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.

12 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Protecting Profit by sdinfoserv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Protecting Profit by TFlan91 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ^ 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.

    2. Re:Protecting Profit by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      They are going back to the bad old days of locked phones requiring permission to use another carrier in violation of their agreement with the FCC. Of course the FCC chairman is a Verizon stooge, so nothing will come of it.

      Verizon is taking an extra step to protect its phones.

      These are not Verizon's phones.

    3. Re:Protecting Profit by nine-times · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Protecting Profit by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  2. Who owns your phone? by sremick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:Who owns your phone? by Voyager529 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (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.

  3. Re:Not if unlocked in a year or less by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. another reason to buy handsets separately by welshie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Not if unlocked in a year or less by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  6. There are no thieves in Belgium by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  7. Par For The ./ Course by tsqr · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.