info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What does it mean for a phone to be "optimized for AT&T's network" anyway?
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Burnelli
Jan 16, 2022, 2:47:42 PM1/16/22
to
In a recent thread I was asked what's the best $200 smartphone
*Good $200 Android phone please*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>
And the result, so far, seems to be this one (based on this review)
*Motorola $200 Moto G Power (2022) Review*
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
However, in selecting the sub models, the review warns us that...
"Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
major US and Canadian carriers."
Can someone explain what that sentence even means?
--
I need to know because I'm recommending a noob buy the correct one.
*Good $200 Android phone please*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>
And the result, so far, seems to be this one (based on this review)
*Motorola $200 Moto G Power (2022) Review*
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
However, in selecting the sub models, the review warns us that...
"Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
major US and Canadian carriers."
Can someone explain what that sentence even means?
--
I need to know because I'm recommending a noob buy the correct one.
Michael Trew
Jan 16, 2022, 5:19:03 PM1/16/22
to
On 1/16/2022 14:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> In a recent thread I was asked what's the best $200 smartphone
> *Good $200 Android phone please*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>
>
> And the result, so far, seems to be this one (based on this review)
> *Motorola $200 Moto G Power (2022) Review*
> <https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
>
> However, in selecting the sub models, the review warns us that...
> "Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
> for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
> major US and Canadian carriers."
>
> Can someone explain what that sentence even means?
A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
> In a recent thread I was asked what's the best $200 smartphone
> *Good $200 Android phone please*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>
>
> And the result, so far, seems to be this one (based on this review)
> *Motorola $200 Moto G Power (2022) Review*
> <https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
>
> However, in selecting the sub models, the review warns us that...
> "Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
> for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
> major US and Canadian carriers."
>
> Can someone explain what that sentence even means?
disallowing unlocked phones on their network. This is third hand
information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a new
phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's network.
Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me. I surely
will never switch back to AT&T if so.
Wade Garrett
Jan 16, 2022, 7:19:05 PM1/16/22
to
phone/cable company in America.
They screwed me over a few years back with a mandatory two year contract
featuring a good first year monthly rate but no documented 2nd year
rate. The ATT store manager where I signed up assured me, however,
they'd take good care of me and maybe even offer a lower price for the
2nd year as that was a common promotional tool ATT used
Natch, on month 13, they jacked up my rate 78%.
I went back to the store and don't you know...the same guy was still
there. He denied remembering me (plausible) or his statements to me. He
said he would never say something like that to a customer. I reminded
him that when he said it, I was a prospect, not a customer.
I showed him the notes I had taken during the earlier meeting and the
picture I had snapped of him and the store sales weasel talking to me
back then. I said I was not happy with their bait and switch and
outright misrepresentations.
He stone-walled me- and I eventually calmly said I'd see him in small
claims court...at which point he told me to leave the store. I did, not
even bothering to slam the door, gentleman that I am ;-)
Long story short, the administrative law judge found in my favor...
5
--
Why is it that the politicians who want more government control over
your life are the same ones who want you to be disarmed?
Michael Trew
Jan 17, 2022, 7:45:01 PM1/17/22
to
impressed with the network. I'm on a super cheap T-Mobile plan now, and
I have no complaints. T-Mo seems to be doing well since absorbing
Sprint. I now have service in more places than my Mother has on Verizon
Wireless, who used to be the "top dog"... I only have a cheap older
iPhone SE without all of the bands to boot.
bob prohaska
Jan 17, 2022, 9:00:41 PM1/17/22
to
In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Michael Trew <michae...@att.net> wrote:
>
> A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
> disallowing unlocked phones on their network. This is third hand
> information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a new
> phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's network.
> Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me. I surely
> will never switch back to AT&T if so.
Is there any corroborating evidence? Far as I can tell my unlocked
>
> A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
> disallowing unlocked phones on their network. This is third hand
> information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a new
> phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's network.
> Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me. I surely
> will never switch back to AT&T if so.
iPhone 6 still works on a prepaid account. At least, I can still
check spam voicemails.
Thanks for reading,
bob prohaska
sms
Jan 17, 2022, 9:20:17 PM1/17/22
to
On 1/16/2022 4:19 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:
<snip>
> The only way I'd go back to ATT is if they were the last and only
> phone/cable company in America.
Here's enough of a reason to not give AT&T any of your money:
<https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-oneamerica-att/>.
<snip>
> The only way I'd go back to ATT is if they were the last and only
> phone/cable company in America.
<https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-oneamerica-att/>.
sms
Jan 18, 2022, 11:41:59 AM1/18/22
to
On 1/16/2022 2:19 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
<snip>
> A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
> disallowing unlocked phones on their network. This is third hand
> information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a new
> phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's network.
> Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me. I surely
> will never switch back to AT&T if so.
There is a lot of illogic by carriers, and MVNOs, when it comes to
phones that will work perfectly well on their network. It's not just
AT&T with their incomplete "white list."
One person on the Total Wireless Reddit
<https://www.reddit.com/r/TotalWireless/comments/qn9dft/oneplus_nord_n10_verizon_compatible_totalwireless/>
was complaining that that Total Wireless said that his Nord 10, bought
at Best Buy, was not compatible with their network even though:
a) The phone is Verizon compatible for BYOP on Verizon
b) Total Wireless used to sell the Nord 10
c) Verizon used to sell the Nord 10
d) The package for the phone said that it works on Verizon as well as on
Tracfone
e) The phone worked fine on Total Wireless once a SIM activated on a
different phone was inserted.
So why was the poster upset that Total Wireless told him that the phone
was not compatible based on the IMEI? Total Wireless could look at the
IMEI of the phone and decide to kick it off their service, for any
reason, or no reason at all..
LTE and 5G phones that lack CDMA will usually work just fine on Verizon
if you insert a SIM that is already activated, and you'll lose very
little coverage (probably no lost coverage on Verizon, but a little lost
roaming coverage). Visible by Verizon doesn't even support CDMA, and in
Alaska Verizon's network has never supported CDMA, only LTE and 5G.
Don't look for logic when it comes to carriers and BYOP. They may not
always care whether or not a phone is compatible or not, and may ban it
for no understandable reason. They may not have an up-to-date IMEI
database of compatible phones. The removal of W-CDMA (GSM 3G) and CDMA
support, and the requirement for VoLTE support has resulted in a lot of
confusion by carriers as to which phones will work on their networks.
The carriers also can't possibly test every phone on the market. There
are a lot of third tier phone manufacturers that don't sell direct in
stores in the U.S..
Occasionally, unlocked phones have features that the carrier has removed
from the same model of phone that they sell and they don't want
subscribers to have those features. Sometimes the carrier's model has
more features than the unlocked phone. For example the Pixel 6 (non-pro)
bought unlocked from Google does not support mmWave 5G, nor does the
Pixel 6 sold by T-Mobile. But the Pixel 6 sold by AT&T and Verizon does
support mmWave 5G (and costs more than the unlocked or T-Mobile
version). mmWave 5G on a phone is really not all that useful at this
time, unless you happen to be in very close proximity to a 5G mmWave
cell. mmWave 5G is primarily for wireless broadband service and IOT.
<snip>
> A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
> disallowing unlocked phones on their network. This is third hand
> information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a new
> phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's network.
> Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me. I surely
> will never switch back to AT&T if so.
phones that will work perfectly well on their network. It's not just
AT&T with their incomplete "white list."
One person on the Total Wireless Reddit
<https://www.reddit.com/r/TotalWireless/comments/qn9dft/oneplus_nord_n10_verizon_compatible_totalwireless/>
was complaining that that Total Wireless said that his Nord 10, bought
at Best Buy, was not compatible with their network even though:
a) The phone is Verizon compatible for BYOP on Verizon
b) Total Wireless used to sell the Nord 10
c) Verizon used to sell the Nord 10
d) The package for the phone said that it works on Verizon as well as on
Tracfone
e) The phone worked fine on Total Wireless once a SIM activated on a
different phone was inserted.
So why was the poster upset that Total Wireless told him that the phone
was not compatible based on the IMEI? Total Wireless could look at the
IMEI of the phone and decide to kick it off their service, for any
reason, or no reason at all..
LTE and 5G phones that lack CDMA will usually work just fine on Verizon
if you insert a SIM that is already activated, and you'll lose very
little coverage (probably no lost coverage on Verizon, but a little lost
roaming coverage). Visible by Verizon doesn't even support CDMA, and in
Alaska Verizon's network has never supported CDMA, only LTE and 5G.
Don't look for logic when it comes to carriers and BYOP. They may not
always care whether or not a phone is compatible or not, and may ban it
for no understandable reason. They may not have an up-to-date IMEI
database of compatible phones. The removal of W-CDMA (GSM 3G) and CDMA
support, and the requirement for VoLTE support has resulted in a lot of
confusion by carriers as to which phones will work on their networks.
The carriers also can't possibly test every phone on the market. There
are a lot of third tier phone manufacturers that don't sell direct in
stores in the U.S..
Occasionally, unlocked phones have features that the carrier has removed
from the same model of phone that they sell and they don't want
subscribers to have those features. Sometimes the carrier's model has
more features than the unlocked phone. For example the Pixel 6 (non-pro)
bought unlocked from Google does not support mmWave 5G, nor does the
Pixel 6 sold by T-Mobile. But the Pixel 6 sold by AT&T and Verizon does
support mmWave 5G (and costs more than the unlocked or T-Mobile
version). mmWave 5G on a phone is really not all that useful at this
time, unless you happen to be in very close proximity to a 5G mmWave
cell. mmWave 5G is primarily for wireless broadband service and IOT.
nospam
Jan 18, 2022, 12:24:09 PM1/18/22
to
In article <ss6qkl$so2$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
they have a compatibility list (not the same thing), which lists phones
that have the appropriate bands for their network. phones not on that
list will work in a limited manner, possibly not at all after 3g is
turned off.
currently, verizion is the *only* carrier with a whitelist. a phone not
on their whitelist cannot be activated, although there is an
unsupported loophole. see below.
<https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
swered/>
You can check the eligibility of your device on our Bring Your Own
Device page.
To ensure voice and data work properly, only select BYOD devices
with approved hardware and software are allowed for use on the
Verizon Wireless network.
all carriers have blacklists for stolen phones.
they also have an fec lock for phones with unpaid financial
obligations, which will be released when the phone is fully paid off.
mvnos may restrict certain phones, but that's up to the mvno, not at&t,
t-mobile or verizon. the various mvnos set their own policies.
>
> LTE and 5G phones that lack CDMA will usually work just fine on Verizon
> if you insert a SIM that is already activated,
that's the loophole.
you're being disingenuous again by not telling the full story. some
would call it outright lying.
inserting an already activated sim into a non-whitelisted phone will
work only because it's a *loophole*. it's also only an option for those
upgrading an existing verizon device, who already have an active
verizon sim.
for those wanting to activate new service, verizon will only activate
it if the phone is on their whitelist *and* it's the first activation
for the phone. otherwise, they will refuse. if it's previously been
used on another carrier, they won't activate it.
although swapping an activated sim works, it is unsupported, which
means if someone calls in regarding service issues and the device is
not on their whitelist, verizon will say it's not an approved device,
that's why it doesn't work, goodbye.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> There is a lot of illogic by carriers, and MVNOs, when it comes to
> phones that will work perfectly well on their network. It's not just
> AT&T with their incomplete "white list."
at&t does not have a whitelist, nor does t-mobile.
> There is a lot of illogic by carriers, and MVNOs, when it comes to
> phones that will work perfectly well on their network. It's not just
> AT&T with their incomplete "white list."
they have a compatibility list (not the same thing), which lists phones
that have the appropriate bands for their network. phones not on that
list will work in a limited manner, possibly not at all after 3g is
turned off.
currently, verizion is the *only* carrier with a whitelist. a phone not
on their whitelist cannot be activated, although there is an
unsupported loophole. see below.
<https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
swered/>
You can check the eligibility of your device on our Bring Your Own
Device page.
To ensure voice and data work properly, only select BYOD devices
with approved hardware and software are allowed for use on the
Verizon Wireless network.
all carriers have blacklists for stolen phones.
they also have an fec lock for phones with unpaid financial
obligations, which will be released when the phone is fully paid off.
mvnos may restrict certain phones, but that's up to the mvno, not at&t,
t-mobile or verizon. the various mvnos set their own policies.
>
> LTE and 5G phones that lack CDMA will usually work just fine on Verizon
> if you insert a SIM that is already activated,
you're being disingenuous again by not telling the full story. some
would call it outright lying.
inserting an already activated sim into a non-whitelisted phone will
work only because it's a *loophole*. it's also only an option for those
upgrading an existing verizon device, who already have an active
verizon sim.
for those wanting to activate new service, verizon will only activate
it if the phone is on their whitelist *and* it's the first activation
for the phone. otherwise, they will refuse. if it's previously been
used on another carrier, they won't activate it.
although swapping an activated sim works, it is unsupported, which
means if someone calls in regarding service issues and the device is
not on their whitelist, verizon will say it's not an approved device,
that's why it doesn't work, goodbye.
Andy Burnelli
Jan 18, 2022, 1:18:57 PM1/18/22
to
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:24:05 -0500, nospam wrote:
> mvnos may restrict certain phones, but that's up to the mvno, not at&t,
> t-mobile or verizon. the various mvnos set their own policies.
But what does it mean for a phone to be "optimized for AT&T's network?"
> mvnos may restrict certain phones, but that's up to the mvno, not at&t,
> t-mobile or verizon. the various mvnos set their own policies.
"Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
major US and Canadian carriers."
nospam
Jan 18, 2022, 1:40:10 PM1/18/22
to
In article <ss70ad$j9a$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
it has the appropriate lte bands for at&t.
> "Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
> for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
> major US and Canadian carriers."
> <https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
<https://www.androidauthority.com/motorola-moto-g-power-2022-review-3070
286/>
AT&T/Cricket:
4G: LTE band 2/4/5/12/13/14/30/66/29
3G: WCDMA band 1/2/4/5/8
2G: GSM band 2/3/5/8
T-Mobile and all others:
4G: LTE band 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/17/25/26/38/41/66/71
3G: WCDMA band 1/2/4/5/8
2G: GSM band 2/3/5/8
both versions have lte bands 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 66
the at&t version also has 14, 29, 30
the t-mobile version also has 1, 3, 7, 8, 17, 25, 26, 38, 41, 71
at&t uses
<https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1008740/>
700 MHz: Bands 12/17/29
850 MHz: Band 5
1900 MHz: Band 2
1700 MHz /2100 MHz: Bands 4/66
2300 MHz: Band 30
the t-mobile model will work on at&t on bands 2, 4, 12, 17 & 66.
however, it lacks bands 5, 29, 30, which may be a problem, depending on
location and cell capacity. for some reason, the at&t model lacks band
17, which at&t also uses.
tl;dr the at&t model is a better choice for at&t customers, but less
desirable if they ever decide to switch.
it has the appropriate lte bands for at&t.
> "Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
> for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
> major US and Canadian carriers."
> <https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
286/>
AT&T/Cricket:
4G: LTE band 2/4/5/12/13/14/30/66/29
3G: WCDMA band 1/2/4/5/8
2G: GSM band 2/3/5/8
T-Mobile and all others:
4G: LTE band 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/17/25/26/38/41/66/71
3G: WCDMA band 1/2/4/5/8
2G: GSM band 2/3/5/8
both versions have lte bands 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 66
the at&t version also has 14, 29, 30
the t-mobile version also has 1, 3, 7, 8, 17, 25, 26, 38, 41, 71
at&t uses
<https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1008740/>
700 MHz: Bands 12/17/29
850 MHz: Band 5
1900 MHz: Band 2
1700 MHz /2100 MHz: Bands 4/66
2300 MHz: Band 30
the t-mobile model will work on at&t on bands 2, 4, 12, 17 & 66.
however, it lacks bands 5, 29, 30, which may be a problem, depending on
location and cell capacity. for some reason, the at&t model lacks band
17, which at&t also uses.
tl;dr the at&t model is a better choice for at&t customers, but less
desirable if they ever decide to switch.
Andy Burnelli
Jan 18, 2022, 2:33:22 PM1/18/22
to
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:40:08 -0500, nospam wrote:
> the t-mobile model will work on at&t on bands 2, 4, 12, 17 & 66.
> however, it lacks bands 5, 29, 30, which may be a problem, depending on
> location and cell capacity. for some reason, the at&t model lacks band
> 17, which at&t also uses.
>
> tl;dr the at&t model is a better choice for at&t customers, but less
> desirable if they ever decide to switch.
Thanks for finding that out for the team as it was perplexing why both
> the t-mobile model will work on at&t on bands 2, 4, 12, 17 & 66.
> however, it lacks bands 5, 29, 30, which may be a problem, depending on
> location and cell capacity. for some reason, the at&t model lacks band
> 17, which at&t also uses.
>
> tl;dr the at&t model is a better choice for at&t customers, but less
> desirable if they ever decide to switch.
models would work on all 3 major carriers but only one model was "optimized"
for AT&T - where it seems that the one model has those extra AT&T bands.
Thanks for fleshing out the question asked in the OP.
Much appreciated.
She hasn't bought the phone yet but the article says it's $190 so it's in
the price range (although I told her the $280 Galaxy A32-5G was better).
--
The great news overall is electronics just gets better, faster & cheaper!
Andy Burnelli
Jan 18, 2022, 2:50:03 PM1/18/22
to
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 19:45:01 -0500, Michael Trew wrote:
> Nice! I only had them briefly for a pre-paid plan. I really wasn't
> impressed with the network. I'm on a super cheap T-Mobile plan now, and
> I have no complaints. T-Mo seems to be doing well since absorbing
> Sprint. I now have service in more places than my Mother has on Verizon
> Wireless, who used to be the "top dog"... I only have a cheap older
> iPhone SE without all of the bands to boot.
On the point of the three US carriers, I've had all three (sequentially)
> Nice! I only had them briefly for a pre-paid plan. I really wasn't
> impressed with the network. I'm on a super cheap T-Mobile plan now, and
> I have no complaints. T-Mo seems to be doing well since absorbing
> Sprint. I now have service in more places than my Mother has on Verizon
> Wireless, who used to be the "top dog"... I only have a cheap older
> iPhone SE without all of the bands to boot.
over time, where I didn't see much difference in coverage at the times I
switched (I'm in the Silicon Valley & I am well aware location matters).
What I didn't like about Verizon was they upped my 2-year contract when my
Kyocera broke under the replacement plan my company paid for (as I wouldn't
have paid for a replacement plan but they were paying my bills in those
days). So the instant that extra two years ran out I switched to AT&T.
AT&T was fine (and it was a bit cheaper at the time but I didn't care as the
company was paying my bills) but eventually I retired and the company let me
keep the Blackberry they also paid for. Unfortunately, in those days, AT&T
kept a list of what phones AT&T considered to be "smart" and they _forced_ a
$25/month data plan but luckily AT&T had no problem with adding a data block
on my "grandfathered" Blackberry when I dropped the plan after leaving the
company, to no data.
However, eventually the clit on the Blackberry broke and it was time for a
real "smart phone" but AT&T refused to allow any "smart" phone to not have a
data plan. I complained to the FCC who had an AT&T executive call me up. She
spouted such a kindergarten argument that you must have data even if you
have a data block that I began to wonder if they believe their own lies.
She told me a smart phone was useless without a data plan, which I couldn't
get into her head was the furthest thing from the truth. Maybe she only
hangs around dumb people or maybe she thinks all her customers are morons,
but I couldn't believe she'd even say such a thing to me over the phone.
Funny thing is I dropped AT&T the instant the two-year plan ran out and at
about the same time I got a letter from the FCC saying that the AT&T exec
told the FCC we resolved the issue to the customer's satisfaction.
It was at that time that I turned to T-Mobile, who, at that time, was even
cheaper than AT&T (each time I switched, a bonus was it was cheaper although
I didn't care when the company was paying all my phone & Internet bills).
T-Mobile didn't care what phone I had (smart, dumb, flip, or whatever).
T-Mobile didn't care how I got the phone (they'd work with any gsm phone).
T-Mobile didn't care if I wanted a data plan or not (I didn't want it).
The only thing T-Mobile couldn't solve at that time was that the iPhone
didn't work with T-Mobile so I had the enjoyment of doing my first
jailbreak, and gave the kid an iPhone with Cydia (which she was ok with).
She's had iPhones ever since and the rest of us have iPads & Android.
T-Mobile even gives the iPads a free for life 200GB/month SIM card.
That's fine but Apple keeps trying to kill the iPads by forcing crap on 'em.
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg> Apple _forces_ a log in!
<https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg> Apple _forces_ a lock out!
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> Apple _disables_ your acct!
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg> Apple _locks_ you out!
<https://i.postimg.cc/SKGfmgnK/appleid05.jpg> Apple won't let you back in!
Basically Apple forces you to keep giving them data about you by forcing you
to log into an iCloud account that they control and that keeps tabs on you.
Google can't.
Frank Slootweg
Jan 19, 2022, 11:58:52 AM1/19/22
to
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
[...]
> There is a lot of illogic by carriers, and MVNOs, when it comes to
> phones that will work perfectly well on their network. It's not just
> AT&T with their incomplete "white list."
[...]
This kind of stuff really boggles the mind!
Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
If the phone has the right technology and band(s) it will work, if
not, it won't. Simple heh!?
I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
phone, done.
[1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
[...]
> There is a lot of illogic by carriers, and MVNOs, when it comes to
> phones that will work perfectly well on their network. It's not just
> AT&T with their incomplete "white list."
Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
If the phone has the right technology and band(s) it will work, if
not, it won't. Simple heh!?
I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
phone, done.
[1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
sms
Jan 19, 2022, 1:07:50 PM1/19/22
to
On 1/19/2022 8:58 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<snip>
> I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> phone, done.
>
> [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
It probably drives the phone manufacturers crazy as well, selling so
many different versions of the same base model.
<snip>
> I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> phone, done.
>
> [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
It probably drives the phone manufacturers crazy as well, selling so
many different versions of the same base model.
Andy Burnelli
Jan 19, 2022, 1:38:11 PM1/19/22
to
On 19 Jan 2022 16:58:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
Both Steve & nospam are more tuned to SIM card games than I am, but I would
> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
like to purposefully helpfully say that in my experience (in the same
mountains in which Steve lives), my experience has been the same as that
which Frank describes.
a. You put the SIM card in the phone (if it fits).
b. Even if it doesn't fit, you can sometimes cut it down to fit.
c. It either works. Or it doesn't work.
That's how I've done it ever since I moved from Verizon to AT&T long ago.
A nice thing is T-Mobile has _never_ charged me for a SIM card even as I've
had many phones in the past decade on T-Mobile. They waive the fees.
> If the phone has the right technology and band(s) it will work, if
> not, it won't. Simple heh!?
> I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> phone, done.
I've probably handled SIMs for dozens of phones in the past decade.
My experience on T-Mobile has been the same as Frank's experience.
Dunno what carriers Steve and nospam are using.
> [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
2017 when I picked up a handful of $130 LG Stylo 3+ phones at Costco.
T-Mobile unlocked them after 40 days with no questions asked.
My next phone I bought was on Black Friday 2019 where Google had the Moto G7
on sale for $100 which came unlocked.
My current phone I got for free from T-Mobile so it _is_ locked but, in
essence, in my experience, it's easy to find unlocked phones in the USA.
I'm researching a new phone for a friend, for example, and it's $200
unlocked and that's how things should be but then there's the frequency
stuff (which nospam kindly explained).
a. There's an unlocked Moto G Power 2022 that is for all carriers
b. There's an AT&T "optimized" Moto G Power 2022 that has extra AT&T freqs.
Who knew?
Not me.
Now I do.
--
Ignorance can be cured (stupidity cannot).
Andy Burnelli
Jan 19, 2022, 1:45:03 PM1/19/22
to
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:07:47 -0800, sms wrote:
> You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
> carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
> wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
> wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
For those who don't know Steve only knows the Verizon-MVNO clusterfucks,
> You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
> carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
> wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
> wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
here, in the USA, it's _nothing_ like Steve says it is, at least for me.
Ever since I moved from AT&T to T-Mobile a decade ago, T-Mobile hasn't cared
one bit which phone I used, nor where I got it, nor whether it was locked.
My experience has been the same as Frank's experience in Europe.
a. You put the SIM card into _any_ phone & you power up that phone.
b. Instantly... it either works or it doesn't work.
All this complexity that Steve seems to believe exists must exist (why would
Steve lie to us) but since it only exists for _him_, perhaps the complexity
Steve complains about exists due to his vaunted Verizon MVNO clusterfucks?
On T-Mobile, in the USA, I don't see any of the clusterfuck Steve describes.
nospam
Jan 19, 2022, 1:46:05 PM1/19/22
to
In article <ss9jgd...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
used.
whitelisting has its roots to when carriers, not users, decided what
features cellphones would have, which often required back-end support,
thus the list of approved devices. it was also a form of lock-in to
keep customers from moving to another carrier. those days are long
gone, although verizon still uses a whitelist.
> If the phone has the right technology and band(s) it will work, if
> not, it won't. Simple heh!?
yep. same in usa, assuming it hasn't been reported stolen.
> I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> phone, done.
yep. same in usa, assuming it hasn't been reported stolen.
> [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
what happens when they're financed?
without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
then use it on another carrier?
without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?
<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
used.
whitelisting has its roots to when carriers, not users, decided what
features cellphones would have, which often required back-end support,
thus the list of approved devices. it was also a form of lock-in to
keep customers from moving to another carrier. those days are long
gone, although verizon still uses a whitelist.
> If the phone has the right technology and band(s) it will work, if
> not, it won't. Simple heh!?
> I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> phone, done.
> [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
then use it on another carrier?
without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?
nospam
Jan 19, 2022, 1:46:06 PM1/19/22
to
In article <ss9k1l$41t$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
funds to pay for it in full (or they don't want to), so they're locked
to prevent people defaulting and stealing it. once paid off, the lock
is released.
> It probably drives the phone manufacturers crazy as well, selling so
> many different versions of the same base model.
there aren't different versions for locked phones.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
> carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
> wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
> wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
carriers want to finance phones because most people do not have the
> You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
> carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
> wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
> wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
funds to pay for it in full (or they don't want to), so they're locked
to prevent people defaulting and stealing it. once paid off, the lock
is released.
> It probably drives the phone manufacturers crazy as well, selling so
> many different versions of the same base model.
nospam
Jan 19, 2022, 1:46:07 PM1/19/22
to
In article <ss9m7c$13jl$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
it does not.
> (why would
> Steve lie to us)
because he's trolling.
it does not.
> (why would
> Steve lie to us)
Andy Burnelli
Jan 19, 2022, 2:10:19 PM1/19/22
to
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:46:04 -0500, nospam wrote:
> They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
>> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
>
> carriers want to finance phones because most people do not have the
> funds to pay for it in full (or they don't want to), so they're locked
> to prevent people defaulting and stealing it. once paid off, the lock
> is released.
This is not a rhetorical question.
> They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
>> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
>
> carriers want to finance phones because most people do not have the
> funds to pay for it in full (or they don't want to), so they're locked
> to prevent people defaulting and stealing it. once paid off, the lock
> is released.
It's a real question.
I have to assume Steve isn't just lying to us about the complexity he sees.
But I don't see _any_ of the complexity that Steve is complaining about.
None of it.
Hence the rational reasonable logical question to ask of folks here.
*Why is Steve experiencing immense complexity that I don't experience?*
What seems odd is Steve is apparently describing a clusterfuck that I don't
see with T-Mobile (and I've bought _dozens_ of phones in the past decade!).
a. You buy the phone from anywhere
b. You put the old T-Mobile SIM card into that new phone
c. It either works - or it doesn't work
The only "complexity" is mostly in the past where the SIM cards have to fit.
Even then, T-Mobile fedex's you (next day air, for free) a new SIM card.
a. In 2017 I bought a handful of "locked" Costco $130 LG Stylo 3+ stocking
stuffers & t-mobile unlocked them after just one billing cycle.
b. In 2019 I bought a handful of "unlocked" Google-Fi $100 Moto G stocking
stuffers & the T-Mobile SIM card just worked when I put it into the slot.
c. In 2021 I received a handful of free "locked" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G
phones, which also worked just fine when I put the old SIM in the slot.
Where is all this complexity that Steve keeps harping about?
The only "complexity" is a free phone is locked until the 2 years runs out.
Or, if I really care, I can pay ahead the amount they'd give me for free.
Why is Steve experiencing immense complexity that I don't experience at all?
Andy Burnelli
Jan 19, 2022, 2:20:56 PM1/19/22
to
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:46:03 -0500, nospam wrote:
> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> used.
*When do the carriers check for the (stolen) IMEI?*
> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> used.
This is not a rhetorical question.
But... my experience is that the SIM works _instantly_ in _any_ phone.
The fact the SIM works _instantly_ is why I ask _when_ they check IMEIs.
I've grabbed a friend's phone in the past and stuck my SIM card in that
phone and it works (as long as the phone can handle T-Mobile frequencies).
I've even swapped phones that I own (I have a drawer of them) with various
SIM cards, and they work instantly also.
Same with my iPads, where two of my iPads have a T-Mobile free-for-life
200MB/month SIM; so when I run out on one iPad, I swap SIMs for a refresher.
That all works.
I _know_ that all works.
Of course, _none_ of these devices are stolen.
But my point is that it all works _instantly_ so when/where do they check?
Certainly they _can_ check (as the IMEI isn't hidden from them).
But _when_ do they check?
For example, if the phone was stolen, would it instantly not work?
Or do they take a while before they run the IMEI check?
Do they even bother running that check is mostly where my question lies.
nospam
Jan 19, 2022, 3:11:40 PM1/19/22
to
In article <ss9oam$58r$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
another way is an eligibility check prior to activating a phone, either
at the carrier's web site or one of the various third party sites that
check for blacklisting.
> I've even swapped phones that I own (I have a drawer of them) with various
> SIM cards, and they work instantly also.
because they're not blacklisted. duh.
report one of them as stolen and see how that works out.
<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> > used.
>
> *When do the carriers check for the (stolen) IMEI?*
whenever the cellphone registers on the network.
>
> > blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> > used.
>
> *When do the carriers check for the (stolen) IMEI?*
another way is an eligibility check prior to activating a phone, either
at the carrier's web site or one of the various third party sites that
check for blacklisting.
> I've even swapped phones that I own (I have a drawer of them) with various
> SIM cards, and they work instantly also.
report one of them as stolen and see how that works out.
nospam
Jan 19, 2022, 3:11:41 PM1/19/22
to
In article <ss9nmp$1qvc$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> But I don't see _any_ of the complexity that Steve is complaining about.
because it doesn't exist.
<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I have to assume Steve isn't just lying to us about the complexity he sees.
he very much is lying. it's what he does.
> I have to assume Steve isn't just lying to us about the complexity he sees.
> But I don't see _any_ of the complexity that Steve is complaining about.
Frank Slootweg
Jan 19, 2022, 3:46:32 PM1/19/22
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ss9jgd...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> > fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> > white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
>
> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> used.
Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> In article <ss9jgd...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> > fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> > white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
>
> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> used.
of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
[More of the same deleted.]
> > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
>
> what happens when they're financed?
> without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
> getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
> then use it on another carrier?
>
> without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
> stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?
Where's the lock on your financed cars and how does that work?
Frank Slootweg
Jan 19, 2022, 3:56:21 PM1/19/22
to
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/2022 8:58 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> > another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> > phone, done.
> >
> > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
>
> You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
> carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
> wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
> wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
Here many (most?) phones are financed as well and it's indeed a/the
> On 1/19/2022 8:58 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> > another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> > phone, done.
> >
> > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
>
> You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
> carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
> wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
> wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
method to lock in subscribers for the duration of the contract. But as I
said, the phones are not locked.
I don't know if those phones are still subsidized and if so by whom.
(We buy our phones.)
But some time ago there was legislation introduced which does away
with the "free phone" BS. Now they have to spell out what the phone
costs, what the financing costs and what the service costs.
nospam
Jan 19, 2022, 4:44:02 PM1/19/22
to
In article <ssa0rb...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
that might affect its use on public roads.
car dealers will run the vin of any used vehicle they are considering
purchasing from someone. private buyers should do the same.
police will run the tags (also vins in some cases) and take appropriate
action if it's stolen or on a hotlist.
> [More of the same deleted.]
because you don't understand any of it.
> > > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
> >
> > what happens when they're financed?
>
> They're financed. That's it.
there is no attempt to stop the use of stolen phones? seriously?
> > without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
> > getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
> > then use it on another carrier?
> >
> > without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
> > stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?
>
> Ah, I see, a technical solution for an administrative 'problem'.
what alternative solution do you propose to stop people from using
stolen phones?
> Where's the lock on your financed cars and how does that work?
the bank will have a lien on the title until it's fully paid off, at
which point the lien will be removed. the same applies for mortgages on
property.
if you default, the loan will go to collections and the vehicle will
likely be repossessed, depending on specifics.
the default will also be reported to credit agencies, drastically
lowering your score, which means another car loan is going to be
difficult to impossible.
<https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/vehicle-repossession>
If you donšt make your car payments on time, your lender could
have the right to take your car without going to court or telling you
first. Learn what can happen, and what you can do, if your vehicle is
repossessed.
<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> > > fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> > > white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
> >
> > blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> > used.
>
> Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
petrol stations don't register vehicles or limit their use.
> >
> > > Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> > > fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> > > white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
> >
> > blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> > used.
>
> Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
that might affect its use on public roads.
car dealers will run the vin of any used vehicle they are considering
purchasing from someone. private buyers should do the same.
police will run the tags (also vins in some cases) and take appropriate
action if it's stolen or on a hotlist.
> [More of the same deleted.]
> > > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
> >
> > what happens when they're financed?
>
> They're financed. That's it.
> > without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
> > getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
> > then use it on another carrier?
> >
> > without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
> > stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?
>
> Ah, I see, a technical solution for an administrative 'problem'.
stolen phones?
> Where's the lock on your financed cars and how does that work?
which point the lien will be removed. the same applies for mortgages on
property.
if you default, the loan will go to collections and the vehicle will
likely be repossessed, depending on specifics.
the default will also be reported to credit agencies, drastically
lowering your score, which means another car loan is going to be
difficult to impossible.
<https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/vehicle-repossession>
If you donšt make your car payments on time, your lender could
have the right to take your car without going to court or telling you
first. Learn what can happen, and what you can do, if your vehicle is
repossessed.
Andy Burnelli
Jan 19, 2022, 5:37:22 PM1/19/22
to
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:11:38 -0500, nospam wrote:
>> *When do the carriers check for the (stolen) IMEI?*
>
> whenever the cellphone registers on the network.
Thanks for answering the question, because my experience was that
>> *When do the carriers check for the (stolen) IMEI?*
>
> whenever the cellphone registers on the network.
a. Any non-stolen device _instantly_ works on the network
b. The moment I pop in a SIM and boot the phone up to the network
c. But I've never tested a _stolen_ device (nor am I likely to do so)
Hence, I appreciate your response since I trust that you know more than I do
on this subject so I will assume that your response is the correct answer.
(jk) Just to be clear, you've accused me of stealing MP3 files since the
dawn of time - but at least you've never accused me of stealing phones! (jk)
> another way is an eligibility check prior to activating a phone, either
> at the carrier's web site or one of the various third party sites that
> check for blacklisting.
I have popped the SIM card into _many_ phones (dozens) over the past few
years and I don't remember ever having to _activate_ the phone.
Of course, I've also popped in a _brand new_ SIM card (you know, the ones
that you pop out of a credit-card sized hunk of plastic), and _those_ do
need to be "activated" (I think) based on my experience.
My experience for dozens of SIM cards in the past decade has been
a. Pop in an old SIM into _any_ phone and there's no "activation" needed
b. Pop in a brand new fresh SIM into any phone and it does need activation
I will assume you simply meant "activating a card" and not "activating a
phone", but normally you're much more careful about your words; so maybe you
know something about activating a "phone" that I don't know (and that's OK).
>> I've even swapped phones that I own (I have a drawer of them) with various
>> SIM cards, and they work instantly also.
>
> because they're not blacklisted. duh.
> report one of them as stolen and see how that works out.
You accuse me of stealing from developers because all my apps are free, but
you're never gonna catch me on stealing phones (as I don't even know how to
get a stolen phone on the network so I'm out of my league on such things).
BTW, at the time AT&T wouldn't let "smart" phones have no data plan, and yet
AT&T would allow a "data block" on that plan, I was tempted to change the
IMEI number - and then you said, as I recall, I was stealing from them.
Now that changing the IMEI of my own phone on T-Mobile wouldn't change the
data plan one bit (everyone gets unlimited data) maybe it's time to revisit?
Andy Burnelli
Jan 19, 2022, 5:58:04 PM1/19/22
to
On 19 Jan 2022 20:56:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> But some time ago there was legislation introduced which does away
> with the "free phone" BS. Now they have to spell out what the phone
> costs, what the financing costs and what the service costs.
It's fantastic when friends on Usenet bring up their personal experiences
> But some time ago there was legislation introduced which does away
> with the "free phone" BS. Now they have to spell out what the phone
> costs, what the financing costs and what the service costs.
especially since people like Frank are in Europe (and some in the UK too).
Hence, Frank is bringing up a good point that a "free" phone isn't always
truly free in the world, and perhaps never is actually completely free.
I can inform others only my experience with "free" phones, where T-Mobile
USA gave all postpaid customers who wanted it a free Samsung Galaxy A32-5G.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15 iPhone, $0 Android phone
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax
The terms & conditions were, as I recall:
a. The phone is free in that you pay nothing for the phone itself
b. But you have to pay local sales tax on the MSRP of ~$280 (~10% in CA)
c. And you have to stay on contract for 24 months for it to be freed off
d. Where if you leave the carrier before that, you pay what's left over
The only "real" additional costs were:
A. You must trade in any (and they mean any!) working phone gimmick
B. About seven dollars S&H (I talked them out of it for most of them)
C. $20 if you used the store or a person on the phone (online is free)
For most of the handful of free phones I received, I was able to talk them
out of all but the sales tax, but for the iPhone the charges were different.
a. You pay about half price for the 128GB iPhone 12 mini
b. You pay the local sales tax on the full mythical MSRP]
c. You pay the aforementioned S&H and in-person fees (if you used them)
d. Then you pay about $12/month for the next 24 months to pay it off
e. And, in our case, we had to trade in a working 32GB iPhone 6
In summary, other than tax, the 5G 64GB Android phones are truly free.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract
And the 128GB 5G iPhone 12 was less than half price at something like $350.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax
And the unlimited 5G data plan upgrade was also completely free.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps* 5G speeds at home
nospam
Jan 19, 2022, 6:06:49 PM1/19/22
to
In article <ssa3r0$1d53$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> > another way is an eligibility check prior to activating a phone, either
> > at the carrier's web site or one of the various third party sites that
> > check for blacklisting.
>
> What does that even mean?
it means you type the phone's imei into a website, which will then
check to see if it's blacklisted. sometimes it will say why, such as an
fec lock.
> I have popped the SIM card into _many_ phones (dozens) over the past few
> years and I don't remember ever having to _activate_ the phone.
it happens automatically when the phone&sim first registers on the
network.
normally it works without issue. nothing is perfect and sometimes it
doesn't:
<https://discussions.apple.com/content/attachment/1e9c215c-39b2-446d-b34
7-423d67c66f7a>
<https://cdn.osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/activation-error-ip
hone.jpg>
> Of course, I've also popped in a _brand new_ SIM card (you know, the ones
> that you pop out of a credit-card sized hunk of plastic), and _those_ do
> need to be "activated" (I think) based on my experience.
next time, try to activate a new sim or swap an already active sim with
a blacklisted phone.
<https://www.beijingiphonerepair.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/problem_
iphone.jpg>
<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Hence, I appreciate your response since I trust that you know more than I do
roadkill knows more than you do.
> Hence, I appreciate your response since I trust that you know more than I do
> > another way is an eligibility check prior to activating a phone, either
> > at the carrier's web site or one of the various third party sites that
> > check for blacklisting.
>
> What does that even mean?
check to see if it's blacklisted. sometimes it will say why, such as an
fec lock.
> I have popped the SIM card into _many_ phones (dozens) over the past few
> years and I don't remember ever having to _activate_ the phone.
network.
normally it works without issue. nothing is perfect and sometimes it
doesn't:
<https://discussions.apple.com/content/attachment/1e9c215c-39b2-446d-b34
7-423d67c66f7a>
<https://cdn.osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/activation-error-ip
hone.jpg>
> Of course, I've also popped in a _brand new_ SIM card (you know, the ones
> that you pop out of a credit-card sized hunk of plastic), and _those_ do
> need to be "activated" (I think) based on my experience.
a blacklisted phone.
<https://www.beijingiphonerepair.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/problem_
iphone.jpg>
Andy Burnelli
Jan 19, 2022, 6:10:04 PM1/19/22
to
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 16:43:58 -0500, nospam wrote:
> the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
> to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
> that might affect its use on public roads.
I can attest to the California DMV running a VIN as I once bought a used
> the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
> to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
> that might affect its use on public roads.
German motorcycle from out of state and there were two things that struck me
as odd that certainly US states "can" do (because California _does_ them).
1. They physically check the odometer because if it has fewer than 7,500
miles on it, then it's _impossible_ to register in the state. Ever.
2. They physically check the VIN, which, for me, was a bitch because they
didn't like the way the Germans did their numbering system.
It was _weeks_ before they finally registered the thing (luckily the
previous owner allowed me to use his plates for that entire time as I had
gotten a one-way ticket to test it out and purchase it so I rode it home).
I also know of people whose cars were declared salvage because the insurance
company wrote them off. This means the owner has to get a _new_ title.
When they get that new title, they have to trade in the old plates and at
the DMV they have to register the vehicle as a _new_ titled vehicle.
The DMV personally checks all the visible VIN numbers (of which there are
many) on the car's body parts and runs a check to see if parts are stolen.
In addition you have to pass the brake standards for all new vehicles.
And you have to pass the external light tests for all new vehicles.
Only then can you ever register a vehicle which has been declared a writeoff
by the insurance company. Notice the part where they check the VINs above.
sms
Jan 19, 2022, 7:13:58 PM1/19/22
to
On 1/19/2022 12:46 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <ss9jgd...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
>> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
>>> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
>>> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
>>
>> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
>> used.
>
> Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
LOL, nospam doesn't understand that a Whitelist is not the inverse of a
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <ss9jgd...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
>> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
>>> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
>>> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
>>
>> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
>> used.
>
> Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
Blacklist!
A Whitelist is a list of phone models that will work on a specific
carrier, in this case on AT&T.
A blacklist is a collection of IMEIs of stolen phones or phones where
the subscriber left the carrier without the phone being paid off
(essentially the same as stolen).
nospam
Jan 19, 2022, 7:30:43 PM1/19/22
to
In article <ssa9g5$r0e$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> A Whitelist is a list of phone models that will work on a specific
> carrier, in this case on AT&T.
at&t does not have a whitelist. full stop.
what at&t has is a list of phones that are *compatible* with its
network, in other words, has the lte bands at&t uses.
other phones will work to a limited extent, depending on which bands
they have. they will likely have coverage issues in some areas. none
are supported and at&t will not help you with any problems.
verizon is the only carrier that will not activate a phone that's not
on its whitelist.
<https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
swered/>
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> >>> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> >>> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
> >>
> >> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> >> used.
> >
> > Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> > of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
>
> LOL, nospam doesn't understand that a Whitelist is not the inverse of a
> Blacklist!
i never said it was. stop lying.
> >>
> >>> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> >>> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> >>> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
> >>
> >> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> >> used.
> >
> > Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> > of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
>
> LOL, nospam doesn't understand that a Whitelist is not the inverse of a
> Blacklist!
> A Whitelist is a list of phone models that will work on a specific
> carrier, in this case on AT&T.
what at&t has is a list of phones that are *compatible* with its
network, in other words, has the lte bands at&t uses.
other phones will work to a limited extent, depending on which bands
they have. they will likely have coverage issues in some areas. none
are supported and at&t will not help you with any problems.
verizon is the only carrier that will not activate a phone that's not
on its whitelist.
<https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
swered/>
To ensure voice and data work properly, only select BYOD devices
with approved hardware and software are allowed for use on the
Verizon Wireless network.
with approved hardware and software are allowed for use on the
Verizon Wireless network.
> A blacklist is a collection of IMEIs of stolen phones or phones where
> the subscriber left the carrier without the phone being paid off
> (essentially the same as stolen).
that part is correct.
> the subscriber left the carrier without the phone being paid off
> (essentially the same as stolen).
Andy Burnelli
Jan 20, 2022, 11:33:00 AM1/20/22
to
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:30:42 -0500, nospam wrote:
> verizon is the only carrier that will not activate a phone that's not
> on its whitelist.
>
> <https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
> swered/>
> To ensure voice and data work properly, only select BYOD devices
> with approved hardware and software are allowed for use on the
> Verizon Wireless network.
All this nice and naughty list for phones stuff is unknown to me.
> verizon is the only carrier that will not activate a phone that's not
> on its whitelist.
>
> <https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
> swered/>
> To ensure voice and data work properly, only select BYOD devices
> with approved hardware and software are allowed for use on the
> Verizon Wireless network.
Given I've plugged _many_ SIMS into _many_ phones and "they just work",
this is interesting that Verizon only let's "selected BYOD" devices work,
was I just lucky?
Or did it always "just work" on T-Mobile because T-Mobile doesn't maintain a
"naughty" list of phones they just happen to not like on their network?
Why?
Is it really to "ensure voice & data work properly" when T-Mobile voice and
data seems to "work properly" without that purposeful exclusion of devices?
Does this mean that a phone that _can_ "work properly" on the Verizon
network but which isn't in the Verizon "nice" list, won't work on the
Verizon network (even though there's no technical reason why not)?
Frank Slootweg
Jan 20, 2022, 2:33:29 PM1/20/22
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ssa0rb...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> > > > fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> > > > white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
> > >
> > > blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> > > used.
> >
> > Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> > of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
>
> petrol stations don't register vehicles or limit their use.
>
> the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
> to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
> that might affect its use on public roads.
>
> car dealers will run the vin of any used vehicle they are considering
> purchasing from someone. private buyers should do the same.
>
> police will run the tags (also vins in some cases) and take appropriate
> action if it's stolen or on a hotlist.
<whoosh!>
> In article <ssa0rb...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> > > > fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> > > > white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
> > >
> > > blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> > > used.
> >
> > Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> > of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
>
> petrol stations don't register vehicles or limit their use.
>
> the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
> to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
> that might affect its use on public roads.
>
> car dealers will run the vin of any used vehicle they are considering
> purchasing from someone. private buyers should do the same.
>
> police will run the tags (also vins in some cases) and take appropriate
> action if it's stolen or on a hotlist.
Earth to nospam: It's an analogy. There's no 'lock' on *using* a
stolen car.
> > [More of the same deleted.]
>
> because you don't understand any of it.
> > > > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
> > >
> > > what happens when they're financed?
> >
> > They're financed. That's it.
>
> there is no attempt to stop the use of stolen phones? seriously?
>
> > > without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
> > > getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
> > > then use it on another carrier?
> > >
> > > without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
> > > stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?
> >
> > Ah, I see, a technical solution for an administrative 'problem'.
>
> what alternative solution do you propose to stop people from using
> stolen phones?
These days one can finance most everything. And that includes small,
expensive, electronic, for outdoor use, devices, i.e. devices similar to
a (smart)phone.
So why single out phones? Just because they *can* be locked? Why
bother all legit users, just because 'the system' can be abused?
> > Where's the lock on your financed cars and how does that work?
>
> the bank will have a lien on the title until it's fully paid off, at
> which point the lien will be removed. the same applies for mortgages on
> property.
of all kinds of products, which happens to include phones. In our
country, there is a central office (BKR) where these financing contracts
are recorded on a per person basis.
Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
financed, just like anything else.
sms
Jan 20, 2022, 3:22:55 PM1/20/22
to
On 1/20/2022 11:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> financed, just like anything else.
Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> financed, just like anything else.
no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
cannot be remotely disabled. They are either physically repossessed,
shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.
The problem is that nospam doesn’t understand that a blacklist is not
the inverse of a whitelist.
A blacklist bans stolen phones or phones where the person is trying to
use a phone that was not paid-off under contract on another carrier.
The AT&T whitelist is, ostensibly, intended to not allow phones that
won’t work on their network, but they’ve left off a great many devices
that would work just fine on their network.
nospam
Jan 20, 2022, 5:25:56 PM1/20/22
to
In article <sscgat$gg0$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-the-repo-man-can-remotely-shut-off-you
r-car-engine/>
In an effort to protect their assets and minimize delinquencies,
dealers and lenders are increasingly outfitting cars with starter
interrupt devices and GPS trackers. Given the euphemistic name of
"payment assurance devices," the technology allows the repo man to
shut down a car if a subprime borrower is even one day late in making
a payment.
> They are either physically repossessed,
> shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.
true, and why they're not much different than phones.
stolen phones are also often shipped out of the country or parted out.
the logic board is the only part that's blocked. everything else,
including the display, camera, battery and enclosure, are useful for
repairs of non-stolen phones.
> The problem is that nospam doesn靖 understand that a blacklist is not
won't admit that verizon uses one.
> A blacklist bans stolen phones or phones where the person is trying to
> use a phone that was not paid-off under contract on another carrier.
correct.
what you don't understand is that a whitelist is a set of phones that
are approved to be used on the network.
> The AT&T whitelist is, ostensibly, intended to not allow phones that
> won靖 work on their network, but they靶e left off a great many devices
phones that are not on their compatibility list will usually work, but
may have issues, depending on various factors.
for example, if a phone doesn't support all of the lte bands that at&t
uses, coverage might be a problem in some areas. if the phone doesn't
support any of at&t's bands, then lte will not work at all, and it will
fall back to 3g, which is going to be shut down soon, at which point no
cellular connectivity can occur (2g has been gone for a while).
verizon has an actual whitelist and will activate phones that are on
it. sprint also did the same when it existed.
verizon and sprint originally used cdma, which does not use sims and
made a whitelist very easy. if the esn/meid was in their database,
they'd activate it. if not, they wouldn't. also, this was back when
phones were branded by carriers and had custom firmware by the carrier,
sometimes with custom features.
starting with lte, verizon and sprint began using sims. they still
block activation for non-whitelisted phones, but with verizon, it's
possible to swap an active sim into an unapproved phone. sprint, on the
other hand, not only blocked activation, but their sim (which was
actually a ruim) was linked to the specific phone, making it very
difficult to swap, often impossible.
<https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
swered/>
To ensure voice and data work properly, only select BYOD devices
with approved hardware and software are allowed for use on the
Verizon Wireless network.
note that it states 'are allowed' and not 'compatible'. that is key.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> > financed, just like anything else.
>
> Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
> paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
> cannot be remotely disabled.
false.
> > Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> > financed, just like anything else.
>
> Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
> paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
> cannot be remotely disabled.
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-the-repo-man-can-remotely-shut-off-you
r-car-engine/>
In an effort to protect their assets and minimize delinquencies,
dealers and lenders are increasingly outfitting cars with starter
interrupt devices and GPS trackers. Given the euphemistic name of
"payment assurance devices," the technology allows the repo man to
shut down a car if a subprime borrower is even one day late in making
a payment.
> They are either physically repossessed,
> shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.
stolen phones are also often shipped out of the country or parted out.
the logic board is the only part that's blocked. everything else,
including the display, camera, battery and enclosure, are useful for
repairs of non-stolen phones.
> The problem is that nospam doesn靖 understand that a blacklist is not
> the inverse of a whitelist.
the problem is you don't understand what a whitelist actually is and
won't admit that verizon uses one.
> A blacklist bans stolen phones or phones where the person is trying to
> use a phone that was not paid-off under contract on another carrier.
what you don't understand is that a whitelist is a set of phones that
are approved to be used on the network.
> The AT&T whitelist is, ostensibly, intended to not allow phones that
> that would work just fine on their network.
at&t does not have a whitelist. full stop.
what they have is a *compatibility* list, which is not the same thing.
phones that are not on their compatibility list will usually work, but
may have issues, depending on various factors.
for example, if a phone doesn't support all of the lte bands that at&t
uses, coverage might be a problem in some areas. if the phone doesn't
support any of at&t's bands, then lte will not work at all, and it will
fall back to 3g, which is going to be shut down soon, at which point no
cellular connectivity can occur (2g has been gone for a while).
verizon has an actual whitelist and will activate phones that are on
it. sprint also did the same when it existed.
verizon and sprint originally used cdma, which does not use sims and
made a whitelist very easy. if the esn/meid was in their database,
they'd activate it. if not, they wouldn't. also, this was back when
phones were branded by carriers and had custom firmware by the carrier,
sometimes with custom features.
starting with lte, verizon and sprint began using sims. they still
block activation for non-whitelisted phones, but with verizon, it's
possible to swap an active sim into an unapproved phone. sprint, on the
other hand, not only blocked activation, but their sim (which was
actually a ruim) was linked to the specific phone, making it very
difficult to swap, often impossible.
<https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
swered/>
To ensure voice and data work properly, only select BYOD devices
with approved hardware and software are allowed for use on the
Verizon Wireless network.
nospam
Jan 20, 2022, 5:25:58 PM1/20/22
to
In article <sscgua...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
you're moving the goalposts. no surprise there.
there is a 'lock' on using a stolen vehicle because it can't be
registered, thereby making it illegal to drive. while you can
technically still drive it, if the police sees it, they will pull you
over and probably arrest you.
you technically can also 'use' a stolen phone, just not on the cellular
network because it will be blocked, which means it will be restricted
to wifi.
in some cases, you might not even get that far. activation lock on
iphones and android phones will block activation for anyone other than
the legitimate owner, leaving you with an expensive paperweight.
<https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare/images/en_
US/icloud/ios15-iphone-12-pro-lock-screen-activation-lock.png>
<https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-leads-to-big-d
rops-in-smartphone-theft-worldwide/>
...A new report from Reuters found that iPhone theft dropped by 50
percent in London, 40 percent in San Francisco and 25 percent in New
York. The drops represent theft activity as measured during the 12
months following Apple¹s introduction of the remote locking feature
in September 2013 as part of iOS 7.
...
Apple¹s Activation Lock requires a user to authorize a wipe or fresh
install using the existing iCloud credentials on record, ensuring
that a thief can¹t go ahead and just wipe the device easily to use it
themselves or prepare it for sale on the secondary market. Apple is
one of the first major manufacturers to switch to implementing the
system by default, rather than through user opt-in, which means it
should be present on far more devices.
<https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/10/googles-android-update-may-stop-your-ph
one-being-stolen.html>
The feature, called ³Device Protection,² acts as a kill switch on
devices with the Android 5.1 operating system. If a phone is lost
or stolen, it will remain locked until the owner signs in with their
Google account even if someone resets the device to factory
settings.
Device Protection is Google¹s answer to Apple¹s ³Activation Lock,²
which requires an Apple ID to reactive the device.
> > > [More of the same deleted.]
> >
> > because you don't understand any of it.
>
> Says the guy who doesn't even get the most bloody obvious analogy.
says the guy who doesn't even get his own analogy, thereby forcing him
to move the goalposts.
> > > > > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
> > > >
> > > > what happens when they're financed?
> > >
> > > They're financed. That's it.
> >
> > there is no attempt to stop the use of stolen phones? seriously?
> >
> > > > without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
> > > > getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
> > > > then use it on another carrier?
> > > >
> > > > without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
> > > > stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?
> > >
> > > Ah, I see, a technical solution for an administrative 'problem'.
> >
> > what alternative solution do you propose to stop people from using
> > stolen phones?
>
> Why single out phones? (Hence the car analogy.)
>
> These days one can finance most everything. And that includes small,
> expensive, electronic, for outdoor use, devices, i.e. devices similar to
> a (smart)phone.
>
> So why single out phones? Just because they *can* be locked? Why
> bother all legit users, just because 'the system' can be abused?
they're not singled out and it doesn't bother legit users at all.
it appears you are confusing a carrier lock, which restricts a phone to
one carrier, versus a blacklisted phone and an fec lock, which prevent
its use on any carrier because it's stolen or has an unpaid financial
obligation.
as i said, phones will be blocked from use, stolen vehicles can't be
registered and real estate can be foreclosed.
there are people whose job is to find vehicles and other items to be
repossessed, known as repo men.
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repo%20man>
: a man whose job is to take things from people who are not paying
for them
> > > Where's the lock on your financed cars and how does that work?
> >
> > the bank will have a lien on the title until it's fully paid off, at
> > which point the lien will be removed. the same applies for mortgages on
> > property.
>
> Ding, ding, we *have* a winner! We do the same thing for the financing
> of all kinds of products, which happens to include phones. In our
> country, there is a central office (BKR) where these financing contracts
> are recorded on a per person basis.
>
> Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> financed, just like anything else.
they can, but if someone defaults on their financing, the phone will be
blacklisted from being used on the cellular network. that means wifi
only, plus a baddie on your credit rating, making it difficult, if not
impossible, to finance anything else or get a credit card, at least
until it drops off your credit report (or is far enough in the past for
it to have minimal effect on the scoring).
Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> > > > > fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> > > > > white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
> > > >
> > > > blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> > > > used.
> > >
> > > Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> > > of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
> >
> > petrol stations don't register vehicles or limit their use.
> >
> > the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
> > to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
> > that might affect its use on public roads.
> >
> > car dealers will run the vin of any used vehicle they are considering
> > purchasing from someone. private buyers should do the same.
> >
> > police will run the tags (also vins in some cases) and take appropriate
> > action if it's stolen or on a hotlist.
>
> <whoosh!>
>
> Earth to nospam: It's an analogy. There's no 'lock' on *using* a
> stolen car.
whoosh right back.
> > > > > Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> > > > > fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> > > > > white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
> > > >
> > > > blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> > > > used.
> > >
> > > Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
> > > of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!
> >
> > petrol stations don't register vehicles or limit their use.
> >
> > the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
> > to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
> > that might affect its use on public roads.
> >
> > car dealers will run the vin of any used vehicle they are considering
> > purchasing from someone. private buyers should do the same.
> >
> > police will run the tags (also vins in some cases) and take appropriate
> > action if it's stolen or on a hotlist.
>
> <whoosh!>
>
> Earth to nospam: It's an analogy. There's no 'lock' on *using* a
> stolen car.
you're moving the goalposts. no surprise there.
there is a 'lock' on using a stolen vehicle because it can't be
registered, thereby making it illegal to drive. while you can
technically still drive it, if the police sees it, they will pull you
over and probably arrest you.
you technically can also 'use' a stolen phone, just not on the cellular
network because it will be blocked, which means it will be restricted
to wifi.
in some cases, you might not even get that far. activation lock on
iphones and android phones will block activation for anyone other than
the legitimate owner, leaving you with an expensive paperweight.
<https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare/images/en_
US/icloud/ios15-iphone-12-pro-lock-screen-activation-lock.png>
<https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-leads-to-big-d
rops-in-smartphone-theft-worldwide/>
...A new report from Reuters found that iPhone theft dropped by 50
percent in London, 40 percent in San Francisco and 25 percent in New
York. The drops represent theft activity as measured during the 12
months following Apple¹s introduction of the remote locking feature
in September 2013 as part of iOS 7.
...
Apple¹s Activation Lock requires a user to authorize a wipe or fresh
install using the existing iCloud credentials on record, ensuring
that a thief can¹t go ahead and just wipe the device easily to use it
themselves or prepare it for sale on the secondary market. Apple is
one of the first major manufacturers to switch to implementing the
system by default, rather than through user opt-in, which means it
should be present on far more devices.
<https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/10/googles-android-update-may-stop-your-ph
one-being-stolen.html>
The feature, called ³Device Protection,² acts as a kill switch on
devices with the Android 5.1 operating system. If a phone is lost
or stolen, it will remain locked until the owner signs in with their
Google account even if someone resets the device to factory
settings.
Device Protection is Google¹s answer to Apple¹s ³Activation Lock,²
which requires an Apple ID to reactive the device.
> > > [More of the same deleted.]
> >
> > because you don't understand any of it.
>
> Says the guy who doesn't even get the most bloody obvious analogy.
to move the goalposts.
> > > > > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
> > > >
> > > > what happens when they're financed?
> > >
> > > They're financed. That's it.
> >
> > there is no attempt to stop the use of stolen phones? seriously?
> >
> > > > without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
> > > > getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
> > > > then use it on another carrier?
> > > >
> > > > without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
> > > > stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?
> > >
> > > Ah, I see, a technical solution for an administrative 'problem'.
> >
> > what alternative solution do you propose to stop people from using
> > stolen phones?
>
> Why single out phones? (Hence the car analogy.)
>
> These days one can finance most everything. And that includes small,
> expensive, electronic, for outdoor use, devices, i.e. devices similar to
> a (smart)phone.
>
> So why single out phones? Just because they *can* be locked? Why
> bother all legit users, just because 'the system' can be abused?
it appears you are confusing a carrier lock, which restricts a phone to
one carrier, versus a blacklisted phone and an fec lock, which prevent
its use on any carrier because it's stolen or has an unpaid financial
obligation.
as i said, phones will be blocked from use, stolen vehicles can't be
registered and real estate can be foreclosed.
there are people whose job is to find vehicles and other items to be
repossessed, known as repo men.
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repo%20man>
: a man whose job is to take things from people who are not paying
for them
> > > Where's the lock on your financed cars and how does that work?
> >
> > the bank will have a lien on the title until it's fully paid off, at
> > which point the lien will be removed. the same applies for mortgages on
> > property.
>
> Ding, ding, we *have* a winner! We do the same thing for the financing
> of all kinds of products, which happens to include phones. In our
> country, there is a central office (BKR) where these financing contracts
> are recorded on a per person basis.
>
> Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> financed, just like anything else.
blacklisted from being used on the cellular network. that means wifi
only, plus a baddie on your credit rating, making it difficult, if not
impossible, to finance anything else or get a credit card, at least
until it drops off your credit report (or is far enough in the past for
it to have minimal effect on the scoring).
Frank Slootweg
Jan 21, 2022, 11:02:35 AM1/21/22
to
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 11:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> > financed, just like anything else.
>
> Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
> paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
> cannot be remotely disabled. They are either physically repossessed,
> shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.
The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones. All the
> On 1/20/2022 11:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> > financed, just like anything else.
>
> Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
> paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
> cannot be remotely disabled. They are either physically repossessed,
> shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.
rest are nospam's usual diversions (in this case mainly because he
doesn't get the analogies and fails to spot the irony/sarcasm). So the
point you raise, while true, is not relevant to the (non-)'discussion'
at hand.
Summary:
- Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
(As I mentioned, forcing the 'owner' to fulfil hir - mainly financial
- obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)
- Carrier-locking has disadvantages for the legit (no-yet) 'owner',
primarily the inability to use another (legit) SIM for (legit)
purposes.
Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
longer carrier-locked.
sms
Jan 21, 2022, 11:54:07 AM1/21/22
to
On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> Summary:
>
> - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
>
> (As I mentioned, forcing the 'owner' to fulfil hir - mainly financial
> - obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
> not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)
That's been my beef with locked phones. If I'm committed to service for
>
> - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
>
> (As I mentioned, forcing the 'owner' to fulfil hir - mainly financial
> - obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
> not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)
a certain number of months in order to pay off a subsidized phone (that
they require to be financed), then what is the justification for locking
it, since I have to make the payments no matter what?
It's not necessarily because I even want to move to a different carrier
that I want the phone to be unlocked, it's also to be able to use a
foreign SIM card when traveling outside the U.S., since a lot of prepaid
carriers don't offer international roaming at all.
However, there are still carriers or MVNOs that offer a discount of a
couple of hundred dollars on a new phone, without any financing or
monthly payments, and without any contract, and they lock the phone for
a period of time in exchange for that discount. I pointed out the
Samsung A52 5G which Samsung sells unlocked for $462.49 but you can buy
outright on Cricket for $234.99, locked for 180 days. Is that $227.50
savings worth six months of $30 service? For some people it is and for
some it isn't.
I believe that one reason for locking phones, despite the legal
financial commitment, is because the cost of going after someone who
defaults on their payments is too high and the chances of recovery are
too low, and if it goes to a collection agency the carrier would lose a
hefty percentage of any potential recovery. The carrier could always
just remotely disable the phone in cases of non-payment, but it still
would not get them the money that they are owed.
As to the original subject of this thread, I think that it relates to
the which 5G bands that phone supports. I know that the unlocked
versions of some Samsung phones are missing some of the Verizon 5G
bands, while there is a version being sold that supports those Verizon
bands. It also could be any phone that AT&T has whitelisted, even though
many phones that will work just fine on AT&T are not on the whitelist.
nospam
Jan 21, 2022, 1:15:55 PM1/21/22
to
In article <sseouv...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
of locks and when they're used, which is why i explained it.
> Summary:
>
> - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
true. the carriers are for-profit companies and will lock their phones
to protect their property. in fact, they are *obligated* to do so when
it's financed. they are *not* altruistic entities who do what's best
for the consumer, some of whom have ill intent.
> - obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
> not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)
that requires a carrier lock because the carrier owns a portion of the
phone until it's paid off.
what they do not want is someone to obtain a discounted or free phone,
default on payments, and then use it on another carrier or resell it
for profit, so they will take steps to prevent that from happening.
> - Carrier-locking has disadvantages for the legit (no-yet) 'owner',
> primarily the inability to use another (legit) SIM for (legit)
> purposes.
true, but as explained above, not doing so has a financial impact to
the carrier.
> Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> longer carrier-locked.
nor are they in the usa, unless it's financed or discounted, for
reasons already explained.
Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > > Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> > > financed, just like anything else.
> >
> > Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> > no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
> > paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
> > cannot be remotely disabled. They are either physically repossessed,
> > shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.
>
> The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones. All the
> rest are nospam's usual diversions (in this case mainly because he
> doesn't get the analogies and fails to spot the irony/sarcasm). So the
> point you raise, while true, is not relevant to the (non-)'discussion'
> at hand.
there re no diversions. you are simply confused about the various types
> > > Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> > > financed, just like anything else.
> >
> > Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> > no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
> > paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
> > cannot be remotely disabled. They are either physically repossessed,
> > shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.
>
> The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones. All the
> rest are nospam's usual diversions (in this case mainly because he
> doesn't get the analogies and fails to spot the irony/sarcasm). So the
> point you raise, while true, is not relevant to the (non-)'discussion'
> at hand.
of locks and when they're used, which is why i explained it.
> Summary:
>
> - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
to protect their property. in fact, they are *obligated* to do so when
it's financed. they are *not* altruistic entities who do what's best
for the consumer, some of whom have ill intent.
> - obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
> not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)
phone until it's paid off.
what they do not want is someone to obtain a discounted or free phone,
default on payments, and then use it on another carrier or resell it
for profit, so they will take steps to prevent that from happening.
> - Carrier-locking has disadvantages for the legit (no-yet) 'owner',
> primarily the inability to use another (legit) SIM for (legit)
> purposes.
the carrier.
> Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> longer carrier-locked.
reasons already explained.
nospam
Jan 21, 2022, 1:15:58 PM1/21/22
to
In article <sseofd$qej$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
resell it for profit.
a financed phone is partly owned by the carrier, who has every right to
protect its property.
> It's not necessarily because I even want to move to a different carrier
> that I want the phone to be unlocked, it's also to be able to use a
> foreign SIM card when traveling outside the U.S., since a lot of prepaid
> carriers don't offer international roaming at all.
in that case, they'll unlock it for international use but retain a
domestic lock until obligations are fulfilled.
> However, there are still carriers or MVNOs that offer a discount of a
> couple of hundred dollars on a new phone, without any financing or
> monthly payments, and without any contract, and they lock the phone for
> a period of time in exchange for that discount.
they will recover any discount from the fees for service.
the consumer pays one way or the other.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> That's been my beef with locked phones. If I'm committed to service for
> a certain number of months in order to pay off a subsidized phone (that
> they require to be financed), then what is the justification for locking
> it, since I have to make the payments no matter what?
because someone can stop paying and then use the phone elsewhere or
> That's been my beef with locked phones. If I'm committed to service for
> a certain number of months in order to pay off a subsidized phone (that
> they require to be financed), then what is the justification for locking
> it, since I have to make the payments no matter what?
resell it for profit.
a financed phone is partly owned by the carrier, who has every right to
protect its property.
> It's not necessarily because I even want to move to a different carrier
> that I want the phone to be unlocked, it's also to be able to use a
> foreign SIM card when traveling outside the U.S., since a lot of prepaid
> carriers don't offer international roaming at all.
domestic lock until obligations are fulfilled.
> However, there are still carriers or MVNOs that offer a discount of a
> couple of hundred dollars on a new phone, without any financing or
> monthly payments, and without any contract, and they lock the phone for
> a period of time in exchange for that discount.
the consumer pays one way or the other.
sms
Jan 21, 2022, 1:18:53 PM1/21/22
to
On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
It actually provides a big advantage to the financier. Collecting from
> 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
an owner that defaults on financial obligations is a time-consuming and
costly process. An owner can just cancel the credit card used to make
the monthly payments and take the unlocked phone to another carrier.
Sure the financier can go after the owner, put negative information into
their credit file to ruin their credit, sue the owner, or turn the
account over to a collection agency, but the cost of collection can
easily exceed the amount they may eventually recover.
In the U.S. there have been attempts to decouple the sale of phones from
the cost of service (the very first iPhone was sold unsubsidized) but as
phones have gone up in cost there are a lot of people that believe that
they are getting a better deal by buying their phone at a discount from
the carrier in exchange for either a contract or mandatory financing.
Back in the very early day of cellular, California had a law that
prohibited requiring a phone purchaser from buying a plan through the
retailer. Retailers like Radio Shack, hated this law because someone
could buy a subsidized phone from them and take it somewhere else for
service and Radio Shack would not get the kickback from the carrier.
In the U.S., nothing stops someone from buying an unlocked phone from
the manufacturer. Apple, Samsung, etc., are happy to sell you an
unlocked phone at full retail, with 0% financing if you desire, and
there are multiple advantages to doing this (unlocked phone, no carrier
installed bloatware, an extended warranty provided by the credit card
company (in the U.S. you can get two extra years of warranty at no extra
cost with one Visa card). But carrier subsidized, locked, phones are
still a very popular option.
When I bought my iPhone Xr last year, the unsubsidized price, from
Apple, was $499 (apple is now no longer selling the Xr, though a lot of
MVNOs are still selling it). I paid $211.75 for the phone, locked for
one year. It was my choice. I could have went over to Apple and bought
it at full price (or had an employee friend get it for me for 10% off).
I was going to stay with the carrier anyway so the savings was well
worth it to me. I can pay the carrier to unlock the phone prior to the
year being up but it's expensive $150 minus $12 for every active month
of service. So after six months it would cost me $78 to get it unlocked.
Even right after I bought it, paying the $150 would still have been a
big savings versus paying retail at a store.
Also, if I want to use a different SIM card in a locked iPhone it's
pretty easy to do with an rSIM <https://www.ebay.com/itm/234251287321>.
I tried the free T-Mobile eSIM "Test Drive" by using an rSIM in the
physical SIM slot and it worked fine, though T-Mobile service at my
house was awful.
<snip>
> - Carrier-locking has disadvantages for the legit (no-yet) 'owner',
> primarily the inability to use another (legit) SIM for (legit) > purposes.
if they desire, they just won't get the subsidy from the carrier when
they do that.
> Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> longer carrier-locked.
true cost of a flagship phone by offering phone subsidies in exchange
for a defacto contract (mandatory financing and phone locking) is an
integral part of their business model.
Frank Slootweg
Jan 21, 2022, 3:40:57 PM1/21/22
to
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Summary:
> >
> > - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> > 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
> >
> > (As I mentioned, forcing the 'owner' to fulfil hir - mainly financial
> > - obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
> > not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)
>
> That's been my beef with locked phones. If I'm committed to service for
> a certain number of months in order to pay off a subsidized phone (that
> they require to be financed), then what is the justification for locking
> it, since I have to make the payments no matter what?
Exactly. That is *exactly* the point and that's why they're no longer
> On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Summary:
> >
> > - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> > 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
> >
> > (As I mentioned, forcing the 'owner' to fulfil hir - mainly financial
> > - obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
> > not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)
>
> That's been my beef with locked phones. If I'm committed to service for
> a certain number of months in order to pay off a subsidized phone (that
> they require to be financed), then what is the justification for locking
> it, since I have to make the payments no matter what?
locked here (in NL (and other EU/European countries)).
> It's not necessarily because I even want to move to a different carrier
> that I want the phone to be unlocked, it's also to be able to use a
> foreign SIM card when traveling outside the U.S., since a lot of prepaid
> carriers don't offer international roaming at all.
> However, there are still carriers or MVNOs that offer a discount of a
> couple of hundred dollars on a new phone, without any financing or
> monthly payments, and without any contract, and they lock the phone for
> a period of time in exchange for that discount.
for 6 months with only PAYG charges (and a smallish unlocking fee at the
end).
[...]
> I believe that one reason for locking phones, despite the legal
> financial commitment, is because the cost of going after someone who
> defaults on their payments is too high and the chances of recovery are
> too low, and if it goes to a collection agency the carrier would lose a
> hefty percentage of any potential recovery. The carrier could always
> just remotely disable the phone in cases of non-payment, but it still
> would not get them the money that they are owed.
we don't have that problem. Of course there are extreme exemptions, like
fleeing the country, but normally the financer will get their money
(i.e. upto impounding income and worse).
[...]
Frank Slootweg
Jan 21, 2022, 3:58:06 PM1/21/22
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sseouv...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
> Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones.
[...]
> In article <sseouv...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
> Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones.
> > Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> > longer carrier-locked.
>
> nor are they in the usa, unless it's financed or discounted, for
> reasons already explained.
Sigh! Exactly *which* part of "financed phones" didn't you understand?
> > longer carrier-locked.
>
> nor are they in the usa, unless it's financed or discounted, for
> reasons already explained.
In The Netherlands *financed phones* are *not* locked. So the US is
*not* the same. *That* was the whole point from the very start.
Now back to Reading for Comprehension 101 you go.
HTH. HAND. EOD. NL.
Frank Slootweg
Jan 21, 2022, 4:09:57 PM1/21/22
to
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> > 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
>
> It actually provides a big advantage to the financier. Collecting from
> an owner that defaults on financial obligations is a time-consuming and
> costly process. An owner can just cancel the credit card used to make
> the monthly payments and take the unlocked phone to another carrier.
>
> Sure the financier can go after the owner, put negative information into
> their credit file to ruin their credit, sue the owner, or turn the
> account over to a collection agency, but the cost of collection can
> easily exceed the amount they may eventually recover.
Here, the 'owner' who defaults will have to pay all costs, i.e. also
> On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> > 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
>
> It actually provides a big advantage to the financier. Collecting from
> an owner that defaults on financial obligations is a time-consuming and
> costly process. An owner can just cancel the credit card used to make
> the monthly payments and take the unlocked phone to another carrier.
>
> Sure the financier can go after the owner, put negative information into
> their credit file to ruin their credit, sue the owner, or turn the
> account over to a collection agency, but the cost of collection can
> easily exceed the amount they may eventually recover.
the collection agency's 'costs', which can be outrageous, legal fees,
court costs, etc., etc.. So unless the 'owner' wins in court - which is
very, very unlikely, the financier loses nothing.
[...]
> > Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> > longer carrier-locked.
>
> Phone manufacturers and carriers in the U.S. would hate this. Hiding the
> true cost of a flagship phone by offering phone subsidies in exchange
> for a defacto contract (mandatory financing and phone locking) is an
> integral part of their business model.
pressure from consumer organizations, etc.. No more 'free phone' BS
here.
nospam
Jan 21, 2022, 8:25:21 PM1/21/22
to
In article <ssfa8v...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
being different things for different purposes do you not understand?
there is also sim locking, which i haven't mentioned because it's not
common, however it does exist.
> In The Netherlands *financed phones* are *not* locked. So the US is
> *not* the same. *That* was the whole point from the very start.
nobody said they were the same.
the fact that they're *not* the same is the issue.
what you are missing is that not locking financed phones makes it very
easy for criminals, who will finance them, stop paying, and then sell
them for profit, with the carriers being stuck with the losses.
> Now back to Reading for Comprehension 101 you go.
i'm not the one who is having difficulty understanding things.
Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > > The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones.
> [...]
> > > Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> > > longer carrier-locked.
> >
> > nor are they in the usa, unless it's financed or discounted, for
> > reasons already explained.
>
> Sigh! Exactly *which* part of "financed phones" didn't you understand?
which part of carrier lock, financial eligibility lock and blacklist
> > > The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones.
> [...]
> > > Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> > > longer carrier-locked.
> >
> > nor are they in the usa, unless it's financed or discounted, for
> > reasons already explained.
>
> Sigh! Exactly *which* part of "financed phones" didn't you understand?
being different things for different purposes do you not understand?
there is also sim locking, which i haven't mentioned because it's not
common, however it does exist.
> In The Netherlands *financed phones* are *not* locked. So the US is
> *not* the same. *That* was the whole point from the very start.
the fact that they're *not* the same is the issue.
what you are missing is that not locking financed phones makes it very
easy for criminals, who will finance them, stop paying, and then sell
them for profit, with the carriers being stuck with the losses.
> Now back to Reading for Comprehension 101 you go.
0 new messages