>FCC said the Verizon rule “required one wireless carrier to unlock their handsets well earlier than standard industry practice, thus creating an incentive for bad actors to steal those handsets for purposes of carrying out fraud and other illegal acts.”
Is there any evidence for the idea that 'phones are more likely to be stolen if they're carrier-unlocked.'
Seems implausible to me. Modern smartphones lock themselves well. Criminals can just buy cheap phones themselves for crimes. My understanding is that when they steal a phone and can't access it, they send it to Asia to be scrapped for parts (so it doesn't matter if it was carrier-locked). Are they confusing carrier-unlock with lockscreen-unlock? Or is the reason above just a pretext?
DefineOutside•3w ago
There was a promo from Straight Talk wireless, that a bunch of users on slickdeals used, for a $360 iphone 16e (+1 month service) with the intention of buying and unlocking to be used on another carrier. The FCC guidelines were explicit about being 60 days after activation without indication of fraud, with no mention of active service.
After the first few initial customers put in tickets to unlock their phones after 60 days passed, Straight Talk changed their policy from 60 days since activation to 60 days of active service, breaking the FCC guidelines knowing that no one would sue them in a federal court over a small amount. They forced users to buy a second month of service to unlock the phone. One user even successfully won in small claims court for breach of contract since Straight Talk refused to activate their phone, since you can't just change the contract after the sale is complete. You sadly can't sue for breaching FCC policies in small claims, that requires hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of lawyers. I put in a FCC complaint over this, but the FCC more or less ignored it.
Verizon is just doing this as a pretext. It's a continuation of them ignoring this policy after users were buying cheap phones to use on other carriers and waiting 60 days. It just looks better to claim you are defeating criminals.
sigmar•3w ago
Is there any evidence for the idea that 'phones are more likely to be stolen if they're carrier-unlocked.'
Seems implausible to me. Modern smartphones lock themselves well. Criminals can just buy cheap phones themselves for crimes. My understanding is that when they steal a phone and can't access it, they send it to Asia to be scrapped for parts (so it doesn't matter if it was carrier-locked). Are they confusing carrier-unlock with lockscreen-unlock? Or is the reason above just a pretext?
DefineOutside•3w ago
After the first few initial customers put in tickets to unlock their phones after 60 days passed, Straight Talk changed their policy from 60 days since activation to 60 days of active service, breaking the FCC guidelines knowing that no one would sue them in a federal court over a small amount. They forced users to buy a second month of service to unlock the phone. One user even successfully won in small claims court for breach of contract since Straight Talk refused to activate their phone, since you can't just change the contract after the sale is complete. You sadly can't sue for breaching FCC policies in small claims, that requires hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of lawyers. I put in a FCC complaint over this, but the FCC more or less ignored it.
Verizon is just doing this as a pretext. It's a continuation of them ignoring this policy after users were buying cheap phones to use on other carriers and waiting 60 days. It just looks better to claim you are defeating criminals.