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.

Comments

Protecting Profit

[sdinfoserv]

This isn't about "protecting consumers". It's about killing off the secondary phone market. After you upgrade, you're stuck with a brick you can't sell. All those people who buy used phones will be forced to purchase new - or rooted ones.

Re:Protecting Profit

[TFlan91]

^ This.

I'm pretty sure insurance on deliveries covers any financial burden these supposed thieves are incurring.

This is 100% squarely aimed at locking consumers into their eco-system, "in line with the rest of the industry" my ass. I haven't bought a locked phone in nearly a decade.

good to know

[jmccue]

Good to know, as a verizon customer who was toying with replacing my 8 year old phone with a new one, I guess I will look for another provider also.

Who owns your phone?

[sremick]

I just bought a new phone and had to order a Canadian model so that not only would it be carrier-unlocked, but also bootloader unlocked. Since I still have that crazy idea that when I buy a phone, that I own the phone and the carrier shouldn't be able to dictate what I can and can't install on it, copy off from it for backups to keep my data safe, etc.Or dictate when I need to buy a new phone because they've arbitrarily decided to stop providing OS updates for it, leaving me unsafe and left behind.

Yes it's 1 (soon, 2) models "behind" from the latest and greatest but it's 2 models NEWER than my current phone, because I'm not a sucker who falls for marketing pressure trying to convince me I need a new phone every year when I clearly do not.

If computer manufacturers pulled the same shit on computers, people would've been up in arms. Though we're watching Apple and now Microsoft try and take advantage of how users are being fucked and desensitized by consumer-hostile cell carrier practices, and infect PCs with the same anti-consumer practices inch by inch. Don't you dare tell me what OS I can and can't run on the hardware I bought, or what apps I can or can't use, or what data of MINE I'm allowed to copy and back up.

(cue all the trolls who jump in and claim that rooting is no longer necessary and serves no purpose. Don't bother, you're wrong.)

Re:Who owns your phone?

[Voyager529]

(cue all the trolls who jump in and claim that rooting is no longer necessary and serves no purpose. Don't bother, you're wrong.)

Thank you!

"Why do you need to root?" "Because f'k you, that's why." Even if it's for the pure reason of retaining ownership of the device, out of pure principle rooting needs to remain a mainstay.

Still, there are reasons to root. Arguably the biggest one is that apps that shouldn't be set as 'system', and thus are unremovable, are. Shipping with them, fine, I get it. Preventing their removal is unacceptable and shame on both Google and the OEMs for allowing this practice. In many cases, the XDA community will release a ROM based on a more recent version of Android than the OEM will release, extending the life of the hardware. Also, Xprivacy/PMP. In one case, my mom's tablet kept updating in a way that prevents the Play Store from working...so I had to root it to block the update so it would continue to work.

I don't understand the idea of people saying, "I don't need a rooted phone, so I will argue that no one else does". I never argue that everyone should have root access on their phones, but I do argue that they should be able to have it if they so choose. Those who argue the inverse forget history.

Re:Not if unlocked in a year or less

[geekmux]

If the "period of time after the purchase" is 3 to 12 months, as it is with T-Mobile, it won't affect someone who upgrades and sells on his old handset after one or two years.

This has everything to do with consumer lock-in and nothing to do with theft.

And if they can't even secure hardware before it even hits store shelves, they have a much larger (and different) problem.

another reason to buy handsets separately

[welshie]

Another reason to buy standard, uncrippled, unlocked phones separately from any airtime contract.
Buy them on credit if you must. My airtime provider doesn't care much as to what handset I have, so long as my SIM will fit, and it will work on the frequency ranges and technical standards that their network uses.

Insurance against a phone going missing in transit from the seller to the customer should not inconvenience the customer in any way, other than possibly acknowledging safe receipt of goods. If Verizon is worried about this, they should offer free unlocking immediately after their customer acknowledges safe receipt.

Re:Not if unlocked in a year or less

[Bert64]

It will affect someone who goes on holiday and wants to use a local sim to avoid extortionate roaming charges (or in some cases a lack of roaming agreement which prevents you from having any service at all)...

It will affect someone who buys a subsidised phone but intends to use a different one with the service...

A carrier lock is ineffective at deterring theft, blacklisting the IMEI of a stolen device (both on the networks themselves, and with apple/google etc) is far more effective.

It's about locking customers in, nothing else.