Unlocking your mobile phone is still a big to-do in 2024. Even once your device is paid off, it can take multiple calls to customer support or filing online forms and waiting. Don’t even think about heading to a local store for an instant solution – they usually can’t help.
Certain devices can be easier to unlock than others, creating inconsistency. At least carriers like T-Mobile bake it into device operating systems or their support app though, that is if the app decides to work that day.
Regardless, the fact is there is little to no consistency to this process between carriers or even between different devices on the same carrier. When it comes to timeline, method, or device type, it’s all different.
The intention behind these obscure, misaligned processes isn’t to help the consumer, it’s to protect wireless carriers themselves. T-Mobile has the easiest format by far in our opinion, but even they can convolute the process.
The FCC has deemed this entire unlock process to be ridiculous, and something that limits consumer choice when it comes to their wireless provider. Thus, a proposal was introduced earlier this year to change things for the better.
FCC Proposal Aims To Empower Consumers
First, the FCC decided it was time to attack the mobile phone unlocking timeline.
In July 2024, the FCC created a proposal requiring all mobile phones from any provider to be unlocked within 60 days of purchase. The intention was to promote more consumer empowerment when it came to choosing a wireless service provider.
Instead of being bound by contracts or other financial stipulations, the FCC wants devices free from these obligations. Carriers have all but abolished the two-year contracts of old (thanks to the Legere days of T-Mobile!), but financial agreements and promotional credits for trades needing two years to squeeze the value out of have yet again slowed things down. In a way, we’re sort of back to how it was in the contracts era of mobile phones.
Smaller carriers (MVNOs) would benefit from the FCC’s proposed changes quite a lot. MobileX CEO, Peter Adderton, voiced his support towards the proposal on Twitter.
Unlocking devices after 60 days gives consumers the ability to navigate the wireless industry with more flexibility. This does not absolve anyone from a financial agreement they sign into, of course, but it can open up additional options for consumers to have better flexibility to jump ship to a new carrier. Locking devices is an obstruction to consumer empowerment.
The FCC also mentions increasing competition in the original proposal. Carriers will be forced to find new incentives to maintain their customer base, promoting competition. Also, it can be a boon to the secondhand phone market, with consumers worrying less about a phone not being functional on their carrier of choice.
AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon Provide Extensive Opposition
Part of the proposal process included the FCC allowing for an open comment period from major carriers, MVNOs, and any other involved party affected. The filings have since poured in, with over 60 documented conversations and comments tied to the proceedings (WTB 24-186).
Among them are formal comments from AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. In over 160 pages of comments altogether, the three carriers have voiced total opposition to the motion. Here are the finer points of their filings, though check out the links if you wanted an extended look. The filings for each can be read in full on the FCC website.
AT&T Challenges FCC Authority To Implement Proposal
AT&T had the most to say, with 76 pages making up their comment document. Here are many of points summarized from the behemoth pdf.
- The commission has no authority to impose handset unlocking requirements
- The commission has ignored the proposal’s critical negative effects on the sale and affordability of handsets. This reduces low-income access to handsets.
- Handset locking does not undermine competition, as carriers compete in ‘multiple dimensions’
- Prematurely unlocking handsets promotes trafficking and other fraud
Verizon Claims FCC Out Of Touch With The Industry
Verizon was no slouch either, throwing a 53 page comment into the mix. Some summarized points they make in their document are as follows.
- The commission’s determinations for the proposal are based on outdated market facts that harms consumers and competition
- Verizon has experience with a 60-day locking period, and they claim it is inadequate and harms consumers
- Prepaid consumers would benefit from a longer locking period as it promotes more subsidy for handsets
- The commission should implement a uniform standard to unlocking devices. A positive!
T-Mobile Implies FCC’s Proposal Is Misguided And Harmful
T-Mobile kept it shorter with only 33 pages of comments, less than half of AT&T’s. These are the cliff notes.
- Competition and consumer choice has thrived without a general unlocking requirement
- The FCC has taken a ‘careful, narrow, context-based approach’ to the proposal (limiting their perspective)
- The commission has failed to justify this proposal with its rationales
- The proposal will harm low-income and prepaid consumers, inhibiting efforts to bridge the digital divide
- The proposal may be a threat to national security
- The commission lacks the legal authority to adopt the proposal
- The proposal should exclude free devices or devices on installment plans, and only applied prospectively
- 60 days is not sufficient to identify and combat fraud
- The commission should provide an extended transition period for carriers before the proposal becomes effective
A Few Positive Voices Make It Through
Despite these points, other telecommunications voices speak in favor of the proposal. Even Comcast Communications, who cites the proposal increases competition and consumer choice. However, they caution that the FCC would need measures to minimize instances of fraud. This is a common theme among promoters.
The Coalition of Rural Wireless Carriers also cautions fraud opportunity cost as a major pain point for smaller carriers, who obviously can’t take the hit as well as the big guys. While saying the proposal is pro-consumer, they also warn that the financial agreements present in today’s industry do help lower income households overall. If carriers moved away from this as a result of the unlocking requirement, it could also potentially affect how they offer devices and promotions. If the cost of admission to a carrier got higher, it could price out lower income families.
The Jury Is Still Out
On September 9th, the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) submitted a motion for an extension of time. Due to the complexity of the issue and the potential impact, more time was requested to articulate and compose the correct information. T-Mobile formally endorsed that extension on September 11th, but it was declined by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau on September 16th. This puts the deadline at September 24th with no wiggle room.
At a quick glance, the major carriers say this proposal will force them to stop being pro-consumer. In reality, they are not ready to create more competition. Most smaller wireless providers or MVNOs are for the proposal, because it means customers can easily leave the big players and have phones to bring with them.
However, both sides of the aisle caution that stronger security and fraud measures need to also be part of the proposal to protect all carriers. There is also worry about device financing options changing and ‘pricing out’ lower income homes.
What is your take on the issue? Take an extended look at every document submitted to the FCC so far, if you’ve got some time on your hands. This is clearly an issue with a lot of context to draw from with lines being drawn in many directions. We at The Mobile Report have attempted to compile perspectives and points surrounding the proposal, but there’s a lot left out there to dig into. Let us know your thoughts below.
