Verizon Wants to Lock Phones Longer Like AT&T and T-Mobile

[thiscatisfat]

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.

That's changed, most carriers in Europe offer unlimited 4G data, and roaming doesn't really exist in European Union. They do so now even on prepaid sim-cards. Also, the "solution" to buy an unlocked phone if you travel and want to use a different sim, while 70% of the time you're back home is such a carrier provider focused way of doing things. Makes you sound like you work for one.

 

[nathansz]

Then there will be be NO offers of free or highly discounted phones. That’s what you want? Really?

Carrier locking is illegal here AND carriers offer free and highly discounted phones

 

[Gengar]

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.

Verizon could just blacklist the devices for nonpayment, like AT&T and T-Mobile do, but that just negates their "argument." There's no reason for a phone to be locked in 2025. All three major carriers will send you a bill for the full cost of the device if you cancel their service while under a device installment agreement.

 

[Bearxor]

Then there will be be NO offers of free or highly discounted phones. That’s what you want? Really?

Honestly? Yes. I’d rather see the manufacturers reduce pricing because sales go down rather than pricing continue to inch upwards because the majority of people don’t feel what these things actually cost.

 

[ab2c4]

People need to buy their phones unlocked (as others have mentioned). We started doing that years ago and it really is better for us.

 

[jlc1978]

Sim-locks are a tool for curbing competition, that's all there is to it.

It's blindingly simple; if you want a subsidized phone you get one and agree to the contract, or buy an unlocked one and are free to do what you want.

Do they want to tie you to their service? Sure, that's why they give you the deal; but you can always leave and payoff the phone if you see a better deal, andd given most wil pay off some part of your contract you get the subsidy benefit plus a new phone deal if you switch.

I don't get the entitlement mentality that a company should subsidize your phone but not lock you into their network until it is paid off.

Are ~700K people just not paying their bill once they leave and messing up their credit report? Is that the fraud being reported here?

I suspect it is a bit more complicated, with fraud losses not easy to sell to a collection agency since they are unlikley to recover any of the debt.

That's changed, most carriers in Europe offer unlimited 4G data, and

From my experience, unlimited data plans are a lot more expensive than capped ones and often as much as a similar US plan. A quick search shows Vodaphone 60Euros and D Telkom 90Euros for unlimited, more than I pay in the US from TMob. I'm sure there are cheaper plans, just like in the US.

roaming doesn't really exist in European Union

Sort off, if you fail to reconnect to your 'home' network you fall under fair use provisions and can be charged/throttled etc., so it's not really unlimited data when roaming. That can be problematic near a border and you regularly connect to the neighboring network with a better signal.

They do so now even on prepaid sim-cards.

In my experience, it depends on the SIM; although that was last year. This year we just got a phone plan with an eSIM with a local number.

Also, the "solution" to buy an unlocked phone if you travel and want to use a different sim, while 70% of the time you're back home is such a carrier provider focused way of doing things.

It's a tradeoff. If the costs of using your existing carrier are less than the costs of an eSIM, use your locked phone and plan. If it is more, get an unlocked phone and and an eSIM. In teh end, you choose teh deal that works best for you.

Since we are talking about US phone locking, it's worth noting many Americans do not travel overseas, so having a locked phone is irrelevant since they already get US wide roaming in their plan and can use their phone without worrying about roaming fees. Many of those that do don't do it regularly so the added costs of a few calls or an international plan are not that onerous, or go with TMob and it's feee text/low speed data deals in on many non-US networks.

Those that do travel internationally regularly get an unlocked phone, at least in my experience.

Makes you sound like you work for one.

No, just have done a lot of travel over the years as well as live in two places.

Verizon could just blacklist the devices for nonpayment, like AT&T and T-Mobile do, but that just negates their "argument."

Doesn't do much good for phones shipped overseas.

There's no reason for a phone to be locked in 2025. All three major carriers will send you a bill for the full cost of the device if you cancel their service while under a device installment agreement.

The problem with fraud is not some person failing to pay, but organized efforts to get phones fraudulently, and fraudsters aren't likely to worry about dunning letters or threats to their credit scores.

How big is the problem? I don't know but it's more than just someone failing to pay.

 

[Chazak]

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.

Sorry, but I don't think so.

The contract is securitized by the SIM lock and selling an uncollectable debt to a third party merely means that the least expensive way for the debt holder to be rid of the problem is to sell to a third party. I never said the sim lock creates an obligation to pay. It securitizes the debt. The phone is still locked, unless an electronic way has been found to defeat the lock, whether or not you and your cohorts manage to catch up with the debtor. If you don't understand what securitization means I would be glad to explain it.

Perhaps if you disclosed what exactly it is you do in "debt collections" and what your legal background is it could lend credibility to your reply. To say a person works in debt collections therefore they know what they are talking about is meaningless. I would imagine such a person is not a lawyer although the owners and operators of such a business are. I would also imagine most ethical collectors actually engaged in client contact operate from a standard set of rules and scripts and very little wiggle room if they are ethical. The business is constantly under attack by AGs from many states and federal regulatory authorities.Also, the business you say you are in is constantly ethically and legally challenged and claiming such an association provides credibility is a dubious claim at best. The business is an a category known a vulture businesses for a good reason.

Sources: Lawyer friend who is a partner in a firm owning such operations, reality and legal education on contract and debt securitization.

 

[russell_314]

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.

Two totally different things.

If you buy a phone that is locked to Verizon it’s $30 cheaper but they will charge you an activation fee.

If I buy a phone and don’t connect it to any network ever Apple charges $30 more. If that’s an activation fee, it doesn’t make sense because why am I paying an activation fee for a phone that’s not connected.


I’m sure it’s some scheme Apple and the networks worked out to push you to them. What if I want to use an MVNMO? If it’s just supposed to be a rebate for the activation fee, why don’t carriers just not charge an activation fee?

 

[MagicBoy]

Top quality ******tification there Verizon.

How much are they going to donate to the orange painted shitgibbon?

 

[Chazak]

Verizon could just blacklist the devices for nonpayment, like AT&T and T-Mobile do, but that just negates their "argument." There's no reason for a phone to be locked in 2025. All three major carriers will send you a bill for the full cost of the device if you cancel their service while under a device installment agreement.

I respect your comment, but just sending a bill doesn't put money in their pocket. Such a customer is unlikely to pay such a bill. That fact feeds the vulture law firm debt collectors who buy the debts for pennies on the dollar and then generally ignore as much of the relevant laws and regulations on debt collection as they can get away with. There is a reason the debts are sold as uncollectible for pennies on the dollar.

 

[Apple2501]

That’s fine. Keep it locked. I don’t like when you buy the phone and then they keep it locked post purchase. I bought it I should be able to do whatever I want. That’s the bad part. 60 days after purchase! That’s phonenapping!

 

[Mousse]

Let’s be honest: No legitimate customer has a problem with phones being locked to the carrier given unlocking is a consumer right nowadays. The dishonest people crying and screaming are buying phones form one carrier to take advantage of some amazing deal or using it as free distribution (instead of buying it from a store that will sell to them unlocked) and hence finding it difficult to unlock. No one is stopping these undesirables (because carriers make money from service, not phone sales) from going to the manufacturer and paying their MSRP that rarely goes down. But of course these are cheap, lazy, and dishonest people trying to cheat their way into a discount, what exactly did they expect?

Carrier lock is fine and dandy for someone who never leaves the country. For a traveler, an unlocked phone is a godsend. No international price gouging plans from US carriers.🤑 You can get a local SIM with unlimited everything dirt cheap and use it during your entire trip. You can purchase a SIM card for a lot of international airports, but it's cheaper to get it from local telecom shops.

 

[thiscatisfat]

Sorry, but I don't think so.

The contract is securitized by the SIM lock and selling an uncollectable debt to a third party merely means that the least expensive way for the debt holder to be rid of the problem is to sell to a third party. I never said the sim lock creates an obligation to pay. It securitizes the debt. The phone is still locked, unless an electronic way has been found to defeat the lock, whether or not you and your cohorts manage to catch up with the debtor. If you don't understand what securitization means I would be glad to explain it.

Perhaps if you disclosed what exactly it is you do in "debt collections" and what your legal background is it could lend credibility to your reply. To say a person works in debt collections therefore they know what they are talking about is meaningless. I would imagine such a person is not a lawyer although the owners and operators of such a business are. I would also imagine most ethical collectors actually engaged in client contact operate from a standard set of rules and scripts and very little wiggle room if they are ethical. The business is constantly under attack by AGs from many states and federal regulatory authorities.Also, the business you say you are in is constantly ethically and legally challenged and claiming such an association provides credibility is a dubious claim at best. The business is an a category known a vulture businesses for a good reason.

Sources: Lawyer friend who is a partner in a firm owning such operations, reality and legal education on contract and debt securitization.

If I take a phone on a contract, let's say I sell it to someone with the sim-lock, I still end up not paying the phone back and someone else will just use it with the same carrier. It simply doesn't prevent anyone from using the phone, unless someone wants to use it with a different carrier, but Verizon being the largest carrier provider in the US the chances are that the next person is also a Verizon customer and they will never even care about the sim-lock in the first place.

This is a point where you just have to admit that what you're saying is nonsense and has absolutely no logic, no matter how you try to put it.

I'm collecting money from customers with overdue invoices, have been doing this for years, that's all you really need to know. I've no obligation to make such disclosures to you and I've no interest in being lent credibility by some anon on the internet who thinks operators lock their phones as a sort of "security measure" to make sure they get paid instead of losing customers who would otherwise change carriers the second a better deal comes up

 

[telepheedian]

As usual, their arguments are disingenuous. Purchasing a heavily discounted prepaid device on one of the Tracfone brands, paying for two months to unlock the device, and then leaving, is a great deal for the purchaser, and a terrible deal for Verizon, but it is not fraud.

 

[ELman]

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.

Understood, but if I'm paying for my financed phone thru my carrier it would be nice to have the ability to add another carriers SIM. This is important for travel and if your in an area that multiple carriers give you better service. At a minimum carriers should make it clear that your financed phone is locked and will only work on their network. And Apple should not charge more to purchased a fully unlocked phone.

 

[mcled53]

Verizon wants to lock subscribers to its network for a longer period of time, and has asked the U.S. Federal Communications Commission [PDF] to extend how long customers must wait before a Verizon smartphone can be unlocked and transferred to another carrier.

Back when Verizon purchased 700MHz spectrum for its network in 2008, it agreed to unlock smartphones after a 60-day period. Verizon now wants the FCC to waive that requirement, allowing it to change its phone unlocking policy.

Verizon claims that the 60-day unlocking requirement it is subject to leads to fraud and device trafficking. Verizon said it lost an estimated 784,703 devices to fraud in 2023, costing it "hundreds of millions of dollars." From Verizon's filing:

Verizon suggests that consumers will benefit from the waiver because it will allow the company to better compete with other carriers by "offering subsidies and other mechanisms to make phones more affordable, lower upfront costs, and enable customers to obtain the latest and most innovative devices."

Going forward, Verizon wants to be able to lock phones to its network for at least six months, putting it on par with other U.S. carriers. AT&T locks prepaid devices to its network for six months and requires postpaid devices to be paid in full before they're unlocked, while T-Mobile locks prepaid devices to its network for 12 months, and also requires postpaid devices to be paid in full. Verizon is required to unlock prepaid and postpaid devices after 60 days.

Under Biden, the FCC was considering a proposal that would require all carriers to unlock smartphones within a 60-day period, but as Ars Technica notes, that effort might be dead under new FCC Chairman Brendan Carr because of his focus on deregulation.

Article Link: Verizon Wants to Lock Phones Longer Like AT&T and T-Mobile

Locking the phone should be illegal. People should not be buying phones from their carriers.

 

[Gengar]

I respect your comment, but just sending a bill doesn't put money in their pocket. Such a customer is unlikely to pay such a bill. That fact feeds the vulture law firm debt collectors who buy the debts for pennies on the dollar and then generally ignore as much of the relevant laws and regulations on debt collection as they can get away with. There is a reason the debts are sold as uncollectible for pennies on the dollar.

But is that not what credit checks are for? Verizon does credit checks and periodically does soft inquiries. That's just a part of doing business. Not to mention Verizon, themselves, agreed to not lock phones to get their hands on the 700c band 13 spectrum they got 15 years ago to roll out their LTE network. Now they just wanna roll that back? More people bought phones on contract back then, so their argument just does not make sense. 😂

They literally just wanna make it harder to switch carriers because they're losing customers (-289K postpaid customers this past quarter) while AT&T (+324K) and T-Mobile (+495K) are gaining. Maybe it's just that Verizon's pricing sucks, their 5G footprint is the smallest, and they have the most congested network of the big three. They should work on those issues if they want to stem postpaid customer losses.

 

[thiscatisfat]

They literally just wanna make it harder to switch carriers because they're losing customers (-289K postpaid customers this past quarter) while AT&T (+324K) and T-Mobile (+495K) are gaining. Maybe it's just that Verizon's pricing sucks, their 5G footprint is the smallest, and they have the most congested network of the big three. They should work on those issues if they want to stem postpaid customer losses.

This is it. How someone can even argue that this isn't the true reason is beyond me, as it really doesn't take too many brain cells to understand these tactics.

 

[Apple.Fanatic]

blah, blah, blah. Everybody has sob stories about every carrier in existence. People also have sob stories about how they were mistreated by hospitals, doctors, mechanics, insurance salesmen, ministers, priests, teachers, bosses, and and and on. Most brought it on themselves.

Cool story...I guess yours is forums. I was sharing my experience with Verizon. If you don't care about that...move on.

 

[Chazak]

But is that not what credit checks are for? Verizon does credit checks and periodically does soft inquiries. That's just a part of doing business. Not to mention Verizon, themselves, agreed to not lock phones to get their hands on the 700c band 13 spectrum they got 15 years ago to roll out their LTE network. Now they just wanna roll that back? More people bought phones on contract back then, so their argument just does not make sense. 😂

They literally just wanna make it harder to switch carriers because they're losing customers (-289K postpaid customers this past quarter) while AT&T (+324K) and T-Mobile (+495K) are gaining. Maybe it's just that Verizon's pricing sucks, their 5G footprint is the smallest, and they have the most congested network of the big three. They should work on those issues if they want to stem postpaid customer losses.

Not disagreeing with your main point regarding making it difficult to switch carriers. My point is the action of having a system to securitize the asset on a second layer legitimizes the action to the extent it inhibits non-payment.

Credit checks are a help, but I know an awful lot of people I wouldn't lend a nickel who have post paid accounts and drive Mercedes Benz cars. I know people worth millions who have debt troubles too. Credit checks are far from foolproof in any way. Isn't this whole issue nil if someone pays as they agreed to or buys out the contract. If there are states where the carriers is allowed to not permit you to payoff the contract that is wrong. But again, it is not uncommon in both consumer finance and commercial finance for there to be prepayment penalties.

 

[currocj]

really? consumers will benefit from being locked in longer? wow, didn't know that Verizon has our, us the consumers, best interest on their mind. /s

This is bad, bad enough that Apple stopped accepting unlocked phones on the 18 or 24 months zero financing ...
For the past 10+ years I have purchased all iPhones for myself and family unlocked ...

You do know about the Apple Card loophole?

1) Buy an Apple iPhone unlocked for full price to your Apple Card
2) Immediately ask AppleCard (Goldman Sachs rep) to convert the purchase to an 18/24 month payment plan
3) Enjoy your unlocked / Simfree iPhone + payment plan with no interest

 

[GUNSTAR1]

I spend $1320 on Tmobiles plan. It's not the most expensive but ive considered something smaller like Mint.

 

[switz]

I can afford to purchase any computer gear or iPhone outright. I have been continously with Verizon since 1988. I have had their top tier program on both my wife's and my iPhones for years and have added SIM cards when over seas as needed. Now that Apple neutered their USA iPhones so no sim cards can be used, overseas travel can be more challenging, especially in third world areas. Verizon is very generous to themselves with their overseas charges.

I never saw a stand at any border crossing in the seven Southern Africa countries we visited overland that had eSIMs. Granted that was over five years ago. My solution is my iPhone 13 mini that has a SIM slot so Verizon is on the eSIM and O2 in the UK was a sim card. A simple click on a digital button switched between carriers.

With the new political climate, I think buying a cheap cellphone after landing overseas has many advantages for privacy. The cheap cellphone is destroyed just before departure and one arrives back in the US with no cell phone to be confiscated for inspection.

Too bad laptops are so expensive.... But a really cheap one could be acquired overseas like above.

One never knows what 'word' might be suddenly be offensive to dear leader.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Who still buys locked phones?

 

[TEG]

The correct answer is to lock them for 90 days maximum, across the board.