Verizon Asks FCC To Let It Lock New Smartphones For 60 Days (theverge.com)

Verizon is asking the FCC to let it keep new smartphones locked to its network for 60 days, as part of an initiative to prevent identify theft and fraud. "After the 60-day period, the phones would unlock automatically, the telecom says in a note published to its website and authored by Ronan Dunne, Verizon's executive vice president," reports The Verge. "Verizon says it should have the authority to do this under the so-called 'C-block rules' put in place following the FCC's 2008 wireless spectrum auction." From the report: "We believe this temporary lock on new phones will protect our customers by limiting the incentive for identity theft. At the same time, a temporary lock will have virtually no impact on our legitimate customers' ability to use their devices," Dunne writes. "Almost none of our customers switch to another carrier within the first 60 days. Even with this limited fraud safety check, Verizon will still have the most consumer-friendly unlocking policy in the industry. All of our main competitors lock their customers' new devices for a period of time and require that they are fully paid off before unlocking."

Verizon is just putting itself in line with the rest of the industry here. AT&T already requires your phone be activated for 60 days for you to unlock it, and the company even requires you to wait two weeks to unlock your old phone if you're upgrading to a new one. T-Mobile requires you wait 40 days, and also limits users to two unlocks per year per line. Sprint has a 50-day limit, and only unlocks devices from the onset if the phones are prepaid.

Comments

Cricket is AT&T - locked for 6 months

[Anonymous Coward]

To help correct the story for those interested in facts, AT&Ts Cricket locks "their" phones for 6 months. And if for any reason you temporarily use the SIM card in another phone, the 6 month clock starts over.

Re:Cricket is AT&T - locked for 6 months

[Z00L00K]

What about just buying the subscription and phone separately - is there a lock imposed then too?

Re:Cricket is AT&T - locked for 6 months

[ZorinLynx]

The pre-paid carriers have really weird policies when it comes to SIM cards.

For example, MetroPCS locks the SIM card to the IMEI of the device, so if your phone dies you can't just take your SIM out and put it in another phone; you have to call them to give them the new IMEI and I think they charge a fee too.

It's frustrating; the entire point of SIM cards was to make it easy to keep the subscriber identity (hence the name SIM) from the device, making it easy to upgrade and swap devices. Of course the carriers in their infinite greed added artificial restrictions.

Re: Cricket is AT&T - locked for 6 months

[longbot]

Ever since Sprint switched to SIM cards, they managed to fuck that up too. "Oh, this SIM won't work in that device, we need to give you a new one... But wait, we don't have one that will work in that... Oh, yes we do." And then, even switching from a Pixel to a Pixel 2 took a visit to a Sprint store and them doing some voodoo for half an hour. Switching devices is a huge pain in the ass these days.

Re:Cricket is AT&T - locked for 6 months

[ArhcAngel]

With the sudden burst of MVNO carriers the pre-paid carriers suddenly found their budget phones being bought and used on these MVNO. So they started locking things down. Most of the pre-paid carriers are subsidiaries of the big four carriers so they kind of shot themselves in the foot by sub-licensing their network to so many smaller companies.

Re: Cricket is AT&T - locked for 6 months

[Anonymous Coward]

And it won't get any better with esims.

Re: Cricket is AT&T - locked for 6 months

[OneOfMany07]

Thanks for that thought.

Yeah, I mean why offer valid, sustainable prices when you can change other rules to make that price invalid? Have your cake and sell it too.

Re:Cricket is AT&T - locked for 6 months

[crypticedge]

Carriers started doing that ages ago when sim theft was rampant. Sim theft cut down as it became harder to steal sims due to where and how they're installed now, but some like MetroPCS still hold on to some of the sim theft related policies. It's time for them to move forward too

Re:Cricket is AT&T - locked for 6 months

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question. I have had TMobile prepaid for over a decade. I purchase my first sim for a flip phone. I've moved this sim from phone to phone, and my number, without contracts. Unlocked phones.

This is not standard all over. WTH. I thought it T Mobile looked good, but I did not know how bad it really is then.

This is a bold lie

[Anonymous Coward]

All the data is encrypted and stored behind a password, what part of their identity could be stolen?

The time and place of where it was last powered on would be known, that makes it pretty easy to know who did it with all the other data out there.

Why would Verizon lie to their customers or keep them ignorant?

Re: This is a bold lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon can't even manage sending me a single bill for cell and internet services.

Re: This is a bold lie

[Anonymous Coward]

They are talking about people stealing their customers identity and putting new phones on payment plans, just paying the sales tax, walking out of the store and flipping it on craigslist or whatever. The fact that Verizon sells unlocked phones makes it a big target for this kind of scam because the scammers can sell the phones to people with other carriers. With AT&T for instance, if a similar scam occured the phone could only be used on AT&Ts network because per their policy devices cant be network unlocked until the device is fully paid for and has had at least 60 days of service on postpaid or 6 months prepaid. As soon as the fraud is caught, the device would get service suspended regardless off whatever number it was on - so long as its on the same network. Hence, the trouble with Verizon - the phone can be used on a different network so it takes longer to be caught and by then the longer is long gone.

PS to the guy that mentioned criket - I really doubt verizon cares about identity theft for prepaid customers because, besides number theft, people with prepaid plans cant finance phones (no credit or identity check). My point is the article is talking about postpaid. #ATTEmployee

Comcast/Xfinity

[NEDHead]

I believe my phones are unlocked from day 1, no contract, can move anytime and continue to pay only the phone costs on the original amortization schedule.

Pointless

[Anne Thwacks]

I do not see the point of locking phones - leaving aside the fact that the guy in the kiosk will unlock them for £5, I have several phones, and even if I took the SIM out of the phone, I would still be under contact and have to pay, regardless of whether I put another company's SIM in or not. Why should I not put their SIM in my tablet and my tablet's SIM in the new phone?

The main effect of locking is to drive me to buy phones cash down instead of on contract. With the likely side effect that I probably buy cheaper phones.

There is no benefit to the carrier from locking (unless I am stupid enough to pay £13 for unlocking instead of £5). There is, however, a considerable loss of "good will" - something that accountants normally value highly!

Re:Pointless

[Aighearach]

You're supposed to think about what they said to see if it implies an obvious answer.

It says, "as part of an initiative to prevent identify theft and fraud."

So when you say, "even if I took the SIM out of the phone, I would still be under contact and have to pay" you're ignoring the basic premise that has already been provided. If you're not who you say you are, you're not under contract, you placed somebody else under apparent contract, and that is both why you wouldn't be motivated by the contract terms, and also why you're even doing it.

The benefit to the carrier is that they don't actually have a valid contract with the victim of identity theft, and in the end they're likely to take some sort of loss. This reduces that, by adding a fixed 2-month delay to being able to transfer and cash out a fraud-phone. Many of these frauds will be discovered within that window, and so will be mitigated.

Can they be trusted to do it? Well, it doesn't sound like you're going to get that far into the issue. lol

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no benefit to the carrier from locking... unless I am stupid" If there were no benefit they wouldn't do it, so yeah. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean there's nothing to understand.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a stepping stone. First it's locked for 2 months, which is pointless as they confirmed "almost none" of their customers would be affected by this. Next it's locking for the first year or lifetime of the contract. Then it's locking indefinitely.

Re: Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

If fraud is detected, block both the SIM as usual, and block the phone based on its IMEI number. No need to lock all phones, just the fraud phones.

Also, phone locks can be unlocked. But a carrier block against the IMEI is final.

Re: Pointless

[Powercntrl]

If fraud is detected, block both the SIM as usual, and block the phone based on its IMEI number.

The global IMEI blacklist would do the job if Verizon was actually trying to prevent fraud. The real issue is the same situation that America Movil bitched about when people were unlocking and reselling TracFones - Verizon wants to offer carrier locked phones as a loss leader.

Re: Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, phone locks can be unlocked. But a carrier block against the IMEI is final.

Perhaps in country like US. In Europe plenty of "carrier locked" phones just land in another country.
Like phone from UK landing in Russia or Ukraine or Pakistan.
It is about mobility, isn't it?
As was mentioned in one of previous posts high praise goes to those guys with blackbox who are unlocking phones or upgrading custom roms.

What is Verizon's real reason?

[QuietLagoon]

With Verizon, public pronouncements usually have a different meaning, one that is not as customer-focused as the public reasons given.

Re:What is Verizon's real reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason is to sign up and lock in the buyer on a 24 month contract before those 60 days have passed. Or something similar.

Re:What is Verizon's real reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their goal is to prevent their phones from being moved to other networks or MVNOs on the Verizon network.

A while back I was looking at the Page Plus cellular service. It's an MVNO for Verizon, so you'd need a Verizon phone. But all the cheap Verizon phones were subsidy locked, so they had to be on Verizon network for a few months. I'd prefer not to use a used phone nor an expense ($300+) new phone, so I couldn't effectively just use Page Plus.

Some new phones (like Moto G6) are cross-network compatible, so hopefully this problem will gradually phase out.

Criminals aren't that afraid

[MikeRT]

Because in most of the areas where it's a problem, the police either don't care or don't have the resources to care so there's a high probability that even if you're recorded stealing the phone the police won't actually hunt you down.

What we need is reformation of our concept theft laws to divide it into three categories:

1. Theft for reasonable survival.
2. Petty theft for pleasure.
3. Grand theft for pleasure.

All forms of "illicit acquisition of property and cash" should be included in #3 making it so that anyone from a burglar to Bernie Madoff can be found guilty.

It should be punished--always--with hard labor.

In fact, we could use this to solve a lot of our "digital equality" issues by forcing the to provide free labor 10-12 hours a day digging ditches Mon through Sat for utilities and ISPs to lay fiber in poor rural and urban areas.

Re:Criminals aren't that afraid

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds great. The problem comes more in the implementation and the reality than the idea, as it does for so many things. The climate of the "justice" system in the US is more frequently concerned with throwing the book at an accused person and seeing what sticks or intimidating them into taking a guilty plea than actually charging a person for the crime they committed and seeking a just sentence. Prosecutors would not seek to charge defendants based on their actual situation but rather with the harshest version they could contrive support for, or all 3 if the law allowed.

Re:Criminals aren't that afraid

[LostMyAccount]

I'm not sure I like any of those ideas, but it did make me wonder...

Most theft laws increase the penalty/severity depending on the value of what was stolen.

I wonder if there should be a more sophisticated formula that depended on the value of what was stolen relative to the income of the individual it was stolen from, and the difference in income between the thief and their victim.

A poor persons stealing $100 from Bill Gates would get the equivalent of a parking ticket, but the same amount stolen from a $15/hr worker would be a serious felony.

An inverse theft (when a rich person steals from a poor person), would be extremely severe.

Re:Criminals aren't that afraid

[drinkypoo]

What we need is reformation of our concept theft laws to divide it into three categories:
1. Theft for reasonable survival.

The administration costs on UBI would probably be a lot less.

Re:Criminals aren't that afraid

[Anonymous Coward]

A poor persons stealing $100 from Bill Gates would get the equivalent of a parking ticket,

In other words: you would activily be pointing would-be thieves toward (supposed to be) rich people.

... which than have to spend large sums of money to protect themselves against those "small time" thieves.

And do take a look at whats called an ancient chineese torture/killing method, "The death of a thousand cuts". Each one of those cuts is minor, and even a number of them is easily survivable. But lots of them ? Not so much.

And by the way: Your method would mean that stealing from the gouverment would not even get you a "you should not be doing that" look, right ? :-)

MikeRT loves to blather bullshit, let's pretend.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're blathering about.

1. Shut the fuck up you retarded faggot.
2. You don't study these things or get any say, so
3. You're wasting everyone's time being a public moron

You should be educated.

Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck me.

I think I know why

[bob8766]

If a person buys an unlocked phone on day 1, they are a lot more likely to find a new carrier that they want to use and switch right away.

If you make them wait 60 days then people are more likely to forget about it or just not bother with finding and switching to a new network at that point..

Re:I think I know why

[mark-t]

If a person buys an unlocked phone on day 1, they are a lot more likely to find a new carrier that they want to use and switch right away.

So why should that be a customer's problem? How does locking the phone for 60 days protect customers from identity theft or fraud? It's obvious how it might help to protect a revenue stream for the provider, but it's not obvious at all how it supposedly protects the customer.

Someone else has already pointed out that in Canada, although it's a fairly recent law, locking cell phones to a provider is expressly disallowed. It's sad that apparently there is no similar law south of the 49th parallel.

Re:I think I know why

[dryeo]

They're pushing for similar same thing in Canada, the excuse is phones that fall off the back of the truck are too easy to sell. Seems occasionally a pallet falls off, or at least that's the story.

Re:I think I know why

[rtb61]

Current corporations never stop paying lobbyists, so the idea is simple.

Step 1:Just 60 days lock is that much to ask.
Step 2: We already have 60 days why not 120.
Step 3: We have 120 days, makes more sense to do a year.
Step 4: We have a year, and phones only last a couple of years, why not make it PERMANENT.

Every bloody time out of corrupt corporations, corrupt lobbyists and corrupt politicians.

Re:I think I know why

[mark-t]

They won't be able to do that here... there are express laws forbidding it now.

Re:I think I know why

[dryeo]

Well there's a chance of a change of government in the fall and lately, that seems to mean getting rid of whatever laws the other side brought in and any laws that are bad for business, in the opinion of the business.
In Canada, if a party has a majority, they can basically pass whatever laws they want though the courts may strike the worse down.

Re:I think I know why

[mark-t]

The CRTC, not the federal government, is actually responsible for banning cell phone locking in Canada. Which federal party has a majority at any given time is irrelevant.

The current or a future federal government could, hypothetically, try to restrict the CRTC's ability to govern in this area, but that might be an uphill climb for any party, even the most staunch pro-corporate ones.

They could appeal to the CRTC, but they would have to make a case for how the notion actually protects consumers (hint: it doesn't... it only protects the provider from fraud, not the legitimate consumer). At best, they might allow phones to be distributed locked from the manufacturer, but since the provider still has to provide unlocking on request free of charge as soon as the phone is provided to the customer, I'm not sure if having it locked between the manufacturer and provider would make any difference. A would-be criminal can request that their new phone be unlocked just as readily as an honest consumer. Providers that don't unlock phones they provide can be fined.

Re:I think I know why

[dryeo]

Do you not think that when the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development asks the CRTC to do something or not do something, the CRTC doesn't take it into heavy consideration? Or that Navdeep Bains isn't heavily influenced by what Bell lobbies for?
In the case of phone unlocking, you're probably correct, as Bell has succeeded in stopping the reason for pushing for cell locking, namely MVNO cell service in Canada, like in other countries.

Re:Why is this a thing? The user agreed to this

[ZorinLynx]

Because Verizon made an agreement with the FCC that if they got to use a specific band, devices would never be locked to Verizon.

It's as simple as that; Verizon made a deal with the FCC so they have to make a new deal with them to change it.

I think the FCC should tell Verizon where they can shove their carrier lock, but we all know it's run by big-business-friendly interests now so good luck with that.

If it were really about customer protection

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was really about consumer protection the phones wouldn't have to be "activated" (read "paying Verizon") for 60 days, just 60 days old.

In other words...

[xlsior]

...You won't be able to travel to Europe with your new phone and plonk in a local SIM to get 30 days of unlimited data for $30 or less, but instead you'll have to sign up for Verizon's international calling plan and get to pay them $10/day for limited data instead.

Good thing they are so invested in looking out for their customer's best interests, eh?

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't even do that anyways. German anti-terror laws doesn't allow anyone to even sell you a SIM card anymore without some comprehensive privacy invasive registration process that requires you to have an address in Germany.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't even do that anyways. German anti-terror laws doesn't allow anyone to even sell you a SIM card anymore without some comprehensive privacy invasive registration process that requires you to have an address in Germany.

Good to know for one country in the world if traveling internationally. For several other countries - the same rules do not necessarily apply. You can get a SIM with a bit a paperwork, pop it into your unlocked phone, activate it and you are good to go. No need to buy another costly phone - use the one you already own and have all of your apps setup on.

Re:Why is this a thing? The user agreed to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, at the FCC there is someone in charge who hates Verizon and would never consider cutting them a break and changing the deal. Not at all, I'm sure...

I'm hoping the preview catchpa is something like "regulatory capture" or "satirical bullshit."

why?

[fred6666]

It doesn't protect from identity thief at all.
Just ban cell phone locking like Canada has done. It has no reason to exist.

Re:why?

[swillden]

It doesn't protect from identity thief at all.

Identity theft is a rather weird thing to complain about.

My guess is that what this is really about is preventing supply chain phone theft. What happens is that phones are stolen while in transit to customers, or out of stores (often by employees), etc., and then shipped to other parts of the world and activated there. There's actually an international clearinghouse for stolen IMEIs, so that theoretically other networks can refuse to allow stolen devices onto their networks. But the destination networks, especially in Africa and Southeast Asia, have little reason to cooperate. Allowing phones to be locked to Verizon's network for 60 days would help with this, because it would ensure that phones stolen before they get activated on a customer account can't be used anywhere (as long as the implementation of the network lock is secure enough).

If my guess is correct, then I kind of understand what they're trying to do... but I think they should just figure out how to secure their supply chain. The inability to network lock was part of the deal when they bought their spectrum so they should deal with it (if you recall; Google was considering becoming a carrier and negotiated a deal with the FCC to buy it, and included a provision in that deal that the spectrum had to be kept open in a couple of ways -- no limitation on tethering and no network locking. Verizon eventually outbid Google and got the 4G spectrum, but the openness requirements attached by Google stayed.)

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that what this is really about is preventing supply chain phone theft. What happens is that phones are stolen while in transit to customers, or out of stores (often by employees), etc., and then shipped to other parts of the world and activated there.

If a phone is bought in a store, then no need for this. If a phone is delivered, activated, and the activation charge, which could be token, verified to be from the expected users credit card, then that's it. It can unlock immediately after. I'm not buying the two month figure. Verizon made a deal, now verizon is trying to alter the deal for better terms, but there is no compelling public interest to do so. There just is a corrupt government willing to do it regardless.

Re:why?

[Solandri]

The only explanation I can think of (since TFA doesn't explain it) is that they're trying to stem the theft of phones bought on contract with a stolen identity. The carrier lock is typically only used on phones which you buy via an installment plan. If you pay for the entire phone up-front, you're entitled to having it unlocked right there at the store when you buy it. But on an installment plan, you usually only pay x% down, with a promise to pay $y each month for the next z months. If the phone is unlocked, a legit customer could in theory pay the x%, then fail to make any of the monthly payments. Switch the phone over to a different carrier, and they've got a shiny new phone for only the x% down they paid. The thing which discourages legit customers from doing this is the hit to their credit report for failing to make the monthly payments.

But if the phone is bought using a stolen identity, then the buyer doesn't care about the hit to the credit report - it's not their credit report. So they'll sign up for the phone and plan using the stolen identity, pay the x% down, and skip out on the payments. They can then sell the phone for close to full price and make nearly (100-x)% profit.

The carrier locking phones bought on installment plans would help prevent this. The thief has to wait the 60 days before he can unlock the phone and sell it, during which time he's in possession of a "hot" item and could be nabbed if the person whose identity he stole catches the unauthorized credit activity and notifies everyone (Verizon and the police).

But the real beneficiary here is Verizon - they're no longer losing $800 phones for a $200 down payment. The person whose identity was stolen ultimately isn't responsible for paying Verizon for the remainder of the contract payments. And they probably had a lot of other fake accounts opened up in their name. It'll cost them about the same to clean up the mess regardless of whether or not there's also a fake Verizon account in the mix. So it's rather disingenuous for Verizon to try to spin this as helping prevent identity theft, when the primary beneficiary is themselves.

Re: why?

[nbvb]

That is EXACTLY what this is about. This is about supply chain theft, and theft of phones activated with a fake bank account/credit card/etc.

If someone orders a phone on an installment payment plan, with an attached line of service - it ships right out. Now let's say that was done using a stolen credit card. It might take a few weeks before it's discovered, and the charges reversed. Now Verizon is out a cell phone, some poor schlub has his identity stolen, and some guy overseas has a brand new iPhone that Verizon paid for.

So I totally get it - funny that the 60 days they are asking is also the limit of a bank's liability on fraud, isn't it?

That's what this is about - preventing either supply chain theft (which is very much real) and account identity fraud. It's actually sensible with no real customer impact.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the reason, why can't it be a 1 day lock? Or, heck, how about a 1 hour lock? How about a device that is locked until it is activated the first time? It still makes the device until sold.

Oh, yeah, because their 700 band requires all devices be unlocked. TO F'ING BAD VZDUB. You agreed to the conditions. Now suck it up or pay the 500 billion fee for breaking the contract.

Re: why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that there's no real customer impact. The intersection of the set of Verizon customers and the set of people who care about having a choice of phone carrier is practically null.

Re: why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean other than the exact use case that the guy above mentioned and that Verizon conveniently neglected to mention? If a phone is locked it is fucking useless to me. Whether it's for 60 days or a year or whatever. If Verizon's supply chain of phones is insecure too fucking bad, they agreed to keep their phones unlocked as part of buying that 4G spectrum.

Re:why?

[jabuzz]

The easy way to get third party countries to block stolen IMEI's would be for the USA/EU and a few others to get together and simply announce they will stop accepting inbound calls from such networks from say six months from now. Watch them scramble to start the blocking.

Re:why?

[fred6666]

You really think 60 days is going to stop thief? It's not going to make any difference.

Re:why?

[fred6666]

again, if you are going through all the trouble of stealing someone's identity, is a 60 days lock going to discourage you from stealing a phone? And this is supposing the lock is not crackable like the current SIM locks.

Re:why?

[swillden]

You really think 60 days is going to stop thief? It's not going to make any difference.

It changes what the thief has to do pretty dramatically. The thief can't just take a pallet of phones off a truck and ship them to Africa, he has to get the phones activated on real user accounts for two months first. That basically means he has to steal them from individual users -- and there are additional obstacles created by user passwords, factory reset protections, etc. All very difficult and risky.

I don't think it's the right solution... but it would basically eliminate supply chain phone theft.

Re:why?

[swillden]

The easy way to get third party countries to block stolen IMEI's would be for the USA/EU and a few others to get together and simply announce they will stop accepting inbound calls from such networks from say six months from now. Watch them scramble to start the blocking.

I think that would violate several international agreements / treaties. Plus it's like killing butterflies with a sledgehammer.

Re:why?

[fred6666]

Sounds like a non-solution to a non-problem.

Is supply chain phone theft anymore a problem than say, laptop or TV theft? Why aren't they locking those too?
And you can be 100% sure that this locking mechanism will be cracked, just like regular SIM-locking.

Also why 60 days? Why not 60 seconds? What if I want to travel during that 60 days and use a foreign SIM?

Re:why?

[swillden]

First, just to reiterate... I'm not supporting Verizon in this, in fact I said the opposite. I'm just speculating as to their rationale.

Is supply chain phone theft anymore a problem than say, laptop or TV theft?

Well, it's more of a problem for Verizon, since Verizon doesn't sell laptops or TVs. But, no, not really.

And you can be 100% sure that this locking mechanism will be cracked, just like regular SIM-locking.

This is exactly SIM locking. And it's not so easy to crack in most cases.

Also why 60 days? Why not 60 seconds? What if I want to travel during that 60 days and use a foreign SIM?

I have no idea why they say 60 days.

Re:why?

[fred6666]

Unlock codes can be purchased for $5-10 online, probably less in bulk. I fail to see how this we prevent a thief from stealing $1000 phones.

Re:why?

[swillden]

Unlock codes can be purchased for $5-10 online, probably less in bulk.

No, this is not true in most cases. And "bulk" doesn't even make sense, since unlock codes are generally device-specific.

Re:why?

[fred6666]

What I mean is that those selling these unlock codes to me for $5-10 (I even paid $3 once) would probably be willing to give a substantial discount if I were purchasing 1000 of them at the same time.

The Samsung Galaxy S could be unlocked by software (no need to purchase a code). My understanding is that the fee goes 100% towards labor/profit, there is no "cost" in getting an unlock code.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Allowing phones to be locked to Verizon's network for 60 days would help with this, because it would ensure that phones stolen before they get activated on a customer account can't be used anywhere (as long as the implementation of the network lock is secure enough).

I would add a clause in here that would be consumer friendly - if you want to unlock it sooner - you have to validate your identity in person with Verizon. i.e. I should be able to buy a new phone in person and have it unlocked immediately in. Similarly, if I buy the thing online, have it 2-day shipped to me, I should be able to bring it in person to activate and unlock it. With cameras in all of the stores - you are less likely to have somebody commit an act of fraud in person.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus it's like killing butterflies with a sledgehammer

Uh, that works, so what's the complaint?

I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I might have missed this in the article itself but Verizon's talking point is a little confusing. Are they talking about locking Verizon branded phones to their network only for 60 days, or buying an unlocked phone and unbranded phone, and Verizon wanting to somehow modify the phone using the SIM card to keep it locked to their own network?

Because if it's the former then I don't think it's that much of an issue. The people buying direct from carriers aren't usually the ones that care about being able to switch quickly. The people that do find that important will probably purchase an unlocked phone anyways. If it's the latter, then since when has smartphones had that capability?

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if the customer cares. They agreed not to lock devices that operate on 700 band. Allowing Verizon to sell locked devices changes the terms of the contract they signed. This is bad for customers because it not only removes choices but it also increases the cost of unlocked devices by creating a market for it. It's bad for other carriers who might have bid more had they been allowed to lock devices. It's bad for for US citizens who do or do not have Verizon because the spectrum is owned by the citizens and is licenced to the carriers. A band that can be restricted would have generated more revenue for the government of the people .

Re:Why is this a thing? The user agreed to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the FCC have to get involved? The user agreed as per their cellular contract for a locked phone in return for a discounted price or a payment plan. First year law school stuff here, a contract is a contract.

You should probably take some of that first year law school stuff.

Verizon agreed and signed a contract long long ago that in exchange for the frequency allocation they are using, they are required to never lock a phone in it to their network.

Sorry chum, a contract is a contract, and Verizon agreed to it. There's nothing you or them can legally do with an unrelated 3rd party that purchases a phone or service from them to change that.

Re:Why is this a thing? The user agreed to this

[ThomasD3]

If left to their own devices, all companies would come up with abusive clauses. The gov is here to prevent them from doing so; while it may do a poor job at times, the only reason you're not working 16 hours a day in a factory is because government made rules to decide what companies can and can't do, for people's good.

Just use Google-Fi or another MVNO

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously do not understand why Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, or Sprint Wireless is still in business.

Used to use Sprint, grew tired of their willful incompetence, bullshit, and the ever increasing mandatory "fees" that could be otherwise described as normal business operating costs.

Switched first to Ting Mobile, they were great, but somewhat bare bones. Then switched to Google-Fi. Spent $150 upfront for a really nice unlocked Android One phone, the Moto X4. No contracts, no bullshit, and amazing network coverage. My monthly bill is generally around $25 and it works internationally without gouging.

With a little bit of effort you can set it up to route all numbers not in your contacts to a voice mail message notifying the caller that you didn't recognize their number and that if they really are a human they need to call you back within 15 minutes to directly route their call to you. No more distracting spam calls, done and done.

They frequently have good device promos here: https://fi.google.com/about/device-promo-terms/

Plus a $20 service credit using this code 1X2DNC or link https://g.co/fi/r/1X2DNC

Re: Why is this a thing? The user agreed to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Louis Freeh farted.

Re:Why is this a thing? The user agreed to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon has the keys to the dildo already shoved up Pai's ass. Of course they'll get what they want.

Re:Why is this a thing? The user agreed to this

[Powercntrl]

Verizon made a deal with the FCC so they have to make a new deal with them to change it.

Screw that. If Verizon no longer likes the terms they agreed to, the spectrum should go back up for auction. If the FCC wasn't so damn corrupt under the current administration, they'd tell Verizon to get bent.

nothing to see here, move along...

[Anonymous Coward]

Touch your toes cellular consumer, and dong forget to smile

Re:Why is this a thing? The user agreed to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution. Let them have the lock out, and take the radio spectrum back and auction it off to someone else.

Illogical

[Anonymous Coward]

Why tie and restrict the physical phone to a carrier? Well, to earn more. Nothing to do with security. You have an agreement. You pay it as clearly as it is written there. That's it. But no, they need to hide the actual costs and potentially keep you locked in as long as possible. That is not healthy. What if i smash the phone and do not use it anymore? That should be illegal as well. And to allow it to be stolen should be a fine and contract breach.

Honestly, .... I am okay with this..

[PortHaven]

I am fine with a 90-day network lock of cell phones. Mainly to prevent scamming, basically buying a bunch of phones under plan discounts just prior to leaving the country and saying sayonara.

I don't pay for it for 60 days then

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't pay for it for 60 days then. How about you inhale my shit down your windpipe Verzion?

Oh that's right, I don't have Verizon. That Nazi company, i'd be a fucking retard to ever use that CIA asset.

Re:I'm sure Ajit Pai will thoughtfully consider th

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is that "redirectingat.com" link? Some spyware data harvester?

Here is the real link:

https://www.verizon.com/about/news/protecting-our-customers-identity-theft-and-fraud

Also none of this even matters since nobody in the world uses CDMA except Verizon, so you won't be taking your Verizon branded phone to another carrier anyways.

Re:Why is this a thing? The user agreed to this

[sconeu]

Yeah, right. Pai will never argue with VZW. He needs his stock options to get even higher.