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.
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.
I find this highly unlikely. They're locking in their customers under the guise of deterring theft.
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.
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.)
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 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.
I think the locking part is more for IMEI blacklisting. The network has the ability to block known stolen phones via an IMEI blacklisting. But each carrier has their own blacklist (there is some sharing - but not international AFAIK). So at the moment - a thief can just take the phone to another network (especially out of country), and just use it.
Having the phone locked to the network for the first few months, means if a thief gets their hands prior to activation, then it's a brick.
If the sim lock is auto removed after 3-6 months then I see this as a GOOD change overall, as the incentive to steal phones is reduced.
I actually read the article. As part of the sales agreement for the 700MHZ spectrum purchase they agreed to sell their devices unlocked. I guess that agreement had a sunset or they are just choosing to ignore it now.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
I bought a Verizon prepaid phone last year and it had a sticker that said it was locked to Verizon for a year "to justify the low subsidized cost of the phone" or something like that. Is this expanding from prepaid phones to all of their phones, or was this already true for all of their phones?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
IMEI blacklisting doesn't work when a thief uses a device on a carrier that has declined to import Verizon's IMEI blacklists, especially a foreign one.
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.
Probably the second. After all, the FCC Chairman is a Verizon hand-puppet... I mean "ex-Verizon lobbyist".
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
And if they can't even secure hardware before it even hits store shelves, they have a much larger (and different) problem.
It is a problem for everyone that sells small valuable things. So who pays for "shrinkage"? You do. The cost of theft is built into the price of everything you buy.
We now have market full of $500+ smartphones loaded with features no one asked for. Within this particular industry, obscene greed and pointless feature creep has impacted the price FAR more than "shrinkage" ever will.
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.