. You can make calls as per the terms of your agreement. After a set period, you can unlock it. I suspect, in the US, having a locked phone is not a big deal, and most people don't even realize their phone is locked. Carriers will often offer to payoff phones to get you to switch, so it's not like you are stuck with one carrier.
If you want to trade I your phone before its paid off and the trade in is more than the payoff, you can pay it off and get the higher trade in value.
Thieves generally do not worry about such laws.
I suspect a very smll percentage travel internationally, and if that is an issue you buy an unlocked phone.
I agree, VZW should be forced to stick to the agreement; or stop offering subsidized phones and require you to pay for it in full up front or finance it thorough someone else..
In most of the world you can't get a subsidized phone either; and there are cheaper non-subsidized plans. Plans vary, and a lot of US plans are stupidly expensive, and the government has added on its own set of fees and taxes.
OTOH, many non-US plans I've seen, such as in Europe, cap data to low levels at the lower tiers, and you can't buy service in Germany and use your phone in say Portugal year round and not get hit with "fair use" terms that start charging you for data yo already paid for; unlike the US where you can get a NY number and use it in CA for teh rest of your life if you wanted at no extra charge. In some cases, things like hotspots won't work outside of the country where yo have service.
Bottom line is services evolved differently based on the business climate and are not better or worse, just different with their own pros and cons.
Thatis actually a fee the carrier charges; and charge you if you activate a phone at their store as well. Apple simply negotiated not charging the fee, so you won't see it on your next bill. I've always called to get it taken off and never had them say no.
So wrong.'PR reasoning? It is not remotely anything like that. The consumer borrowed money to buy a phone. They agreed to certain terms for meeting their obligation to pay off the financing and satisfy the collateralization security. Pay the debt and go where you want. Pay it off and you can take iit anywhere you want. No service provider is interfering in that in any way. If a consumer doesn't like it this kind of arrangement, pay in full or find a financing method that doesn't tie you to a service provider.
There is nothing preventing anyone from buying out their plan and moving on.
I am at loss to under why you and others seem to think a lender of money has no right to retain a security interest the purchaser has willingly agreed to. Would you say that about a car loan? How about a mortgage? hing
People should be responsible, meet their obligations nd not repeat their mistakes.
One more thing - Providers are frequently deceptive and use unfair tactics and practices, but that is where regulators should step in. But it is very simple, if you borrowed the money, pay it back.
"Lame excuse?" Wow, you are out of touch with the reality of this subject. Phone fraud related to purchases of devices and locking is costing tens of millions of dollars if not $100 million a year and guess who pays? We do through higher prices for service and future products.
Lame ... I can't stop laughing at that claim . One more thing, why should Veriaon be subject to different rules that the rest of the corporate behemoths?
I can't really speak to consumer law in Germany. SIM locking is not outlawed on a financed phone in Germany. I am sure the agreement legally allowed them to do that while the contract is still valid. Kind of like a lease on an apartment. The landlord does not have to let you go early unless they choose to.
You failed to address the issue of securing the debtor's finaicial obligation to the carrier. Under your PR reasoning they shouldn't have the right use the phone as collateral for the purchaser's debt. Just tell me how they insure they get their money back. Seriously, either you believe they have a right to securitize the loan or you think it is tough luck if they get stiffed. There is little or no in-between with this. Making a lousy deal doesn't give you the right to walk out on the obligations a person agreed to.
1. You failed
2. There's this thing call a "contract" that ties you to the carrier provider, it's this contract that creates the obligation to pay, not the sim-lock
3. If you fail to pay, your debt will be sold to a 3rd party collections firm and these have a lot more power to chase you down than a carrier
Source: I work in debt collections.
Totally agree.
I had at least a couple of phones which were network locked. The problem wasn't just that they were locked, but the process of getting them unlocked placed numerous barriers in the way and, if I recall correctly, I think some even made a charge for doing so.
I know on one occasion I used a backstreet unlocking stall. I hated doing so and didn't really trust them but it did work out.
What happens if a network goes belly up? Imagine a huge ransomware (or simply malicious) attack which took down one of the companies. And you can't even contact them to get your phone unlocked. Have suggested that reason because it seems more likely than simply going bust overnight.
A while ago I was very pleased to find a multi-network SIM which was affordable. My reason for choosing that wasn't so much to get away from any particular network. It was because our coverage is so appalling and can be patchy to within a few metres. None of the majors offer such an option.
You're arguing this issue as if your life depended on it. Do you work for a carrier provider?
Either way, where did you get this number from? You seem to be blowing it out of proportions with made up numbers. Out of all debts on phones bought from carriers on plans, only around 2-3% end up falling behind on their payments, and half of them ends up paying in the end. You are trying to tell me, that the 97% of phones have a sim-lock to make sure some 2-3% of buyers pay off their phones? All that to secure the breadcrumbs? Where's the logic in that?
Sim-locks are a tool for curbing competition, that's all there is to it.
There are debts that would blow your socks off, nobody cares about the 2-3%. Some carriers don't sim-lock their phones, and in some countries it's just banned completely. Why do you think that is? You're laughing but you're completely wrong. Besides, there are background checks before you are even allowed to sign a contract and you have to be eligible. You have to provide a bank statement, carrier providers make sure you will be able to repay. We aren't living in early 2000's anymore, there's no reason to sim-lock phones other than making sure you lock your client to stay with you alone.
I genuinely don't understand how Verizon is losing money. I recently switched carriers away from Verizon. I traded in an old iPhone, but they spread out the $800 bill credits over 3 years. I switched carriers after about 1 year on Verizon. I simply paid the remaining balance on the phone and forfeited the remaining 2 years of bill credits.
So weren't they made whole by my having to pay off the remaining balance on the phone? And spreading the credits over three years also aided them in minimizing their loses if I didn't stick around, since I forfeited 2/3rds of my credits.
Are ~700K people just not paying their bill once they leave and messing up their credit report? Is that the fraud being reported here?
So weren't they made whole by my having to pay off the remaining balance on the phone? And spreading the credits over three years also aided them in minimizing their loses if I didn't stick around, since I forfeited 2/3rds of my credits.
Are ~700K people just not paying their bill once they leave and messing up their credit report? Is that the fraud being reported here?
Let’s hope this backfires on Verizon and the FCC no longer allows locking of any phone. It’s impossible to use locked phones for travel. The carriers send a bill to those that port their number out anyways, so it’s not like they don’t get to collect or write off their loss.
I work in the industry. It’s a PITA to bring people from another carrier that have legitimately paid off their phone (or bought it outright), because common sense isn’t so common, and carriers don’t have the common sense to unlock phones automatically once they’re paid off.