T-Mobile and AT&T warn that FCC's proposed unlocking rule could increase phone prices

[DragonSlayer101]

What just happened? T-Mobile has expressed strong reservations about the FCC's proposed rule that would require carriers to unlock users' phones within 60 days of activation. In a filing with the agency last week, the carrier argued that locking phones to its network enables it to offer cheaper handsets to consumers, and that an unlocking mandate could significantly increase phone prices.

According to T-Mobile's Michele Thomas, the proposed rule could force carriers to abandon their device payment plans, thereby impacting customers. The carrier also questioned the FCC's authority to implement its plan, arguing that the changes would have "profound economic consequences" for service providers and their customers, necessitating "clear statutory authority from Congress."

The letter claims that if the rule is enacted, device subsidies for prepaid customers could decrease by as much as 40 to 70 percent, leading to substantial price hikes for entry-level smartphones like the Moto G and Samsung Galaxy A15. Additionally, it could result in the elimination of free handset schemes by carriers altogether.

T-Mobile's letter follows a statement from AT&T, which also opposed the FCC's plan. AT&T claimed that the proposal would negatively affect its ability to offer affordably priced phones and tablets to consumers. Following a meeting with FCC officials earlier this month, AT&T argued that the proposed rule would harm consumers by "creating upward pressure on handset prices and disincentives to finance handsets on flexible terms."

The carrier warned the FCC that a shorter unlocking period could lead to an increase in fraud and trafficking, arguing that locking handsets is not an anti-consumer practice. Instead, it enables providers to make devices more affordable for consumers, who "overwhelmingly elect to purchase their phones in this way," according to the company.

The only major carrier supporting the unlocking mandate is Verizon, which already unlocks phones after 60 days of activation as part of a legal requirement from its 2007 spectrum purchase agreement.

AT&T and T-Mobile's objections are among the many responses received by the FCC after it invited public comments following the approval of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by a unanimous 5-0 vote in June. The proposed new rule would require all mobile wireless service providers to "unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated," unless the device was obtained by the user through theft, fraud, or other illegal means.

T-Mobile allows the unlocking of paid-off phones after 365 days for prepaid users and 40 days for postpaid customers, while AT&T enables unlocking for mobile devices after six months for prepaid users and 60 days for postpaid customers.

Permalink to story:

T-Mobile and AT&T warn that FCC's proposed unlocking rule could increase phone prices

 

[yRaz]

When I buy a phone from SAMSUNG, the fact that ATT and TMobile have to unlock them has nothing to do with MSRP. Just shut the hell up and unlock the damn phones, I'm not financing a phone, anyway. So much of their business model is financing and not actually providing a service. Kind of like how McDonalds is actually a realestate company, not a restaurant chain.

 

[NumberNine]

There should be a substantial fee paid to the federal government per locked device sold. If Google and Apple must allow other stores on their devices, cell service providers should also allow other carriers on their devices.

Would be kinda cool to read about a win for consumers now and then instead of this ultra fashionable cut throat race to ethical bankruptcy.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Locking doesnt make the phones cheaper. All it does is allow you to gouge customers and lock them into your carrier. I had that run in with my note 4 way back when. T mobile refused to unlock it to run on metro PCS, despite me owning it outright. Said I had to contact a third party money, pay them for a code, and they MIGHT send me a code to unlock after 4-6 weeks.

Ever since I've refused to buy a phone that wasnt unlocked. Carriers are scammers, NEVER buy their garbage. Buy the phone from the manufacturer and treat the cell provider as the exchangeable junk they are.

 

[kira setsu]

As per the usual, companies threatening to raise prices

 

[GhostLegion]

Somehow Verizon (in favor of the rule!) manages to offer promotions to compete with T-Mobile and AT&T. So I find it difficult to believe that requiring unlocking will render carriers noncompetitive with one another

 

[seeprime]

I buy unlocked phones on sale at Amazon, for less than the carriers price for the same model. I picked up a Pixel 7a on Prime day for half price, $249. Carrier wanted 400+. I've never been hit with a carrier charge to set them up either.

What a giant crock of BS tech firms get away with spouting these days.

 

[Billybobjoey]

The Samsung Galaxy A15, one of the phones that T-Mobile mentioned, is currently $200 straight from Samsung's online store, and $228 from T-Mobile's online store. Locking phones to specific carriers is a scam to begin with. If I can't outright buy an unlocked phone and activate it where I want, I won't be buying that phone.

 

[antiproduct]

Phone companies: "Oh no, please please please don't give us an excuse to raise our prices!"

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Phone companies: "Oh no, please please please don't give us an excuse to raise our prices!"

I mean, if the phone companies thought they could raise phone prices without losing any money they would just do it now, they hardly need an excuse; right now the phone companies prefer the current model, as locking phones lets them well lock in customers with a lower initial price that they make up for with higher monthly contract prices, bringing them more overall profit.

 

[Kirby1]

I have been buying only unlocked phones for a long time. If you're not buying a flagship, they're not even that expensive.

These carriers are full of it.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

This is patented lobbying speak. This rule will not raise phone prices one single dime. We know it, and they know it because they will still have to compete with OEMs for phone sales. Since the rule only applies to carriers, they are the only ones that would even consider such a move, but they won't because they know that people will just buy straight from Apple or Samsung, and they lose out on the profits and the interest charges in financing. This is simply weak rhetoric thrown at the FCC to make it look like its rule will hurt the consumer because that is generally the only thing that stops new FCC regs other than party-line dissent.

 

[The Talking Tech]

If people want their phones unlocked within 60 days then they should pay them entirely within that time.

Phones shouldn't be unlocked for you to use whatever way you want if you haven't fully paid for them....Just like a car is not yours until is being fully paid for.

Fair is fair.

 

[GhostLegion]

Phone companies: "Oh no, please please please don't give us an excuse to raise our prices!"

It's mostly a lie anyways. The "free" phone has been priced into your monthly charge anyways. Just look at MVNO's that don't subsidize their phones at all. Very rarely is a phone genuinely "free". I'd say if they would actually LOWER prices if this were to come to pass just because you can't play with phone promos as much. So now you compete on price, network quality etc...

 

[GhostLegion]

This is patented lobbying speak. This rule will not raise phone prices one single dime. We know it, and they know it because they will still have to compete with OEMs for phone sales. Since the rule only applies to carriers, they are the only ones that would even consider such a move, but they won't because they know that people will just buy straight from Apple or Samsung, and they lose out on the profits and the interest charges in financing. This is simply weak rhetoric thrown at the FCC to make it look like its rule will hurt the consumer because that is generally the only thing that stops new FCC regs other than party-line dissent.

Small point of disagreement, I don't know that any of the carriers charge anything for financing like interest or origination fees.

 

[psycros]

An ever better ruling would be that phones can't be locked to a carrier, ever. Get them out of the phone business and eliminate the last bits of proprietary carrier bloatware and other shenanigans. I'll buy my phone from a retailer that has a huge selection or direct from the manufacturer. This will also force carriers to stop blocking certain phones from their networks for absolutely no reason. My phone can functionally work just fine on any carrier but only T-Mobile actually lets it be used on their network.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Small point of disagreement, I don't know that any of the carriers charge anything for financing like interest or origination fees.

Billybob above already pointed it out, the Samsung A15 is $28 more form t mobile then it is from Samsung direct.

Edit: you also get stuck with carrier bloat, advertisements and notifications from said bloat, carrier messenger apps, ece. You pay one way or another.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

An ever better ruling would be that phones can't be locked to a carrier, ever. Get them out of the phone business and eliminate the last bits of proprietary carrier bloatware and other shenanigans. I'll buy my phone from a retailer that has a huge selection or direct from the manufacturer. This will also force carriers to stop blocking certain phones from their networks for absolutely no reason. My phone can functionally work just fine on any carrier but only T-Mobile actually lets it be used on their network.

What phone do you have that's only supported by T-Mobile?

 

[GhostLegion]

Billybob above already pointed it out, the Samsung A15 is $28 more form t mobile then it is from Samsung direct.

Edit: you also get stuck with carrier bloat, advertisements and notifications from said bloat, carrier messenger apps, ece. You pay one way or another.

I agree but that's not what the comment I was referencing stated. Specifically interest charges or other fees related to providing financing. No such charges related to financing are assessed.

 

[GhostLegion]

What phone do you have that's only supported by T-Mobile?

There are several, like the T-Mobile Revvl

 

[Theinsanegamer]

What phone do you have that's only supported by T-Mobile?

In addition to t mobile brands, there's also the Chinese grey market imports like xaiomi, since 3g has been shut off you need VoLTE. ATT and Verizon both lock down what phones they allow to use VoLTE. T mobile doesn't.

 

[p51d007]

In the USA, it is sort of called "conditioning". When phones came along, you HAD to buy it from a carrier, locked, on their plan. Pretty much it was Cingular, Verizon, Sprint and a few others. There was pretty much no other place to buy a phone. So, the carriers found a way to lock them in. Buy a phone from us, only pay xx per month, versus paying xxx + xx for the service. We'll even let you update in a year or two for "nothing". People got use to that way of doing it, and some still do today. My last carrier locked phone was the first Note. I've bought unlocked phones since. I don't even use a direct carrier for my service. I use an MVNO, Visible (Verizon) and from speed testing with one of my coworkers who due to his family service he's on "pure" verizon. Speeds are the same. Only 35 bucks a month.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

I can understand the companies argument, but if people unlocks and leaves it should be a sign that your company sucks big time and need improvement.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Throw a couple of the CEO's in jail to contemplate their lies, scaremongering and price fixing.

 

[lripplinger]

Screw buying locked phones. I bought my Samsung A53 from Samsung directly. They even gave me a trade in on my old S7 Galaxy.