Long-term carrier lock-in could soon be a thing of the past in America after the FCC proposed requiring telcos to unlock cellphones from their networks 60 days after activation.

FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel put out that proposal on Thursday, saying it would encourage competition between carriers. If subscribers could simply walk off to another telco with their handsets after two months of use, networks would have to do a lot more competing, the FCC reasons.

“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,” Rosenworcel said.

Carrier-locked devices contain software mechanisms that prevent them from being used on other providers’ networks. The practice has long been criticized for being anti-consumer.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    In the US, almost no one buys their phones outright. They “lease to own”. Anyone whe does buy their phone outright can just buy the unlocked ones.

    So I’m not sure what this rule would actually change. You’re already not Carrier locked if you bought your phone. You’re only Carrier locked if you lease it.

    The big fuck up was eliminating competition by allowing t mobile to buy sprint. Too many pieces of shit were in charge 2016 to 2020.

    • Strykker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      In Canada even if you lease to own a phone it’s not carrier locked anymore, you have to pay the remaining balance if you leave, or possibly can return the phone (but that’s just throwing your money away)

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      I remember during COVID, trying to reduce my bills. Called my mobile operator. For £200 fee I could buy out early, and pay £15 per month. Or I could continue paying something ridiculous like £60 per month.
      Absolute no-brainer, and I would never get a contract phone again.

    • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Sprint would have failed without the merger and we would have had three carriers anyway so it doesn’t matter whether they merged or not and in fact it’s probably better that they did because it caused T-Mobile’s service to improve dramatically since then. I knew friends who had T-Mobile back in 2012 and it was a joke. I had T-Mobile in 2016 and it was only okay.

    • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      The merger is still something that I’m 50/50 on because it made T-Mobile’s service so much more reliable, and iirc Sprint was genuinely struggling.

      It still sucks that Boost isn’t going anywhere