Slashdot Mirror
Verizon is Locking Its Phones Down To Combat Theft (cnet.com)
Verizon is taking an extra step to protect its phones. CNET: The nation's largest wireless carrier said Monday that it would begin locking the phones it sells to consumers, which will prevent them from using a SIM card from another carrier. Initially, the phones will be unlocked as soon as a customer signs up and activates the service. But later in the spring, the company will begin the practice of keeping the phone locked for a period of time after the purchase -- in line with the rest of the industry. Verizon said it is doing this to deter criminals from stealing phones, often on route to retail stores or from the stores themselves.
I'm pretty sure insurance on deliveries covers any financial burden these supposed thieves are incurring.
Insurance doesn't reduce costs. It just spreads the cost out, and then tacks on the administrative costs and profit for the insurance company, thus increasing the cost.
Insurance on routine expenses like inventory shrinkage is foolish. In the long run, it costs more than it saves.
There must be no thieves in Belgium as it is forbidden, by law, to block phones. I change operator about every 1 to 2 years. I buy phones in the mean time when it pleases me.
I have the same cell phonenumber since 10 to 15 years. Changing operator is as easy as going into the store, signing up for a new pre-paid card and put it in. A few hours later I get the SMS that the transfer has been done. They even ask how much there is on the old provider, as you will lose that amount. If it is a lot, they advice to do it later, when it is less and not to loose the amount on the competitors sim. Not that much with a prepaid, but if you have a contract and end it too soon, you might pay a LOT.
And all this with unloocked phones.
There are contracts where it is in comination with a phone, but even then I could take the phone and use that with another provider, while I use an old phone with the new contract. So say I want to use an Android and my SO wants to use an iPhone. I can sign up for an iPhone contract, use it with the android and use the Android contract (with the same or a different provider) with the iPhone.
Oh, and no roaming costs in Europe. I hope they are working about no extra costs for calling international inside Europe. There are countries that have cheaper contracts.
And all that because there are not any thieves in Belgium. Well, that must be it, otherwise Verizon would be lying and how can a company be lying to their customers. That would be bad for business, right? RIGHT?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Everyone reads the headline, and maybe part of TFS, and proceeds to jump to the worst possible conclusion.
From TFA: For consumers, there's little immediate impact because the phone gets unlocked immediately through a software update.
Also from TFA: Even after the change, Verizon will continue to unlock the phone [upon customer request] regardless of whether it's paid off or not. The company will also still accept unlocked phones from other carriers.
But don't let any of that get in the way of your impotent ramps, guys. You can always switch to that other provider that doesn't lock phones to their service. Let's see, who is that, again? From TFA one more time: AT&T requires you to pay off your phone and be active on your service for at least 60 days. Even then, there's a 14-day wait after you make your request. Sprint also requires that you have paid off your phone and wait 50 days, although the phone is automatically unlocked. T-Mobile has the same paid device requirement and a 40-day wait period, but will offer to temporarily unlock the device sooner for travel.
Yes, not to go off into a tangent, but I think it's worth repeating/emphasizing: Insurance does not save money overall. That's the same whether it's health insurance, car insurance, or phone insurance. The average individual participating in insurance will pay more than they ever take out, and all of the people collectively will pay more than they ever take out. If that weren't the case, then insurance companies would be losing money, and wouldn't be feasible as a business.
The purpose of insurance is to socialize risk. Everyone puts in a little money into a pool, and then if someone participating falls into an unlikely disastrous situation, they are permitted to cover their loss from that pooled money. No more money can be extracted than is put in, and some percentage always needs to be paid to someone to administer the whole thing.
As much as I love vilifying the carriers, Verizon is not removing the ability to unlock phones, so most of what you've said is incorrect. In fact, the linked article specifically says:
Even after the change, Verizon will continue to unlock the phone regardless of whether it's paid off or not.
So what's actually going on?
In a nutshell, Verizon is simply matching what the other three US carriers already do. Currently, Verizon—unlike the rest of the carriers—sells phones unlocked by default. Going forward, they'll be stopping that practice and instead adopting the same practice of "locked by default, unlocked upon request" approach used by the other three carriers.
All of which is to say, this is a mountain being made of a molehill due to bad reporting and poor summarization. Importantly, this won't kill the secondary market like you're claiming, any more than the current practices of AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint have already "killed" the secondary markets (hint: they haven't; I've had no trouble getting phones unlocked before switching carriers or selling the handsets on the secondary market). Moreover, while I would love to see Verizon obliterated for its numerous offenses (e.g. ad identifiers and supercookies, suits against the FCC, giving us Pai, etc.), I have to give them credit where it's due for not attaching the requirement that the phone be paid off before it can be unlocked, which is something that all of the other carriers require.
It will affect someone who goes on holiday and wants to use a local sim to avoid extortionate roaming charges
My wife and I had no trouble getting her AT&T phone unlocked so that we could use a local SIM while traveling abroad last year. The article itself indicates that Verizon isn't removing the ability to unlock phones, even ones that haven't been fully paid off. All they're doing is locking the phones by default, matching the practice used by the other three carriers.
I find myself in the odd position of defending a company I utterly loathe, but I honestly don't see the cause for concern here. Is their current practice more consumer-friendly? Without a doubt, yes. Is their new practice a problem, however? At least in my experience with other carriers who use that same practice, no, I don't think it is. I understand that unlocking phones used to be significantly more burdensome, but I haven't had any trouble with it in the last few years, so I don't understand the fever pitch in the summary and comments.
Reference to the FCC open-access agreement here.
Normally, it's the FTC's duty to investigate anti-consumer anti-competitive practices. The FCC is involved here only because the open-access rules were a stipulation of purchasing the 700 MHz band. So even if the FCC does nothing, the FTC can still step in.